In late January, Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez announced her intention to introduce a general amnesty law covering the period from 1999 to the present. On February 5, the ruling party presented a bill to the National Assembly that would contribute to rebuilding democratic coexistence among Venezuelan citizens by granting amnesty.
Critics of the proposed law argued that it failed to engage the country’s society by fostering public debate among citizens. In response to this criticism, the government initiated a brief consultation with civil society organizations committed to defending the rights of people imprisoned for political reasons over the past decades. Some of these organizations’ requests were incorporated into the final text of the general amnesty law.
On February 12, Parliament approved the law, which entered into force the following week.
Article 2 of the law outlines its objectives: promoting peace and democratic coexistence, creating conditions that reduce political conflict and ensure political party pluralism, fostering the development of legal and constitutional mechanisms that democratically resolve political conflicts, and supporting the social reintegration of those granted amnesty.
The release of many political prisoners in Venezuela as a result of this law must be welcomed as a significant first step forward for the country’s future. It also represents an opportunity to begin interpreting the country’s past in a nonpartisan way that is rooted in the people.
However, Venezuelan experts in human and political rights have also highlighted some of this general amnesty law’s major limitations. First, it is a “selective” law in terms of the cases covered and the periods during which the amnesty applies. Second, it does not address the issue of “enforced disappearances” of Venezuelan citizens by government agencies. Third, the major problem of judicial independence remains, given the paradox that the amnesty law will be applied by the same judges who participated in the trials of those arrested for political reasons. Fourth, no investigation will be launched into the judicial proceedings that the law aims to rectify, which poses a risk of impunity and concealing the truth, especially regarding cases of torture. The law classifies cases involving the simple exercise of the right to freedom of expression as violent demonstrations. All political prisoners arrested on other false charges are excluded from the amnesty.
The last amnesty law enacted by the Venezuelan Parliament was in 2007, yet the new law includes cases and events that should have been covered by the previous law. This indicates how difficult it is to implement an effective, transparent, and democratic amnesty process for political crimes in Venezuela. On the other hand, the new general amnesty law acknowledges this shortcoming, and it is hoped that it will be accompanied by the necessary implementation and monitoring mechanisms to enable it to mark a turning point in Venezuela’s political life.
Carlos Lusverti, director of the Center for Human Rights at the Catholic University of Caracas, stated: “The general amnesty law alone will not succeed in promoting national reconciliation, achieving peaceful coexistence, or putting an end to our long-standing sociopolitical conflict. Alongside this law, a set of implementing measures must be enacted, and the political will must be strengthened so that peace and coexistence can be consolidated by overcoming impunity through truth, justice, reparation, non-repetition, and remembrance for all the victims.”
