International Criminal Court to probe Venezuela for rights abuses

In its first official probe of a Latin American nation, the International Criminal Court is looking into potential crimes against humanity committed by the Venezuelan government against protesters and political opponents. 

Ariana Cubillos/AP
Andreina Baduel wears a T-shirt that reads in Spanish "justice and freedom" while protesting outside the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in Caracas, Venezuela, Nov 3, 2021. The ICC is investigating the treatment of anti-government protesters in the country.

The International Criminal Court is opening a formal investigation into allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings committed by Venezuelan security forces under President Nicolás Maduro’s rule, the first time a country in Latin America is facing scrutiny for possible crimes against humanity from the court.

The opening of the probe was announced Wednesday by ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan at the end of a three-day trip to Caracas.

Standing alongside Mr. Maduro, Mr. Khan said he was aware of the political “fault lines” and “geopolitical divisions” that exist in Venezuela. But he said his job was to uphold the principles of legality and the rule of law, not settle scores.

“I ask everybody now, as we move forward to this new stage, to give my office the space to do its work,” he said. “I will take a dim view of any efforts to politicize the independent work of my office.”

While Mr. Khan didn’t outline the scope of the ICC’s investigation, it follows a lengthy preliminary probe started in February 2018 – later backed by Canada and five Latin American governments opposed to Mr. Maduro – that focused on allegations of excessive force, arbitrary detention, and torture by security forces during a crackdown on anti-government protests in 2017.

Human rights groups and the U.S.-backed opposition immediately celebrated the decision. Since its creation two decades ago, the ICC has mostly focused on atrocities committed in Africa.

“This is a turning point,” said Jose Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch. “Not only does it provide hope to the many victims of Maduro’s government but it also is a reality check that Maduro himself could be held accountable for crimes committed by his security forces and others with total impunity in the name of the Bolivarian revolution.”

It could be years before any criminal charges are presented as part of the ICC’s investigation.

Mr. Maduro said he disagreed with Mr. Khan’s criteria in choosing to open the probe. But he expressed optimism that a three-page “letter of understanding” he signed with the prosecutor would allow Venezuelan authorities to carry out their own proceedings in search of justice, something allowed under the Rome statute that created the ICC.

“I guarantee that in this new phase we will leave the noise to the side and get down to work so that, together, the truth can be found,” said Mr. Maduro.

Mr. Maduro’s government last year also asked the ICC to investigate the U.S. – which is not among the ICC’s 123 member states – for its policy of economic sanctions focused on removing Mr. Maduro. Venezuela considers the U.S. sanctions tantamount to “unlawful coercive measures” that have spelled poverty for millions of Venezuelans.

Mr. Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, had indicated there was a reasonable basis to conclude that crimes against humanity had been committed in Venezuela, echoing the findings of the U.N.’s own human rights council last year. But she left the decision to open any probe to her successor Mr. Khan, a British lawyer who took the reins of the ICC earlier this year.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Joshua Goodman reported from Miami.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.