COLOMBIA · SECURITY
Key Facts
—What happened A Bogotá court lifted its own suspension of air strikes in areas where recruited minors are present.
—Which court The 34th family court of Bogotá, in a ruling dated 16 September 2026.
—What replaced the ban A reinforced standard of precaution: more intelligence checks, a search for less harmful options and a written proportionality test.
—How it started A constitutional action filed by lawyer Ower Jimmy Borda Parra after a strike in Guaviare on 27 August killed three minors.
—The military view The armed forces argued the ban would encourage armed groups to keep children in their camps as protection.
—What is not settled The ruling can be appealed, and the court has not said who verifies that the new conditions were met.
The ban is gone. The conditions that replaced it are stricter than what existed before the ban.
A Bogotá court lifted its suspension of air strikes in areas where minors are present. Photo: Petruss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
One-stop reference
Company Intelligence
Every listed company in Latin America — financials, ownership and structure for 1,450+ companies across 26 exchanges, in one place.
A Bogotá court lifted its suspension of Colombian air strikes in areas where recruited minors are present. The 34th family court issued the ruling on 16 September 2026. It replaced the ban with a stricter set of conditions the military must meet before it strikes.
What the Court Had Stopped
The same court had ordered a halt to bombardment wherever reliable information placed recruited minors in the target area.
That was a precautionary measure taken while a constitutional protection case was heard.
Lawyer Ower Jimmy Borda Parra brought the case.
The trigger was an operation in Guaviare on 27 August against the dissident group led by alias Calarcá.
Three minors aged 15, 15 and 16 were killed in that strike.
What the Court Now Requires
The judge lifted the blanket suspension and imposed what the ruling calls a reinforced standard of precaution.
Where information about minors is certain, objective or reasonably verifiable, the military must intensify intelligence verification.
It must assess alternatives that carry less risk before choosing an air strike.
And it must carry out a concrete proportionality assessment rather than a general one.
Why the Government Fought the Ban
The armed forces and the government argued that a public ban creates an incentive.
If a camp with children cannot be struck, armed groups have a reason to keep children in every camp.
Recruitment of minors by dissident and guerrilla groups has risen through the past three years.
The counter-argument, accepted by the court in August, is that the state cannot bomb children to reach commanders.
The Incidents Behind the Case
On 10 August an ELN bombing in Catatumbo killed a 16-year-old.
On 27 August, Operation Amón against Calarcá’s group killed three minors in Guaviare.
On 30 August a strike against the group led by Iván Mordisco recovered two people who said they were minors.
Those three episodes in one month turned a long-standing legal question into an urgent one.
The government argued the suspension would let armed groups shelter behind children.
An Old Argument in Colombia
The same dispute surfaced under previous governments whenever air strikes killed recruited children.
Colombian law treats minors in armed groups as victims of recruitment, not as combatants.
International humanitarian law allows strikes on military targets but requires proportionality and precaution.
The tension between those two positions has never been resolved by legislation, only case by case.
What Changes in Practice
Air strikes can resume immediately, which was the government’s main objective.
Commanders now carry a documented burden they did not carry before the case.
A written proportionality record creates evidence that can be reviewed later by courts or prosecutors.
However, the ruling does not say which body checks compliance, or what happens when it is not met.
The case was brought as a constitutional protection action before a Bogotá court.
Who Is Affected
The military regains a tool it uses against dissident commanders in remote terrain.
Families of recruited children gain a procedural standard, though not a guarantee.
Armed groups lose the shield the suspension effectively handed them.
And prosecutors gain a paper trail for any future case about a strike.
What to Watch
Whether the ruling is appealed by either side.
The next air operation against a dissident camp, and how the new standard is documented.
Any figures published on minors recruited or recovered this year.
And whether Congress attempts to write the standard into law rather than leaving it to courts.
More: Latin America news and analysis, every day from The Rio Times.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Bogotá court decide?
It lifted its suspension of air strikes in areas where recruited minors are present and replaced it with stricter conditions.
Which court issued it?
The 34th family court of Bogotá, on 16 September 2026.
What are the new conditions?
Intensified intelligence verification, assessment of less harmful alternatives and a concrete proportionality test before striking.
Why was the ban imposed?
After a strike in Guaviare on 27 August killed three minors aged 15, 15 and 16.
What did the military argue?
That a public ban gives armed groups a reason to keep children in their camps.
Can the ruling be appealed?
Yes. The ruling can be appealed, and it does not name the body responsible for checking compliance.
Sources: Ruling of the 34th family court of Bogotá, 16 September 2026, as reported by El Tiempo, El Heraldo and El Colombiano.