The state terrorism imposed by the de facto government in Venezuela has progressively led to a mutation of traditional forms of human rights violations into more sophisticated ones. This mutation has two purposes. On the one hand, to impose forceful forms of repression that send clear messages to certain sectors of the population to strengthen terror. On the other hand, to try to evade international scrutiny through subtle resources that dilute the dividing line between different practices that violate the right to personal freedom.
On February 28, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights published a joint press release on forced disappearances in Venezuela and their increase before and after the presidential election on July 28. The group of experts recalled that “state authorities that detain people and refuse to recognize that they are in their custody or hide their fate and whereabouts, place them outside the protection of the law.” Adding that “these acts constitute forced disappearances regardless of the duration of detention or concealment.”
In addition to the armed forces and the police, the group of experts identified the judiciary, the public defender’s office and the general prosecutor’s office as being involved in these practices, which shows that this is a State policy with a multiplicity of actors beyond the traditionally involved bodies, whose participation guarantees impunity, and therefore, the chronic repetition of serious human rights violations for political reasons. In this aggravated phase of repression, the State has abandoned any semblance of legality through forms, so much so that, as the experts affirm, “complaints and habeas corpus appeals are not being processed, and sometimes, not even accepted.”
On the other hand, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment published a study in early February on hostage-taking as torture, in which she mentions Venezuela among the countries in which it is alleged that “foreign citizens have been arbitrarily detained for the purpose of using them as financial, political or other leverage.” The study refers to two cases of US citizens exchanged on different occasions by the Venezuelan government in exchange for the nephews of Maduro’s wife, in one case, and for sanctions relief, in another.
The expert recognizes that “hostage-taking overlaps with other international human rights issues, such as enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions” and recalls that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary disappearances has pointed out that “a hostage-taking situation would also constitute an enforced disappearance when the fate and whereabouts of loved ones are concealed from relatives.”
The truth is that these are perverse variations of arbitrary detention that remove the victim from the protection of the law and that seek to interfere not only with the lives of the affected families and communities, but also with the States in the management of their international relations.
In the case of hostage-taking, Maduro himself has stated that some 150 foreigners are being held in Venezuela. Although the de facto government claims that they are mercenaries, a few have been exchanged, confirming their status as hostages. In the case of foreigners, the removal of the protection of the law extends to the denial of consular protection, a practice identified by both the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Lack of communication is another practice identified by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and identified as part of the torture of hostages by the torture expert. Incommunicado detention has become recurrent in Venezuela, affecting both foreign hostages and national political prisoners.
Venezuela also presents a particular case where the people are not foreigners, nor are they missing or incommunicado, but are used as pressure pieces against another country, as is the case of those seeking asylum in the Argentine embassy, to which we have already referred. In this case, it is reasonable to say that the asylum seekers suffer from arbitrary detention for political purposes, as the fundamental principles of asylum are violated, and even more so, one of the most important institutions of International Law is undermined.
Another practice observed in Venezuela is the conditioning of the release of political prisoners in exchange for compliance with demands made by the de facto government. The arbitrariness of the detentions is such that those in power do not bother to disguise them as legal but rather demand concessions from those who request release.
Finally, the use of extortion of detainees has become widespread. Although it is an old practice, its exercise has been recurrent after the protests over electoral fraud. The fee to release an innocent person can start at US$20,000 and end at 2 or 4 thousand dollars. The victims are no longer political prisoners, but any citizen who has the misfortune of encountering with a group of corrupt officials.
The manipulation of personal freedom cannot go unnoticed by the international community. The interactive dialogues on Venezuela at the next session of the Human Rights Council are an opportunity to speak loudly and clearly about these events, breaking the silence imposed by the coercion of those who hold power.