The organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, with the strategic support of AlertaVenezuela, presented an exhaustive analysis of the current state of the Venezuelan justice system. In their report, El balance de la arbitrariedad (2014-2026) [The Balance Sheet of Arbitrariness, in Spanish only], they denounce that the system has undergone a functional transmutation, ceasing to operate under the principles of legality and the separation of powers to become fully integrated into an architecture of social control and the neutralization of dissent.
Viewed through this lens, the Amnesty Law enacted in February 2026—rather than serving as a genuine mechanism to open space for a transitional process framed by victims’ rights to truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition—has, in its execution, functioned as an instrument of discretionary political management. This “legal mirage” allows the State to manage the liberty of detainees with the aim of mitigating diplomatic pressure and garnering international legitimacy, while keeping intact the coercive structures that gave rise to the detentions in the first place.
The report highlights that selectivity constitutes the operational axis of this legislation: the State does not acknowledge the innocence of the individuals involved nor the arbitrary nature of the proceedings; instead, it exercises a discretionary power to select beneficiaries, resulting in a deliberate stabilization of the prisoner census.
From a statistical and field-monitoring perspective, it is observed that the census of political prisoners has reached a technical plateau. As of March 16, 2026, the figure of 689 persons deprived of liberty for political reasons—of whom there is knowledge—reveals a dynamic of systemic substitution: the 677 verified releases during the first quarter of the year have been statistically neutralized by the surfacing of “long-standing” cases that had previously remained massively underreported, alongside a small number of new, selective arrests.
This equilibrium suggests that the system does not seek the actual emptying of the prisons, but rather a rotation of detention profiles in order to maintain an inhibitory effect upon civil society. This lack of transparency regarding information is exacerbated by the persistence of the Sippenhaft pattern—or the punishment of a detainee’s family circle—which generates underreporting fueled by the fear of direct reprisals against the victims’ loved ones. This fear hinders the comprehensive documentation of the full scope of detentions in facilities such as Ramo Verde and El Rodeo I.
In the technical-procedural sphere, organizations denounce a subversion of the normative hierarchy. The application of the Amnesty Law is being utilized to subsume and reclassify what, under the law, should be compulsory releases mandated by compliance with the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (COPP).
An analysis of case files conducted by Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón demonstrates that rigorous adherence to Articles 230 and 231 of the COPP would compel the immediate release of over 300 individuals—either due to the expiration of personal coercive measures (having exceeded the legal limit of two years of pretrial detention without a conviction) or on humanitarian grounds linked to critical health conditions.
The report highlights that, by framing these releases within the context of an amnesty, the State transmutes a legal obligation into an act of political grace. In doing so, it evades judicial accountability for procedural delays and prolonged arbitrary detention, while simultaneously keeping the beneficiaries in a state of restricted liberty, subject to precautionary measures that may be revoked at any moment.
Finally, the organizations conclude that the technical viability of any national pacification process is contingent upon the dismantling of the repressive apparatus. The persistence of impunity regarding the 369 deaths documented as resulting from political persecution since 2014—coupled with the fact that 39.76% of the incarcerated population reports having been subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment—constitutes an insurmountable barrier to reconciliation, given the lack of either the capacity or the political will to advance genuine processes of accountability.
The international community must demand an independent audit of detention centers and the annulment of proceedings that are fundamentally flawed. Without transparent and verifiable information, the 2026 amnesty serves merely as a mechanism to provide breathing room for the system, thereby perpetuating a state of legal vulnerability that hinders the comprehensive reparation of victims and the restoration of minimum constitutional guarantees within the country.