|
|
|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 29 December 2003 Original: Spanish
REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA
1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has been closely following the human rights situation in Venezuela, and has taken steps within its mandates to guarantee respect for human rights in that country. To this end, the Commission has used various mechanisms provided in inter-American human rights instruments, such as the case system, the adoption of precautionary measures, the request for provisional measures from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, in situ visits to the country, and press releases.
2. In response to an invitation from the Venezuelan government, the Commission made an in situ visit from May 6 to May 10, 2002. The Commission had planned to conduct a series of follow-up visits, but has been prevented from doing so to date because the Venezuelan State has been unable to establish the corresponding dates.
3. This report, which consists of seven chapters, examines the situation in Venezuela, with a particular focus on various aspects relating to the rule of law in the country. The report was prepared on the basis of information collected before, during, and after its in situ visit to Venezuela in May 2002, and covers subsequent events up to October 2003.
4. The report was prepared during political and institutional upheaval. The political climate in Venezuela has shown a marked tendency to radicalization, which became accentuated in the early months of 2002 and culminated in a breakdown of the constitutional order on April 11, with its subsequent restoration on April 14 of that year.
5. The primary purpose of this report is to engage the Venezuelan State to analyze the human rights situation and to formulate recommendations that will assist the State in meeting its international obligations in the area of human rights.
6. In the first place, the IACHR welcomes the inclusion in the Venezuelan Constitution of a provision that gives constitutional rank to human rights treaties ratified by the State. It also notes that the new constitution has strengthened and expanded legal protection for personal safety and integrity, and for preventing practices that undermine those values.
7. The new Constitution also contains special provisions relating to human rights, as in Chapter VIII on the rights of indigenous peoples, Chapter IX on environmental rights, and Chapters VI and VII on social, economic and cultural rights; the prohibition in Article 45 with respect to the forced disappearance of persons; and the creation of new institutions for protecting human rights, such as the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría del Pueblo) and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.
8. Notwithstanding these positive constitutional developments, however, the situations identified in the various chapters of this report demonstrate a clear weakness in the fundamental pillars that must support the rule of law in a democratic system, consistent with the American Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments.
9. The Commission noted that during the period between March 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 more than 40 people were killed and some 750 were injured as the result of street protests. The extreme political polarization and resulting acts of violence that have erupted periodically between different demonstrators to growing political intolerance in the country. The IACHR has noted worrisome signs of institutional weakness, including the failure to give full application to the new Constitution, the perception that the branches of government lack independence, the growing concentration of power in the national executive, the impunity in which certain armed civilian groups and para-police units operate, the government's tendency to confrontation and disparagement of the political opposition, the constant attacks on journalists and the media, the tendency to militarize the public administration through the increasingly prominent role of the armed forces, the growing radicalization of political postures in the context of popular discontent over unmet social demands, and disputes relating to the exercise of trade union rights.
10. Chapter I, on the administration of justice and human rights, focuses on aspects affecting the administration of justice in Venezuela. The Commission analyzes the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, the provisional status of most of the country's judges, and the makeup of certain institutions.
11. With respect to the provisional judges, the Commission notes that this is a problem which long predates the current government. Nevertheless, the problem has worsened since the government began the process of judicial restructuring. The Commission was informed that only 250 judges have been appointed through competition, as the Constitution requires. Of the total of 1,772 judges in Venezuela, the Supreme Court of Justice reports that only 183 have tenure, 1,331 are provisional, and 258 are temporary. This means that 84% of magistrates continue to have provisional or temporary status, and lack tenure in their positions.
12. Another aspect of concern to the Commission with respect to guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the Venezuelan judiciary relates to the failure to enforce the mechanisms provided by the new Constitution for the election of its Supreme Court authorities. The Commission reiterates the conclusion from its in situ visit, to the effect that the failure to respect the Constitution fully creates legal insecurity that impedes the consolidation of the rule of law. For this reason, the Commission believes that it is urgent to adopt organic laws as the appropriate means of establishing the mechanisms stipulated in the Constitution for the selection of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, as well as the Public Ombudsman, the National Attorney General, and the National Comptroller General.
13. The Commission has also received information pointing to a significant increase in impunity with respect to acts of violence. According to that information, 90% of investigations related to human rights violations never advance beyond the preliminary stage. The Commission was told specifically that in the first quarter of 2003 the Judicial Police had referred 3,892 cases to the Courts, but the Courts had resolved only 772, or 19% of these cases. These figures are on a par with those for the year 2002, when only 667 of 9,529 homicide cases resulted in definitive judgments. The Commission finds these figures particularly alarming, because impunity constitutes a grave violation of the obligations of states, and implies a kind of vicious circle that tends to repeat and perpetuate itself, thereby increasing the crime rate, particularly for violent offenses.
14. Chapter II, on civil society, examines the situation of human rights defenders in Venezuela.
15. The IACHR has received a considerable number of complaints about various kinds of attacks and acts of intimidation against persons devoted to protecting and promoting respect for the fundamental rights of Venezuela's inhabitants. Acts of harassment against human rights defenders and human rights organizations at times go as far as attacks on the life and physical integrity of those defenders. A series of cases have been verified in which defenders were the targets of various mechanisms of intimidation. In at least one case, the IACHR had to request provisional measures from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in order to protect members of a human rights organization.
16. Chapter III, on State security, examines the role of the armed forces and security police.
17. The Commission notes that the Constitution extends the scope of the concept of security not only to the military sphere but also to the cultural, social, economic and political spheres, among others. The IACHR wishes to stress that in a democratic society this broad and progressive concept of national security must be suitably interpreted in ways that do not presuppose increased powers for the armed forces in fields beyond their competence.
18. The IACHR was greatly concerned at the many reports received of an excessively deliberative role for the armed forces, and the undue influence they exert on the country's political life. The Commission believes it is essential for the Venezuelan State to take urgent measures to ensure that the armed forces do not adopt a deliberative role, and that they do not involve themselves in the country's political life.
19. The Commission also observed problems in the conduct of the various police forces, as evident in a series of events, in particular: the proliferation in several states of death squads linked to the police, a situation that undermines the rule of law and poses a particular threat to the right to life; the lack of coordination among the various security bodies, and in particular between the National Guard and the Metropolitan Police, the Metropolitan Police strike that began in October 2002, the police strikes in several states of the country; the disproportionate use of force in certain circumstances, assassinations attributed to the Metropolitan Police at the time of the constitutional breakdown, and the political struggle for control of that institution between the national executive and the office of the mayor of Caracas.
20. In Chapter IV, on the right to life, the Commission finds that the situation has worsened considerably, due to the increase in impunity and violence. This problem is particularly severe in certain states, notably in Portuguesa, Anzoategui, Falcon, Yaracuy, Caracas, Bolivar, Aragua and Miranda. More than 30 cases have come to light in seven different states where persons were summarily executed by para-police groups. The escalating violence has resulted in 55 assassinations in the course of street violence, and more than 500 people have died in presumed confrontations that have not been sufficiently clarified.
21. The Commission believes that a system that does not guarantee immediate and effective investigation, prosecution and punishment is incapable of enforcing respect and protection for the rights of the victims nor of the alleged perpetrators. In examining this issue, the Commission must reiterate what it has maintained on several occasions, to the effect that a State is not only responsible for human rights violations committed by its agents or through the conduct of para-police groups operating with its acquiescence or consent, but it also incurs international responsibility when it fails to take adequate measures to prevent, investigate and punish criminal acts by individuals or particular groups. As noted throughout this report, priority must be given to fulfilling the State's commitment to strengthen the administration of justice and to stamp out impunity.
22. In Chapter V, on the right to humane treatment and personal integrity, the Commission notes that the sharpening institutional conflict in Venezuela has made itself felt in acts of violence that have involved attempts against people's lives, and numerous attacks on personal integrity. The Commission has received many complaints from nongovernmental agencies and from individuals, claiming that torture continues to be practiced by the police, even in the course of judicial investigations, as a means of intimidating prisoners and extracting confessions from them. As well, the Commission finds that the competent State bodies have failed to fulfill their duty to investigate complaints in these cases and to punish those responsible, who generally enjoy impunity, a situation that encourages the repetition of such conduct. It also notes a lack of effective surveillance over the physical integrity of prisoners in civilian and military detention centers alike. According to the information received, it is the police who are primarily responsible for cases of torture, since these take place primarily in police stations. Torture is commonly applied to persons under detention or investigation.
23. In Chapter VI, on the right to freedom of expression and thought, the IACHR has identified two areas of particular concern relating to freedom of expression: the first involves threats, attacks and acts of harassment against social communicators, particularly those working in the streets, and the failure to investigate those threats and attacks; the second refers to judicial decisions and draft legislation that, if enforced, would severely constrain the full exercise of freedom of expression for the inhabitants of Venezuela. The third has to do with the initiation of administrative proceedings by CONATEL and the Ministry of Infrastructure against the communications media, relating to the content of their programming, and applying legislation that may be inconsistent with the inter-American system.
24. The IACHR with has noted many instances of verbal or physical assaults in recent years. There have been threats and attacks against social communicators, especially those covering public events, political rallies and activities relating to the security forces. Before, during and after the in situ visit, the IACHR was informed that social communicators working in the streets were being targeted for attack and harassment. The overall situation in Venezuela has generated a climate of aggressiveness and continuous threats against the freedom of expression, and in particular against the personal integrity of journalists, cameramen, photographers and other social communication workers.
25. Given the vulnerability in which communication workers find themselves, the IACHR asked the Venezuelan State to adopt precautionary measures on eight occasions during 2002, and in many cases these were extended in order to protect the life, personal integrity and freedom of expression of journalists, cameramen and photographers. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was also asked to order provisional measures. In a decision of March 21, 2003, the Court declared that the State had failed to comply with those measures. The Commission expressed its concern over the failure to comply with the provisional measures granted by the Court, and with the Commission's own precautionary measures. In July 2003 the IACHR decided to request further provisional measures from the Court in order to protect two journalists.
26. The IACHR received expressions of concern over the possibility that the communications media in Venezuela may not always act responsibly or ethically. As the IACHR reported upon completion of its in situ visit, it took note of media activities obstructing access to information that was vital for Venezuelan society during the tragic events of April 2002, which saw the coup d'état and the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. The IACHR notes that, while there may be many reasons to explain this lack of information, to the extent that the suppression of information has resulted from politically motivated editorial decisions, there is room for a good deal of soul-searching on the part of the Venezuelan media about their role at that time.
27. In Chapter VII the IACHR examines the situation of trade union freedoms in light of the current political and institutional setting.
28. With respect to the situation of trade union freedoms in Venezuela, the IACHR notes that the political crisis and the atmosphere of intolerance that marks the current political setting has sparked an increase in labor conflicts over this issue. The IACHR is particularly concerned over the mass dismissal of workers at Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Information provided shows that a total of 12,383 workers were dismissed from this State enterprise on grounds of having abandoned their workplace in the context of the so-called national civic strike that lasted from December 2002 until February 2003.
29. The Commission confirmed a situation of forceful intervention by the State in union affairs, despite repeated recommendations from the ILO (International Labour Organisation) that it should refrain from such behavior. As well, the Commission believes it is urgent to resolve the problem of recognizing the leadership of the CTV, the main Venezuelan labor confederation, out of regard for the needs and rights of its members.
30. The IACHR notes that there has a significant step forward in the area of trade union freedom. On July 23, 2002, the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that action by the Supreme Electoral Council was of a subsidiary nature, and that therefore that body could only intervene when there was a dispute that the labor organization itself could not resolve.
31. Finally, the IACHR wishes to highlight the important progress that has been made toward settling the institutional crisis by peaceful and electoral means, in clear demonstration of the solid democratic commitment of the Venezuelan people. The IACHR again notes the pact signed by representatives of the government and the opposition on May 29, 2003, in context of the Roundtable for Negotiation and Accord. This is a fundamental document that marks a turning point in the current situation, whereby the parties have agreed that the application of constitutional mechanisms is the institutional route to be followed in resolving the crisis. The Commission hails this achievement and calls on all parties to continue on the road of tolerance and democratic dialogue, and to work together to implement that pact in all situations that so require.
32. The Commission hopes that the Government of Venezuela, and the other political players in the country, including the members of the legislature and the judiciary, will continue to demonstrate the political will to seek solutions to the serious human rights problems that affect the country's inhabitants. The Inter-American Commission offers the Venezuelan State and society as a whole its full cooperation in the efforts at promotion, protection and consultation that are needed to move towards a solution of the country's human rights problems.
REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA
INTRODUCTION
1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is a principal organ of the Organization of American States (OAS) whose mandate is to promote the observance and defense of human rights and to act as the consultative organ of the Organization in this regard. The powers of the IACHR derive from the American Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of the OAS, both of which have been ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
2. The Commission, whose headquarters are located in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., is composed of seven members nominated by member states of the OAS and individually elected by the General Assembly of the Organization. Members serve four-year terms which can be renewed once. On a yearly basis, the Commission selects from among its members a board of officers consisting of a President and two Vice-Presidents. Also part of the Commission is its Executive Secretariat, which comprises an Executive Secretary and the legal and administrative staff necessary for the performance of its functions. The Executive Secretariat is permanently housed at the headquarters of the IACHR.
3. In fulfilling its mandate to promote and protect human rights, the IACHR performs several functions within the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights (“American Convention” or “Convention”), the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, other international treaties, and its Statute and Rules of Procedure. Among these functions are the hearing of petitions and individual cases of human rights violations; precautionary measures aimed at preventing irreparable damage to persons; on-site visits to member countries of the OAS made with respect to a specific case under review by the Commission, [1] to conduct a general observation of the human rights situation in the country or to look at a specific issue or particular situation[2]; production of various types of reports, be they general or specific; and work through “Special Rapporteurs” on specific issues related to human rights.
4. In the context of the functions noted above, the IACHR regularly monitors THE human rights situation in OAS member states. From 2000 to the present, the Inter-American Commission has been closely following events in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and has acted within the bounds of its mandate to ensure the observance of human rights in that country. In this respect, the Commission has employed the various mechanisms envisaged by the American Convention for the protection of human rights, namely the case system, adoption of precautionary measures, request for provisional measures from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on-site visits to the country and press releases. The following is a brief outline of these undertakings.
5. In 2000, the Commission, through its Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, observed the development of an atmosphere of hostility at the highest levels of government as a mechanism of direct and indirect pressure on the media and social activists.[3]
6. Following this, the Executive Secretary of the IACHR and then Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Dr. Santiago A. Canton, at the invitation of the Government of Venezuela, visited the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on February 5 to 8, 2002. The objective of this visit was to collect information on freedom of expression in Venezuela and to perform a preliminary evaluation in aid of an IACHR on-site visit scheduled for May 2002.[4] In addition, Dr. Canton’s visit represented a response to concerns expressed by several sectors of civil society regarding recent developments related to freedom of expression in the country.
7. During the serious events of April 11, 2002, the Commission condemned the coup d’état against the constitutional order[5]. The Commission issued a press release to this effect on April 13, 2002 in which it expressed, inter alia, its strong condemnation of the acts of violence and its regret that the most senior authorities were removed from public office, and cautioned that these acts represented a breach of constitutional order. Moreover, the Commission noted that, from April 12 to 13, arbitrary arrests and other violations of human rights claimed the lives of more than 40 persons and caused injury to one hundred others.
8. The Commission later conducted an on-site visit to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from May 6 to 10, 2002. Held within the framework of the American Convention to which Venezuela is a signatory, and the governing Statute and Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the visiting party comprised the President of the Commission and Rapporteur for Venezuela, Dr. Juan E. Méndez; First Vice-President, Dr. Marta Altoguirre, and Commissioners Professor Robert K. Goldman, Dr. Julio Prado Vallejo and Ms. Susana Villarán. Also participating were the Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Dr. Santiago A. Canton, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Eduardo Bertoni, and staff from the Executive Secretariat.[6]
9. Upon completion of this on-site visit, the Commission issued a press release presenting preliminary comments based on its observation of the general human rights situation in the country and offering certain recommendations that in its opinion would serve to mitigate some of the serious problems identified.[7]
10. On December 12, 2002, the Commission issued a press release in which it expressed serious concern over the deepening crisis in Venezuela and urged member states of the OAS to take immediate steps to “work with Venezuelans in seeking an urgent solution that will prevent further loss of human life and ensure Venezuelans that the rule of law will remain fully in force.”[8]
11. During the 117th Regular Session of the Commission, held between February 20 and March 7, 2003, the IACHR continued inquiries into the status of the rule of law in Venezuela. On March 10, 2003, the IACHR issued a press release reiterating its concern about the continuing deterioration of the rule of law in Venezuela.
12. In response to wishes expressed by the Government of Venezuela during the on-site visit, the Commission had planned to carry out a series of follow-up visits. To date, these visits have not been conducted due to the failure on the part of the Venezuelan State to establish the dates. It is the view of the IACHR that the presence of the Commission in the country will help significantly to bolster the defense and protection of human rights in a context of democracy and institutional legality. In this light, the Commission requests that a date be set for an on-site visit.
13. In relation to this matter, the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States (OAS) in Resolution AG/1917 (XXXIII-O/03), with respect to the Annual Report of the IACHR, resolved the following:
To note with satisfaction the decisions taken by governments of member states to invite the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to visit their respective countries and to encourage all member states to continue this practice.[9]
II. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT REPORT, ITS APPROVAL AND FOLLOW-UP
14. This report will analyze the present situation in Venezuela, with specific reference to the various aspects of the current status of the rule of law in the country.
15. As noted above, by virtue of its competence as a key organ of the Organization of the American States charged with the protection and promotion of human rights in the Americas and in accordance with its mandate, as stipulated in the American Convention on Human Rights and more specifically defined in its Statute and Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission monitors human rights developments in each member state of the OAS.
16. The present report was prepared on the basis of a diverse array of information and materials compiled and analyzed by the Commission, including those collected during its on-site visit to Venezuela in May, 2002. In addition to reflecting insights gathered on that occasion, the report refers to information compiled prior to and in preparation for the visit. Material referred to in the report also includes updated information provided by governmental, intergovernmental, non-governmental, academic and media sources through the Commission’s normal monitoring procedures, as well as through the processing of individual petitions. The report was prepared on the basis of this information with a closing date of November 4, 2003.
17. The draft “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela” was approved by the Commission during its 118th Regular Session.
18. The report was transmitted to the State by the Executive Secretary on November 13, 2003, with the request that the former present any observations it deemed pertinent within the fix dead line of a month. On December 12, 2003 the Government requested an extension of the due date to present its observations. On December 16, 2003 the IACHR informed the Government that an extension could not be granted while indicating that the Commission would await a reasonable time before publishing the report approved by the IACHR, so as to allow the Government to submit its observations which would be publish in the IACRH web page. On December 29, 2003 the IACHR ultimatelly approved the report and the publication without having received the observation of the Government.
19. Finally, it should be reiterated that the present report was prepared in a context of political and institutional instability. In so doing, the IACHR takes note of the efforts made in negotiations between the Government of President Chávez and representatives of Coordinadora Democrática [Democratic Focal Point], the conduct of which was supported and facilitated by the Secretary General of the OAS, César Gaviria, with technical support of the United Nations Development Programme and the Carter Center, and also benefiting from the support of the Group of Friends of Venezuela. Among its activities, the Commission takes note of the first formal agreement reached between the Government and the Opposition in approving a seven-point document entitled "Declaration against Violence, and in support of Peace and Democracy" signed by the parties on Monday, February 17, 2003, one hundred days after its establishment. The IACHR also considers a significant advance the Agreement recently signed by representatives of the Government and the Opposition, on May 29, 2003, in which negotiations were brought to a close and both parties indicated that the electoral resolution of the country’s crisis would be achieved through the application of Venezuela’s constitutional provisions.
20. The Commission considers it appropriate to present certain normative and factual antecedents as a context for the analysis of the human rights situation in the country. As follows, the IACHR will present a brief outline of the legal system created by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, placing special emphasis on the constitutional structure of government and to the regulatory framework for the protection of the human rights in Venezuela. In addition, certain historical and factual aspects of the present political situation will be briefly discussed.
21. The constitutional process in Venezuela had its origin in the manifesto of current President, Hugo Chávez Frías, for the elections of December 1998. Chávez, the candidate of the Polo Patriótico party at the time, undertook to convene a National Constituent Assembly in the event of his victory in the presidential elections. His proposal, entitled "the Hugo Chávez Proposal for the Transformation of Venezuela" articulated the concept of a new social pact to bolster the country’s democratic foundations.
22. Following the election of Hugo Chávez to office, the focus of national politics became the realization of the constitutional process. With respect to the institutional mechanisms for convening a National Constituent Assembly, the option of calling a consultative referendum was proposed, however some political sectors considered it necessary to reform the Constitution to include a standard for convening the Assembly and indicating the mechanism for so doing. As a result of these differences of opinion, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court—the supreme judicial organ at that time—to rule on the feasibility of convening the Constituent Assembly via consultative referendum without prior reform of the Constitution. With respect to this issue, the Court resolved that:
…it is indeed permissible to convene a referendum, in the form envisaged in Article 181 of the Suffrage and Political Participation Act, to consult the opinion of the majority regarding the possible convening of a Constituent Assembly, in the terms expressed in this ruling.[10]
23. Consequently, on April 25, 1999, a consultative referendum was held though which the decision to call a Constitutional Process was submitted to the will of the majority. The consultation produced a positive response: 85% of the participating electorate expressed their consent to hold elections for the purpose of forming a Constituent Assembly.[11] In light of this, the election of members that would comprise the National Constituent Assembly was conducted in Venezuela on July 25 of that year; 104 regional candidates, 24 national and 3 indigenous representatives were elected. This Assembly was responsible for the drafting of the new Constitution. Constitutional representatives met from August 3 to November 15, 1999 and, in the course of their deliberations, established and drafted a new Constitution that changed Venezuela’s institutional structure.
24. On December 15 of the same year, the referendum on the approval of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela drafted by the National Constituent Assembly was conducted.[12]
25. Article 2 of the new constitution reaffirms democratic Government, stipulating that:
Venezuela is constituted as a democratic and social state subject to the rule of law and justice, and holds up as supreme guiding principles of its legal system and its actions the values of life, liberty, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility and, in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics and political pluralism.
26. The standards introduced into the new National Constitution required the restructuring of the branches of government in Venezuela. Once the basic text was approved, it became necessary to re-legitimize some branches and to elect others, for which new elections were held on July 30, 2000. Elections to the national, state and local executive authorities (President, governors, and mayors) were held on that day. In these polls, President Hugo Chávez was returned to office by a majority of 58 percent of the voters. In the case of those branches to which re-legitimization did not apply, such as the Supreme Court, electoral branch and citizens’ branch [poder ciudadano], a special regime was used to elect their members, as will be described in the section on the judicial branch.[13]
2. The Constitutional Structure of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
27. The constitutional text of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela regulates the organization of the State by means of systems of distribution and division of public power. In accordance with constitutional standards, government in Venezuela is structured vertically in terms of National, State and Municipal Authorities, and horizontally, in terms of Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Citizens’ and Electoral Branches. The Constitution incorporated to the institutional life of the State two new independent branches of government: the Electoral Branch and the Citizens’ Branch, with ample authority in the exercise of their powers, as outlined below.
28. The Venezuelan Constitution envisages unicameral legislative power exercised by the National Assembly comprising deputies chosen in each federal entity by universal, direct, individual suffrage by secret ballot with proportional representation for a period of five years. In addition, indigenous peoples are represented by three elected deputies. Article 200 of the aforementioned constitution stipulates that:
Deputies of the National Assembly shall enjoy immunity in the exercise of their functions from the date of their proclamation until the completion or termination of their mandate. Alleged crimes committed by members of the National Assembly will be heard privately by the Supreme Court of Justice, the sole authority capable of ordering, with the authorization of the National Assembly, their arrest and the continuation of legal proceedings. In case of flagrant violations of the law committed by a parliamentarian, the competent authority shall put him or her under house arrest and immediately inform the Supreme Court of Justice of this fact. Government officials who violate the immunity of members of the National Assembly, will be held criminally responsible and be punished in accordance with the law.
29. The National Assembly has broad powers, including the power to legislate on matters of national competence, as well as the operation of the different branches of the national government, to propose amendments to and reforms of the Constitution, to exert some measure of control over the Government and the National Public Administration, within the bounds established by the Constitution itself, to debate and to approve the national budget. Without diminishing any of these standard functions, the new constitutional text confers other powers such as that of the promotion of citizen participation and veto powers to the Vice-President and the Ministers.[14]
30. National executive power is exercised by the President of the Republic, whose mandate is for a period of six (6) years. According to the standards introduced in the new Constitution, the President runs for re-election for only one successive term.[15] The Executive Branch also comprises the Vice-President, Ministers and other officials as determined by the respective Constitutional standards and the law.
31. Among the duties and powers to be exercised by the presidency of the Republic under the constitution, is that of complying and enforcing compliance with the law and the Constitution itself, directing Government activity, directing the external relations of the Republic, signing and ratifying international treaties, directing and acting as commander in chief of the National Armed Forces and promoting and appointing officials starting from the rank of Colonel or Ship’s Captain, and issuing legally-binding decrees after authorization by means of an implementing law, convening special sessions of the National Assembly, regulating laws, managing the treasury, negotiating national loans, decreeing additional budget appropriations, signing contracts of national interest, appointing, with the prior authorization of the National Assembly, the Attorney General and heads of permanent diplomatic missions, and leading the National Assembly.[16]
32. Other functions of the President of the Republic are to declare states of emergency and the restriction of constitutional guarantees in the cases envisaged in the Constitution, to formulate development plans, to grant pardons, to establish the number, organization and competence of ministers and other national government bodies, to dissolve the National Assembly and to call referenda in cases envisaged by the Constitution, and to convene and preside over the National Defense Council as well as the other functions that may be attributed by the Constitution or law.[17] 33. Article 253 of the Venezuelan Constitution stipulates that "the power to administer justice emanates from the citizens and is exercised in the name of the Republic by authority of law...." The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court of Justice and such other courts as may be determined by law, the public Ministry, Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, criminal investigation agencies, justice system officials and auxiliary staff, citizens participating in the administration of justice, the penitentiary system, alternative means for the administration of justice and the lawyers authorized for its exercise. Justice is administered in the communities by justices of the peace, who are elected by universal, direct suffrage by secret ballot.
34. The Constitution also stipulates that "the Judicial Branch is autonomous” and establishes the “operating, financial and administrative autonomy of the Supreme Court of Justice."[18] "In order to guarantee impartiality and independence in the exercise of their official functions, magistrates, judges, prosecutors in the Public Ministry and ombudsmen, from the date of their appointment and until they leave office, shall not be permitted, otherwise than by exercising their right to vote, to engage in partisan political, professional association, trade union, or similar activism; nor to engage in private activities for profit, which are incompatible with their official functions, either directly or through any interposed person; nor to perform any other public functions, with the exception of educational activities.”[19]
35. In accordance with Article 255, appointment to a judicial position and the promotion of judges shall be carried out by means of public competitions to ensure the capability and excellence of the participants, with selection by the juries of the judicial circuits, in such manner and on such terms as may be established by law.
36. The duties and powers of the Supreme Court of Justice enshrined in Article 266 of the Constitution include the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, ruling as to whether or not there are grounds for impeachment of the President, Vice-President, members of the National Assembly or the Supreme Court itself, Ministers, the Public Prosecutor, Attorney General, Comptroller General, Human Rights Ombudsman, Governors, officers, generals and admirals of the National Armed Forces and heads of the Republic’s diplomatic missions. The Supreme Court is also charged with resolving administrative disputes arising between the Republic, any state, municipality or other public entity where the other party is one of these entities; declaring the invalidity of regulations, hearing appeals regarding interpretation of the content and scope of the laws; resolving conflicts of jurisdiction between the courts and hearing final appeals in law. Moreover, Article 267 stipulates that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to direct, govern and administer judicial power, as well as to inspect and oversee the country’s courts and ombudsman’s offices, in addition to presenting and administering its own budget and the budget of the Judicial Branch.
37. The Citizen Power branch comprises the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Comptroller General, whose holders together comprise the Republican Morals Council, the direct action arm of the Citizen Power branch. [20]
38. The fundamental characteristic of this Branch is its independence from the other branches of government, and its organs enjoy functional and administrative autonomy. Under the Constitution, it is assigned powers to prevent, punish and investigate acts which contravene public ethics and the administrative morals. In addition, it is empowered to ensure the proper management and legitimate use of public assets, as well as compliance with and the application of the principle of legality in all administrative activities of the State.[21]
39. Another of the specific powers of this authority involves the formulation of warnings regarding the failure of relevant authorities to fulfill their obligations.[22] To this end, all organizations are expected to co-operate with the Republican Morals Council in carrying out their functions and investigations.[23]
i. Office of the Ombudsman
40. This organ of the State is directed by the Human Rights Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is responsible for the defense and oversight of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution and international treaties on human rights, in addition to the legitimate, joint and several interests of the citizens.[24]
41. The Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman is an official unit that addresses demands and complaints by the public regarding the actions of the administration and government officials. In performing this role, the Office has the following functions: the protection of human rights, control of the government bureaucracy, contribution to the correction or redress of administrative injustices, informing the Government of inconsistencies in its administration.[25]
ii. The Public Ministry [Ministerio Público]
42. The Public Ministry is under the direction and responsibility of the Attorney General of the Republic. Its principal responsibilities include ensuring the observance of constitutional rights and guarantees in judicial process, and of treaties signed by the Republic, safeguarding due process and the right to trial in a timely manner; ordering and directing criminal investigations, a power exclusive to the Public Ministry, and carrying out the legal actions required to establish any liability incurred by government officials in the exercise of their functions.[26]
iii. The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic
43. The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic is under the direction of the Comptroller General. It is the agency responsible for controlling, monitoring, and auditing revenue, expenditure, public property and national assets, and any related operations. It enjoys functional, administrative and organizational autonomy.[27] 44. Its functions involve controlling, monitoring and auditing government revenue, expenditure, and assets and any related transactions, overseeing the national debt, instructing the Attorney General of the Republic to take pertinent legal action in the case of infractions and crimes against the public interest, exercising effective management control over the public policies of the public sector agencies, institutions, and legal entities subject to its oversight.[28]
45. Electoral power is exercised by the National Electoral Council. The agencies that are constitutionally subordinate to the Council are the National Electoral Board, the Vital Statistics and Voter Registration Commission and the Commission on Political Participation and Financing.[29]
46. The main functions of electoral branch are the regulation of electoral laws and the clarification of any doubts and loopholes these may contain; total or partial invalidation of elections; organization, administration and monitoring of all acts related to elected government office representing the people, and referendums.[30] Furthermore, the agencies of the electoral branch are obliged to guarantee the equality, reliability, impartiality, transparency and efficiency of the electoral processes. Moreover, these agencies are governed by the principles of organizational transparency, functional and budgetary autonomy, non-partisanship regarding electoral organizations, impartiality and citizen participation.
47. In relation to the composition of the Board of Directors of this agency, the failure to appoint the fifth and final member produced a vacancy that prevented the Board from performing its tasks normally for several months. In light of the delay by the National Assembly in proceeding to appoint electoral directors in accordance with its constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court of Justice established a deadline for completion of this exercise.
48. In response to the failure of the legislature to reach an agreement, the judges of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court proceeded to appoint the members of the Board of Directors of the electoral entity and its subordinate agencies by a ruling dated August 25, 2003. The pertinent part of that ruling provides that:
6) In accordance with the foregoing, the Court appoints as First Principal Director Oscar Battaglini González, whose alternates 1 and 2 shall be Germán Yépez and Orietta Caponi, respectively; as Second Principal Director Jorge Rodríguez Gómez, with Estefanía de Talavera and Esther Gauthier Torres as alternates 3 and 4, respectively; as Third Principal Director Francisco Carrasquero López, whose alternates 5 and 6 shall be Tibisay Lucena and Manuel Rachadell, respectively..
All these appointments are made in accordance with Article 13 of the Electoral Branch Act.
Sobella Mejías and Ezequiel Zamora are appointed as Fourth and Fifth Principal Directors, respectively; with their alternates being Carlos Aguilar and Carlos Castillo in the first instance; and Miriam Kornblith Sonnenschein and Carolina Jaimes in the second.
Dr. Francisco Carrasquero López is named President of the National Electoral Council, and Ezequiel Zamora Vice-President.
Dr. William Pacheco is appointed Secretary of the National Electoral Council.
Dr. Andrés Brito is appointed Legal Counsel to the National Electoral Council.
7) Members of the subordinate agencies are appointed as follows: to the National Electoral Board, Jorge Rodríguez, Tibisay Lucena and Ezequiel Zamora; to the Vital Statistics and Voter Registration Commission, Sobella Mejías, Carlos Aguilar and Oscar Battaglini G; to the Commission on Political Participation and Financing, Francisco Carrasquero López, Carlos Castillo and Oscar Battaglini.
8) Carlos Delgado Chapellín, Teodoro Petkof Malek, Hernando Grisanti Aveledo and Guillermo García Ponce are appointed members of the Council for Political Participation.[31]
49. The Commission took note of these appointments that permitted the resolution of the vacancy which had arisen.
50. The new Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes the principle of Constitutional Supremacy in Article 7, which states that the Constitution is the foundation of the legal system and the highest legal standard of the Republic. In addition, Article 19 of the Constitution provides that the State must guarantee to all persons, in accordance with the principle of progressivity and without discrimination, the enjoyment and exercise of inalienable, indivisible and interdependent human rights. Title III also presents a detailed series of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, notably the right to life, personal freedom, due process, property, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, equality, protection of children, indigenous rights, health, education, freedom of religion and conscience, environmental rights and the right to the work. The Constitution also establishes a series of guarantees, such as habeas corpus, constitutional protection [amparo], and habeas data.
51. The entry into force of the new Constitution involved the introduction into the national legal system of a number of institutions that are of great value in terms of the defense and protection of human rights in a democratic society. Very important rules were introduced to more soundly shape the Venezuelan State as a democratic state centered on the dignity of human beings. However, some of the changes are in fact a regression.
52. Among the most innovative aspects are the inclusion in the Constitution of treaties on human rights,[32] the obligation of the State to legally investigate and punish crimes against human rights,[33] the limitation of military justice, the imprescriptibility of crimes against human rights, the exclusion of serious human rights violations from acts of pardon and amnesty,[34] the right to address petitions or complaints to international agencies created for such purposes,[35] the obligation to indemnify victims of human rights violations,[36] the requirement that the Venezuelan State adopt, in accordance with the procedures established in the Constitution and laws, the measures necessary to comply with decisions handed down by the international organizations.[37]
53. The new Constitution also establishes important special rules on human rights, such as Chapter VIII on the rights of the Indigenous Peoples, Chapter IX on Environmental Rights and Chapters VI and VII on Social, Economic and Cultural rights, the prohibition stated in Article 45 in relation to the forced disappearance of persons,[38] as well as the creation of new institutions dedicated to the protection of human rights such as the Human Rights Ombudsman and the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice.
54. In the normative sense, the Commission views as positive the above-mentioned constitutional reforms and considers them an important advance in the protection of the human rights in the country.
|
