Álvaro Uribe suffered a hard setback. After five months of analyzing his process, the Superior Court of Bogotá decided to reject the Prosecutor's Office's request to archive him due to lack of evidence to determine his guilt and he will have to go to trial.

It will be the first time, therefore, that a former president sits in the dock. Not even Ernesto Samper, who arrived at the Nariño Palace thanks to the money of the Cali cartel, should have confronted justice. Now the leader of the Democratic Center will do so for alleged witness tampering and procedural fraud.

The ruling unleashed a political storm between those who defend Uribe and his detractors.. “Álvaro Uribe has fought for our country all his life. It is regrettable that a preclusion requested by the Prosecutor's Office has not proceeded, after an exhaustive investigation process where his innocence has stood out,” former President Iván Duque wrote in his X account.

“Alvaro Uribe has finally been called to trial! Unfortunately, the same Prosecutor's Office that already tried to close the process against him will be the one that will have to present the accusation against him. That is why the right wants to keep a puppet prosecutor,” the congressman of the Historical Pact, Alfredo Mondragón, noted on social networks, words that summarize the feelings of the critics of who was a popular Head of State, between 2002 and 2008, who won their two elections, in the first round, by absolute majority.

But the process in question dates back several years, when Uribe was no longer president and sued senators Iván Cepeda and Piedad Córdoba for seeking testimonies against him among imprisoned former paramilitaries, in exchange for getting them benefits.. To general surprise, everything took a turn when Uribe went from plaintiff to accused by the aforementioned senator of bribing inmates to testify in his favor.. He would have done it through one of his lawyers, Diego Cadena, something that the former president and his defender have always denied.

The decision, which is known just three weeks before the local elections, was predictable, although the former president hoped to emerge victorious.. He had been traveling the country for weeks to promote his party's candidates and now his position will be weakened. And everything surrounding Uribe's case against Cepeda has an obvious political background and could later end up in the Supreme Court of Justice, the body that the former president wanted to avoid.

It is worth remembering that Uribe resigned from the Senate to lose the jurisdiction that covers every legislator in order for his file to be passed to the Attorney General's Office, convinced that he would receive more neutral treatment and could prove his innocence.

“There are political considerations in the process, which began in a hidden way in 2018. Since then, there has been all kinds of political and media activity, violating Uribe's procedural guarantees,” Democratic Center congressman and lawyer, Hernán Cadavid, tells El Mundo.. “After the action of the Supreme Court of Justice, which issued a 1,500-page order depriving Álvaro Uribe of his freedom in 2020, there are a large number of evidentiary gaps, such as not being able to question the star witness, Juan Guillermo Monsalve, or tapping (tapping) the former president's phone for more than a month, without any evidence being found. When the process reaches the Attorney General's Office, it investigates more rigorously and listens to the people that the Court had not heard. And he concludes that there are no elements to accuse Uribe.”

From now on, a complex stage begins for the president, very active in the electoral campaign.

On June 16, 2022, the history of Europe changed. Everyone has in mind, and rightly so, the February night in which Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border and the bombing began, since the sequence that was unleashed caused the greatest turn in international relations since 1989, led to the EU to a geopolitical awakening, facilitated the massive shipment of weapons and ammunition, a dozen rounds of sanctions or the disconnection of Russian gas or oil. All this revolutionized the present. But the night of June 15-16, when Mario Draghi, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz got on a train in Poland to wake up in Kiev and give their support to Volodimir Zelensky, the future changed..

Until then, the great European powers were clear that there would be no more enlargements, that there would be no more members in the community club for at least one or two generations, no matter how long the aspirants had been clamoring.. But in the darkness of an armored car, in the silence of the attacked borders, the continental leaders made a surprising turn and returned home digesting what everyone now takes for granted: enlargement is no longer an option, no It is an aspiration, it is an urgent need, a defensive obligation, a political, strategic and even moral imperative..

Until then, Germany and Holland were in conspiracy to stop any advance. But Macron, Zelensky and what he saw in person made the German, and the rest of the chain skeptics, change their minds.. Almost 16 months later, expansion is unstoppable, but there are as many obstacles as before, if not more. A dozen diplomats, officials and those responsible for the negotiations explain their concern, surprise or frustration at how the issue has gotten out of hand.. “Before we were in control of this process, but now we are a piece of driftwood, pushed by the currents,” explains one of them.. “Right now no one can say no. The pressure is too great, Zelensky is a master and everything revolves around the conceptual framework that he has been designing,” he adds..

In Granada, this Thursday, the heads of State and Government of the 27, and another 22 neighbors, met in what is known as the European Political Community, an invention by Emmanuel Macron conceived as a consolation prize and as purgatory, a intermediate place before an accession. A format in which to talk face to face, as equals, in which to iron out rough spots, to get to know each other better. An intermediate phase where strengths can be recognized. But also a biannual meeting (the first two were in Prague and Moldova) in which to resolve all kinds of issues..

But if Thursday was the meeting with neighbors and candidates, Friday was a classic meeting, only between the Member States to talk about many things. To try to agree on a joint text, the Granada Declaration of which the Spanish Government dreamed so that in a few years this moment will be evoked with almost the first step towards the new Europe. And if there was a main issue, in addition to migration, it was expansion. How to do it, when, to whom. And how to prepare the Union for the drastic changes it needs before opening the door once again. An appointment to list all the questions that need to be answered in the coming weeks

“Enlargement is a geostrategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity. It is an engine to improve the economic and social conditions of European citizens, reduce disparities between countries and must promote the values on which the Union is based,” says the Granada Declaration approved this Friday.. “Aspiring members must intensify their reform efforts, especially in the area of the rule of law, in line with the merit-based nature of the accession process and with the assistance of the EU. At the same time, the Union needs to lay the foundations and necessary internal reforms. We will set our long-term ambitions and the ways to achieve them,” the text continues..

The objective is clear, but there is division on the path. “Enlargement means that the candidate countries have reforms to implement and know what they have to do. And on our side, on the EU side, we have to prepare,” said yesterday the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, the first to set a deadline for entries: 2030.. There are three questions that need to be addressed, said the Belgian: what do we want to prioritize in the future, how to decide together and how to prepare financially for those ambitions.. “Several countries want to join the Union, but we must do so responsibly. This means adhering to a process of lasting reforms and conditions, for example in the area of the rule of law. We must also reflect on the effects of enlargement. That is why the discussion is useful,” stressed the Dutchman Mark Rutte.. “The expansion is an opportunity to unite the continent. It should not become a hostage to institutional issues. Given the geopolitical importance, we must first make decisions on the enlargement of the EU and only then talk about institutional reforms,” replied the Lithuanian Gitanas Nausedas, the country that is being clearest in its preferences..

The sequence is well marked. On November 8, the European Commission will publish its report on Ukraine and Moldova, countries that were given accession candidate status a few months ago.. Everyone hopes that the ruling will be positive, even if they have reservations. And it is also expected that a few weeks later, at the European Council in December, the 27 will formally give the go-ahead to start negotiations..

Starting is not irreversible, but it has enormous symbolic and political value. The sources consulted explain that it is more than unlikely that there will be a no, but that the yes must be very careful. The teams of the 27 have been looking for the best way to proceed for months. And the Consensus is that the decision of the European Council must have three different parts: the green light, the conditions for entry and the conditions for the complete internal reform of the EU.

“The language is going to be a prodigy of diplomacy, narrative and escapism,” ventures one of the people who is working on it.. He will say yes, but immediately there will have to be two clauses. The first to clearly remember that accession is a process that is based on merit, not on will or urgency.. And radically insist on the rule of law. It is the big problem today and it will be tomorrow. Money, the budget and even the decision-making process are very important, but they pale in comparison to the rule of law and the fundamental principles included in the treaties.. With Poland and Hungary it has been a fiasco and the Union cannot afford more cases. Hence the obsession, the priority. Without very clear guarantees there cannot be a single step.

The second clause, the one that may generate fewer headlines, will ironically be the important one.. According to some delegations, it is the one that will have to leave in writing that the expansion is subject to the completion of the internal transformation as well.. In this way, not only will the necessary, essential changes be forced, but the control of timing will remain completely in community hands.. That is to say, this trick can be played to delay the process even if hypothetically a candidate were to complete all the required reforms and approve the requirements.. “Now we are dragged by the current of the times, but with some mechanism of that style we could set the deadlines and ensure that until we are all really ready, applicants and those within, there will be no movements,” he summarizes..

The first Italian minister, Giorgia Meloni, has a plan. Italy faces an enormous problem from all possible dimensions with the arrival of refugees, shipwrecks and hundreds of deaths, the management of its asylum and internal political reactions.. So the plan is going to bring the issue to the European board as many times as necessary, in all the scenarios in which it is possible.

Last week, Meloni sent a written request to the Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez, and the president of the European Council, Charles Michel, for the leaders of the 27 to address the issue at their meeting in Granada for an Informal Council this Friday.. The request was heard and accepted, it will be one of the daily items on the agenda and there are several references for now in the draft of the joint text that is being prepared. But in addition, the Italian shoehorned the issue in also this Thursday, by calling a petit committee meeting that ended up including some of the continent's heavyweights, a decision that the Spanish Government, host of the event, did not like too much.

The rooms of the Granada Congress Palace were not suitable for great things. Italy had a small one, about four people and their team, so the prime minister decided to invite the British Rishi Sunak, the Albanian Edi Rama and the Dutchman Mark Rutte. Rama is a neighbor with whom the relationship, in immigration matters, has always been complicated. Rutte seemed an obvious candidate, as he has participated in the last year in the meetings that both and the president of the Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, have held with Tunisia.. And Sunak, diplomatic sources explain, the perfect guest. “Your country has a clear position on the immigration issue and has implemented measures without equivalent or precedent. The European position is not to imitate the Rwanda model, but the message that Rome sends is clear: 'We are not like previous prime ministers who only ask for solidarity and make do if it does not arrive. We are willing to look for solutions,'” these sources explain.

However, what seemed like a small meeting suddenly became something else, when Von der Leyen herself and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, joined. Those were already heavyweights. Missing was Chancellor Scholz, who had other bilateral talks agreed upon. And the Spanish unrest. Because of the Italian's attempt to monopolize attention and move away from the broader objective of the European Political Community, which is to bring closer positions with other neighbors. And because Sánchez himself, busy as host, could not attend.

Nothing concrete came out of the talk, nor was it expected. But the time to talk about migration is not that it is unbeatable, but that it is inevitable. On Wednesday, the ambassadors of the 27 reached an agreement to establish their position on one of the five regulations that make up the reform of the Migration and Asylum Pact, which refers precisely to the management of crises and emergencies.. The Interior Ministers should have done it last week, but Italy, after months of clashes with Berlin, opposed. The issue ended up coming up, with some transfers everywhere. But it happened with the vote against, again, and the indignation, once again, of Hungary and Poland.

The placo Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, who was not invited to that small meeting but who asked Meloni for a bilateral talk, warned this Thursday of a “total veto” of the Migration Pact in the face of what he considers “pressure and blackmail”. In a video posted with just over a week left for the national elections, Morawiecki reaffirms his position against “the bureaucrats in Brussels and their real bosses, those in Berlin” who are trying, as he said a few days ago, “to implement an insane plan.” that “will flood Warsaw with illegal immigrants, shootings, attacks and riots,” in statements reported by EFE. The EU has not closed the issue, long negotiations are pending with the European Parliament and experience shows that trying to impose something like this on those who do not want it only leads to fights, lawsuits, friction, blockades and revenge.

The issue is red-hot. Italy still believes that it does not receive enough aid or solidarity, and wants European pacts like the one reached with Turkey at the time and now Tunisia, to give the money that is necessary (and look the other way in the face of rights violations and drifts). authoritarian) in exchange for African countries stopping boat departures. But these agreements, in addition to being dangerous and difficult to defend from any moral point of view, are also very unstable.. The European Commissioner responsible for Neighborhood, Oliver Varhelyi, attacked on Thursday on his social networks against the Tunisian Government, which does not stop tightening the rope, urging them to return the 60 million euros just received if they are not happy with the things they sign.. A surprising clash of tone from the Commission. This Friday, in Granada, second day, only among the 27 and fighting for specific words, but above all to define the next steps after 10 years of fierce struggle.

At 51 years old, Narges Mohammadi has spent half his life in and out of prison. From her cell she has received the news that she has been awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize, for her tireless work for women's rights.. It is also from prison, with the limitations that this space implies, where he continues to denounce the constant human rights violations committed by the Iranian authorities.. Ten months ago she was sentenced to ten years, eight months in prison and 154 lashes for “crimes against national security” for reporting hundreds of cases of torture and sexual violence in police custody.

The trial took place in the midst of protests against the regime after the death of the young Mahsa Jina Amini, arrested for not wearing a veil in public spaces.. The court sentenced Mohammadi in a trial that lasted barely five minutes and in which the activist did not have access to a lawyer.. Due to the unfair nature of the sentence, Mohammadi decided not to appeal as a form of protest.

The persecution of the authorities against Mohammadi increased after the publication of her book on prison brutality in the country, titled 'White Torture: Interviews with Iranian Prisoners', as well as a documentary on the isolation practices imposed in many prisons in the country. and that the activist herself has suffered on various occasions.

In August another court sentenced the activist to another year in prison for “propaganda” for speaking about the human rights situation in Iran with Javaid Rahman, the United Nations rights rapporteur.. Mohammadi's “propaganda” was actually about the denunciation with data and testimonies of sexual violence and “systematic” abuse in the arrests of protesters after the death of Mahsa Jina Amini.

The death of the young woman in police custody, detained for not wearing the Islamic veil correctly in public spaces, sparked a wave of protests for women's rights and against the regime, shouting “Woman, life and freedom”, a he proclaims that he constantly uses Mohammadi in his fight on the street and from prison.

Human rights groups denounce that in the last year the regime's repression has seriously increased, which has not granted a single one of the protesters' demands.. Since Amini's death, more than 20,000 people have been arrested in protests and in their homes.. Persecution affects anyone who supports a protest or speaks to the press.. At least 500 people have been shot dead by security forces, while reports of torture, sexual assault and harassment in detention centers increase, cases that Mohammadi has extensively documented.. The activist, an engineer by profession, was interested in women's rights since she was studying at university. In those years, more than two decades ago, Mohammadi denounces similar humiliations against women by the regime, from arrests for not wearing the veil in public spaces to the separation between men and women or mistreatment in prisons.. However, Mohammadi has pointed out that in the last year, the level of sexual violence against detained women “has increased significantly” and it is a “systematic” practice.

He has experienced the humiliation and isolation in prison firsthand.. For more than a year, the Iranian authorities have not allowed her to receive visits from her husband and children.. They have also limited her contact with the organization she works for, the Center for Human Rights Defenders, an organization led by Shirin Ebadi, another women's rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2003.

Prison isolation has reduced his health. Mohammadi suffered a heart attack this year and the prosecution did not allow her to be treated at an outside hospital.. His cardiovascular problems have not been treated correctly, rights groups denounce. The activist has also developed a disease similar to epilepsy that causes her to lose muscle control.. Despite living in deplorable conditions in the penitentiary, Mohammadi continues working to denounce rights violations against women despite the cost: greater isolation and more time in prison.