For the past five years, Marta Valiñas has led the United Nations mission investigating the government of President Nicolás Maduro for alleged human rights violations.
To date, Valiñas’ team has documented 850 cases of serious human rights violations in Venezuelawhich include arbitrary detentions, torture, sexual violence and forced disappearances, among other crimes.
In its latest report, the independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela warned that The authorities “launched an unprecedented campaign of mass and indiscriminate arrests” after the July 28 elections, in which Maduro was proclaimed the winner without showing the voting records.
On Friday, October 11, one day after this report was published, The UN Human Rights Council renewed the mission’s mandate for two years with the vote in favor of 23 countries (including Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic), 18 abstentions (including Brazil) and 6 countries against (Algeria, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Sudan and Vietnam).
The testimonies collected by the mission chaired by Valiñas can be used for the file “Venezuela I”, the investigation that the International Criminal Court (ICC) undertook against the Maduro government for alleged crimes against humanity and which constitutes the first case in Latin America that reaches this stage.
However, Spokesmen for the Maduro government have rejected the mission’s reportspointing out that they are “riddled with falsehoods” or have been “vulgar” and “pamphleteers.” In addition, they have disqualified the mission by describing it as an entity “controlled by governments subordinate to Washington.”
Valiñas spoke with BBC Mundo to explain the findings that the mission made public in its latest report on political persecution in Venezuela after the elections. This interview was edited for publication.
You have pointed out that Venezuela is going through one of the most acute crises in its recent history in the area of human rights. What types of violations has the mission documented after the elections?
In the post-election period, state repression of critical voices or people perceived as opposed to the government intensified.
On the one hand, there is the massive and indiscriminate nature of the arbitrary arrests that occurred after the elections. And on the other, the way in which they were carried out. In some cases, state security forces went to homes, often without a warrant, and detained people solely because of a video or statement they had found on social media.
The problem is that this massiveness and this indiscriminate nature were accompanied by several serious violations of due process, which occurred repeatedly and systematically, and left people totally vulnerable.
It is not only the fact that they did not have an arrest warrant or were not informing about the reasons for the captures, but that they were not allowed access to their family or to lawyers of their choice, not even to civil society organizations that provide services. legal assistance.
What kinds of repressive practices are being applied now that mission investigators have not documented in previous years?
Firstly, there are collective hearings where charges such as terrorism or incitement to hatred are brought without individualization of the conduct of each of these people. We did not see this in the protests of 2014, 2017 or 2019. Some of the hearings were held with the children and adolescents who were detained, without the presence of their parents or legal assistance.
We have been able to investigate some individual cases, but only a small sample of this enormous universe of cases. For example, in our report we report on 2 girls who were detained because they were passing near a protest and they were insulted, beaten, and detained along with adult men. One was released, but the other remained detained and was a victim of groping while pregnant. That is sexual violence and it is a violation of their reproductive rights. We had not seen the detention of children and adolescents of this magnitude.
On the other hand, selective arrests of people with a known public profile became more massive, such as the cases of Freddy Superlano, María Oropeza or William Dávila. We had seen this in cases like that of Rocío San Miguel and other people who were detained with their families. The thing is, all of this happened in a very short period. That is why we say that it is unprecedented in the recent history of Venezuela. The authorities are no longer concerned with giving an appearance of legality.
Sexual violence
The mission has described in its reports torture techniques that include sexual abuse against detainees. In the latest report, for example, it is noted that “rape against men is commonly used as a tool of punishment and humiliation.” What do the sexual violence practices that have been documented consist of?
We have documented cases of detained men who were beaten or given electric shocks to their genitals. We have women who talk about groping or the case of a woman who had reported that she was pregnant and was still beaten and lost her baby. There are girls and women who, when detained, were forced to undress in front of male guards. This also appears in cases after the elections.
There are cases of female detainees who are coerced into having sexual relations with guards to have access to basic goods, but which are seen as benefits or privileges within prisons.
Can the mission demonstrate that this has been systematic?
In our reports we have documented these events within the group of cases we are evaluating: opposition people or perceived as such. In the first reports, there were more cases of male victims because they were soldiers accused of allegedly being involved in conspiracies. It must be clarified that we are not looking at sexual violence in general, but only in the cases we are analyzing.
It is difficult to talk about systematicity in the same way as in other crimes and this has to do with the difficulties inherent in investigating cases of sexual violence. There are victims who are open to talking about this, but there are many who are not. However, we have seen that these practices are repeated over the years. In terms of torture practices, they do occur repeatedly.
Have the mission’s investigators had access to prisons or detention centers to speak directly with victims? Is there any level of cooperation with the Maduro government that guarantees that access?
We have never had access to prisons because we do not have access to the territory or the authorities. Since the mission was created in 2019, the authorities have never responded to any communication or request to receive information from them or to enter the country.
However, we have had access to information from detained people. But after the elections, they do not have private lawyers and family members have not been able to visit them. Part of our concern and that of the organizations in Venezuela is that these people are abandoned, without the possibility of their lawyers reviewing the files or telling their families what is happening to them.
On social networks we have seen testimonies from mothers asking the government and the courts for clemency after the arrest of children and adolescents who were not even participating in demonstrations. What is the situation of minors who are in jail at this moment?
That’s part of what we’re collecting now. We are receiving information from different sources that both adults and children are being forced to admit the charges. They tell them that if they do not accept, they will impose much higher penalties. “You’re going to spend 20 years in prison, so you better recognize that you were doing this.” That’s happening now. And it is extremely worrying, especially when we talk about children.
A state policy?
At what point do human rights violations constitute crimes against humanity and how is it proven?
For them to be crimes against humanity, they must be provided for in the Rome Statute. Not all crimes such as torture, sexual violence or arbitrary detentions are. Crimes against humanity are considered when they are committed as part of an attack on a population, that is, when there are several incidents that are part of the same line of conduct against a civilian population. These incidents have to be committed in a widespread or systematic way. If it is generalized, there are many cases and it occurs in several places. If it is systematic, it is a pattern of action.
It must also be proven that they are committed under a State policy. Why have we said, already in 2020, that crimes against humanity were being committed and why do we believe they are being committed now? Because they are part of the same line of conduct and under the same State policy. These are the legal requirements.
And it does not have to be the State that executes the crimes, but it is a policy designed by the State that could then be implemented by individuals. For example, we have many allegations about the involvement of armed civilians, the collectives, and to what extent they are acting not only with the knowledge of State agents, but in coordination with them, under their instructions.
They are civilians, but they may be acting under the same policy that comes from the State. And it is a policy of silencing, nullifying and suffocating the opposition, broadly understood. It is not only a political opposition, but also one of activists, journalists or human rights defenders.
We had not said this before, but in the last report we said that the crime of persecution based on political motives is a crime that is provided for in the Rome Statute. We believe that this crime against humanity, the crime of persecution based on political motives, is being committed at this moment because the detained boys and girls, the members of the polling stations or people who simply posted something on their social networks against the electoral results , are being the target of this repression for expressing their opinions, which are seen as criticism or a threat to the government and which must be nullified, eliminated.
Throughout its work, the mission has documented and analyzed at least 850 cases. 520 of them constitute arbitrary detentions and 170 correspond to torture and ill-treatment. How is this entire body of research transformed into input for the International Criminal Court’s file against the Maduro government?
We have said publicly that we are willing to share the information we collect. Not only the reports that are already public, but the interviews we conducted, the court files and other documents to which we have had access.
We are willing to share it both with the International Criminal Court and with other jurisdictions that act under the principle of universal jurisdiction, as is the case of the two processes that are open. in Argentina for crimes against humanity committed in Venezuela. We can share that information as long as the person who interviewed us gives us consent to do so.
For now, what is public is that the Prosecutor’s Office of the International Criminal Court, in all its documents on Venezuela but most significantly in the last one, has cited our reports exhaustively in front of judges to argue why it should be allowed the Prosecutor’s Office to continue investigating Venezuela.
A country without armed conflict
On the one hand, the Maduro government fires the staff of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Caracas, but on the other it assures that it will allow the installation of the ICC office. What does it mean when one mechanism closes, but at the same time another opens?
Honestly, it’s hard to understand what the strategy is. They always rejected the existence of this mission and any findings because it is also in line with other members of the Human Rights Council who defend that these mechanisms should not be created without the consent of the State.
We are talking about countries like China, Iran and Russia. We are independent, we act completely separate from the Office of the High Commissioner, although Venezuela has always tried to create this antagonism between the two (the mission and the office) for its own interest. Venezuela can expel staff from the office and reject the existence of our mission, but that has no impact on the ICC, they carry out their investigations without the government being able to stop that process.
You have worked in countries that have experienced armed conflicts such as Colombia, Guatemala or Bosnia and Herzegovina. What particularities have you seen in Venezuela compared to other countries?
The particularity of Venezuela is that we have serious violations of human rights, which are continuing over time with very serious and intense consequences for the population, both at a humanitarian level and respect for human rights, in a country that is supposedly at peace. , where there is no armed conflict.
This generates great wear and tear on the population and human rights defenders, who try to resist. That’s impressive. Despite all this continued repression, civil society organizations maintain a very high level of capacity and professionalism and with surprising courage. Furthermore, Venezuela is increasingly closing itself off to international scrutiny and what technical assistance on human rights could achieve.
What does the renewal of the mission’s mandate until 2026 mean?
For the people who are suffering these violations, for society in general and for human rights defense organizations, it is very important that this work exists at an international level and that the issue of Venezuela is kept on the table. It is important to support the work of these organizations and their protection.
With this decision, the Human Rights Council gave a very symbolic message. There is a perception that autocratic countries, which do not respect the international order for the protection of human rights, are becoming stronger. But at the same time, positions like this are very important signs that an entity like the Council does denounce what is happening in Venezuela.
What do you consider to be the greatest contribution of the mission?
Our work gives encouragement to victims and defenders, gives them a voice in international forums. We try not to normalize the situation in Venezuela, to not forget what is happening, simply because it is no longer in the news of the day. In the long term, the most tangible result of our work will be to contribute to accountability processes. In the future, I think it will collaborate with transitional justice discussions.
- “My son spends the day crying and gives his food to other prisoners because he no longer wants to eat”: the testimony of the mother of one of the more than 100 teenagers detained after the elections in Venezuela
- The Argentine Justice orders the capture of Nicolás Maduro and Diosdado Cabello for alleged crimes against humanity