The more than 100 female Colombian journalists who signed the ‘No to the pact of silence’ – a petition calling for answers about former president Andrés Pastrana’s appearance in the Jeffrey Epstein files –have posed 10 questions to candidates in the upcoming presidential elections.

The questions, shared on X last Sunday, intend to make the candidates take a clear position before the public on key women’s issues, including the mentions of Pastrana in the Epstein files. 

So far, only two candidates – Roy Barreras and Sondra Macollins – have responded publicly to the questions, which come amid what some have described as Colombia’s #MeToo movement.

“We asked 10 questions to those seeking the presidency,” wrote Ana Cristina Restrepo, one of the women leading the ‘No to the pact of silence’, in an X post on April 12.

The questions addressed the preservation of abortion rights, equal representation in positions of high power, protocols to address violence against women, and the commitment to the continuation, protection, and strengthening of related public policies in support of women’s rights. 

Among the 102 women behind the questions are public figures like: María Elvira Samper, a writer, journalist and philosopher; Patricia Nieto, professor at the University of Antioquia and journalist; and Maria Teresa Ronderos, Director of the Ibero-American Center for Journalistic Investigation (CLIP).

The list also includes Jineth Bedoya Lima, a pioneer of #NoEsHoraDeCallar (it is not the time to be quiet) a campaign that denounces sexual violence and urges survivors to speak out against gender-based violence. Bedoya is herself a survivor of kidnapping, torture and sexual violence by paramilitaries in 2000, with her case going to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The first candidate to respond to the questions was center-left presidential hopeful Roy Barreras of the La Fuerza Party. “101 women signatories of #NoAlPactoDeSilencio, representing thousands of others, have put these 10 questions to the presidential candidates. Here, in this thread, are my answers,” he wrote on X on April 13.

Sondra Macollins, an independent candidate for the Digital Party, also answered in an X post on April 14.“I want to respond to what has been raised by #NoAlPactoDeSilencio because the truth is not negotiable,” she said.

“The time of the ‘untouchables’ and complicit silence is over. If there are names linked to Andrés Pastrana and Epstein, the country demands clear answers,” added Macollins.

The questions are seen as part of a new women’s rights movement which started in Colombia following the appearance of former president Andrés Pastrana in the Epstein files.

The materials included a photo of Pastrana and Ghislaine Maxwell wearing Colombian Air Force uniforms, alleged compromising emails, and testimonies where Maxwell described the two as friends and claimed to have flown a Black Hawk in Colombia. There were also reports that Pastrana flew on a private jet with Epstein and disgraced agent Jean-Luc Brunel, accused of recruiting minors for the late financier.

Later, #MeTooColombia was brought into focus following allegations by female journalists of sexual harassment in media outlets such as RTVC and Caracol.

According to the official ballot issued by Colombia’s National Civil Registry, there are 14 presidential candidates for the first round, which will take place on May 31. Four of them are women.

The post Colombia’s #MeToo movement advances with questions for presidential candidates appeared first on The Bogotá Post.

Colombia is on the verge of banning female genital mutilation (FGM), as lawmakers advance legislation that would outlaw a practice still reported in parts of the country, making it the only nation in Latin America where cases have been documented.

In a unanimous decision, the First Commission of the Senate approved the bill in its third debate, leaving just one final vote in the full chamber before it can become law — a significant step in addressing a practice widely condemned as a violation of human rights.

The initiative, known as Bill 440 of 2025 (accumulated with 239 of 2024), seeks not only to prohibit FGM but to eradicate the conditions that allow it to persist, particularly in indigenous communities.

“This is about settling a historic debt with Indigenous women and girls,” Representative Jennifer Pedraza said after the vote. “Eradicating this violent and limiting practice is essential to guaranteeing their health and dignity.”

Globally, more than 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM, according to the World Health Organization. The practice, defined as the partial or total removal of external female genitalia for non-medical reasons, is most often carried out on minors and can lead to severe bleeding, infections, complications in childbirth and long-term psychological trauma.

While FGM is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, Colombia’s case has drawn particular concern due to its singular status in the Americas. Lawmakers noted that the practice disproportionately affects very young girls, often under the age of one, with cases concentrated in the departments of La Guajira, Chocó and Risaralda.

Official data show a gradual decline in reported cases: 91 in 2023, 54 in 2024 and 39 so far in 2025. Authorities caution, however, that underreporting, is pervasive.

The bill marks a strategic shift away from punitive approaches toward prevention, education and intercultural dialogue. Senator Clara López, who led the initiative in the Senate, argued that criminalization alone has failed to eliminate the practice elsewhere.

“In countries where FGM has been banned for decades, prevalence remains high,” López said during the debate, pointing to cases such as Mali and Egypt, where rates have remained above 80% despite legal prohibitions.

The legislation was developed through consultations with Indigenous leaders, including representatives of the Emberá community, where cases have been recorded. Juliana Dominico, a spokesperson for the Emberá, backed the bill while stressing that FGM is not an essential cultural or spiritual practice.

Supporters argue that framing FGM solely as a criminal issue risks driving it underground and alienating communities. Instead, the proposed law emphasizes public health strategies, education campaigns and culturally sensitive engagement to encourage abandonment of the practice.

International bodies have long called for a coordinated response. In 2008, the World Health Assembly adopted Resolution WHA61.16, urging governments to act across sectors including health, education, justice and social services.

Beyond its immediate health risks, FGM is widely recognized as a violation of fundamental rights, including bodily integrity and freedom from cruel or degrading treatment. In some cases, the procedure can be fatal.

The economic burden is also significant. The WHO estimates that treating complications related to FGM costs health systems around $1.4 billion annually, a figure expected to rise without stronger efforts to end the practice.

If approved in its final debate, Colombia’s ban would mark a turning point for the hemisphere, aligning the country with global efforts to eliminate FGM while testing a prevention-focused model that lawmakers hope will succeed where criminalization alone has fallen short.