In a controversial ruling that has reignited debates over press freedom and historical memory in post-conflict Colombia, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has ordered journalist Diana Saray Giraldo to publicly rectify information she previously reported, claiming that current Senator and ex-FARC combatant Sandra Ramirez recruited teenage girls for guerrilla leaders. The court concluded that the claims lacked legal basis and violated the senator’s fundamental rights, but the decision has drawn sharp criticism from victims’ groups and media advocates, Semana reports.
The dispute began with remarks made by Giraldo on Caracol Radio’s morning program and in Semana magazine, where she recounted testimony from conflict victims alleging that Ramirez, known by her legal name, was involved in selecting minors for sexual abuse by senior members of the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Giraldo’s reporting referenced accounts from a woman who says she was recruited at age 12 and subjected to abuse while with the guerrilla group, claiming that Ramirez played a role in her mistreatment.
Colombia’s Constitutional Court orders journalist to rectify reporting on senator, sparking free-speech debate
Ramirez, today a senator for the Comunes party and an ex-combatant under the 2016 peace accord, filed a “tutela” — a legal instrument in Colombia for the protection of constitutional rights — against Giraldo and other defendants, including media outlets and an activist. The Constitutional Court, in its T-520 of 2025 decision, ruled that Giraldo’s statements constituted unverified factual assertions that harmed Ramirez’s honor and good name because there are no open investigations or judicial convictions confirming the alleged conduct.
The court emphasized that while freedom of expression and opinion is a cornerstone of democratic debate, media and journalists bear responsibility when making serious factual claims that could endanger an individual’s reputation or personal security. Justices noted that in the context of political life and the fragile climate for former combatants reintegrated under the peace process, such misstatements carry particular risks.
Under the ruling, Giraldo must issue a public retraction and correct her previous reporting. The decision similarly compels activist Ariel Ricardo Armel to retract statements made on social media and other platforms. Armel, who also faces the court’s order, has condemned the ruling, arguing that it sets a troubling precedent that could penalize ordinary citizens for discussing widely known aspects of Colombia’s armed conflict and could chill public expression. “If I don’t retract, they will send me to jail — a Colombian who has always abided by the law could go to jail simply for recalling the crimes of FARC,” he said, highlighting what he sees as an overreach by the judiciary.
A ‘very dangerous door’
Supporters of Giraldo’s reporting, including some victim groups, assert that the court’s directive effectively mutes voices seeking to recount the brutal realities of the armed conflict, especially sexual violence and child recruitment.
According to Semana, they point out that victims have submitted documentation to the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) and other authorities, yet no formal investigations have moved forward — a gap that, to them, underscores ongoing struggles for accountability.
Critics also argue that the ruling could have broader implications for journalism and historical memory in Colombia. Some observers say the decision prioritizes the reputational rights of former combatants over the right of victims to be heard and the public’s access to information about its own past — a key element of transitional justice.
Giraldo herself described the ruling as a “very dangerous door” that could undermine freedom of expression and limit discussion around sensitive aspects of the conflict.
Legal experts note the delicate balance Colombian courts must strike between protecting individual rights and safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The peace process and subsequent integration of ex-FARC members into political life have introduced complex legal challenges, especially when allegations of past abuses intersect with current rights to personal honor and dignity. Regardless of one’s stance, this high-profile case underscores the ongoing tensions in Colombia’s effort to reconcile truth-telling, accountability, and legal protections in a society still grappling with the legacy of decades of violence.
As critics and supporters continue to debate the implications of the ruling, many Colombians watch closely, aware that how the nation navigates freedom of the press and historical reckoning will shape its democratic norms and post-conflict reconstruction for years to come.