Colombia’s Justice System, Government Clash Over Airstrikes Involving Children

The decision by a family court in Bogota has opened a new front of confrontation between Colombia’s judiciary and the executive branch over one of the most controversial tools in the fight against illegal armed groups: airstrikes.

The measure was adopted after several minors were killed in military operations against criminal groups that, according to authorities and human rights organizations, recruit and use children and teenagers within their ranks.

The government of President Abelardo de la Espriella rejected the decision and announced that it will appeal it. Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara called the ruling “absurd and unconstitutional,” while defending the need to maintain the Colombian military’s offensive capabilities.

However, the court decision does not impose a blanket ban on airstrikes. It is a provisional measure that temporarily restricts such operations when there is certain, objective, or reasonably verifiable information indicating the presence of minors who have been recruited or used by armed groups.

Colombia’s justice system, government clash over airstrikes involving children

The measure was issued by Bogota’s 34th Family Court as part of its review of a tutela action — a legal mechanism for the immediate protection of fundamental rights when they are violated by a public authority.

The judge ordered the Office of the President, the Ministry of Defense, and the Armed Forces to refrain from carrying out offensive air operations against targets where there is information indicating the presence of children or teenagers who have been recruited or used by armed organizations.

The suspension will remain in effect while a final ruling on the tutela is issued and while authorities implement and verify precautionary and protective measures. The order also states that authorities must determine whether there is a less harmful operational alternative for achieving the legitimate military objective.

The scope of the decision prompted an immediate reaction from the executive branch. Lara said judicial decisions must be respected but can also be criticized, and he specifically questioned the expression “reasonably verifiable” used by the judge.

According to the minister, that criterion could create uncertainty for military personnel on the ground. He explained that if the mere existence of an indication or a source warning of the possible presence of minors is enough to halt an operation, the use of airstrikes could become practically impossible.

The government argues that the issue has a particular characteristic that cannot be ignored: in many cases, minors do not arrive at armed groups’ camps by their own choice but are forcibly recruited and subsequently used by those organizations.

Lara warned that a restriction based solely on the presence of minors could ultimately benefit the criminal groups that recruit them. The minister believes that making the presence of children a condition that prevents a military operation could create an incentive for illegal groups to keep them in their camps.

Some analysts told local media that this type of judicial protection could be used by armed organizations to hinder air operations, with minors even being used as “human shields to limit the state’s offensive capabilities.”

Los fallos de la justicia se respetan, pero también pueden – y deben – ser objeto de crítica.

Ordenar la abstención de una operación aérea cuando exista información “cierta, objetiva o razonablemente verificable” sobre la presencia de menores reclutados establece un criterio de… https://t.co/qjV7UfI6QP

— Rodrigo Lara 🇨🇴 (@Rodrigo_Lara_) September 3, 2026

A controversy that goes back years

The debate over airstrikes against armed groups in Colombia did not begin with the De la Espriella administration. In recent years, different governments have faced scrutiny when minors inside illegal organizations’ camps were killed during air operations.

The controversy stems precisely from the clash between two state obligations: militarily combating armed groups and protecting children and teenagers who have been illegally drawn into the conflict.

The Ombudsman’s Office has warned about the scale of child recruitment. Between January and May 2026, it recorded 51 cases of the forced recruitment of minors, while between 2024 and July 31 of this year, it became aware of 1,173 cases. The agency has also noted that there is significant underreporting and that some cases only become known when minors are killed in combat or during operations by the security forces.

The Bogota ruling became public after three minors were killed in an airstrike carried out in a jungle area of Guaviare against a structure belonging to FARC dissidents. The incident once again placed at the center of the debate the state’s responsibility toward minors who remain within armed organizations.

While the judiciary determines the final scope of the tutela, the government is preparing its appeal. The dispute, therefore, is not limited to determining whether airstrikes should continue. At its core, it pits two positions against each other over how the state should act when a legitimate military target is located in a place where minors recruited by armed groups are also present.

The outcome of this controversy could become a precedent for future military operations and, at the same time, force the state to clarify how far its offensive against criminal organizations can go when the presence of children and teenagers is part of the reality of the conflict.