The NGOs condemned that the amnesty bill does not repeal the legal framework that allows persecution for political reasons, which, according to them, leaves the door open to new arrests even after its eventual application.
Human rights organizations reiterated their support for the full, immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, but warned about the risks contained in the first draft of the amnesty bill that the National Assembly approved last Thursday, February 5, and which was announced a day later.
In a statement, the Committee of Relatives of the Victims of the Events of February-March 1989 (Cofavic) recalled that the release of people detained for political reasons does not constitute a favor from the State, but rather the restitution of fundamental rights and guarantees, and that it can be executed immediately without the need for a new law, through compliance with the Constitution, given the repeated violations of due process documented in these cases.
Several organizations and human rights defenders stressed that the process that is oriented towards peace and reconciliation must be based on a genuine will of the State and must generate trust in society. In this sense, they indicated that amnesties that do not comply with international standards and that hinder the obligations of truth, justice and reparation generate international responsibility, aggravate human rights violations and do not contribute to authentic reconciliation.
The general coordinator of Provea, Óscar Murillo, expressed concern about the wording of the explanatory memorandum of the legislative project. “We remain concerned about the wording of two aspects in the explanatory statement: the spirit of a law of this nature is not to attribute blame to one sector and it insists on presenting the amnesty as an ‘act of sovereign clemency,'” he said.
Murillo also indicated that the organizations are reviewing the first draft of the amnesty proposal, but requested that the version of the document be confirmed. “We demand maximum transparency and breadth from the commission that will be in charge of the consultation process,” he wrote in his account of
The bill, which consists of 13 articles, strictly limits its application to 10 specific moments linked to events classified as political violence. These include the 2002 coup d’état; the civic and oil strike of 2002–2003; the events of February–March and August 2004; the events of May 2007; the events linked to the presidential elections of April 2013; the demonstrations between February and June 2014; between March and August 2017; between January and April 2019; and protests related to the 2024 presidential elections, as established in article 6 of the project.
*Read also: Amnesty proposed by Delcy Rodríguez limits its scope to 10 historical episodes
The organizations warned that the text excludes people convicted under the Simón Bolívar Law, the Law Against Hate and other instruments considered repressive, as well as cases that remain under military jurisdiction. They also warned that the project does not contemplate the repeal of the legal framework that allowed and continues to allow persecution for political reasons, which – in their opinion – It leaves the door open for new arrests even after an eventual application of the amnesty.
Likewise, they pointed out that the proposal does not guarantee the safe return of exiled people, does not lift political disqualifications and does not establish comprehensive reparation mechanisms for victims of human rights violations.
Another aspect questioned is that the amnesty would not be automatic. According to article 9, its application must be requested and is subject to judicial verification, maintaining wide margins of discretion in the hands of the same system that carried out the political persecution.
These criticisms were joined by the Committee for the Freedom of Social Fighters, which rejected the project disseminated on social networks, considering that it does not establish responsibilities or justice against those who violated human rights, does not guarantee reparation for direct and indirect victims, blames and re-victimizes those affected, and presents the amnesty as an act of “clemency”, as if the victims were to blame.
The organization also warned that the text does not contemplate measures or limits that prevent the repetition of acts against freedom and democracy.
For her part, opposition leader Delsa Solórzano affirmed that the proposal is insufficient to move forward towards a comprehensive solution that guarantees justice, reconciliation and the full restitution of the rule of law, as well as the freedom of political prisoners with guarantees of non-repetition.
Solórzano demanded the immediate release and without further delay of all people deprived of liberty for political reasons, as well as the full and immediate reestablishment of constitutional order, as indispensable conditions for any serious process of justice and democratic transition.
*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: 137
