The amnesty bill has become the most demanding test for the de facto regime after imposing state terrorism: it will define whether its commitment is to a genuine political opening or to a mutation of persecution in the name of reconciliation.
What is happening today in Venezuela makes it clear that for a long time there has not been an event so relevant to its political, social, and even economic future. This is true both because of the decision to grant amnesty and because of the social context in which it takes place, characterized, among other elements, by the resumption of certain street mobilizations, the appearance of releases, albeit in dribs and drabs, and the formulation of more direct demands on the regime. Its scope impacts the fate of hundreds of political prisoners and fractured families, and more broadly, the possibilities of democratically redirecting Venezuela or of creating additional obstacles to that end. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the national and international trust that this hybrid regime of a tutelary dictatorship deserves is at stake with this law.
The current political moment reveals an internal struggle aimed at establishing the narrative and meaning of what has occurred since 1999. On one side are the democratic forces of society striving for genuine national reconciliation based on the constitution and human rights, and on the other, the government of Delcy Rodríguez, which, while feigning certain formalities—such as consulting civil society and prisoners’ families, albeit against the clock and in a very limited way—is consistently demonstrating its intention to grant a pardon administered by itself. That is to say, with one hand, it is favoring many perpetrators who will not even have to acknowledge their crimes, and with the other, it is inverting the victim-perpetrator relationship by “forgiving” the politically persecuted, when it is they who deserve forgiveness, truth, justice, and reparations from the State.
Unfortunately, the facts suggest that the regime is pursuing the latter. It is trying to turn the page for its own benefit and pretend that it has made changes in its dealings with the United States. The evidence lies in the content of the proposed law and its present and future political implications. Regarding the bill, civil society agrees on many critical aspects. Some of these are outlined below. First, the explanatory memorandum is framed in criminalizing language, using terms like “extremism,” typical of the de facto government, which presupposes the responsibility of the opposition—not the State—and “sovereign clemency,” which, similarly, assumes that the State must pardon the responsible party, but in no case ask for forgiveness. The problem is that situations that constitute the exercise of human rights (such as demonstrating, criticizing the authorities, or participating in political life) are considered manifestations of extremism.
The bill arbitrarily excludes a large number of acts eligible for amnesty, as it does not cover the periods of 2015, 2016, 2018, or between May 2019 and June 2024. This affects a broad range of people (Article 6). Nor does it set forth a regulation in the execution procedure, leaving out relevant guarantees such as the absence of special (or ad hoc) mechanisms to process dismissals, different from the same justice bodies accused of violating human rights; the authorization of lawyers or family members to request the dismissal, as in principle only the detainee or defendant himself could do so; the possibility that the court reviews cases ex officio, and even the need for strict deadlines to decide the requests.
Furthermore, the bill makes no provisions to address the cases of people who have died, been persecuted and forced into exile, or who have disabilities. Those convicted for political reasons on charges of homicide and corruption would also be excluded from the amnesty, as they would be considered responsible for those crimes. In turn, the legal initiative compromises the right to the truth by eliminating records and background information related to those benefiting from the amnesty (Article 11), thus hindering the collection of evidence in human rights cases. In short, the ambiguity, contradictions, and gaps in the proposed legislation pave the way for discretionary power, revictimization, and corruption.
Besides legal analysis, it is important to stress the political implications of such an initiative. Processes like the amnesty law serve as a reminder that the structural cause of the political crisis in Venezuela remains unchanged: the lack of recognition of dissent. This situation leads to fundamental decisions, including laws, being made in secrecy, with the imposition of closed agendas and the exclusion of broad sectors of society, which always results in instruments that violate rights. Seeking “democratic coexistence” by violating democratic channels is a contradiction from the outset and dooms any proposal for change to failure.
It is also incompatible with a spirit of coexistence if spokespeople for the de facto government threaten to deny or revoke amnesty, suggesting that the beneficiary has exceeded certain limits. Iris Valera, a member of the National Assembly and of the commission preparing this law, declared that “those benefiting from the amnesty must be present before the law”—appear before the courts—and advised that “those who have called for the bombing of Venezuela (…) are better off staying out.” Jorge Arreaza, also a member of the Assembly and in charge of the project’s consultation, pointed out that those receiving amnesty “must act in a spirit of understanding.” His message was issued after the arrest of Juan Pablo Guanipa, who had been released from prison just hours earlier. After making public statements, he was again detained and placed under house arrest under the pretext that he had violated the conditions of his release, which is materially impossible, as argued here. His case exposes the blackmail behind the amnesty law: a “pardon” conditioned on silence, submission, ceasing political activity, and abandoning any conduct that might displease those in power. Adding to this is the case of Perkins Rocha, who, like Juan Pablo, wears a dehumanizing electronic ankle monitor, demonstrating that the desire for control and political subjugation has not diminished in this context.
The de facto government complies with certain measures because it is pressured to do so, but it tries to concede as little as possible in order to maintain its authoritarian position. Therefore, if the amnesty is approved, criticizing the authorities, protesting, associating to defend rights, participating politically, or even safeguarding votes will continue to be criminalized. The repressive laws and structures have not been dismantled, and this is because the regime’s willingness to recognize dissent and open itself to a democratic transition is nonexistent. What will happen to all the victims of the hate speech law, the law against the financing of terrorism, the Tascón list, the armed operations where military personnel were disproportionately affected, or the refugee victims or asylum seekers who cannot even approach a consulate for fear of persecution abroad, or their families in Venezuela? These are just a few examples. This institutional violence is not acknowledged in the proposal. Nowhere in the text, nor in the discourse, does the State admit its crimes. It blames them all on society.
The issue of amnesty should send a warning message to the international community. The government of Delcy Rodríguez is not opening itself to a democratic transition but rather attempting to strategically reposition itself in power. As we stated before, it employs a superficial maneuver, simulating the transformation of the existing system of repression under the guise of reconciliation and peace. But in substance, there is no progress. An amnesty law, as it stands, could effectively endorse the country’s crimes and political violence if, due to its shortcomings and contradictions in its provisions, or its biased and exclusionary enforcement, it harms the victims. Further harm must be prevented.