(Caracas, June 17, 2004) —
The Venezuelan government is undermining the independence of the country’s
judiciary ahead of a presidential recall referendum that may ultimately be
decided in the courts, Human Rights Watch said in
a report released
today. President Chávez’s governing coalition has begun implementing a new
court-packing law that will strip the Supreme Court of its autonomy.
|
|
In the 2002 coup, Venezuela’s democratic order was attacked by some
of Chávez’s opponents. But today the biggest threat to the country’s
rule of law comes from the government itself.
The 24-page report, “Rigging
the Rule of Law: Judicial Independence Under Siege in Venezuela,” also
examines how the new law will make judges more vulnerable to political
persecution and help ensure that legal controversies surrounding the recall
referendum are resolved in Chávez’s favor.
“In the 2002 coup, Venezuela’s democratic order was attacked by some of
Chávez’s opponents,” said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the
Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. “But today the biggest threat to the
country’s rule of law comes from the government itself.”
The new law, which President Chávez signed last month, expands the Supreme
Court from 20 to 32 members. It empowers Chávez’s governing coalition to use
its slim majority in the legislature to obtain an overwhelming majority of
seats on the Supreme Court. The law also gives the governing coalition the
power to nullify existing judges’ appointments to the bench.
Chávez’s supporters in the National Assembly have announced their intention to
name the 12 new justices by July and remove sitting justices whom they
identify with the opposition. The Supreme Court will have jurisdiction over
any legal challenges surrounding the recall referendum, which is scheduled for
August 15.
A political takeover of the Supreme Court will also compound the damage
already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the Court itself.
The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has
suspended a program that would reduce the large number of judges who do not
have security of tenure. It has summarily fired judges after they decided
politically controversial cases. And the Supreme Court has allowed the
country’s second highest court to shut down by failing to resolve the legal
appeals of its dismissed judges.
Chávez’s allies justify the measures as a response to the intransigence of
President Chávez’s opponents. They insist that many judges decide cases based
on their political convictions rather than the dictates of the law. As an
example, they cite the Supreme Court’s failure to convict alleged participants
in the 2002 coup.
“Chávez should be working to strengthen the rule of law in Venezuela,” said
Vivanco. “Instead his government is rigging the justice system to favor its
own interests.”
What makes the developments in Venezuela even more alarming is their potential
impact on the country’s already explosive political situation, particularly
the tensions surrounding the successful effort of President Chávez’s opponents
to call for the national referendum that could end his presidency.
When the country’s National Electoral Council (CNE) disqualified hundreds of
thousands of signatures on a petition to authorize the referendum, thousands
of people joined street protests, which culminated in violent confrontations
with state security forces that left 13 people dead, scores wounded, and
hundreds more in police detention. In May, after voters were given the
opportunity to verify disqualified signatures, the CNE announced that enough
signatures had been collected to force the recall vote.
Whether the current crisis is resolved peacefully and lawfully will depend in
large part on the country’s judiciary. It is the courts that must ultimately
determine whether the CNE’s decisions are valid—as well as whether the actions
of Chávez’s supporters and opponents, in the streets and elsewhere, are
legally permissible.
The report offers recommendations to the Venezuelan government for salvaging
the independence of the judiciary. Human Rights Watch urged President Chávez
to instruct his supporters in the National Assembly to suspend implementation
of the new court-packing law immediately and eliminate the provisions that
undermine the independence of the judiciary. The Venezuelan Supreme Court
should strike down the provisions of the court-packing law that subject the
court to the political agenda of the governing coalition. The high court
should also take steps to ensure that lower court judges are not subject to
political persecution.
The Organization of American States (OAS) should closely monitor the situation
of the Venezuelan judiciary. Unless concrete steps are taken immediately to
reverse these threats to judicial independence, the secretary general of the
OAS should use his authority under the Inter-American Democratic Charter to
address the issue. Article 18 authorizes the secretary general to take actions,
with the prior consent of the government concerned, to analyze threats to a
country’s “democratic political institutional process,” and seek a collective
response from the OAS.
During Venezuela’s 2002 coup, the Charter was crucial in mobilizing member
states to join the chorus of condemnation that helped restore President Chávez
to office. “The Charter helped save Venezuelan democracy from Chávez’s foes
during the 2002 coup,” said Vivanco. “Now it could help protect Venezuela from
this new threat.”