Changes in the statements given by one of the key witnesses against Admiral Gabriel Arango Bacci could be the beginning of a decision in the officer’s favor, if the Supreme Court disallows the statements. 

On June 26 before the Anti-corruption Unit of the Inspector General’s office, Jaime Pérez Charris retracted the testimony he gave against the Admiral and said he was pressured into providing fabricated information as part of a conspiracy against Arango Bacci, organized from within the Attorney General’s office.

Perez Charris had said Arango Bacci met with drug trafficker, Jorge Luis Hernández Villazón, aka “Boliche”, with whom he was allegedly involved in the drug business.

It would fall into the hands of the Supreme Court to investigate cases of alleged bribery towards some Congressmen to benefit, within the approval of the financial reform, DMG Holding Group’s interests, company owned by the now infamous David Murcia Guzmán.

The Supreme Court is now studying the United States’ request for the extradition of Gerardo Antonio Aguilar Ramírez, alias”César”, and Alexander Farfán Suárez, alias”Gafas”, Farc members captured during Operation ‘Check’ last July 2^nd.

The United States officially made the request on July 9^th through the U.S. Embassy in Colombia. Both men are charged with belonging to a terrorist group and holding hostages. If there is no objection from the Court, the final call will be made by President Uribe, who has made it clear that he would support it.

However, it could be months before the Court makes a decision, and even then, it could consider the men’s statements too valuable to other investigations and decide to leave them in the country, as was the case with former paramilitary Hébert Veloza, alias ‘HH’.

The wave of resignations in Congress of members under investigation for ‘parapolitics’ has started a debate in the Supreme Court, where Magistrates are looking for a way to cut short attempts by the accused to have their cases tried by the Attorney General’s Office instead of the Supreme Court.

Magistrates argue that whether the Congressmen are in office or not, their cases have to do with acts committed while they were, and should therefore continue to be investigated by the Court; in the case of being tried by the Attorney General, a person can appeal any decision, which is not true for cases tried by the Supreme Court.