Bogotá Superior Court overturns injunction limiting air strikes in areas with child recruits
The Family Chamber ruled the legal action inadmissible that required the Military Forces to avoid aerial attacks in areas with verifiable presence of children. The case file is being forwarded to the Constitutional Court.
Bogotá nullifies court order on bombardments in areas with child recruits
The Bogotá Superior Court annulled the injunction that imposed strict conditions on aerial attacks by the Military Forces in areas with verifiable presence of children recruited by illegal armed groups. According to ifmnoticias.com, the Family Chamber ruled the action inadmissible and ordered the case file to be forwarded to the Constitutional Court for possible review.
The injunction had been filed by citizen Ower Jimmy Borda Parra acting as a public representative—that is, acting on behalf of children and adolescents recruited who could not do so themselves. The lawsuit was filed against the President of the Republic, Defence Minister Jorge Eduardo Mora López, Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara Restrepo and the commanders of the Military Forces, Army, Aerospace Force and Navy.
The claimant cited figures from the Office of the Ombudsman according to which 73 minors died in military operations between 7 August 2022 and 23 June 2026, and the agency had recorded 1,173 cases of recruitment between January 2024 and July 2026.
First instance court order
Bogotá's Family Court 34 had ruled in favour of the claimant on 16 September. The judge imposed a "reinforced precaution standard" that included intensifying intelligence verification, evaluating less harmful alternatives and not presuming that a minor found in a camp is a legitimate military target. An additional provisional measure ordered refraining from executing offensive aerial operations against targets with verifiable presence of minors—without constituting a general prohibition on military operations, but rather a set of conditions for carrying them out.
The reasons the Court gave for striking down the injunction
The chamber, comprised of judges Ana Lucía Gélvez Téllez—rapporteur—, Marcela Sabas Cifuentes and Diana Marcela Cardona Villanueva, concluded that the injunction did not meet the requirements to be studied on the merits.
First, it pointed to a lack of active standing: the group of minors represented was indeterminate, because the lawsuit did not specify zones, camps or specific operations that represented an imminent threat.
Second, it applied the principle of subsidiarity, according to which an injunction only proceeds when no other effective judicial mechanism exists. The judges considered that the claims had a collective and structural character, characteristic of a popular action—a tool that allows for precautionary measures and orders of general scope. They also deemed premature the request related to the National Plan for Prevention of Recruitment, given that Law 2590 of 2026 grants one year to adopt it—a deadline that expires in July 2027.
The Court expressly refrained from pronouncing on the legality of bombardments, but acknowledged "the gravity of risks associated with recruitment."
Government reaction and context of public debate
The Presidency celebrated the ruling through a statement in which it affirmed that the decision "allows the Military Forces to continue developing their operational capabilities within the current constitutional and legal framework". The Executive added that recruitment and the use of minors by illegal armed groups constitute serious violations of their rights, and assured that operations will be carried out with respect for International Humanitarian Law.
The decision was made public amid public debate generated by the deaths of minors in bombardments. Media outlets cited the director of Legal Medicine, Ariel Cortés, according to whom eight minors have died in this type of operation during the current Government. At the time of publication, no statement was known from the claimant or the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the second instance ruling.
The case file will be forwarded to the Constitutional Court, which may select it for review once the decision becomes final; in that case, the high court could study the merits of the matter.
Source: Google News CO — Bogotá