AN deputy Jorge Arreaza, who chairs the commission in charge of executing the Amnesty Law, reported that the body has received more than 3,000 requests
Deputy Jorge Arreaza, president of the parliamentary commission in charge of executing the Amnesty Law, reported that after the approval of the law, 177 releases have materialized and 2,021 full freedoms have been granted to citizens who were under presentation regimes.
During a meeting in Miraflores, Arreaza explained that the commission has received more than 3,000 requests and that the objective of the law is “democratic coexistence.” However, official figures contrast with independent monitoring: the NGO Foro Penal reports at least 65 specific releases since the law was passed last Thursday, within a universe of 464 releases verified since the beginning of January.
Despite official optimism, the implementation of the law faces obstacles in judicial practice. Opposition deputy Antonio Ecarri, a member of the same commission, denounced that he will request to investigate judges who delay the process, after reports that courts with jurisdiction in terrorism refused this Monday to receive requests related to the amnesty.
The outlook for those detained for political reasons remains uncertain. Foro Penal estimates that at least 400 political prisoners could be excluded from the benefit due to the classification of their crimes.
*Also read: Lawyer Joel García denounces paralysis in courts to apply Amnesty Law
The organization counts more than 600 people who still remain behind bars for political reasons, despite the fact that the Executive insists on denying the existence of this category of detainees.
While the Government adds full freedoms and precautionary measures, NGOs clarify that the majority of “releases” do not imply absolute freedom, but rather changes to restrictive measures such as a ban on leaving the country.
The lawyer and human rights defender Joel García denounced this Monday irregularities in the beginning of the process of dismissal requests covered by the recent Amnesty Law. Through his account on the social network
García indicated that, despite what was established in the rule approved on February 19, the courts maintain inactivity that blocks the progress of the cases. This complaint arises a few days after the entry into force of the law, which has been the subject of criticism from various organizations due to its limitations and exclusions.
The Arreaza commission assured that it will review cases “not contemplated” in the original regulations through the Program for Coexistence and Peace, in an attempt to respond to the more than 3,000 requests that continue to arrive at parliamentary offices.
Delcy Rodríguez after what Arreaza said
Regarding the amnesty, Delcy Rodríguez, in charge of the Executive, said that some sectors are making an “incorrect” reading of what is happening in the country with the norm. He denounced alleged plans by people in the United States and Europe to “disrupt” the process.
«Sectors are giving an incorrect reading of the amnesty law and the coexistence program. They already have plans and in due course I am going to show them to the country so that they know who, from a luxurious hotel in the United States or in Europe, intends to derail this process,” he said at a meeting with “victims of political violence” at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas.
He did not name the people who would be conspiring against the rule, but insisted that the alleged sectors seek to “disturb” the “tranquility” in Venezuela and are measuring the process from a “partisan political defeat.”
«And there I say: no repetition. And there I do call for genuine and true justice because enough is enough, enough is enough. This process (…) must be taken care of,” he continued.
Journalism in Venezuela is carried out in a hostile environment for the press with dozens of legal instruments in place to punish the word, especially the laws “against hate”, “against fascism” and “against the blockade.” This content was written taking into consideration the threats and limits that, consequently, have been imposed on the dissemination of information from within the country.
Post Views: 77
