It is 2022. In a neighborhood in western Caracas, Yolanda (a fictitious name) walks through a checkpoint manned by hooded police officers. In her pocket, she carries a small transparent bag containing several misoprostol pills – the second part of the treatment recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for a safe medical abortion.
© Andrea Hernández Briceño
© Andrea Hernández Briceño (EL PAÍS)
© Andrea Hernández Briceño (EL PAÍS)
© Andrea Hernández Briceño
© Andrea Hernández Briceño (EL PAÍS)
© Andrea Hernandez Briceno
© Andrea Hernández Briceño
The United Nations warned Thursday that Colombia’s new rules governing protests could give police excessive discretion to use force, potentially putting peaceful demonstrators at risk.
RELATED: Colombia’s First National Strike Against De la Espriella Met With Police Crackdown
Signed Tuesday by President Abelardo de la Espriella, the decree changes police procedures during demonstrations, allowing authorities to act against people committing violent acts without waiting for dialogue with protesters to conclude.
In a statement released Thursday, the UN Human Rights Office in Colombia raised concerns about the criteria for ending negotiations, the decree’s definition of violence and the circumstances under which authorities can intervene in road blockades.
Some provisions are open to broad interpretation, the office warned, potentially allowing authorities to end dialogue and resort to force.
The decree identifies several grounds for intervention, including carrying or using weapons, holding people against their will, assaulting others and destroying infrastructure. The UN acknowledged that these acts pose different risks to life and physical integrity but said they must be addressed separately.
Action against people committing violent acts should not automatically end dialogue with demonstrators who continue to protest peacefully, the office said.
It also stressed that force, including less-lethal weapons, must be used only as a last resort, after nonviolent means of restraint have been exhausted, in accordance with General Comment No. 37 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella signed Decree 1525, a measure that facilitates police repression by broadening the definition of “violence” during popular protests.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 14, 2026
Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara warned that the new regulation will take effect before demonstrations… pic.twitter.com/YYfouyRGyt
The office also criticized the decree’s definition of violence as broader than international standards, noting that it includes threats of aggression and conduct that does not necessarily cause injuries, deaths or serious property damage.
Authorities should distinguish between carrying an object that could be considered a weapon, threatening to use it and actually using it, the UN said. Possession alone does not make someone violent or change the peaceful nature of an assembly.
The UN warned that blocking a road does not, by itself, make a demonstration violent. It also called for a review of the decree’s reference to a “serious and imminent disruption,” saying the criterion could be used to justify breaking up peaceful protests.
The duration of a blockade, the importance of the road affected and the resulting economic losses should not, on their own, justify coercive action, the office said.
“Economic impact or disruption to the normal functioning of a productive activity should not, in themselves, constitute justification for the use of force,” it said.
The office acknowledged that some provisions could help protect the right to peaceful protest, particularly those distinguishing peaceful demonstrators from people committing violent acts. However, it insisted that protecting peaceful assemblies must remain the primary objective of any changes to protest regulations.
The UN office said it had consulted the Colombian government on the decree and that some of its proposed amendments were incorporated into the version signed Tuesday.
Colombia’s left took to the streets on Wednesday against President Abelardo de la Espriella and fared better than expected. Despite doubts about its ability to mobilize people, fears of police repression stoked by the president himself, the threat of rain and the fact that the protest fell on a weekday, thousands of Colombians demonstrated peacefully for hours. The marches, seen in the country’s main cities, were the first test of the ability of a battered left to mobilize the grassroots after losing power to a right-wing outsider allied openly with the United States and who embodies everything that progressives abhor.
Thousands of people took to the streets across Colombia on Wednesday in the first national strike against President Abelardo de la Espriella’s administration, as police used tear gas, rubber bullets and armored vehicles to disperse demonstrators in several cities.
RELATED: Colombia Holds First National Strike Against De la Espriella
Protests spread across more than a dozen departmental capitals and municipalities, including Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla, Ibagué, Popayán and Bucaramanga. In Bogotá, four columns of demonstrators converged on Bolívar Square under a security operation monitored by a Unified Command Post.
In Medellín, demonstrations escalated into clashes between protesters and the Mobile Anti-Riot Squadron (ESMAD). Security forces deployed tear gas, rubber bullets and armored vehicles, leading to several arrests. Assaults on members of the press were also reported.
Clashes and serious public disturbances were also recorded in Ibagué and Popayán following police interventions. Human rights organizations, including the NGO Temblores, denounced the presence of armed men carrying rifles on the rooftops of government buildings in Bogotá, describing their deployment as a direct threat to protesters.
The demonstrations brought together trade unions, teachers, university students, Indigenous communities, LGBTQ+ groups and feminist organizations. Opposition figures, including former President Gustavo Petro and Senator Iván Cepeda, also took part.
Protesters called for labor, education and social protections, seeking to preserve measures introduced under the previous administration, including free access to public universities and increases in the minimum wage. They opposed what they described as a neoliberal shift under De la Espriella’s government, citing budget cuts and the administration’s initial economic reforms.
Colombianos:
— Abelardo De La Espriella (@ABDELAESPRIELLA) October 15, 2026
Me dirijo a ustedes esta noche para entregarles un balance claro, objetivo y contundente de la jornada de manifestaciones que vivió hoy nuestro país.
¡Que quede absolutamente claro! El 98% de las movilizaciones transcurrió de manera pacífica.
La inmensa mayoría de… pic.twitter.com/CmllZVPBtu
Text Reads: Colombians: I address you tonight to deliver a clear, objective, and unequivocal report on the day of demonstrations that our country experienced today. Let it be absolutely clear! 98% of the mobilizations took place peacefully. The vast majority of those who took to the streets exercised their legitimate right to protest in an orderly and respectful manner toward the institutions. That is democracy, and as President of the Republic, I will always defend and guarantee it. At the close of this day, the national tally records a total of 62,000 citizens mobilized. A figure that represents a very small proportion of the Colombian population, but whose rights and guarantees deserve the full respect of the State. From the first day of my Government, I have issued a directive that admits no interpretations: peaceful protest is respected, protected, and guaranteed. But violence, vandalism, and any attempt to violate the rights of others will have no place under my mandate. Because as legitimate as the right to demonstrate is the right of millions of Colombians to work, move freely, and live in tranquility. Here there is a State, here there is authority, and here there is a Government that respects freedoms, enforces the law, and protects the millions of Colombians who rise early every day to work and build the Nation. Firm for the Nation! Long live Christ the King! (A.D.L.E.)
Demonstrators also rejected the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel and what they described as U.S. interference in Colombia’s affairs.
Tensions mounted after the government signed a decree hours before the marches that changes the rules governing police conduct during public demonstrations. De la Espriella defended the measure as necessary to combat “urban terrorism,” while opposition politicians and social organizations condemned it as an attempt to intimidate protesters.
Senator Cepeda warned that the decree risked returning Colombia to a situation in which fear enabled arbitrary actions by security forces.
“They want to take us back to a time when fear becomes the means through which the security forces act arbitrarily,” Cepeda said.
Trade union sources said organizers were already drawing up a schedule of further mobilizations for the coming months following Wednesday’s mass protests. The campaign could culminate in a general strike in November.
Em um cenário de alta tensão política e social, milhares de pessoas marcharam em Bogotá, Cali, Medellín, Bucaramanga, Pereira e Riohacha para expressar rejeição à agenda econômica e de segurança do presidente, ao aumento do custo de vida, à escalada da violência, ao retrocesso de conquistas sociais e às tentativas de criminalizar e coibir o direito ao protesto.
Na mobilização em Bogotá, espera-se a presença do ex-presidente Gustavo Petro, acompanhado por lideranças progressistas.
Os manifestantes enfatizaram o caráter pacífico do protesto, em resposta a alegações difundidas pela Casa de Nariño que buscam deslegitimar as reivindicações da sociedade civil colombiana.
O estopim foi o Decreto 1525, assinado por De la Espriella. A norma estabelece regras para a atuação das forças de segurança em manifestações e autoriza as autoridades a dispersá-las diante de distúrbios graves. Os governos locais responderam com ampla presença de agentes uniformizados nas principais cidades.
A oposição interpretou essa operação como uma tentativa de reprimir, de antemão, o direito de manifestação.
Essa leitura acirrou ainda mais os ânimos em um dia que os organizadores haviam anunciado como uma expressão do descontentamento devido ao custo de vida e ao desmonte de programas sociais. O descontentamento não se limita ao decreto. Os setores mobilizados questionam o conjunto das primeiras decisões do presidente, ao qual acusam de desmontar conquistas sociais e de encarecer a vida da maioria da população.
A Fecode, Federação Colombiana de Educadores, saiu em defesa da educação pública e da saúde do professores. A entidade reivindicou, ainda, a reconstrução da infraestrutura escolar afetada por emergências anteriores — como o terremoto e as réplicas registradas no Vale do Cauca — e denunciou a estigmatização sofrida pelo sindicalismo docente.
As comunidades indígenas e camponesas, por sua vez, rejeitaram os megaprojetos e as medidas econômicas que colocam em risco seus territórios ancestrais. O CRIC alertou que a administração de De la Espriella busca minar a autonomia de suas organizações.
A pauta econômica concentrou boa parte do descontentamento. O encarecimento do custo de vida e as políticas que, segundo os organizadores, corroem direitos adquiridos levaram trabalhadores de diversos setores produtivos às ruas.
Os protestos na Colômbia assumem, assim, a dimensão de um primeiro grande embate social contra o Executivo, apenas dois meses após o início de sua gestão. As centrais sindicais e os movimentos populares situam o conflito na defesa de conquistas históricas, em oposição a uma agenda que consideram regressiva.
* É proibida a reprodução deste conteúdo
Segundo o governo, o objetivo é reforçar os mecanismos de controle e garantir a ordem pública durante as manifestações populares.
Entre as disposições anunciadas está o acompanhamento permanente das manifestações pelas autoridades. O decreto estabelece que os agentes encarregados da supervisão devem manter uma distância mínima de quatro metros, como parte dos protocolos de controle previstos para esses eventos.
Além disso, o decreto autoriza a intervenção das forças de segurança quando for detectado o porte ou o uso de armas de fogo, armas brancas, explosivos ou artefatos incendiários. Também prevê intervenções em casos de retenção de pessoas contra sua vontade ou agressões contra terceiros.
O documento inclui proteção específica para servidores públicos, pessoal uniformizado, missões médicas e equipes jornalísticas, estabelecendo competências de atuação diante de qualquer ataque ou ameaça dirigida contra esses setores durante as mobilizações.
O Executivo apresentou ainda outras iniciativas legislativas de seu programa de governo, entre elas, um projeto de lei para o combate a grupos armados organizados e um estatuto antiterrorista.
*É proibida a reprodução deste material
There is both good news and bad news about the state of the world’s forests. The good news is that deforestation fell by 15% in 2025 compared with 2024, the largest decline recorded so far this decade. The bad news is that a shift in political priorities could undo some of those gains. Much of the progress in forest conservation depends on the political will of a handful of key countries, particularly in Latin America, which is now entering a period of electoral uncertainty and possible changes of government.
© Adriano Machado (REUTERS)
The Colombian city of Medellín woke up on October 1 to good news. According to official figures from the city administration, September recorded the lowest number of murders in 50 years: just five homicides in the city of 2.5 million inhabitants, 22 fewer than in September 2025.
© TravelPenguin (Getty Images)
Bazilian senator and presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro starts the runoff race with an advantage for the October 25 second round. A Datafolha poll, the first since Brazilians voted last Sunday, gives him 52% of valid votes. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is four points behind, at 48%. That gap lies outside the margin of error, which is two points either way.
© Adriano Machado (REUTERS)
The United States has sent spy drones to Colombia and Ecuador to support both countries’ actions against organized crime, two military sources told the newspaper The New York Times. The aircraft involved are an undetermined number of MQ-9 Reapers that had been stationed in Africa. Although their primary roles are linked to surveillance, they can be used in offensive operations. The arrival of these aircraft, announced by Colombia in August, cements Washington’s growing active role in the operations of the armed forces of the two South American countries, which in recent months have agreed to begin “joint operations.”
© William Rio Rosado (EFE)
A development that passed largely unnoticed in Colombia has generated major attention in Ecuador. Authorities last week announced the arrest of Inda Mariela Peñarrieta Tuárez and Michelle Macías Peñarrieta, the wife and daughter of José Adolfo Macías, alias “Fito,” the leader of the Los Choneros gang, who is currently imprisoned in the United States. Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella welcomed the arrests and said he would “gladly” send the two women to his “friend” Daniel Noboa. “That’s how it’s done, Abelardo,” the Ecuadorian president replied.
© Presidencia/Getty
Twenty-three children make their way to school with their eyes glued to the murky water of the Nare River to see if they can see the hippopotamus. The school route has become a kind of safari with the kids scanning the horizon. Everyone in the municipality has a story to tell about the hippopotamus; that his feces scare away the fish, that he eats the banana crops, that his footprints are the size of three palms, that he will capsize a canoe... The Puerto Nare hippopotamus is all that’s talked about here. For Luis and his brother Diego, he is not a stranger. They call him Selmo. Their mother shakes her head and asks them not to get too attached because the judge has allowed just 60 days for the hippo to be removed from the vicinity.
© Luis bernardo Cano
© Luis Bernardo Cano
© Luis bernardo Cano
© Luis bernardo Cano
© Luis bernardo Cano
© Luis Bernardo Cano
A little over a month into his term, far-right President Abelardo de la Espriella continues to advance a security agenda that often conflicts with certain rights historically won by Colombians.
This time, De la Espriella has signed a decree allowing police access to university campuses. In several Latin American countries, the prohibition of police access to universities has been established through student struggle to prevent abuses by authorities against student movements.
Thus, universities have historically become places where students seek refuge from repression, arrest, and regroup during times of intense social mobilization.
This was evident during the 2021 protests, known as the “National Strike,” in which students, workers, left-wing political parties, young people, and others took to the streets to protest against the right-wing government of Iván Duque. The mobilization, which lasted several months, was considered a true “social upheaval,” and many experts have seen in it the consolidation of a democratic alternative (the government of Gustavo Petro) to decades and decades of right-wing rule.
During these protests, universities became hubs of popular mobilization, driven primarily by the youngest members of society. On university campuses, protesters were able to regroup, defend themselves against police repression, and coordinate new demonstrations – among other things – always protected by the fact that police are barred from entering university grounds.
Clearly, De la Espriella seeks to nip this possibility in the bud – that is, to prevent universities from once again becoming coordination centers for the protests. Many have speculated that the president is signing this decree precisely because he knows that his radical neoliberal agenda could spark major protests, and in this way, he hopes to proactively undermine the protest movement.
Whether or not this is De la Espriella’s primary intention, only time will tell. What is certain is that the president views university autonomy as an obstacle to the implementation of his security agenda, which also includes curtailing the ability of informal opposition political groups to participate in public life.
“Under no circumstances will I allow public universities to continue to be sanctuaries of violence. I respect and guarantee peaceful protest, but I will not allow universities to continue to be used as sanctuaries of vandalism and crime,” said De la Espriella on X.
Furthermore, true to his combative rhetoric, he compared social protests to terrorism – a common trope in the historical discourse of the Colombian right: “University autonomy is not a blank check for impunity: I have issued precise instructions for a national protocol of action that allows us to distinguish between the legitimate exercise of protest and acts of violence, flagrant offenses, danger, or extraordinary disturbances of public order that require intervention by the authorities. The university is for knowledge and ideas, not to serve as a refuge for violence and terrorism.”
However, the opposition has viewed this decision as a serious attack on university autonomy. Ana Erazo, a member of the House of Representatives from Valle del Cauca, wrote: “It is an ATTACK ON UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY and a direct threat to the young people at the country’s public universities. With this, Mr. Abelardo de la Espriella is beginning to reveal what could become a BRUTAL RETALIATION against the student movement, against its ability to organize and mobilize, and against thousands of young people who historically have not supported his political agenda.”
Some universities have joined in this criticism. One of them is the National Pedagogical University, whose academic council stated that in the past, “the serious consequences of resolving conflicts within public universities through militarization have been demonstrated on repeated occasions.” Furthermore, the council stated that university autonomy is one of the pillars of Colombian democracy, along with freedom of thought and research, among other things. Losing autonomy means jeopardizing these values of the republic, it stated.
For his part, former presidential candidate Iván Cepeda said that De la Espriella’s measure contradicts Article 69 of the Constitution, which guarantees university autonomy. Regarding the announcement, Cepeda also said: “Such an announcement is not only an affront to university autonomy. It also demonstrates, once again, the authoritarian and despotic nature of De la Espriella, who seeks to stigmatize, persecute, and violate the rights of Colombian youth and the university community. Colombia has not forgotten the victims of police abuse during the National Strike, nor the history of security forces intervening on university campuses, resulting in student deaths. Young people cannot once again be persecuted or treated as an internal enemy and an enemy of the state.”
Abelardo de la Espriella has now been in office for one month. The far-right president won the election by a narrow margin over leftist Iván Cepeda (less than 1% of valid votes), despite allegations of irregularities made by then-President Gustavo Petro.
However, De la Espriella dismissed the allegations of irregularities and began his administration by attempting to demonstrate military strength, an overt religious faith (for which he had to issue a public apology), and a clear alignment with Washington’s political doctrine.
However, just three days after he took office, a powerful earthquake struck the western part of the country, leaving more than 300 dead and nearly 5,000 injured. The government’s actions drew controversy. His supporters applauded the government’s response, while critics accused the administration of exploiting the tragedy to boost his public image and giving certain countries – such as Israel – priority in search-and-rescue efforts, while denying entry to rescue teams from other countries.
Added to this is the rhetoric of a return to all-out war against subversive armed groups and criminal organizations that De la Espriella already put forward during his election campaign. But this has not been merely a matter of rhetoric. Since taking office, the executive branch has ordered a series of attacks against positions held by these groups, some of which were engaged in peace talks aimed at their demobilization.
In fact, De la Espriella canceled the peace negotiations, which had been resumed by the Petro administration as part of his “total peace” policy.
In addition, the government’s death-defying political communication strategy has caused quite a stir. In some videos, the president can be seen walking among the bodies of alleged “bandits and terrorists” (as the government calls them), which, according to the Executive Branch, number 40, in addition to the capture of nine people allegedly linked to illegal organizations.
But the bombings have also drawn significant domestic criticism. In the Guaviare Department, three minors were reported killed following the bombings ordered by the president, which were part of a series of attacks that left a total of about ten people dead. And while De la Espriella said that armed groups are responsible for the deaths of the minors, he has not been able to escape criticism from human rights organizations that view indiscriminate bombing as a dangerous threat to innocent people and the civilian population.
Ultimately, the contrast between Petro’s and De la Espriella’s administrations seems so evident that many wonder whether it is precisely this political distancing that serves as the compass guiding the new government – or whether Colombia is, in fact, attempting to establish a new form of state.
To understand this transformation, BreakThrough News spoke with Danilo Urrea, philosopher at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, who sees in this first month a clear shift toward a return to a state policy of war – one that had previously been implemented with negative results: “In Colombia, this was historically known as the era called ‘La Violencia,’ which was one of the worst periods the country has ever experienced in terms of the barbarity it generated.”
“The president presents the killing of people to the country as a success,” he added. “But he also does so with an aesthetic and a semiotics that portray death, murder, and the like as a possibility for the country. And in a context like Colombia’s – where we have the highest death toll on the entire continent, surpassing even the combined death tolls of all the region’s dictatorships – this shows us that it is a step backward in terms of the possibility of building a country based on dialogue and reconciliation.”
Urrea also says the current government is trying to push the idea that the country it has inherited is in a disastrous financial situation, which is why it must promote a radical neoliberal policy: “We’ve identified efforts to promote a supposed economic turnaround for the country through old formulas that have already been tried and proved disastrous for social cohesion, for the territories, and for the relationship between humans and nature – with negative impacts on the communities living in the very places where this return to an extractive economy is once again being proposed.”
Furthermore, he warns that in the short time De la Espriella has been in office, there has been a setback in environmental and labor matters: “He has also come under attack during this first month, as he has begun to dismantle the gains made in terms of wages, recovery, overtime pay, and certain labor protections … which had been restored under President Petro’s administration through reforms and which this administration is now once again rapidly undoing with the stroke of a pen, supposedly to improve economic conditions. That, in very general terms, is what we’re seeing and what’s projected: the deregulation of all social benefits, of all the hard-won gains; the complete dismantling of all reforms; and the surrender of the country – in the areas of health, education, food, and all fundamental rights – to privatization processes primarily for the profit of transnational corporations.”
Following the Petro administration’s attempts to defend the Palestinian people against Israel’s onslaught, as well as its various clashes with Washington’s hemispheric geopolitical agenda, Urrea asserts that Colombia has joined a regional strategy of control orchestrated by Washington: “The rise of the far right, which is well known … Through this administration, Colombia has become yet another outpost of U.S. imperialism’s advance across the region. And obviously, this has far-reaching consequences for the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean in particular.”
Furthermore, Urrea highlights the historical importance Colombia – a country with access to both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea – has held in the United States’ geopolitical strategy to control natural resources: “From a geopolitical standpoint, conditions are being created for Colombia to once again become one of the countries that facilitates U.S. military control – but above all, control over the natural resources and assets that are so coveted in this era of challenges for the United States in terms of its economic capacity, its dispute with China, and everything related to critical minerals.”
Urrea notes that, for now, the opposition parties have not managed to formulate a clear response to De la Espriella’s project. First, he points to a certain caution regarding a state policy that promotes violence and war: “There is obviously a great deal of fear regarding the actions I mentioned earlier – this language of violence, death, and murder. And obviously, in a country like Colombia, this has repercussions for the ability of those opposed to the current regime to act. Furthermore, because there has been an increase in the targeted killings of social leaders in various parts of the country, especially in areas most affected by geopolitical disputes as well as conflicts over economic and commercial control, illegal economies, and so on.”
However, Urrea notes that a coordinated opposition to the popular sectors could emerge, and the people might offer a peaceful and better-coordinated response: “We should consider an opposition that stems more from the popular sector, and there, I believe, there is also fear about how to react in the face of a violent scenario, a dangerous scenario, and manipulation. But I believe that organizations are now focusing on analyzing what the main peaceful and strategic causes might be to address the current situation. It seems to me that one of these fundamental aspects will undoubtedly be, and is already taking shape in the country through popular organization and mobilization, the defense of the environment, the defense of territories that are already being targeted for the control and exploitation of natural resources by transnational corporations, and the issue of fracking.”
Login