Senator Iván Cepeda, presidential candidate for the Pacto Histórico, has filed a criminal complaint against Abelardo de la Espriella for his alleged ties to the paramilitary, drug-trafficking, and counterinsurgency group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC).
Cepeda filed the complaint with the Attorney General’s Office and the International Criminal Court. The crimes he alleges are: conspiracy to commit a crime (Criminal Code, Article 340), financing of terrorism (Article 345), and illicit enrichment (Article 327).
The candidate clarified that this action is not a recurrence of other criminal complaints filed against De la Espriella in the past. He specified that the new complaint includes “new evidence that has emerged over time, particularly in various judicial contexts and through the documentation and clarification of the truth regarding crimes against humanity,” such as the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) and the Justice and Peace System.
The allegations center on the creation and operation of the Fundación Iniciativas por la Paz (FIPAZ), an NGO that was founded in the early 2000s and was chaired by de la Espriella.
“This organization actively participated in the supposed demobilization process of the AUC, but it acted while that group had not yet demobilized. So its actions—which were allegedly authorized by Álvaro Uribe’s government—took place at a time when the paramilitaries had still not demobilized,” Cepeda said.
The Truth Commission, the National Center for Historical Memory, and the Justice and Peace Tribunal’s ruling against the Central Bolívar bloc characterized FIPAZ as an organization that served as a tool for the paramilitaries and was created to expand their social influence.
Cepeda argued that the AUC both financed the foundation, but that at the same time, the foundation provided its own resources and financed the paramilitary group. “De la Espriella played the dual role of being financed by and, at the same time, financing paramilitary organizations,” he stated Thursday at a press conference.
In this context, the senator asked the Attorney General’s Office to reopen the investigations to determine the extent of de la Espriella’s involvement with paramilitary organizations and whether he is criminally responsible.
Cepeda also called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the case. He justified his request by stating that the alleged crimes fall under the Rome Statute, that the Colombian justice system has not properly investigated them, and that they constitute crimes against humanity.
Finally, he called on victims’ organizations “to activate all their mechanisms and ensure that Mr. de la Espriella appears before the courts” and that “his potential criminal actions receive the most severe punishment and the most thorough investigation.”
The second part of Cepeda’s allegations calls for an investigation into de la Espriella’s relationship with paramilitary leaders who testified in various courts about their ties to the lawyer.
The senator mentioned Salvatore Mancuso, who stated in his testimony that de la Espriella had been his friend and acquaintance since childhood, that their friendship had lasted for decades. Mancuso said that although the operational management of FIPAZ was led by paramilitary leader alias “Ernesto Báez”, he acknowledged that the AUC financed it. Mancuso detailed the relationship between FIPAZ and the AUC in a statement made before the JEP in 2024.
Furthermore, Cepeda added, “De la Espriella spoke publicly of Mancuso in very glowing terms and said that if he had been in Mancuso’s situation, he would have done practically the same thing.”
Second, Cepeda mentioned Iván Roberto Duque, alias “Ernesto Báez.”
“Báez stated that he specifically sought out de la Espriella’s services and collaboration to build bridges with social sectors and, in particular, to exert influence in university communities, so that the AUC’s operations could proceed smoothly,” he explained.
He also recalled that the Supreme Court of Justice established in its ruling against former congressman Juan Pablo Sánchez Morales that de la Espriella had acted as a potential recruiter for the paramilitary groups and that the congressman’s candidacy emerged at a forum organized by FIPAZ with the direct support of Ernesto Báez.
Regarding alias “Juancho Dique,” in 2013 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court ordered an investigation into de la Espriella for his alleged role acting as an intermediary in an offer of money to this paramilitary leader to keep him from testifying before the Justice and Peace process.
The decision was based on a recorded conversation in which “Juancho Dique’s” lawyer reported that his client had complained that the money offered to him in exchange for his silence by alias “La Gata,” alias “El Turco,” Alonso Ilzaca and Libardo Simancas, respectively, had not arrived on time. Later, during a prison visit, de la Espriella made him that financial offer.
“Based on this recording, the Supreme Court expressly concluded that de la Espriella visited Juancho Dique to offer him a bribe and prevent him from mentioning businesspeople and politicians linked to paramilitary activities,” Cepeda noted.
“Twelve years later, judicial authorities at the Attorney General’s Office were unable to locate the investigation corresponding to these events,” he added.
The fourth case involved Hugues Rodríguez, alias “Comandante Barbie.” “Not only did various investigations establish that this man, alias Barbie, received assistance from de la Espriella in the form of professional legal representation, but he also inherited an 882-hectare property in Becerril. De la Espriella purchased one of the lots derived from that inheritance for 680 million pesos—a property adjacent to a ranch that the National Center for Historical Memory documented as a site where paramilitaries carried out massacres between 1996 and 2006,” Cepeda said.
“Added to these facts are the business ties between de la Espriella and this paramilitary commander. The sister and stepson of alias ‘Barbie’ are partners with de la Espriella in a liquor company in the region. None of these facts has been properly investigated, he noted.”
The fifth piece of evidence refers to statements by Juan Carlos Sierra, alias “El Tuso,” who accused de la Espriella of having asked paramilitary leaders for four billion pesos [approximately $1.16 million USD today] to influence the Court through bribes, so that they would not be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a crime” and would thus receive lenient sentences.
Cepeda stated that Tuso Sierra also testified that someone had asked him for one million dollars to share with then-Minister of Interior and Justice, Sabas Pretel, in order to ensure his return to the Justice and Peace program, from which he had been excluded because he was considered a notorious drug trafficker.
The sixth case concerns the leader known as “Macaco.” “Sources indicate that de la Espriella played a key role in the election of Mario Iguarán, who became the nation’s Attorney General at that time, so that he would guarantee impunity for the paramilitary leaders,” said Cepeda.
“According to Salvatore Mancuso’s testimony before a prosecutor assigned to the Supreme Court, in May 2005 the paramilitary groups used their influence and paid bribes to secure Iguarán’s election, for which they received a sum exceeding five billion pesos. This account is also supported by a source known by the alias ‘Macaco,’ who stated that paramilitary groups had direct influence over Iguarán’s appointment. Mancuso corroborated that statement in late 2024,” he added.
“In other words, two statements indicate that Mario Iguarán’s election was the result of a bribe. There are numerous accounts, investigations, certified copies, and statements made before judicial authorities, truth commissions, or the National Center for Memory indicating that de la Espriella allegedly created and led a foundation that multiple paramilitary commanders identify as an organization established by the AUC for political purposes during its demobilization process,” he emphasized.
He noted that some of the alleged incidents had already been investigated but yielded no results, while others were never even investigated. “The question I pose to Attorney General Luz Adriana Camargo is why the Attorney General’s Office has not conducted thorough investigations based on the court orders it received from the Supreme Court against the lawyer and current presidential candidate de la Espriella,” he stressed.
She added further questions: “Why has impunity been allowed in this case? Why have there been no visible criminal consequences over the years? Why did an investigation against de la Espriella literally disappear from the Attorney General’s Office?”
Finally, in his presentation, he asked whether Iguarán had been investigated for “allegedly receiving money and being chosen so that he could act in favor of the paramilitaries.”
