The amnesty law approved in Venezuela was initially welcomed as a real possibility for beginning to close one of the most painful chapters of political repression: the existence of hundreds of people imprisoned for political reasons. However, seven months after the process of releasing prisoners began, the gap between the announcements made by the de facto government headed by Delcy Rodríguez and the figures verified by human rights organizations raises a fundamental question: How many political prisoners have actually been released, and how many remain deprived of their liberty or subject to restrictions that make their “freedom” an incomplete condition?
The answer is far from insignificant. In a process supposedly aimed at a political transition, figures are not an administrative detail. They determine the credibility of the transition and make it possible to determine whether we are witnessing a genuine policy of reparation and democratization or a succession of gestures intended to produce a political effect.
The Numbers Do Not Add Up
On August 14, the Venezuelan government announced that 131 people detained for political reasons would receive alternative measures to imprisonment. Despite the evident pressure exerted on the interim regime that forced it to make this announcement, which was presented as part of the negotiation process currently underway, the government portrayed it as another advance under the Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence.
But independent verification tells a different story. Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón (JEP), an organization representing victims’ families, confirmed that 83 people had actually been released in connection with the announcement of 131.
In other words, out of the 131 announced, JEP was able to verify 83—approximately 62% of the official figure. According to that verification, there were at least 48 people whose release had not been confirmed.
This discrepancy is not new. On January 23, Delcy Rodríguez announced that 626 people had been released. At that time, JEP had been able to confirm only 167 political prisoners released since January 8.
The government’s explanation has been that its figures encompass a broader universe of people deprived of their liberty and different stages of the process. But this is precisely where the problem lies: if the government intends to present these figures as part of the release of political prisoners, it must publish complete, individualized, and verifiable lists of those who have benefited, together with the corresponding judicial decisions and the conditions attached to their release. Without transparency, an official figure cannot substitute for independent verification.
The Problem of the 1,046 Released
The discrepancy appeared again on August 15. Delcy Rodríguez stated that 1,046 Venezuelans who had been deprived of their liberty had returned home. The figure exactly matched the number announced the previous day by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated that 1,046 Venezuelans had been released since January.
But that figure does not necessarily mean that 1,046 political prisoners were released under the Amnesty Law. As of August 10, JEP counted 502 political prisoners still incarcerated, 233 of whom had not been convicted. In addition, it recorded 25 foreign political prisoners.
This demonstrates the importance of distinguishing among three categories:
- People who were detained for political reasons;
- People who were released from prison;
- People who obtained full freedom, including the dismissal of the charges and the lifting of judicial restrictions.
Freedom?
There is an even more serious aspect to this situation. A person can physically leave prison and still not be free.
Many of those recently released have remained subject to requirements to report periodically to the courts and to other restrictive measures. A genuine amnesty policy cannot be limited to opening the prison doors.
For JEP, the true measure of an amnesty is not how many people the government announces it has benefited, but how many political prisoners actually regain their freedom, how many remain excluded, and whether political persecution truly ends. There is an even more powerful argument: JEP does not consider a reduction in the number of prisoners sufficient to conclude that Venezuela has left political repression behind.
Freedom should include, when applicable, the dismissal of judicial proceedings, the lifting of precautionary measures, the removal of restrictions on movement, the restoration of political rights, and guarantees that the individual will not be persecuted again for the same alleged acts. Otherwise, there is a risk that release from prison becomes a sophisticated form of control.
The lesson is clear: amnesty does not simply mean leaving a cell. It means no longer being persecuted for political reasons.
It means preventing cases such as that of Sixto José Salamanca Jiménez, who had been detained since December 13, 2019—nearly seven years. Salamanca was released on Friday, August 14, 2026, and four days later, on Tuesday, August 18, he was detained again.
And What About the United States?
The United States currently plays a central role in Venezuelan politics. The dialogue between the interim government and sectors of the opposition is being promoted by Washington and forms part of the U.S. three-phase plan for Venezuela. Marco Rubio himself has stated that the United States is closely monitoring compliance with the commitments made.
On August 14, Rubio described the release of more than 130 political prisoners as a “crucial step” toward national reconciliation and noted that 1,046 Venezuelans had been released since January.
This statement is insufficient when organizations that verify cases individually do not agree with the official figures. The United States should demand something much more basic: transparency and independent verification.
If Washington is the international actor with the greatest capacity to influence the Venezuelan government, it should demand:
- Immediate publication of complete lists of those released;
- Independent verification of every release;
- Full freedom, rather than merely alternative measures;
- Dismissal of judicial proceedings based on political grounds;
- Lifting of exit bans and periodic reporting requirements when there is no legitimate criminal basis for them;
- Release of all remaining political prisoners;
- Guarantees that there will be no new politically motivated arrests.
From Gestures to Guarantees
The continuing existence of political prisoners in Venezuela is rooted in their importance as a bargaining tool. The authoritarian regime needs to maintain a pool of prisoners who can eventually be released to alleviate political pressure. This explains the mechanism known as the “revolving door,” in which some prisoners are released while others replace them, ensuring that there are always detainees available to respond to opposition demands and delay negotiations that could threaten the ruling group’s hold on power.
The Venezuela that emerges after Nicolás Maduro needs more than gestures of goodwill. It needs institutions capable of demonstrating that the state has stopped using imprisonment as a political instrument.
The release of political prisoners is a necessary condition for democratization, but it is not sufficient. If a person leaves prison only to remain under judicial surveillance, unable to leave the country, unable to participate fully in political life, and facing the threat of being detained again, it is clear that the transition remains far from complete.
The criterion for evaluating the amnesty should not be the number announced by the government, but the number of people demonstrably regaining their freedom and their rights.
The differences between the government’s announcements and the figures that can be verified by independent organizations are not merely statistical discrepancies. Each number represents a person, a family, and a history of persecution.
The international community must remain attentive to the development of the Venezuelan process. It must carefully observe the gaps between the statements made by political actors and verifiable facts, and exert pressure in favor of restoring the human rights of political prisoners.