Midway through last week, after the version of an alleged escape circulated, the Attorney General’s Office announced that, in response to the procedures carried out by that entity, the General Secretariat of Interpol, based in Lyon (France), activated the red notice against Diego Marín Buitrago, alias Papá Pitufo or the ‘czar of smuggling’.
As explained, the decision was made after a study conducted since February 21, 2025, which concluded that the requirements for the search, location, capture, and extradition of the accused to Colombia are met. What has drawn attention is that Marín’s whereabouts have been known for months, as he sought asylum in Portugal while Colombia advances in its extradition request. In fact, ‘Pitufo’s’ defense points out that in a similar case, the Interpol Red Notice for Carlos Ramón González, an ally of President Petro, who is sheltered in Nicaragua, was just canceled.
What is behind this?
EL TIEMPO contacted criminal lawyer John Villamil Casallas, head of Marín’s defense in Colombia, to ask about the version of his client’s alleged escape, involved in a corrupt smuggling and bribery network with officials from the Fiscal and Customs Police (POLFA).
Also, about the reactivation of the red notice and the procedural differences with González’s case, wanted for the looting of the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD).
1. What is Diego Marín Buitrago’s current legal situation?
There are two relevant legal situations. The first is his legal-procedural relationship with the Government of Portugal. There he enjoys full freedom due to the habeas corpus granted in his favor on June 9, 2025. In Colombia, his only documented case is the accusation filed in the 5th Specialized Criminal Court of Bogotá for conspiracy to commit a crime and bribery. There is a preparatory hearing on July 15, where evidentiary requests will be made by the Prosecutor’s Office and likewise by Mr. Marín’s defense team.
2. EL TIEMPO established that he recently changed residence in Portugal. Was this notified to the authorities?
Of course. Not only as part of an obligation but because Mr. Marín’s interest has always been to stay attentive to his processes.
3. Where did the version that he had escaped come from? From the change of residence?
Definitely not, since (in Portugal and Colombia) the change was announced, including to the Prosecutor’s Office in Colombia through its delegates, clarifying that in Colombia it is not an obligation. That information has been provided unilaterally and voluntarily.
Why is he requesting to replace the preventive detention measure with a non-custodial one?
Law 906 stipulates that the duration of custodial preventive measures is one year, which can be extended for one more year only if the Prosecutor’s Office and/or the victims’ representation request it. Mr. Marín was imposed a preventive detention measure on February 4, 2025, and it was notified through diplomatic channels to Portugal. It was up to the Prosecutor’s Office or the very active alleged victim DIAN to request the extension before February 4, 2026, which neither did. For this reason, the law empowers the defense to request its lifting by imposing a non-custodial measure.
5. It was already denied at first instance. Did you appeal?
Yes. The appeal has already been argued, and we are awaiting a decision in accordance with the law.
6. Why was the extension of the measure not requested, as was done in Carlos Ramón González’s case, as you point out?
This is a very good question that the Attorney General should answer, as citizens deserve consistent responses in similar situations. For quite some time, the Constitutional Court has addressed these situations (legal certainty, coherence of judicial decisions, need to avoid contradictory rulings). The autonomy of delegated prosecutors cannot and should not be absolute in applying a law, as it would create a state of defenselessness that could border on arbitrariness, denial of access to justice administration, and violation of the fundamental right to equality.
Mr. Carlos Ramon González was charged in July 2025, is free in foreign territory under asylum proceedings, and the Prosecutor in his case requested before the Superior Court of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber, the extension of the preventive measure imposed on July 18, 2025, which was granted. In Diego Marín’s case, no extension was requested despite more than 16 months having passed: same situation, different standard (…) The only certainty is that in some cases the rule is being misinterpreted. In our opinion, Diego Marín is the one whose fundamental rights to due process, equal treatment, and presumption of innocence are being violated when he has been unfairly treated as the ‘czar of smuggling’, without even being charged with the autonomous crime of smuggling. He is called a criminal without having a conviction against him.
7. The reactivation of the red notice against your client was announced. How do you explain that decision?
The first thing is to understand the activation of the red notice, was it deactivated at some point? If so, who ordered that deactivation, on what date, and under what criteria? The INTERPOL file commission only executes updates of notices according to clearly established conditions; they are not autonomous to deactivate or activate Red Notices.
It is indicated that the location and subsequent capture of Diego Marín Buitrago are requested so that he appears in the process before the Colombian justice system; how can one order to locate someone who is already located, how to order to make a person appear in a process if that person is already appearing, and finally, how to order the capture of someone who cannot be captured because they are under the protection of international humanitarian law under the bubble of an asylum procedure in foreign territory is definitely incomprehensible information publicly disseminated; we are submitting requests to the Prosecutor’s Office and INTERPOL to obtain more information.
8. There is a new hearing on July 15. What arguments will you present? A possible plea deal with the Prosecutor’s Office?
No, categorically, the figure of terminating the process through a plea deal has not been considered. This defense has not received instructions from Mr. Marín in this regard, nor have we suggested it since we do not see material evidence that compromises his criminal responsibility within the charges presented.
What we have seen is a parallel trial with too much media misinformation. The media fulfill a function of transmitting what they receive from the authorities (police/prosecutor’s office), unfortunately, it is information without the possibility of being challenged.
(Consult here all the articles from EL TIEMPO’s Investigative Unit)
At this July 15 hearing, Mr. Marín’s defense will have the opportunity to challenge the evidentiary requests presented by the Prosecutor’s Office and, in turn, make requests aimed at demonstrating our client’s innocence. It is the beginning, and we are confident we can restore Diego Marín Buitrago’s name regarding the accusation made; there are many irregularities that we will be able to demonstrate during the trial.
INVESTIGATIVE UNIT
u.investigativa@eltiempo.com
@UinvestigativaET
Follow us now on Facebook
Read more Abelardo de la Espriella appoints María Nohemí Arboleda, current manager of XM, as Minister of Mines
