State Council orders review of denial of journalist Pulido's family victim status
The State Council annulled the ruling that denied victim status to the wife and son of journalist Jorge Enrique Pulido, who was murdered by the Medellín cartel in 1989.
Wife and son of Jorge Enrique Pulido may be recognised as victims of armed conflict
The State Council set aside the ruling that denied Omayra Inés Merchán Ortíz and Jorge Enrique Pulido Merchán recognition as victims of internal armed conflict, according to infobae.com. The decision, issued on 1 October 2026, orders the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca to issue a new ruling within a maximum period of 20 days, with full protection of the plaintiffs' rights to equality and due process.
The Fourth Section of the high court determined that the second-instance court disregarded the criteria set by the Constitutional Court for establishing when a violent act bears a sufficient relationship with internal armed conflict.
The journalist murdered on Escobar's orders
Jorge Enrique Pulido Sierra worked for much of his career at the Todelar radio chain. Through his programme Canal Abierto, he denounced the activities of drug trafficking cartels, including the murder of politician Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento, which occurred on 18 August 1989.
Two gunmen shot him repeatedly on 29 October that same year, as he was travelling in a vehicle through central Bogotá. He remained ten days in the Intensive Care Unit of Clínica San Pedro Claver and died on 9 November 1989. His wife and son went into exile in the United States following the homicide.
Eight years of legal proceedings
The family filed a claim in March 2018 to be recognised by the Special Administrative Unit for Victim Care and Comprehensive Reparation. The Second Administrative Court of Bogotá resolved the case in February 2023 and rejected the request, considering that the murder was "a personal retaliatory act ordered by Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria in response to the journalistic denunciations made against him", without close and sufficient relationship with armed conflict.
The same court also denied that the exile of Merchán Ortíz and her son could be directly linked to the conflict, and ruled out a violation of the right to family protection by noting that the couple had been separated for nine years at the time of the crime.
The First Section of the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca reviewed the appeal in October 2025 and upheld the decision. The court recognised that the homicide was not an isolated act of common crime, but part of a systematic campaign of terror against public officials, judges, politicians and journalists, but concluded that the file did not prove that the crime had been committed within internal armed conflict. For that body, it responded to the Medellín cartel's strategy to preserve its illegal power and guarantee impunity. The same decision denied recognition based on exile by finding no evidence of direct threat or coercion by armed actors, and attributed the departure to a preventive decision motivated by insecurity.
The State Council corrects applicable jurisprudence
Merchán Ortíz and Pulido Merchán filed an action of protection against that second-instance ruling. The State Council concluded that the disputed decision disregarded constitutional jurisprudence on the evaluation of crimes linked to armed conflict.
The high court clarified that it is not necessary to demonstrate a direct relationship between the victimising act and military confrontation. The applicable criterion, according to the court, requires establishing a close and sufficient relationship with the development of the conflict, under a broad interpretation of the concept.
The decision also recalled that these rules are binding for all authorities responsible for applying Law 1448 of 2011, known as the Victims' Law, including judges of administrative disputes. The State Council noted that the court omitted a precedent of the Constitutional Court regarding the link between drug cartel attacks and the conflict during the 1980s.
For the high court, the case of Pulido Sierra shares substantial elements with that precedent: both acts were attributed to the Medellín cartel, sought to generate terror and bring the State to heel, and were recognised by a competent authority as attacks of a terrorist nature.
Source: Google News CO — Crime