Navigating Justice: The ICC's Role in Venezuela's Human Rights Crisis

Introduction 

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been mired in a complex and protracted socio-political crisis characterised by economic instability, human rights violations, and deteriorating living conditions. These crises, which gained international attention in the early 2010s, have prompted significant concern among human rights advocates, governments, and civil society organisations (CSOs) worldwide. As allegations of grave human rights abuses escalated, international organisations and actors began to closely scrutinise the situation. Amid this unrest, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been at the forefront of efforts to address claims of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. 

The article shows how the ICC's actions, pronouncements, and interactions with the Venezuelan crisis have impacted civil society's efforts to promote accountability, human rights, and democracy within the country. Furthermore, it analyses the dynamics of this relationship. By shedding light on the ICC's role in the crisis and its consequences for civil society's actions, this study contributes to the broader discourse on international justice, human rights advocacy, and the evolving role of international institutions in addressing complex national crises.

The ICC and Venezuela 

Established by the Rome Statute in 1998, the ICC was designed to bring perpetrators of the most heinous international crimes to justice when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. Venezuela ratified the Rome Statute on June 7, 2000, thereby granting the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on Venezuelan territory or by its nationals since July 1, 2002.

The ICC has assigned two situations in Venezuela to Pre-trial chambers, however for the purpose of this analysis, only the so-called “Venezuela I” is considered. This ongoing investigation focuses on all crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Venezuela since 12 February 2014 by State authorities, members of the armed forces, State security forces, civilian authorities and pro-government individuals (so-called “colectivos”).

The role of Civil society in accountability and human rights 

Civil society can be defined as a multifaceted space located between the family, the state, and the market, populated by diverse actors and organisations with varying relationships to regimes. These ever evolving and diverse entities that emerge in the space of civil society are called Civil Society Organizations. They range from advocacy groups to service providers, playing various roles in democratic values promotion, state counterbalance, and global public sphere development.

CSOs have played a key role in the advancement of human rights and in the establishment of a system and legal framework of protection, including the creation of an international criminal justice system. This is particularly evidenced by their support in the creation of the ICC, their documentation of international crimes and human rights violations, and their engagement in advocacy, awareness-raising, monitoring, reporting, training, and support for victims and witnesses. Despite challenges like resource constraints and political hostility, research shows CSOs can operate alongside authoritarian regimes, challenging norms and aiding in the fight against impunity, thereby ensuring the efficacy of international criminal justice.

CSOs in Venezuela 

In Venezuela, the first consolidated civil society groups emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, when entities such as political parties, student organisations, trade unions, or the Catholic Church aimed to counter the abuses of dictatorial regimes. A decisive moment for CSOs came in 1958 when Venezuela transitioned to a democratic regime and recognised human rights in its Constitution. From the 1970s, civil society gained prominence, focusing on human rights advocacy and solidarity actions with a broader international context.

The role of CSOs and NGOs in Venezuela has been pivotal during the crisis, particularly in relation to the ICC's involvement. Historically focused on social development, they have adapted to address immediate needs, document ICC-relevant crimes and combat misinformation. Despite facing challenges, they continue to advocate for accountability, protection, and victim welfare. Their actions have facilitated the ICC’s involvement, revealing ongoing obstruction by the government. Nonetheless, they persist in seeking justice for human rights violations, serving as intermediaries between victims and the ICC, compensating for the absence of effective local systems.

A quick dive into Venezuela’s recent political history 

The late 1990s marked a pivotal moment in Venezuelan history with the rise of Hugo Chávez. He introduced the concept of "Socialismo del Siglo XXI" or the "Socialism of the Twenty-First Century," a strategy that concealed antidemocratic practices under the guise of existing legal mechanisms from democratically endorsed regimes. Chávez's ideology sought to combat social inequality, poverty, and corruption. However, his tenure witnessed the implementation of populist policies, the nationalisation of industries, and a significant centralization of power, leading to deep political polarisation. Critics raised concerns about democratic erosion and authoritarian tendencies. 

The passing of Hugo Chávez in 2013 marked a shift in Venezuelan politics. Nicolás Maduro, Chávez's handpicked successor, assumed power amidst mounting challenges. Despite his efforts to perpetuate Chavez’s legacy, Maduro confronted economic collapse, hyperinflation, widespread shortages, and increasing public discontent.

In this context, the years 2014 and 2017 witnessed mass protests met with a heavy-handed response from security forces. Demonstrators advocating for political change found themselves at the receiving end of excessive force, tear gas, and arbitrary arrests. Reports from human rights organizations documented abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and unlawful detentions. Control was tightened over media outlets, shutting down critical newspapers and TV stations.

The economic collapse precipitated a humanitarian crisis, marked by severe shortages of essential goods, prompting millions of Venezuelans to flee, exacerbating the migration crisis. In this context, the opposition faced political persecution and imprisonment, while others went into exile. The erosion of democratic institutions peaked with the dissolution of the National Assembly. 

During the first semester of 2023, a total of 4351 nationwide protests were documented by the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict (OVCS),  representing a 12% increase compared to the same period in 2022. Judicial authorities have participated or been complicit in the abuses, serving as a mechanism of repression. In its 2022 report, the NGO Transparency International stated that Venezuela is now ranked 177th out of 180 countries in a list of countries perceived to be most corrupt. Venezuela faces a severe humanitarian emergency, with millions unable to access adequate health care and nutrition.

Looking closely: The protests in Venezuela 

The protests that unfolded in 2014 and 2017 were marked by a series of grave human rights violations, revealing a pattern of disproportionate use of force, violations of personal integrity, and disregard for international standards governing law enforcement actions during protests.

The ICC decided to launch a preliminary examination in 2018 after reviewing a variety of reports and information submitted by different sources, including individuals, groups, states, intergovernmental organisations, and NGOs. Among these, the "Report of the General Secretariat of The Organization of American States (OAS) and The Panel of Independent International Experts on The Possible Commission of Crimes Against Humanity in Venezuela" (2021) emerges as a pivotal resource for this analysis. The efforts of the OAS in consolidating this information facilitated the dissemination of data collected by smaller CSOs.

The OAS Panel concluded that the acts perpetrated against the civilian population of Venezuela since at least February 12, 2014, amount to crimes against humanity, including murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution, and enforced disappearances. 

Furthermore, the efforts of local CSOs, such as the OVCS, have been instrumental in documenting and condemning the recurring pattern of abuses since 2014. They uncovered a government-led systematic repression campaign aiming to label a portion of the population as internal adversaries and destabilizers. Echoing these concerns, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) highlighted the activities of the "colectivos'' during the protests. These groups, operating with impunity and often in concert with security forces, engaged in harassment, attacks, and arbitrary arrests, exacerbating the climate of fear and intimidation. The government fostered an environment where violence could easily become widespread and institutionalised with strategies to suppress dissent like the civilian-military initiative "Plan Zamora".

The ICC's decision to undertake a preliminary examination after the protests serves to illustrate the gravity of the situation, while the relentless efforts of CSOs show the ongoing fight of Venezuelans striving for justice and accountability.

NGOs actions and activism in Venezuela vis a vis the ICC

NGOs and CSOs in Venezuela initially supported the Court's preliminary examination, seeing it as a chance to raise awareness and seek justice for alleged government violations. They clarified that no investigation had yet begun against Venezuelan officials. Later, international support from American States Parties to the Rome Statute expedited the examination. As time passed, some NGOs questioned the ICC's process, citing concerns about political motivations and lengthy proceedings. While acknowledging progress in holding individuals accountable, there is a need for broader solutions beyond the ICC's scope to address Venezuela's crisis. The government perceived the investigation as a political decision by governments aligned with US interests, but mass protests, emigration and the deteriorating situation in Venezuela would have drawn international attention regardless.

NGOs and CSOs have played a crucial role in Venezuela. These organisations have effectively supported the ICC's work, facilitating victim participation, and documenting crimes. Their mobilisation efforts have been instrumental in advocacy campaigns and in encouraging individuals to voice their concerns, share their testimonies, and disseminate information. However, the culture of impunity in the country presents challenges for these organisations and discourages victims from coming forward. 

Almost a decade into Nicolás Maduro's presidency, severe human rights violations persist. The ongoing nature of these crimes highlights the lack of an effective judicial system. This is evident because current Government officials and individuals in the State's security forces are subjects of the prosecution by the ICC. The impunity underscores the challenges in holding individuals accountable for their actions within the country's legal framework. It also shows the widespread corruption and the lack of a separation of powers due to the Government's control of the judiciary and the supreme court. 

Therefore, despite the Government’s efforts to stop the investigation by adhering to the Rome Statute´s complementarity principle, authorities and the State apparatus lack genuine motivation to conduct thorough investigations or bring those responsible to justice.  The State argued that crimes against humanity were not committed , that the referral was political and that they are engaging in reforms and domestic accountability. The challenge, therefore, lies in the fact that the ICC operates as a Court of last resort, which renders it ineffective when falling in the scheme of a government eager to resort to all the means available to stop the investigation. In addition, Venezuelan authorities keep disseminating deceptive information moulding public opinion and influencing the statements made by the ICC, aligning them with their own interests.

In this context, the effectiveness of CSOs in mobilising the population and advocating for action often falls short when depending on external forces, such as the ICC, for addressing the issues. When the mechanisms of these external agents fail to function, people's fear of speaking-out limits the effectiveness of NGOs. In the case of Venezuela, powerful public figures enjoy impunity so this sense of "getting away with it" not only enables mass atrocities, but it also underscores the need for international intervention.

Venezuela has a very strong, well-educated and organised civil society that is ultimately a very powerful partner in justice and accountability. Confirmation of this strength is the Government's attempts to suppress it and persecute human rights defenders. In fact, if there is no one reporting the crimes, then it essentially means there are no crimes. 

Additionally, these dedicated efforts of NGOs and human rights defenders have raised high expectations for the role of the ICC in Venezuela. These groups trust the investigation and welcomed the decision as a recognition of their consistency and the victims’ suffering. Nevertheless, the situation became more complex as the ICC declared that Venezuela was not meeting the standards but signed the second MoU “behind closed doors”. This sparked concerns, confusion, and self-censorship among NGOs and the victims lacking alternative avenues for seeking justice and reparations for the crimes. 

The question raises, therefore, whether the resilience shown by Venezuelan civil society is exceptional or if it challenges the common assumptions about the disruptive impact of populist or authoritarian regimes on CSOs. Their ability to advocate in such sociopolitical conditions suggests a nuanced relationship that calls for a reconsideration of the common understanding of how organisations operate within challenging political environments.

CSOs are diligently fulfilling their roles, compensating for the ICC’s resource limitations, while the Court’s contribution seems somewhat inadequate or ineffective, and influenced by political dynamics. Henceforth, transparency must be considered the baseline standard that the ICC must maintain to acknowledge the support provided by these partner organisations.

Conclusion

The intricate relationship between CSOs and the ICC in the context of Venezuela's evolving human rights crisis is evident. The work of CSOs and NGOs remains essential to shape the public agenda, provide crucial information, and combat impunity. Their commitment and resilience in the face of adversity challenges the common understanding of their role in grave sociopolitical circumstances. Therefore, the responsibility to hold those accountable for crimes and human rights violations in Venezuela seems to ultimately lie with CSOs, due to the ICC's lengthy proceedings, its obligation to respect complementarity and its inability to address immediate needs.