“There is no different word to ask for the truth,” said Uribe Vélez, about the interceptions to his phone.
Former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez.
Former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez again questioned the sentence issued against him by Judge 44 Criminal of Knowledge of Bogotá, Sandra Liliana Heredia, who found him responsible for the crimes of procedural fraud and bribery in criminal action.
In a video posted on its X account, Uribe Vélez It was emphatic that “never” tried to deceive justice or participated in illegal maneuvers to manipulate witnesses, how it was affirmed in reading the ruling that ended with his sentence in the first instance.
Of interest: New documentary from Luis Carlos Galán is released 36 years old from his assassination: “We cannot repeat violence”
Loading …
“The crime of bribery of witnesses, one for which they have condemned me, needs to give or offer a benefit and ask that you lie or be silent. I was not a determinant, nor of the one, nor of the other ”, affirmed.
Also He argued that in the more than 20,000 interceptions to his cell phone “there is no different word to ask for the truth.”
Uribe cited the testimony of Carolina Vargas Villamil, who, according to him “also said that Diego Cadena had not been heard to ask that he lied or silent.”
He reiterated that his intention was for witnesses to speak truthfully: “The ruling, in the absence of evidence, says that the truth was my strategic slogan to hide the crime.”
The former president He also referred to the role of his ex -book Diego Cadenaaccused of pressing witnesses as Juan Guillermo Monsalve.
More information: Rafael Nieto analyzes challenges and coalitions of the Democratic Center after death of Miguel Uribe
“I trusted the lawyer, and that’s why I told him to proceed. This shows that I acted spontaneously, without intent, ”said Uribe, denying being a determinant of illegal actions.
On the crime of procedural fraud, Uribe said: “They also condemned me for procedural fraud. I never tried to deceive justice. ”
He assured that acted within the legal framework when sending to the Supreme Court of Justice statements of witnesses who, according to him, reaffirmed their versions during the trial.
Finallyhe questioned the lack of legal actions against their political contradictors: “Iván Cepeda, Juan Guillermo Monsalve and Deyanira Gómez are compulsible.”
And he concluded: “The ruling dares to say recklessly that I knew that these statements were false. This statement does not have the slightest probative support.”
Source: Integrated information system
