Venezuela: it's time to renew the UN Fact Finding Mission

The FFM was established to unify efforts in the fight for justice for victims and to serve as a deterrent to further human rights violations and possible atrocity crimes. Renewing its mandate would allow the FFM to continue gathering evidence of serious, ongoing human rights violations. It would be a further step towards establishing accountability for the terrible suffering of the Venezuelan people since 2014. It would also send a clear message to perpetrators that, sooner or later, they will have to answer for the crimes they are committing.

As long as justice cannot be obtained internally in Venezuela, due to obstacles carefully documented by the FFM in its report on the lack of judicial independence, and as long as perpetrators, at all levels, continue to evade investigation and accountability, the FFM remains a unique and critical tool in laying the foundations for truth, justice, reparations, and protection for victims, survivors and their families, as well as the general population.

Renewing the mandate of the FFM is particularly important at this time in Venezuela, in the context of the presidential elections of 28 July 2024, and the legislative and regional elections scheduled for 2025. In this electoral context, Venezuelan authorities have repeatedly violated their international obligations under international human rights treaties currently in force. These violations include politically motivated arbitrary detentions and arrest warrants against activists, human rights defenders and members of the opposition, as well as the disqualification from holding public office of political opponents, including María Corina Machado. Reprisals for the work on human rights protection of UN agencies also continued, including with the expulsion of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The government has also proposed laws that would severely restrict civic space and freedom of expression and association.

As a result, the FFM’s mandate cannot yet be considered satisfied and remains a mechanism for the Human Rights Council to have an impact on improving the human rights situation in the country by deterring further escalation in the commission of possible crimes under international law and documenting those that have already occurred and remain unpunished. 

The FFM has a fundamental role in guaranteeing the rights to truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition for victims of human rights violations and international crimes, as well as in highlighting the structural reforms necessary to prevent future abuses. The FFM has documented hundreds of cases, identified patterns of crimes under international law, and established a list of people whose participation should be investigated by independent and credible judicial authorities. 

The FFM was one of the first international mechanisms to assert forcefully that Venezuelan authorities have committed serious human rights violations as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population that could constitute crimes against humanity. It identified mid- and high-ranking authorities, including the head of state, as possibly responsible for human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions, politically motivated detentions and torture, as well as abuses against demonstrators and revealed the active role of the Venezuelan judiciary in committing human rights violations and ensuring impunity for these egregious abuses, as well as the various mechanisms of repression employed by the rest of the state officials.

Likewise, the FFM evidenced the existence of a plan to repress the opposition or those perceived as such, as well as human rights violations in the Arco Minero del Orinoco and other areas of the State of Bolivar and the lack of genuine reform of law enforcement institutions following the dissolution of the Special Action Forces (FAES).

In a context of impunity, repression and censorship in Venezuela, and almost no progress in human rights, the existence of an independent mechanism of investigation and accountability such as the FFM has allowed victims to be heard and to contribute to guaranteeing their right to justice, truth and reparation. In addition, its reports are a valuable input for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and criminal cases under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

The FFM could further be mandated to raise early warnings of further deterioration of the human rights situation, in particular ahead of the elections scheduled for 2024 and 2025. Similar HRC-investigative bodies, including for Burundi, South Sudan and Myanmar, have conducted similar assessments to provide early warning information about the recurrence of atrocity crimes. It should also document the serious human rights violations committed during the electoral period, focusing in guaranteeing the non-repetition of these crimes and violations in Venezuela. 

Based on the mandate already established, the FFM could also deepen its investigation, (i) with an emphasis on various groups in situations of vulnerability, including women, children, and Indigenous peoples; (ii) taking into consideration the specific conditions and circumstances of certain geographic regions heavily affected by violence; iii) investigating the links between the government of Nicolás Maduro and armed and criminal groups; iv) deepening its research on the role of the different branches of the security forces in repression; and v) investigating other forms of persecution and social control related to access to goods, services, social programs or state salaries.

Failure to renew the mandate of the FFM in 2024 would have negative implications for the protection of victims, survivors and the general population, including their right to truth, justice and reparations, due to several factors:

• the absence of another UN mechanism with a mandate to investigate systematic human rights abuses and violations with a view to full accountability of perpetrators;
• the lack of a dedicated mechanism to collect and preserve evidence and proof, not only for accountability purposes, but also as part of the victims’ and society’s right to truth and memory;
• the discontinuity in the work carried out during the five years of the FFM’s existence;
• the lack of a mechanism to follow up on the recommendations issued in its previous reports in terms of accountability, reparations and measures to prevent the recurrence of abuses.

Yes!

The UN Human Rights Council mandated OHCHR to report on human rights violations in Venezuela and to collaborate technically with the Venezuelan authorities to improve the human rights situation on the ground. This mandate differs from and complements that of the FFM, which focuses on identifying individual responsibilities, accountability and denouncing human rights violations and crimes under international law. For example, OHCHR is not tasked with collecting and preserving evidence for future prosecutions, which underscores the complementarity of the two mandates. 

In addition to OHCHR, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber has authorised moving forward with the investigation into the Venezuela situation. However, these investigations are still in a preliminary stage identifying cases, and it is recognised that, in accordance with the principle of the interests of justice as set out in the Rome Statute and the policy of the Office of the Prosecutor, not all direct or indirect perpetrators will be prosecuted. Therefore, the FFM continues to have the responsibility to document, identify and expose the perpetrators and chains of command that must be investigated in order for victims to obtain truth, justice and reparations. The ICC Office of the Prosecutor will continue to focus on building a concrete indictment against specific individuals, while the FFM would continue to document structural problems, given that its mandate encompasses a broader set of human rights abuses and violations. In addition, the FFM could continue to obtain evidence for further proceedings to be initiated or advanced in national jurisdictions.

Presidential elections are due on 28th July, with the main opposition candidate María Corina Machado banned from standing. The candidate that all opposition parties have agreed to support is Edmundo González. Efforts to have electoral monitoring from either the UN / EU or Carter Centre are all facing obstacles.  In addition, 2025 will see a whole set of other elections (legislative and local) where active UN monitoring will be key. 

In January 2024 the National Assembly reactivated the process of adoption on the NGO law. The bill was introduced and quickly passed by the National Assembly on 24 January 2023, even though its text contradicts international human rights norms and standards. On 9 January 2024, efforts to approve this law were resumed with the announcement by the President of the National Assembly to hold a public consultation on the content of the bill, with the objective of having a second discussion leading to its final approval. If enacted, this law would hinder freedom of association by forcing CSOs to seek the authorization of the government to operate freely and disclose any foreign funding. The bill’s explicit emphasis on foreign funding has been pointed out as a cause for concern, as it would provide for a periodic review of such funds and financing, violating the right to privacy of NGOs and their members and guaranteeing greater control over the organisations on behalf of the government.  The language of the bill is worrisome, as its vague and ambiguous character rings the alarm bells of persecution against human rights defenders with possible fines, cancellation of registration of their organisation and even criminal charges. These steps further restrict civic space in the context of the electoral period, when the work of civil society in monitoring, denouncing and documenting a wide range of ongoing and escalating human rights violations and abuses is more critical than ever. 

Civil society partners have faced a new wave of repression. On 9 February 2024, renowned human rights defender Rocío San Miguel was arbitrarily detained at Caracas Airport in Venezuela, while traveling with her daughter. Her detention follows a pattern of systematic arbitrary arrests and short-term enforced disappearances in the country. While the Attorney General acknowledged her detention, he failed to provide  information on her whereabouts, despite efforts by her legal team to locate her. Some of San Miguel’s family members were also detained and later released. Other cases include the ongoing arrest of Javier Tarazona (over 900 days) and the arrest of multiple opposition figures. 

On 15 February, the Venezuelan government announced it was suspending the activities of the OHCHR, signalling a concerning escalation in the country’s attempts to evade international scrutiny and accountability. This decision came soon after the OHCHR expressed concern regarding the detention of San Miguel, noting that ‘her whereabouts remain unknown, potentially qualifying her detention as an enforced disappearance’. The announced suspension also took place a day after the publication of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food’s report on his recent visit to Venezuela. 

As a consequence of these developments, Civicus put Venezuela on March 2024 ‘Watchlist’, downgrading it to ‘closed’ for civic space.