In 2005, the then UN Commission on Human Rights (now the Council) established the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; its mandate has since been extended, most recently in 2025.
In recent years, the Special Rapporteur has spoken out regarding situations of human rights violations in Venezuela in which arguments relating to the fight against terrorism have been invoked to persecute opponents or persons perceived as such, in 2020, 2023 and 2024. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has spoken out against the invocation of terrorism as a reason for deporting Venezuelans from the US in April and August 2025. Thus, different sectors have seen their rights affected by two governments of different political persuasions, but with a common characteristic: the use of terrorism as a justification for acts that violate human rights.
The most recent and controversial event occurred on September 2, when Trump announced that a vessel carrying alleged members of the Tren de Aragua, a group that had already been designated as a terrorist group, had been attacked by U.S. forces while “in international waters transporting illegal narcotics bound for the United States. The attack resulted in the deaths of 11 terrorists. No member of the United States Armed Forces was injured in this attack.”
Whether there were 11 people, whether there were more or fewer passengers and crew, whether they were transporting drugs, migrants, or both, or whether they were from the Tren de Aragua, the Cartel of the Suns, or some other criminal organization, is irrelevant because, as Professor Simón Gómez has stated, “International humanitarian law considers the use of lethal force against civilians or persons hors de combat a war crime. The label ‘counterterrorism’ or ‘without armed conflict’ does not exempt from responsibility.” There was a disproportionate action where warships, not a coastal patrol, decided to sink the vessel, instead of using other methods of persuasion and neutralization such as boarding, shooting at the engine, or netting.
The extreme action of sinking the vessel and its occupants deprives society of knowing the truth. In fact, a U.S. Navy officer in the Caribbean, who was part of the operation, informally told a press correspondent that the vessel and its occupants were “at the bottom of the sea.” In this way, by erasing all records and evidence of what happened, knowledge of the truth is impeded. The maxim that the ends justify the means was also supported by Vice President Vance, who, when faced with someone who called the act a war crime, responded, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”
Even more worrying is the timid reaction of the UN Secretary-General, who has only commented through his spokesperson, who, in response to a question about the sinking of the vessel, only noted that the UN “is not in a position” to make a judgment on the matter and stressed that “the transnational drug business poses a major threat to the region and beyond,” which seems to indicate that Guterres has bought into Trump’s narrative about the legitimacy of his actions in the context of a war on drugs, although the spokesperson added “we are seeing problems related to drug trafficking, to organized crime (…) The important thing for us is that all those involved strengthen cooperation and constructive dialogue to ensure that efforts to address these threats from transnational crime are consistent with the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, cooperation, etc. ”.
Narratives used against humanity, based on drug trafficking and terrorism, have always been invoked, but now they are accompanied by a greater lethal component, because states have accumulated military, technological, and economic capabilities for this purpose, and the multilateral system designed to contain it is failing both in conflict prevention and in its capacity to mediate and achieve timely and lasting solutions.
Many states, even democratic ones, understand that they can impose their domestic policy objectives above any international principle. This is a return to the regime of the use of force, where whoever has the most resources in this regard prevails, relying on the narrative of terrorism as an enemy to be defeated and applying that label indiscriminately. Elsewhere, the same logic is being applied in Gaza, where hospitals, schools, and various other buildings are being demolished without any filter, alleging that they are being used by a terrorist organization, while the supply of water and food to the civilian population is cut off.
It is also alarming that, in the case of Venezuela, there are those who applaud the measures announced by the Trump administration, following the perverse logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” entertaining the prospect of Maduro’s eventual departure, for which anything goes. It would be a tragic contradiction if the removal from power of a person accused of crimes against humanity were to be left in the hands of another leader accused of direct and indirect involvement in the same crimes, and all in the name of the fight against drugs and terrorism, with no mention of democracy, the popular will, or human rights.
Democratic states cannot allow the creation of a parallel order where anything goes and where human rights violations have no political cost and are no longer committed only against their own citizens, but also against foreigners who are labeled mercenaries, in the case of the hostages taken by Venezuela, or terrorists, in the case of those deported by the US. Limits to the fight against terrorism exist and have been extensively developed since the creation of the rapporteur on this subject in 2005. It is time to put a stop to state terror that uses terrorism as an excuse to advance unchecked.