The International Criminal Court (ICC) is crucial for Venezuelan victims and for society as a whole. It represents the possibility of prosecuting the most atrocious crimes committed in the country before the highest global tribunal, given the impossibility of obtaining justice within the Venezuelan judicial system. This process generates enormous expectations and also resistance: victims cry out for justice, while those responsible and their allies try to halt judicial progress and normalize repression.
On social media and in the media, hope and frustration coexist. At times, a defeatist discourse that disregards any international avenue gains ground: from the UN to the OAS, including the Inter-American Court and the ICC. This noise seeks to silence the voices of victims and sow discouragement. However, despite this hostile environment and the unprecedented pressures facing the Court—including threats following the arrest warrants against Putin and Netanyahu—the investigation into Venezuela continues.
What has happened in the Venezuela I situation?
The preliminary examination began in 2018, following the 2017 crackdown. In 2021, Prosecutor Karim Khan announced the formal launch of the investigation from Caracas. Since then, the Venezuelan government has attempted to halt the process, appealing to the cooperation required by the principle of complementarity. But that phase ended: Venezuela lost its six appeals between November 2023 and March 2024, and the Prosecutor’s Office reaffirmed its commitment to the investigation, even publicly denouncing the imprisonment of children in December 2024.
The investigation has not stopped. The goal is to establish the individual responsibility of high-ranking officials for crimes against humanity such as political persecution, arbitrary detention, torture, and sexual violence, committed systematically and widely. Although the timing is neither public nor predictable, the investigation has followed a pace comparable to other trials, such as the one in the Philippines. Khan has been out of office since May 2025 due to an investigation against him, and Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, who also supervised the Venezuela investigation team, has assured that the work continues. The next step would be to issue arrest warrants or summons and open a criminal case against specific perpetrators.
Transparency, Precedents, and Possible Breakthroughs
On Friday, August 1, the ICC judges made a key decision: they asked Prosecutor Khan to recuse himself from the Venezuela I situation. Although he initiated the investigation and his team defeated the Venezuelan government in all its appeals, the judges believe it is necessary to ensure the perception of impartiality and transparency, as one of the lawyers on the Venezuelan defense team is his sister-in-law. Only in the event of a perceived conflict of interest, and also to preserve confidence in the proceedings, are they requiring him to recuse himself and withdraw from the case. This sets a precedent for something that should not happen, even though formally nothing prevented Alagendra from participating in a team opposing Khan’s, and even though this supposed privilege would not have helped her win any of the appeals. This precedent reinforces confidence in the Court and, above all, eliminates potential future arguments from the perpetrators’ defense. Those who hired the Prosecutor’s sister-in-law lost an advantage they could use later.
What now?
The Court’s work on Venezuela isn’t restarting or stopping: it continues despite the pressure. Above all, because the Court also needs to mark achievements in such a complex year. The fact that there are arrest warrants against other world leaders—such as Putin and Netanyahu—demonstrates that the Court can act without exceptions. The fact that Duterte is already detained in the Philippines case shows that judicial delays, even if long, produce results. It also demonstrates that there may be arrest warrants that are not publicly known. And the fact that Khan is excluded from the Venezuela investigation defuses a future recusal that could have delayed the process.
The ICC is protecting itself and preparing the ground to move toward a historic trial. Given this, we must demand speed and further action from the States Parties, which must safeguard its mandate, cooperate with it, strengthen its funding, and also be responsible for the victims who have reached other countries. The Venezuela I situation began with a request from six States that referred the situation to the Prosecutor: Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru. There are potential victims and witnesses in the territories of these countries, there are migrants who need protection, and some of these countries even have Venezuelan nationals imprisoned in Venezuela who have also been victims of the crimes against humanity being investigated by the Court. There is much they can do through diplomacy and politics, speaking loudly and clearly, to support Venezuelans in their search for justice.