Angie Rodríguez and Benedetti, investigated over the “Pacto de Valledupar”

The alleged “Pacto de Valledupar” refers to meetings held in Valledupar in 2025 involving about 11 former paramilitary commanders. Investigators are examining whether the meetings went beyond peace-process discussions and became an attempt to obtain accusations against political figures. The alleged targets included Álvaro Uribe, Germán Vargas Lleras and Abelardo de la Espriella.

The key mechanism was testimony. According to the reported versions, officials allegedly sought new statements linking politicians with paramilitary groups. The commanders reportedly refused to make those new accusations, saying they had already denied knowing about such links. Changing their accounts could have exposed them to investigations for false testimony or procedural fraud.

The Procuraduría opened a preliminary inquiry into Armando Benedetti and Angie Rodríguez. It ordered an inspection of the Dapre and requested attendance records, recordings and meeting reports. The Fiscalía was also expected to open an investigation and hear Mancuso and other participants in Montería. Petro denies giving any order.

Armando Benedetti and Angie Rodríguez were senior officials in Gustavo Petro’s government. Benedetti was the former Interior minister, while Rodríguez was the former director of the Dapre. Their relevance comes from claims that the Valledupar plan was connected to an instruction from Petro and Benedetti.

Rodríguez said the plan revolved around an order from Petro and the Interior minister. Juan Carlos Villamizar, Salvatore Mancuso’s lawyer, said the order came from Petro and was passed to Rodríguez and Víctor de Currea Lugo. This places Rodríguez in the alleged chain of communication, while Benedetti is named as one of the officials behind the supposed instruction.

These claims remain disputed. Petro denied having any connection and said there was no proof for Rodríguez’s and Mancuso’s accusations. Mancuso’s account did not confirm that Petro gave the order; he said Petro never personally asked him. The inquiry is intended to establish what happened.

The reported meeting involved 11 former paramilitary commanders. Their participation matters because the alleged plan depended on their testimony about possible relationships between politicians and paramilitary groups. The meeting was presented as part of discussions about peace management and a possible new transitional-justice process.

Salvatore Mancuso was the best-known participant identified in the report. Mancuso and his lawyer, Juan Carlos Villamizar, publicly supported versions connecting the alleged plan to an order from Petro and Benedetti. However, Mancuso’s own version stopped short of confirming that Petro issued such an order. He said Petro had never personally asked him.

The number and identities of participants are now central to the investigations. The Procuraduría requested the meeting’s attendance record, recordings and reports. According to the report, the Fiscalía planned to send a prosecutors’ commission to Montería to hear Mancuso and the other participants and compare their accounts.

The meeting document drew a sharp line between refusing new accusations and continuing negotiations. The former commanders reportedly declined to give fresh statements about links between politicians and paramilitary groups. That refusal was important because it challenged the alleged purpose attributed to the meeting.

Two sources present at the meeting told La FM that the commanders feared legal consequences. They had already denied knowing about those political links, so changing their stories could expose them to investigations for false testimony or procedural fraud. Instead, the document recorded commitments to prepare work plans aimed at revealing new facts and exploring another transitional-justice process.

The document also mentioned possible release and a review of extradition. Those references suggest that legal and detention conditions were part of the discussions, though the report does not establish that any deal was approved. Investigators requested the complete document and other evidence to determine what was actually proposed.

The former commanders faced a legal risk if they changed their accounts without a truthful basis. According to two sources present at the meeting, they had already denied knowing about links between politicians and paramilitary groups. A new version could therefore appear contradictory and trigger investigations.

The specific consequences mentioned were investigations for false testimony or procedural fraud. False testimony concerns giving an untruthful account, while procedural fraud refers to misleading a legal process. The article does not say that the commanders were convicted or that charges had already been filed. It describes the risks they reportedly considered before refusing new accusations.

Their decision shaped the meeting’s outcome. They would not provide fresh statements implicating politicians, but they did agree to prepare plans for revealing new facts and exploring transitional justice. Prosecutors were expected to hear their accounts and compare them, which could clarify whether anyone pressured them or whether their stories changed.

Transitional justice is a set of legal and political measures used to address serious violence and its aftermath. It can combine truth-seeking, accountability, reparations and special legal conditions. The goal is often to obtain information and recognition of victims while handling large numbers of cases. This general definition comes from established knowledge; the article only says the participants discussed a new transitional-justice process.

The meeting document mentioned the possible release of former commanders and a review of extradition. Such issues may become bargaining points because authorities want fuller disclosures, while participants seek changes to detention or legal status. The article does not specify the proposed sentences, conditions or decision-makers.

The document also committed the commanders to prepare work plans for revealing new facts. That commitment was separate from their refusal to make new accusations about politicians. Investigators will need to determine whether these discussions were legitimate peace-process efforts, an improper pressure campaign, or both.

A preliminary inquiry is an initial investigation used to clarify facts and assess whether possible misconduct or wrongdoing warrants a formal case. It can involve collecting documents, interviewing people and checking records. It does not establish that the investigated person committed a crime or disciplinary offense.

Here, the Procuraduría opened a preliminary inquiry against Armando Benedetti and Angie Rodríguez. It ordered an inspection of the Dapre and requested the attendance list, recordings and reports from the Valledupar meeting. These steps are evidence-gathering measures. They may test whether the meeting occurred as described and whether officials played the alleged roles.

The inquiry is therefore different from a conviction or final finding. It may lead to more proceedings, but the article does not say that Benedetti or Rodríguez have been found responsible. The Fiscalía was also expected to open its own investigation, hear Mancuso and other participants, and compare their accounts.