Álvaro Hernán Prada, a magistrate of the National Electoral Council, faces a potential conviction for bribery in criminal proceedings as an accomplice, following the Prosecutor's Office change of stance in final arguments before the Supreme Court of Justice. Delegate Bladimir Cuadro Crespo requested a condemnatory sentence, aligning with the prosecution for pressuring a witness to retract statements against Álvaro Uribe Vélez.
Álvaro Hernán Prada, a former Huila congressman and current magistrate of the National Electoral Council (CNE), is in a precarious position before Colombia's justice system. Accused of participating as an accomplice in the crime of bribery in criminal proceedings, the case revolves around his alleged involvement in influencing witness Juan Guillermo Monsalve Pineda to retract prior statements against former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez and his brother Santiago.
According to the Special First Instance Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Prada acted as an emissary from Bogotá, traveling to Neiva to coordinate with Carlos Eduardo López, alias 'Caliche', the contact with the witness. The aim was to obtain a retraction video, offering benefits such as entry to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), case review, and freedom. The Court classifies it as complicity, not direct authorship, since Prada facilitated the plan's execution without functional control of the act.
In the final arguments hearing last Thursday, the Prosecutor's Office delegate, Bladimir Cuadro Crespo, reversed his initial request for dismissal and sought conviction. "The Prosecutor's Office considers that up to this procedural moment there is evidence regarding the conduct accused of Álvaro Hernán Prada, for which it considers there are sufficient reasons to issue a ruling of criminal responsibility," stated Cuadro Crespo. This stance aligns with the Special Chamber and the victims, represented by lawyer Reinaldo Villalba, who argued that "Prada was in charge of managing the retraction" and that the plan was coordinated.
Prada's defense, led by José Fernando Mestre, denies any involvement. "The crime was committed by 'Caliche', not Prada," Mestre asserted, attributing the actions to López and questioning the reliability of his testimony. In his statement, Prada insisted that his February 2018 visit to Neiva was for an electoral campaign and that the encounter was fortuitous, without knowledge of illegal offers.
The evidence includes 3,334 intercepted audios, 55 digital records, expert reports, and testimonies supporting the accusation. The Special Instruction Chamber determined a "solid and sufficient foundation" for the process. The ruling is expected in the coming weeks, with the possibility of appeal before the Criminal Cassation Chamber.
