MORNING - Human Rights Council Hears that S ome of the Human Rights Violations Documented in Belarus Could Amount to Crimes against Humanity, and that There Were Reasonable Grounds to Believe that Crimes against Humanity, Including Torture, Were Committed in Venezuela

The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Nada Al-Nashif, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made further findings of systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations committed in Belarus.

The Office also documented continuing widespread and systematic practices of torture and ill-treatment directed against individuals for their real or perceived opposition either to the Government or to the officially declared election results.

Ms. Al-Nashif said that some of the human rights violations documented could further amount to crimes against humanity, taking into account their intentionally-directed, widespread and systematic nature against the civilian population defined by its real or apparent opposition to the Government and its claim to electoral legitimacy. Prompt, effective, transparent and independent investigations must be launched into all past human rights violations, with provision of appropriate remedies, including due accountability for perpetrators.

Belarus, speaking as a country concerned, said Belarus’ commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, and building a free and just society, had been demonstrated by many specialised reports of the United Nations. Belarus was experiencing a tremendous amount of pressure and hysteria by a number of Western countries and the so-called "experts” of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which had been publishing biased reports on the country. The attempt to overthrow the Government in 2020 was unsuccessful but the attacks on the country continued. The attacks were political; Belarus did not want to be drafted into the orbit of the West and wanted to maintain an original path and defend its sovereignty.

Belarus urged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations to work to ensure the coexistence between nations and not encourage disinformation and exert pressure.

In the discussion, some speakers welcomed the report of the High Commissioner and strongly supported the extension of the mandate. It was noted with grave concern that some of the violations occurring in Belarus could amount to crimes against humanity. Many were worried by the dire human rights situation which continued to deteriorate. Politically motivated prosecutions, reprisals, arbitrary arrests, detentions, and torture remained endemic, while the justice system was abused to silence dissent and systematically oppress pro-democratic forces. Some speakers called on Belarus to immediately end its support and assistance to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.

Some speakers condemned the politicisation and interference in the internal affairs of Belarus, and supported the Belarusian Government's actions in defence of its sovereignty. The work of the Council should follow the path of impartiality and non-selectivity. One speaker noted the biased nature of the report, and said the people of Belarus were facing unprecedented pressure and violation of their rights by the sanctions of the West. The purpose of these illegal measures was to destabilise the internal political situation in the country. Countries were urged to stop the unilateral sanctions against Belarus.

Speaking in the discussion were Lithuania on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, European Union, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Finland, United States, Czech Republic, Germany, France, China, Belgium, Latvia, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Switzerland, Poland, Venezuela, Slovakia, Netherlands, Republic of Moldova, Austria, United Kingdom, Spain, Albania, Greece, Malta, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Cuba Australia, Tajikistan, Ireland, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Iran, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Russian Federation, Syria, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Azerbaijan, and Zimbabwe.

Also speaking were Human Rights House Foundation, National Human Rights Civic Association “Belarusian Helsinki Committee”, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, World Organization against Torture, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, International Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety, and International Commission of Jurists.

The Council then held an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Marta Valiñas, Chairperson of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said since its inception, the Mission had documented gross human rights violations and international crimes in Venezuela, especially in the context of a policy to silence, discourage and quash opposition to the Government, as well as in the context of security operations. Serious human rights violations continued to take place in Venezuela to this day, including the detention of people who opposed the Government or were perceived as such. The Mission continued to receive reports of threats and reprisals against detainees and their families. Attacks and threats against human rights organizations and defenders, trade unionists, journalists, humanitarian personnel, and other organised civil society actors in Venezuela, as well as political leaders, had persisted and, in some cases, increased.

In its latest reports, the Mission concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity, including torture and other ill-treatment, were committed in detention centres of the civilian and military intelligence services. The evidence gathered supported the conclusion with reasonable grounds to believe that individuals who worked and continued to work in the intelligence services, as well as high-level authorities, could bear criminal responsibility for these crimes.

Venezuela, speaking as a country concerned, said it was again appearing before the Council based on the unlawful resolution that renewed the mandate of the hostile monitoring mechanism against the State, which had been rejected by Venezuela and other countries. Venezuela’s vision was open, transparent and cooperative, based on dialogue, and the State continued to strengthen cooperative relations with the Office of the High Commissioner. The Council had before it two very different paths to follow: to support and strengthen cooperation and technical assistance in the field of human rights between the Venezuelan Government and the Office of the High Commissioner, based on mutually agreed objectives that yielded tangible results; or maintain the politicised selectivity and interference which shamefully instrumentalised human rights against Venezuela.

Speaking in the discussion on Venezuela, some speakers expressed serious concern at the reported human rights violations and abuses, including those wielded against the opposition, human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, the independent media, and civil society actors. They stressed the need to enhance accountability for the perpetrators of such violations and abuses, including by strengthening the judicial system and other institutional human rights mechanisms, and called for the immediate release of political prisoners. Particular concern was expressed about continued restrictions on civic space. Many speakers said the Fact-Finding Mission’s investigation of human rights violations and abuses was crucial to pursuing accountability and bringing perpetrators to justice.

Some speakers noted that the Council was meeting for the second time in 24 hours to discuss Venezuela; this was not constructive. Investigative mechanisms should enjoy the consent of the country concerned, and the Council should follow the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity, and non-politicisation in its work. Some speakers were concerned at the continued use of illegal unilateral coercive measures, which had been introduced to pressure the Venezuelan Government. These measures should be lifted, and the international community was encouraged to provide technical support to Venezuela.

Speaking in the discussion were European Union, Canada on behalf of a group of countries, Netherlands on behalf of the Benelux countries, United States, Ecuador, Israel, Portugal, France, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, Georgia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Chile, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nicaragua, Yemen, Burundi, Syria, Egypt, Russian Federation, Brazil, and Paraguay.

Also speaking were International Commission of Jurists, Fundación Latinoamericana por los Derechos Humanos y el Desarrollo Social, Ingenieurs du Monde, Centre pour les Droits Civils et Politiques - Centre CCPR, Freedom House, Amnesty International, Aula Abierta, World Organisation Against Torture, and Meezaan Centre for Human Rights.

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-second regular session can be found here.

The Council will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. to hear the presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea followed by a general debate under agenda item four on human rights situations that require the Council’s attention.

Interactive Dialogue on the High Commissioner’s Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus in the Run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election and in its Aftermath

Report

The Council has before it the report of the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath (A/HRC/52/68).

Presentation of Report

NADA AL-NASHIF, United Nation Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, presenting the second report on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath, said the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made further findings of systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations committed in Belarus. The report drew on the detailed analysis of 207 interviews conducted in 2022 with victims, witnesses, and other stakeholders, and collected, preserved and analysed over 2,500 items of information and evidence, according to established methodology.

The Office found the unlawful deaths of at least five persons in the context of the 2020 protests, and further assessed that crowd control equipment and weapons were unnecessarily used to forcibly disperse protests . The Office also documented continuing widespread and systematic practices of torture and ill-treatment directed against individuals for their real or perceived opposition either to the Government or to the officially declared election results. The Office of the High Commissioner documented over 100 cases of sexual and gender-based violence and reviewed over 180 additional credibly documented cases. Over the past two and a half years, authorities in Belarus had arbitrarily arrested and detained tens of thousands of people, many for taking part peacefully in demonstrations related to the 2020 presidential elections.

Ms. Al-Nashif said the report further documented numerous and systematic violations of the rights to due process and a fair trial in both administrative and criminal proceedings. The Office of the High Commissioner continued to document severe and disproportionate sentences handed down by the courts against opposition figures, bloggers, journalists, human rights defenders, trade unionists and lawyers.

The authorities had intensified their massive crackdown on members of civil society, the media and political opposition for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly and association. At least 100,000 persons had left Belarus since May 2020 due to fear and repression. Of grave concern for the Office were recent legislative amendments enabling the termination of citizenship of a person convicted of “participation in extremist activities or causing serious harm to the interests of the Republic of Belarus”.

The report comprehensively documented that the authorities failed to investigate complaints of human rights violations. Instead, they initiated criminal investigations against and prosecuted many of those who filed complaints, underlining the absence of domestic accountability. Some of the human rights violations documented could further amount to crimes against humanity, taking into account their intentionally-directed, widespread and systematic nature against the civilian population defined by its real or apparent opposition to the Government and its claim to electoral legitimacy. Prompt, effective, transparent and independent investigations must be launched into all past human rights violations, with provision of appropriate remedies, including due accountability for perpetrators. The Office deeply regretted the persistent lack of cooperation by the Belarusian authorities.

Statement by Country Concerned

Belarus, speaking as a country concerned, invited those in the Council to visit Belarus. Residents of two thirds of the countries of the world could come to Belarus without visas. Visitors would be able to see the calm and clean cities and there would be opportunities to speak to people on the streets. Belarus’ commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, and building a free and just society had been demonstrated by many specialised reports of the United Nations.

Belarus was experiencing a tremendous amount of pressure and hysteria by a number of Western countries and the so-called "experts” of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who had been publishing biased reports on the country. The authors of these reports were demeaning the Belarusian people and tried to draw attention, in a cowardly way, to those who had deserted the country. The attempt to overthrow the Government in 2020 was unsuccessful but the attacks on the country continued. The attacks were political; Belarus did not want to be drafted into the orbit of the West and wanted to maintain an original path and defend its sovereignty.

Belarus intended to remain stable despite efforts to destabilise the situation and draw Belarus into armed conflict; the people had lived through genocide in World War II and would not bow to attempts to be threatened. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations must work to ensure the coexistence between nations and not encourage disinformation and exert pressure.

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers welcomed the report of the High Commissioner and strongly supported the extension of the mandate. It was noted with grave concern that some of the violations occurring in Belarus could amount to crimes against humanity. Since the fraudulent 2020 presidential election, the international community had witnessed systematic human rights violations committed with impunity on a massive scale by Belarusian authorities.

Many speakers were worried about the dire human rights situation which continued to deteriorate. Politically motivated prosecutions, reprisals, arbitrary arrests, detentions, and torture remained endemic, while the justice system was abused to silence dissent and systematically oppress pro-democratic forces. Speakers condemned all acts of unnecessary and disproportionate use of force, torture and other ill treatment, arbitrary arrests and detention, sexual and gender-based violence, as well as the reported cases of violations of the rights to a fair trial, and the rights to freedoms of expression, and peaceful assembly and association. By allowing Russia to use its territory for aggression against Ukraine, the leadership of Belarus was responsible for the act of aggression. Belarus was called on to immediately end its support and assistance to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.

Many speakers were extremely disturbed about the recent politically motivated long-term prison sentence against the Belarussian human rights defender and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Ales Bialiatski, as well as his other colleagues at the Human Rights Centre Viasna. Concern was also expressed about imprisoned journalist and blogger Ihar Losik who had recently attempted suicide. There were currently around 1,500 political prisoners in Belarus. Prisoners were forced to wear identifying tags, subjected to violence and torture, and not provided with timely medical aid or legal counsel. Speakers strongly condemned the politically motivated prison sentences of human rights defenders, political opponents and representatives of the Belarusian democratic opposition in exile. They stood in solidarity with these people, and called on the Belarusian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release them, and to ensure their full rehabilitation.

One speaker noted that the civil society and independent media had been wiped out, changing Belarus into an open-air prison. The shrinking civic space was extremely concerning, and authorities had intensified intimidation and harassment against human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers. Over 1,000 civil society organizations and independent media outlets had been forcibly dissolved; Belarus needed to stop this systematic crackdown. The new law extending the scope of the death penalty to civil servants and military personnel guilty of high treason was extremely worrying. Belarusian authorities were called on to reverse this decision and immediately establish a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to its abolition.

Some speakers condemned the politicisation and interference in the internal affairs of Belarus, and supported the Belarusian Government's actions in the defence of its sovereignty. The situation in Belarus did not deserve the Council's attention. It was up to the Belarusian people to move towards national consensus in deciding their political future. The work of the Council should follow the path of impartiality and non-selectivity. One speaker noted the biased nature of the report, and said the people of Belarus were facing unprecedented pressure and violation of their rights by the sanctions of the West. Economic restrictions were being imposed against the country, assets were frozen, and border crossing points were closed. The purpose of these illegal measures was to destabilise the internal political situation in the country. Countries were urged to stop the unilateral sanctions against Belarus.

Some speakers urged the Belarussian authorities to conduct independent, impartial and credible investigations into all alleged human rights violations and fully cooperate with United Nations mandate holders. There was a need for an independent investigative mechanism into the situation in Belarus which had a broader mandate and was sufficiently funded. The international community needed to ensure the accountability of the Belarusian authorities for the violations of international human rights law. The impunity must end and further crimes must be prevented.

Some speakers asked what more could the international community do to protect political prisoners, journalists, media workers and human rights defenders persecuted by the Belarusian authorities? Could more details be provided about documented cases of sexual and gender-based violence against detainees and the overall situation of prisoners in Belarus? How could the Office further follow up on media freedom in Belarus?

Concluding Remarks

Belarus, in concluding remarks, said it was impossible for countries to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as the latter did not want to hear what the governments wanted to say, and opposed the Belarussian State. There were no political prisoners - there were people who had broken the law and were serving their sentences. Some of these were victims of manipulation by supposed champions of human rights, who became involved in conflicts against the State, trying to overthrow it, and portrayed themselves as victims. Belarus did not use water cannons or truncheons when dispersing protests, unlike some Western countries, nor were the Belarussian police guilty of deaths.

NADA AL-NASHIF, United Nation Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in concluding remarks, said on documented cases of sexual and gender-based violence against detainees, the report described such cases committed, the vast majority pertaining to detention facilities or in vehicles during the transfer of detainees, and did not describe the full scale, as there was no doubt under-reporting. Although women were less likely to be beaten than male detainees, the pattern of physical violence against them persisted.

On the overall situation of prisoners, the Office noted that the majority of detainees, mainly men held on politically-motivated charges, were kept in two facilities. The Office had reasonable grounds to believe that the detention conditions there amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and in some cases torture, and prisoners interviewed reported being held in severely overcrowded conditions without bedding, and sleeping on concrete floors. All prisoners reported being systematically deprived of sleep for days and weeks.

On detained children, the Office found that hundreds of children were arrested during the protests, and had received accounts of ill-treatment and detentions of children on politically-motivated charges. Children were also subjected to sexual and gender-based violence. On the practice of separation of children to force parents to self-incriminate themselves, the Office echoed the concerns of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus in this regard, urging Belarus to put an end to this practice.

On the issue of crimes against humanity, Ms. Al-Nashif referred to paragraph 54 of the report, which recommended that Member States maintain the situation of human rights in Belarus under review in the Council, and to continue to call upon Belarus to cooperate and provide access for the Office and the human rights mechanisms. All violations that were documented from the perspective of international criminal law had been listed in the report. The Office worked closely with the Special Rapporteur and all relevant stakeholders, including civil society organizations. All materials received had been assessed in line with established methodologies.

The international community must continue to support the call for independent assessors to be able to access Belarus in order to investigate allegations of human rights violations. Member States could work towards accountability in various ways, including targeted measures against alleged perpetrators of grave human rights abuses, and she recommended that they coordinate effectively between themselves and with civil society organizations.

Interactive Dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Presentation

MARTA VALIÑAS, Chairperson of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in an oral update on the activities of the Mission, said since its inception, the Mission had documented gross human rights violations and international crimes in Venezuela, especially in the context of a policy to silence, discourage and quash opposition to the Government, as well as in the context of security operations. Serious human rights violations continued to take place in Venezuela to this day, including the detention of people who opposed the Government or were perceived as such. According to civil society estimates, 282 persons – both civilians and military - remained detained for political causes or motives, and new selective detentions were taking place.

The Mission continued to receive reports of threats and reprisals against detainees and their families. In recent years, following the decrease of mass protests, repression had focused on civil society actors perceived as opponents of the Government. Attacks and threats against human rights organizations and defenders, trade unionists, journalists, humanitarian personnel, and other organised civil society actors in Venezuela, as well as political leaders, had persisted and, in some cases, increased. The persecution of union leaders had intensified. During the last year, attacks against the media had intensified. The Mission noted with special concern the attacks against journalists and communicators. Along with these attacks, a series of laws and administrative procedures had been implemented which hindered the free functioning of civil society.

In its first report to the Council, the Mission documented a State policy to combat criminality, which included the elimination, through extrajudicial executions, of persons considered or presented as “criminals”. Such acts were committed within the framework of the so-called People’s Liberation Operations, and, as of 2017, by the Special Action Forces of the National Police. According to information gathered by the Mission to date, there were indications that these patterns still persisted.

In its latest report, the Mission also addressed the human rights situation in the region of the Arco Minero del Orinoco and other areas of Bolívar State, in the south of the country. The indigenous peoples of the State of Amazonas continued to denounce violent attacks against their leaders.

In its latest reports, the Mission concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity, including torture and other ill-treatment, were committed in detention centres of the civilian and military intelligence services. The evidence gathered supported the conclusion with reasonable grounds to believe that individuals who worked and continued to work in the intelligence services, as well as high-level authorities, could bear criminal responsibility for these crimes. The Mission had recommended that these individuals should be genuinely investigated and prosecuted, and recalled that, according to international norms and jurisprudence, crimes against humanity and other serious human rights violations were not subject to statutory limitations nor amnesty. In this regard, the proceedings before the International Criminal Court represented a substantial step forward in ensuring accountability in Venezuela.

Statement by Country Concerned

Venezuela, speaking as a country concerned, said Venezuela was again appearing before the Council based on the unlawful resolution that renewed the mandate of the hostile monitoring mechanism against the State, which had been rejected by Venezuela and other countries. It was important to remember that the meeting was part of the strategy devised by the United States, their allies in the European Union, and other countries in Venezuela’s region that denied their identity and preferred to attack rather than cooperate. They continued to use human rights as an instrument of attack against Venezuela, to keep up the media campaign against the Bolivarian Government, and to develop a narrative of systematic violations of human rights with shady political goals. The intention which mobilised the pseudo Mission was obvious; Venezuela would continue to condemn this as a wrongful practice.

Venezuela wanted to promote and protect human rights, but not from an interventionist and punitive approach. Venezuela’s vision was open, transparent and cooperative, based on dialogue, and the State continued to strengthen cooperative relations with the Office of the High Commissioner. In less than four years, two High Commissioners for Human Rights had already visited Venezuela. Yet it still heard statements that the country did not cooperate just because some were not permitted to enter the country and continue lying. As long as there was respect, Venezuela would be willing to share its reality, because it had nothing to hide, not even its challenges. Venezuela maintained and would continue to cultivate broad and active cooperation with this Council, its mechanisms and the treaty bodies, on the basis of non-interference, sovereignty and respect.

The Council had before it two very different paths to follow: to support and strengthen cooperation and technical assistance in the field of human rights between the Venezuelan Government and the Office of the High Commissioner, based on mutually agreed objectives that yielded tangible results; or maintain the politicised selectivity and interference which shamefully instrumentalised human rights against Venezuela. In the meantime, the State would continue to build its future and fight against the illegal unilateral coercive measures.

Discussion

In the discussion, some speakers thanked the Fact-Finding Mission for its oral update on the situation of human rights in Venezuela in the framework of its mandate. Many expressed serious concern at the reported human rights violations and abuses, including those wielded against the opposition, human rights defenders, indigenous peoples, independent media, and civil society actors. They stressed the need to enhance accountability for the perpetrators of such violations and abuses, including by strengthening the judicial system and other institutional human rights mechanisms, and called for the immediate release of political prisoners.

Particular concern was expressed about continued restrictions on civic space. Some speakers noted the ongoing harassment of social leaders, independent journalists, and media outlets, and called for the release of all individuals who were arbitrarily detained, including human rights defenders. A prime example of this worrying trend was the draft bill for the inspection, regularisation, action and financing of non-governmental and related organizations, which sought to further limit the enjoyment of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association of the Venezuelan population. Media freedom continued to be under severe pressure in Venezuela, indicated by the accelerated closings of radio channels. A vibrant civic space was a prerequisite for any thriving society. Venezuela needed to respect its international human rights obligations and protect civil society organizations, including human rights defenders, journalists, media workers, and political opponents.

Many speakers said the Fact-Finding Mission’s investigation of human rights violations and abuses was crucial to pursuing accountability and bringing perpetrators to justice. Venezuelan authorities were called on to cooperate with all relevant international human rights and accountability mechanisms, and ensure unhindered access to the country. The State should fully implement the recommendations made by the Fact-Finding Mission and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and recommendations resulting from the Universal Periodic Review in January 2022.

Some speakers supported the International Criminal Court's investigation to combat impunity. The considerable efforts of the States of the region to welcome the more than 7 million Venezuelans who had to flee the country were welcomed. Venezuela should intensify its cooperation efforts with the United Nations to ensure the right to food, water and health of Venezuelans in need.

Some speakers noted that the Council was meeting for the second time in 24 hours to discuss Venezuela; this was not constructive. One speaker said that the coercion of the duplicate debate showed the intention to spread disinformation about the situation in Venezuela and to increase pressure on the sovereign State. The Fact-Finding Mission was a mechanism that contradicted the principles of cooperation on human rights issues and discredited the work of the Human Rights Council. Investigative mechanisms should enjoy the consent of the country concerned, and the Council should follow the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity, and non-politicisation in its work.

A number of speakers commended the Venezuelan Government for its efforts in promoting and achieving human rights, and to fulfil its international human rights obligations. Some speakers were concerned at the continued use of illegal unilateral coercive measures, which had been introduced to pressure the Venezuelan Government. In fact, this only served to exacerbate the situation and had severely harmed the rights of the Venezuelan people. These measures should be lifted, and the international community was encouraged to provide technical support to Venezuela

Some speakers asked the Fact-Finding Mission for its assessment of the new draft law on non-governmental organizations and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights. What could the international community do to improve the weak civic and democratic space? Since the last report, had an official response been received from the Venezuelan authorities regarding the multiple requests for access to the territory?

Concluding Remarks

PATRICIA TAPPATÁ VALDEZ, Member of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in concluding remarks, said on how countries could cooperate in order to improve the human rights situation, it was crucial to have this cooperation to uphold freedom of opinion and expression in public life as a pillar of democratic life through the exercise of truth, documenting facts, justice, and encouraging reforms in the judicial system. Victims had been mentioned, and the way of providing reparation was pointing to the responsibility of perpetrators of human rights violations as a way of guaranteeing non-recurrence. On consent, when civic space shrunk, it was difficult for people to express their need for solidarity from the international community.

FRANCISCO COX VIAL, Member of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said with lies and silence the truth could be corrupted, and the Fact-Finding Mission would not remain silent or lie in the face of human rights violations. On the resolution not being legitimate as it had been rejected by many countries, 19 was more than 5, according to mathematics. On how to investigate patterns of repression and violations of the rule of law, the Mission continued to use the same methodology to document these and investigate structures that would ensure that victims could receive justice.

It was difficult to speak of dialogue and cooperation with a country that walked out when he was speaking. The Mission saw no change in cooperation, and wished that it did, so that it could enter the country - not being able to do so did not make its conclusions less solid, as it had received its information from insiders and people still inside the country. The Fact-Finding Mission continued to focus on intimidation and persecution mechanisms used against the opposition and persons seen as opposition by the State.

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.

HRC23.039E