AFTERNOON - Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela Tells the Human Rights Council that Human Rights Violations Are Continuing in Venezuela, Reflecting a Policy of Repressing Dissent
Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and concluded an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine.
Marta Valiñas, Chair of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said the Mission had examined the various repression mechanisms used by the State apparatus against persons critical of the Government and the linked repression of civil society, and State structures involved in the commission of human rights violations, as well as the new management directorate of the Venezuelan police. The Mission believed that human rights violations have continued. They were not isolated but reflected a policy of repressing dissent. Venezuela’s oppressive State-run mechanism continued to resort to repressive and hardhanded tactics to try to crush people’s will, giving rise to predominant fear and self-censorship.
Ms. Valiñas said the second part of the investigation focused on the new Directorate of Strategic and Tactical Action of the Bolivarian Police Force. There had been reasonable grounds to believe that the disbanded Specialised Action Forces unit had been involved in extrajudicial killings, including crimes against humanity. The new Directorate of Strategic and Tactical Action had been established in 2022, and the Fact-Finding Mission concluded that it was a de facto continuation of the disbanded Specialised Action Forces. There were 50 positions of leadership in the new group and 10 were occupied by leaders of the former group, named in the Mission’s former reports because it believed they were responsible for committing international crimes. There were allegations that the new group was linked to multiple assassinations and over 300 detentions. These warranted more detailed investigation.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, speaking as a country concerned, said this mandate, imposed for political reasons on Venezuela, was the antithesis of the human rights system. The imposed Mission used human rights as an excuse to provoke political interference. The Mission went beyond its mandate and its unscrupulous falsification of data was rife. The unilateral coercive measures should be mentioned as the true causes of the current Venezuelan socioeconomic reality. However, there was not a word on this. Venezuela reiterated its firm rejection of the work, allegations and very existence of the pseudo Mission. Venezuela had increased its technical cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, making progress on agreed objectives with tangible results. The country would continue promoting and protecting human rights through the Council, but not through interventionist and punitive measures, which caused many countries to be undermined by crude and continuous lies.
In the discussion, a number of speakers remained concerned over the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crises in Venezuela, where the authorities still carried out actions that undermined democracy and the rule of law, and violated human rights. Of particular concern were recent developments in the country, which pointed to a persistent attack on civic and democratic space, and civil society actors. The Fact-Finding Mission’s message was clear: since the last report, the human rights situation in Venezuela had not improved and gross human rights violations still took place. Some speakers said unilateral coercive measures imposed by certain countries severely impeded its economic development, and the human rights and livelihood of the Venezuelan people had been affected. The supposedly impartial assessment of the Fact-Finding Mission only fomented divisions, said one speaker, denouncing politically-imposed mandates that grossly violated the economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Venezuela. The main obstacle to Venezuela’s human rights was the sanctions that destabilised the country.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. The interactive dialogue started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.
Erik Møse, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, in concluding remarks, said the situation of children was mentioned by many speakers. He assured Council members that this item remained high on the priority list and was
being pursued with vigour. The Commission was totally independent and impartial and was addressing violations on all sides.
Pablo de Grieff, Member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, in concluding remarks, said reparations were a complicated topic. The Commission was delighted to hear a broad sense of accountability had been adopted by many members of the Council. There was no question that the aggressor State bore the final responsibility for reparations. In the meantime, it was important to establish a building-block approach towards a reparations programme.
Vrinda Grover, Member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, in concluding remarks, said reference had been made to keeping victims and their voices at the forefront. Accountability would be enhanced if victims were provided with mental health and psychosocial support. The Commission had maintained a victim-centric approach, and attention was paid to those who had suffered from disadvantages.
Ukraine, in concluding remarks, thanked the Commission of Inquiry for its crucial work in ensuring accountability and justice. As the Commission committed its investigation, it found new evidence of Russia’s shocking violations of human rights and international law, which could amount to war crimes. For these crimes, Russia would be held accountable.
In the discussion, a number of speakers condemned the flagrant violations committed by the Russian forces in Ukraine. They were concerned about the whole range of reported human rights violations, as well as the violations of international humanitarian law. These included intentional killings, attacks on civilians, unlawful confinement, rape and other sexual and gender-based violence, and forced transfers and deportations, including of children. These crimes and all others must not go unpunished; the victims deserved justice and reparation.
One speaker said there should be no politicisation of human rights issues, and no increased tension of such issues, instead, there should be a focus on peace and resolving the crisis. Another speaker said arming Ukraine had been an act of provocation which violated the principles of the United Nations Charter; the focus of the Council should be to stop the conflict and stop the pumping of weapons into Ukraine by the West. The unilateral coercive measures imposed against Russia undermined the exercise of human rights by the Russian people.
Speaking in the discussion on Ukraine were Ecuador, Austria, Georgia, Canada, Croatia, United States, Türkiye, Malta, Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, China, Romania, Argentina, Uruguay, United Kingdom, North Macedonia, Venezuela, Spain, Slovakia, Albania, Belarus, Montenegro, Greece, Syria, Republic of Moldova, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Iran, Zimbabwe, Netherlands, Germany and France.
Also speaking were Physicians for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation, Catholic International Education Office, World Federation of Ukrainian Women's Organizations, Institute for Human Rights, Article 19 - International Centre Against Censorship, Meezaan Centre for Human Rights, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, Centre for Global Nonkilling, and iuventum e.V.
Speaking in the discussion on Venezuela were European Union, Belgium on behalf of a group of countries, Canada on behalf of a group of countries, Portugal, Chile, Austria, Paraguay, Ecuador, Czechia, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Georgia, United States, China, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Spain, Belarus, Greece, Bolivia, Iran, Syria, Burundi, Türkiye, Sudan, Egypt, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Ukraine, Eritrea, Peru, Algeria and Niger.
Also speaking were International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Fundación Latinoamericana por los Derechos Humanos y el Desarrollo Social, Freedom House, Aula Abierta, International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, and Human Rights Watch.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-fourth regular session can be found here.
The Council will next meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 September, when it is scheduled to hold the biennial panel discussion on youth and human rights, following which it will hold the interactive dialogue on the report of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights situation in Myanmar.
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine
The interactive dialogue with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.
Discussion
Continuing the discussion, some speakers said they were concerned about the whole range of reported human rights violations in Ukraine, as well as the violations of international humanitarian law. These included intentional killings, attacks on civilians, unlawful confinement, rape and other sexual and gender-based violence, and forced transfers and deportations, including of children. This brutal war had caused enormous destruction and inconceivable human suffering.
For almost 600 days, Ukraine had been withstanding Russia’s aggression that continuously pushed the world towards more hunger, more extreme poverty and more suffering. The findings from the latest visit of the Commission to Ukraine, showcasing a wide range of violations and abuses of human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law by Russian forces, were deeply concerning. Ukrainian children, women and older persons bore the brunt of these atrocities. Some speakers therefore called on Russian authorities to ensure that all perpetrators were held accountable.
A number of speakers condemned the flagrant violations committed by the Russian forces. The obligations stemming from international humanitarian law must be respected. The leadership of the Russian Federation must live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; it was expected to uphold and respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and stop the war. Russia was urged to end its military incursion into Ukraine, and all parties should find a solution in line with the United Nations Charter, restoring Ukraine to its internationally recognised borders.
Russia’s conduct over the last 19 months had only further underlined the necessity of close international scrutiny of the human rights situation in Ukraine while that country remained under attack and occupation, a speaker said. Russia’s complete disregard for human lives was appalling, confirmed by reports of mass graves and atrocities in areas recaptured by the Ukrainian armed forces as well as targeted attacks against civilians, urban areas, and medical facilities.
The deportation of Ukrainian children amounted to a crime against humanity, and the perpetrators must be brought to account and all children repatriated, some speakers said. These crimes and all others must not go unpunished; the victims deserved justice and reparation. Those responsible, including persons in position of command, must be prosecuted. Russian armed forces had shown an utter disregard for international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Establishing accountability and reparation measures for victims of violations by the Russian armed forces, including wilful killings, torture, rape and unlawful transfers of children, must be the focus of the international community. The victims of missile attacks also deserved particular attention, a speaker said.
One speaker said what the world needed was a ceasefire, not weapons delivery or confrontation between blocs, and there should be calm, restraint, and an accumulation of conditions to resolve the crisis. The sovereignty and integrity of all countries, and their legitimate security concerns must be taken seriously. There should be no politicisation of human rights issues, and no increased tension of such issues, instead, there should be a focus on peace and resolving the crisis. Another speaker said arming Ukraine had been an act of provocation which violated the principles of the United Nations Charter - the focus of the Council should be to stop the conflict and stop the pumping of weapons into Ukraine by the West.
The unilateral coercive measures imposed against Russia undermined the exercise of human rights by the Russian people. A speaker was ashamed that the Council continued to promote anti-Russian rhetoric, saying it was just another tactic of those who were responsible for the crisis, and calling for the United Nations Charter to be respected and there to be dialogue between the parties with the aim of creating peace in the region. The Commission of Inquiry did not mention the deaths of civilians in the Donbas region caused by Ukrainian forces, another speaker said. The purpose of the Commission was to deflect the attention of the international community from the real situation.
Among questions raised were: what was needed from the international community to best support the independent investigations by the Commission of Inquiry and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; what measures should the international community take to ensure the respect of the human rights of Ukrainian citizens living under occupation in sovereign Ukrainian territory; the most vulnerable victims of war remained unaccompanied children and orphans transferred from Ukraine to the Russian Federation or the Russian occupied territories, what more could this Council do to urge Russia to ensure a safe return of the displaced children and other Ukrainian civilians; what more could be done to ensure accountability for crimes and abuses committed against children; what measures could be taken to ensure that the voices of victims were at the forefront when taking measures to ensure accountability; and what challenges and specific considerations would need to be taken into account were the international community to set up a special tribunal for the crimes of aggression in Ukraine, and how to ensure the legitimacy of such a tribunal?
Concluding Remarks
Ukraine thanked the Commission of Inquiry for its crucial work in ensuring accountability and justice. As the Commission committed its investigation, it found new evidence of Russia’s shocking violations of human rights and international law, which could amount to war crimes. For these crimes, Russia would be held accountable. Restoration of justice and the release of Ukrainians in Russian detention were key objectives which needed to be achieved; the Council was called on to help Ukraine in this regard.
ERIK MØSE, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, said the situation of children was mentioned by many speakers. He assured Council members that this item remained high on the priority list of the Commission and was being pursued with vigour. The information relating to children’s transfer was divided. It was essential that the Commission receive as much information about this as possible. Everyone was encouraged to share information with the Commission. Access to territories was difficult and the Commission often had to resort to remote interviews. Increased access for the Commission to these territories would allow its members to provide a full picture of these issues. It was in the interest of both parties to do so to ensure allegations could be verified.
PABLO DE GREIFF, Member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, spoke about the situation of children. He reiterated the importance of establishing effective exchange bureaus working with the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was also important to consider the establishment of a DNA bank for the identification of children in the future. Reparations were a complicated topic. The Commission was delighted to hear a broad sense of accountability had been adopted by many members of the Council. There was no question that the aggressor State bore the final responsibility for reparations. In the meantime, it was important to establish a building-block approach towards a reparations programme.
VRINDA GROVER, Member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, said reference had been made to keeping victims and their voices at the forefront. Accountability would be enhanced if victims were provided with mental health and psychosocial support. The Commission had maintained a victim-centric approach, and attention was paid to those who had suffered from disadvantages. It was important that when programmes were designed, persons with disabilities were considered from the beginning.
ERIK MØSE, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, said the Commission had tried to build on the issue of accountability more in the conference room paper. The two key words when it came to accountability were coordination and efficiency. The Commission appreciated the kind words and encouragement received from many Member States. The difficulties today could be seen in the context of a lack of resources with respect to general human rights work in the world. The Commission had not escaped the budgetary problems of the United Nations; the freeze was hampering many activities. The Commission was totally independent and impartial and was addressing violations on all sides.
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Report
The Council has before it the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (A/HRC/54/57).
Presentation of Report
MARTA VALIÑAS, Chair of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, presenting the report, said this was the fourth report since the Mission’s establishment. The Mission had examined the various repression mechanisms used by the State apparatus against persons critical of the Government and the linked repression of civil society, and State structures involved in the commission of human rights violations, as well as the new management directorate of the Venezuelan police. The Mission had carried out 256 confidential interviews and four discussion groups. The discussions were held remotely due to Venezuela’s continued refusal to allow the Mission to enter the country. Many persons spoke on condition of anonymity because of their fear of reprisals.
In the Fact-Finding Mission’s first report in 2020, it found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the authorities were responsible for serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity as part of a State-run policy to crackdown on political dissidents. The next reports provided an update. This year’s report, covering from 1 July 2020 to 31 August 2023, looked at 43 new cases related to human rights violations affecting 72 victims, each case involving multiple human rights violations.
The Mission’s investigation found that since 1 January 2020 to date, at least 58 persons were arbitrarily detained, including human rights defenders, trade union leaders, journalists, members of non-governmental organizations and of opposition parties, and other individuals who voiced criticism of the Government. The Mission investigated nine deaths to try to find their cause, and found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that five were due to arbitrary killings that could be attributed to the State and authorities. There were also cases of disappearances that could be linked to the State. Sexual and gender-based violence continued to be used as forms of torture and humiliation, including rape and threats of rape against the detained and their relatives and lawyers. The numbers that were included in the report should be read in the light of a change in the political crisis that took place at the end of 2020-2021, when mass protests ended. However, the Mission believed that human rights violations have continued. They were not isolated but reflected a policy of repressing dissent.
The State had continued with its policy of repression, despite the urgings of international human rights mechanisms. The Mission had expanded its mandate beyond arbitrary killings, enforced disappearances, torture and others to other means by which the authorities violated the human rights, documenting selective repression against trade unionists, journalists, political leaders and their relatives, as well as against civil society, political parties, and the media. Arbitrary criminal proceedings had been held against people who organised peaceful protests or publicly questioned government officials, and arbitrary action had been taken against political parties. Due to the State controls, there were almost no free media outlets in the country. The media that resisted faced arbitrary measures which had led to increasing self-censorship. There was shrinking democratic and civic space. The independence of the People’s Ombudsperson had been severely undermined. There was selective repression of civil society and political leaders, which was likely to rise with the upcoming presidential elections in 2024.
The second part of the investigation focused on the new Directorate of Strategic and Tactical Action of the Bolivarian Police Force. The disbanded Specialised Action Forces unit had been among most prominent forces meant to combat crime. There had been reasonable grounds to believe that they had been involved in extrajudicial killings, including crimes against humanity. As a result of international and domestic pressure, the Specialised Action Forces had been disbanded at the start 2022. The new Directorate of Strategic and Tactical Action had been established in 2022, and the Fact-Finding Mission concluded that it was a de facto continuation of the disbanded Specialised Action Forces. There were 50 positions of leadership in the new group and 10 were occupied by leaders of the former group, named in the Mission’s former reports because it believed they were responsible for committing international crimes. There were allegations that the new group was linked to multiple assassinations and over 300 detentions. These warranted more detailed investigation.
In conclusion, Ms. Valiñas said Venezuela’s oppressive State-run mechanism continued to resort to repressive and hardhanded tactics to try to crush people’s will, giving rise to predominant fear and self-censorship.
Statement by Country Concerned
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, speaking as a country concerned, said this was yet another presentation by the so-called Fact-Checking Mission; the only fact-finding was how inefficient it was. This mandate, imposed for political reasons on Venezuela, was the antithesis of the human rights system. The imposed Mission used human rights as an excuse to provoke political interference. The Mission went beyond its mandate and its unscrupulous falsification of data was rife. Since the beginning of the mandate, the members of the Mission had surpassed themselves in raising topics which would bring them a lot of media attention, including the non-existent restrictions on civic space. They were intentionally feeding the big media corporations in their anti-Venezuelan narrative. The unilateral coercive measures should be mentioned as the true causes of the current Venezuelan socioeconomic reality. However, there was not a word on this.
There were multiple lobbies used by the Mission, which enjoyed financial health that others could not even dream off, while the Office of the High Commissioner could not finish filling its staff of officials in Venezuela due to lack of money. Despite the aggression, Venezuelans would fight alongside the Government, defending its sovereignty, democracy and peace. Venezuela reiterated its firm rejection of the work, allegations and very existence of the pseudo Mission. Venezuela had increased its technical cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, making progress on agreed objectives with tangible results. The country would continue promoting and protecting human rights through the Council, but not through interventionist and punitive measures, which caused many countries to be undermined by crude and continuous lies.
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers remained concerned over the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crises in Venezuela, where the authorities still carried out actions that undermined democracy and the rule of law, and violated human rights. Of particular concern were recent developments in the country that pointed to a persistent attack on civic and democratic space, and civil society actors. The systematic restriction of civil society and civic space was also a particular matter for concern, said speakers, who deplored the criminalisation of union leaders simply for demanding decent wages. These convictions were a clear tactic to dissuade others from calling for better work and living conditions, befitting a broader pattern of the authorities undermining not only the population’s social and economic rights but also keeping social leaders, human rights defenders and journalists from exercising civil and political rights such as their right to freedom of expression.
A number of speakers welcomed the report’s focus on civic and democratic space and recognised the importance of a constructive engagement of all stakeholders in a Venezuelan-led dialogue. It was crucial to monitor the situation closely with presidential and legislative elections expected to take place in 2024 and 2025. Free and fair elections were the key towards a peaceful and democratic solution to the crisis. There was a need to end impunity, to hold perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses accountable through effective and impartial investigations, and to release immediately all political prisoners.
The Fact-Finding Mission’s message was clear: since the last report, the human rights situation in Venezuela had not improved and gross human rights violations still took place. Venezuela must protect, respect and fulfil the rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and peaceful assembly and association, including ensuring that human rights defenders, humanitarian workers, journalists, political opponents and trade unionists could carry out their activities safely. Strengthening the civic space was essential if the upcoming elections were to be free, fair, credible, transparent and inclusive.
One speaker called upon the Venezuelan authorities to cooperate with and fully implement all recommendations by the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms, notably the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, and relevant bodies, inter alia by granting the Fact-Finding Mission unhindered access to Venezuela, and implementing its recommendations. It was imperative that the Venezuelan authorities guaranteed all Venezuelans’ free exercise of equal political and public participation rights, the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, to information, as well as to peaceful association and assembly.
Some speakers said the Human Rights Council had extended the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission many times without the consent of the country; this did not help with the difficulties that Venezuela faced today. Unilateral coercive measures imposed by certain countries severely impeded its economic development, and the human rights and livelihood of the Venezuelan people had been affected. Those countries should immediately put an end to the unilateral coercive measures. They appreciated the efforts of the Government of Venezuela to support the human rights of its people, improve their livelihood and to follow a human rights path that was best for its people.
The supposedly impartial assessment of the Fact-Finding Mission, another speaker said, only fomented divisions. The speaker denounced politically-imposed mandates, which grossly violated the economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Venezuela. Only cooperation could help the country to meet its obligations. Several States, said one speaker, preferred to use accusations and threats rather than cooperation. The goal of the international community was to help to resolve difficulties, and not to artificially isolate a country: the main obstacle to Venezuela’s human rights was the sanctions that destabilised the country. The report confirmed the Mission’s bias, said a speaker.
Among questions raised were: how could the international community contribute to fostering an open civic and democratic space in Venezuela; what was the Mission’s assessment of the use of counter-terrorism measures against those advocating for the rights of workers, addressing working conditions, and those engaging in trade unions in Venezuela; was the Fact-Finding Mission planning to investigate the practices of the Venezuelan security forces and their excessive use of violence; how did the Mission see its collaboration with Venezuela and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the run up to the upcoming elections; could the Fact-Finding Mission elaborate more on the progress in accountability mentioned in the report, and did it expect further positive developments in this area; and how could States support civil society actors under attack in Venezuela?
Concluding Remarks
PATRICIA TAPPATÁ VALDEZ, Member of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, thanked all the countries that had asked questions. The Mission worked in accordance with the principles of independence, impartiality and objectivity and with the principle to not cause harm to victims or witnesses. One central objective was to continue international scrutiny and monitoring. Attacks on freedom of expression also included hostility towards journalists. There needed to be clear, consistent rules for the political system which regulated decisions for Venezuela. The international community needed to ask these institutions to remain independent and discharge their duties. It was important to call for effective changes so that civil society could act freely in the country. The Fact-Finding Mission would continue addressing the issue of security forces.
FRANCISCO COX VIAL, Member of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said accountability included starting investigations with respect for the human rights of victims. Some countries had spoken about a false dichotomy between the Office of the High Commissioner, the Criminal Court and the Mission. This could be one of the success stories which took place in the Council. Leaders of trade unions had been subjected to arbitrary detention and torture. The Commission rejected this and this was why it was included in the report.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
HRC23.125E