Andrés Calle remains deprived of liberty by decision of the Special First-Instance Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. On July 28, 2026, the Court denied a new release request filed within the proceeding also being conducted against Iván Leonidas Name Vásquez over the corruption scandal at the National Disaster Risk Management Unit — UNGRD.
Andrés Calle's case is now at the trial stage. The charge alleges that, while he presided over the House of Representatives, he received 1 billion pesos originating from UNGRD funds. Iván Name, then president of the Senate, is accused of receiving 3 billion pesos. According to the prosecution's theory, those payments sought to favor the passage of bills of interest to the national government in Congress.
The Instruction Chamber sent Andrés Calle and Iván Name to trial for improper bribery and embezzlement by appropriation in favor of third parties. The indictment is final and the case was referred to the Special First-Instance Chamber for trial.
The July 28 decision does not determine whether Andrés Calle is responsible for those crimes. It resolves a purely procedural matter: whether the time elapsed since the indictment became final requires releasing him while the trial continues.
The Court concluded that the release deadline had not yet been reached.
Why Andrés Calle sought release
Andrés Calle's request was based on numeral 5 of Article 365 of Law 600 of 2000.
That provision recognizes provisional release when more than six months have passed since the indictment became final without the corresponding public hearing having been held.
The rule protects the accused's right not to remain indefinitely in pretrial detention while the State delays holding the trial. Its application does not depend on the severity of the crime charged, the notoriety of the case, or the apparent strength of the indictment.
That is why Andrés Calle's defense was not arguing for a finding of innocence. It argued that the maximum period that, as a general rule, allows pretrial detention to continue after the indictment becomes final had elapsed.
Looking only at the calendar, the defense argued that more than six months had already passed without the public hearing being held.
The legal difficulty is that the same provision contemplates an extension of the term.
The evidence abroad affecting Andrés Calle's term
Numeral 5 of Article 365 of Law 600 of 2000 provides that the six-month term doubles when evidence has been ordered that must be gathered abroad.
The Court considered that provision applicable to Andrés Calle's case.
Still pending in the trial is the testimony of Carlos Ramón González, former director of the Administrative Department of the Presidency. González is in asylum in Nicaragua and is identified within the UNGRD network as the person who allegedly gave instructions related to the payments attributed to Andrés Calle and Iván Name.
The testimony was requested by the defense teams themselves and ordered before the ordinary term expired. According to available information about the ruling, the Court considered that González's location outside Colombia requires international cooperation efforts or virtual mechanisms to obtain his testimony.
For that reason, the Chamber determined that the applicable term for Andrés Calle is not six months, but one year. Since that term had not yet been met, it denied release for expiration of terms.
The legal discussion does not end with the existence of evidence abroad
The decision is directly supported by the text of Article 365 of Law 600 of 2000: if evidence has been ordered abroad, the term doubles.
However, applying that rule should not be reduced to formally verifying that a witness is outside the country.
In Andrés Calle's case, judicial review must also examine:
- whether Carlos Ramón González's testimony is genuinely relevant and necessary;
- when it was requested and ordered;
- what steps have been taken to obtain it;
- whether in-person, consular or virtual alternatives exist;
- and whether the delay can be attributed to the administration of justice or to defense maneuvering.
The Court specifically noted that the office must redouble efforts to locate the witness and obtain his testimony, either through officials commissioned in Nicaragua or through virtual means.
The evidence abroad legally explains the extension of Andrés Calle's term, but does not authorize an indefinite standstill. The legal doubling has a firm limit: twelve months. In addition, pretrial detention remains subject to the principles of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality.
Carlos Ramón González and Andrés Calle's procedural situation
Carlos Ramón González's situation directly affects the computation of Andrés Calle's release term, even though they are being prosecuted in separate proceedings.
The prosecution's theory holds that González took part in the decision to hand over UNGRD funds to the then presidents of the Senate and the House. His testimony could confirm, deny or modify central elements of that charge.
The Court considered that obtaining that statement requires additional judicial and administrative activity because González remains outside Colombia. That circumstance activates the doubling provided for by Law 600 of 2000.
The problem is that Andrés Calle does not control González's presence in Nicaragua or the effectiveness of international cooperation mechanisms.
Therefore, although the extension to twelve months has a legal basis, the State must demonstrate that it is taking real action to obtain the evidence. Simply repeating that the witness remains abroad does not replace the obligation to move the trial forward.
The closer the case gets to the one-year limit, the more rigorous the explanation must be about the steps taken and about the need to keep Andrés Calle deprived of liberty.
The other evidence ordered in the trial
Carlos Ramón González's testimony is not the only pending evidence in the case.
The Chamber also ordered the testimony of Jaime Dussán, president of Colpensiones, and ordered the collection of documentation related to an alleged loan of 2.8 billion pesos that Pedro José Castro Espinosa allegedly obtained and handed over to Sneyder Pinilla.
In addition, tax data was requested from the DIAN, information from the Pension and Payroll Tax Management Unit — UGPP — and an expert opinion on cryptocurrency movements allegedly mentioned by Sneyder Pinilla. The Court considered that this last examination could help establish the traceability of the money and assess the credibility of the account that supports part of the charge against Andrés Calle and Iván Name.
These proceedings show that the trial does not depend solely on González's testimony. They also show that the evidentiary stage remains open and that there are proceedings capable of confirming or weakening the prosecution's theory.
What the new denial means for Andrés Calle
The denial of release is not equivalent to a conviction of Andrés Calle.
The Chamber did not resolve whether he received the 1 billion pesos, whether he knew the origin of the funds, or whether he intervened in the legislative process in exchange for that money. Those matters must be decided in the judgment after the evidence has been gathered and challenged.
The ruling establishes only that, because of evidence ordered abroad, the provisional release term must be counted over twelve months rather than six.
Nor does it mean that the same reasoning can be used indefinitely. Once the doubled term is met, Andrés Calle's legal situation must be reviewed based on the exact computation, the legally applicable suspensions, and the delays that can be attributed to each party to the proceeding.
It would not be accurate to describe this in the article as "the third denial" jointly for Andrés Calle and Iván Name without specifying what the three decisions were, their dates and the basis for each one. Some publications describe a third denial regarding Andrés Calle, but the sources available on the July 28 decision are largely limited to noting that the Court again denied release. For that reason, it is more precise to speak of a new denial.
The appeal against the denial of release
Andrés Calle's defense can challenge the decision before the Criminal Cassation Chamber, within the two-instance system applicable to constitutionally privileged officials.
The challenge will not yet be aimed at proving Andrés Calle's innocence, but at questioning the procedural basis for the detention. The central points will be:
- the exact date from which the term must be counted;
- when the evidence abroad was ordered;
- the true necessity of Carlos Ramón González's testimony;
- the steps taken to obtain it;
- and the existence of delays attributable, or not, to the defense.
The strongest argument would not be to deny that Law 600 allows doubling the term. The statute expressly establishes it. The effective discussion is whether the specific requirements for that doubling have been proven and whether the case has been pursued with the diligence required.
Andrés Calle and the case against Wadith Manzur
Andrés Calle's case shares the general context of the UNGRD corruption scandal with the proceeding against Wadith Manzur, but it is not the same case file.
Andrés Calle is accused of having received 1 billion pesos while serving as president of the House of Representatives. Iván Name is accused of 3 billion pesos while presiding over the Senate.
The proceeding against Wadith Manzur concerns other facts, other alleged benefits and other legislative interventions. The case files may share witnesses, officials, contracts and elements of the same network, but they retain their own indictments, precautionary decisions and procedural paths.
For that reason, they should legally be presented as related proceedings due to their factual context, not as a single criminal case.
What comes next in Andrés Calle's case
Andrés Calle will continue deprived of liberty while the decision remains in force and the release ground set out in Article 365 of Law 600 of 2000 is not met.
The Special First-Instance Chamber must continue the trial, gather the ordered evidence, and issue a judgment determining whether the charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Andrés Calle's situation exposes a real tension between two legitimate interests: the need to gather relevant evidence located abroad, and the right of every detained person to be tried within a reasonable time.
International cooperation can justify the legal doubling of the term. It cannot, however, turn the absence of a witness into an open-ended justification for keeping someone in pretrial detention indefinitely.
In Andrés Calle's case, the limit recognized by the Court is twelve months. Decisive scrutiny must now focus on the exact expiration date, the diligence shown in obtaining Carlos Ramón González's testimony, and the effective holding of the public hearing.
International cooperation can justify extending the term. It cannot turn the absence of a witness into an open-ended justification for keeping someone in pretrial detention indefinitely.
Main source: Supreme Court of Justice, Special First-Instance Chamber, ruling of July 28, 2026.