Do Not Over-simplify Our Story: Venezuelans on the Human Rights Crisis (Part II)

[Victoria Capriles is a Venezuelan feminist attorney and academic. She is currently a visiting fellow at the T.M.C. Asser Institute, where her doctoral research examines the severe Venezuelan migratory and refugee crisis.

Geraldine Chacón Villarroel is a Venezuelan attorney and public policy consultant. A former Amnesty International-designated prisoner of conscience, she has worked as a human rights consultant for organisations such as the World Organization Against Torture.

Tomás Alberto Chang Pico is a Venezuelan-born lawyer specializing in international law, development, and political economy, with over 15 years’ NGO and philanthropy experience.

Stephanie Triefus is a researcher at the Asser Institute and Academic Coordinator for the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research.]

In part I of this interview, Venezuelan human rights defenders Victoria Capriles, Geraldine Chacón Villarroel and Tomás Alberto Chang Pico reflected in conversation with Stephanie Triefus on the nuances that are lost in mainstream media discussions of the situation in Venezuela, and how international (human rights) law and institutions have struggled to provide justice for Venezuelans. In part II of the interview, Victoria, Geraldine and Tomás consider the vital and precarious role of Venezuelan civil society organisations, the meaning of genuine accountability, and how the international community has responded to the human rights and refugee crisis in Venezuela.

How have civil society organisations been contributing to the pursuit of accountability for human rights abuses in Venezuela?  

Victoria: One of civil society’s most significant contributions has been feeding information to international human rights mechanisms. The IACHR, which has listed Venezuela in Chapter IV.B of its Annual Report every year since 2005 –the chapter reserved for countries in serious breach of the American Convention on Human Rights– relies substantially on information provided by Venezuelan civil society. This information derives from public hearings held with Venezuelan civil society organisations and from reports submitted by NGOs working on the ground. Since the IACHR has been barred from entering the country since 2002, these contributions are indispensable to maintaining international oversight.

The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (UN FFM), established in 2019, has faced similar constraints. It has never been granted access to Venezuelan territory, and witness protection concerns have posed serious challenges to its investigations. Nevertheless, the UN FFM has been able to carry out its mandate because victims and human rights defenders have provided interviews –both in person outside the country and via secure telephone or video connections– and have supplied confidential documents, including legal case files, often at considerable personal risk.

Women-led victims’ organisations have been invaluable in this struggle for decades. The Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los Sucesos de Febrero y Marzo de 1989 (COFAVIC) is a foundational example. Born from the 1989 Caracazo massacre, COFAVIC has evolved into the Venezuelan NGO that has litigated the greatest number of cases against the Venezuelan State before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and it continues to support and mentor new organisations emerging from subsequent waves of repression. Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón (JEP), co-founded by the attorney Martha Tineo and Rosa Orozco –whose daughter, Geraldine Moreno, was shot dead by National Guard officers on 19 February 2014– is dedicated to accompanying victims in their search for justice and monitors the number of political prisoners in the country. The Alianza de Familiares y Víctimas del 2017 (ALFAVIC-2017) brings together fourteen families of those killed during the 2017 protests, whilst the Comité por la Libertad de los Presos Políticos (CLIPPVE), founded in 2024, is currently leading the vigils outside detention and torture centres.

Tomás: Civil society in Venezuela has been extraordinarily brave in defending fundamental freedoms, despite severe resource constraints, criminalizing legislation, and an almost non-existent civic space. Activists, journalists, human rights organizations, and university-based research centers have played a fundamental role in documenting, monitoring, and denouncing abuses. They have exposed corruption, famine, environmental destruction, and systematic human rights violations, while standing in solidarity with victims seeking justice.

Without their work, the long road toward accountability would be even more difficult. Against all odds (and often at great personal risk) they have gathered the evidence that may one day be used in courts to bring those responsible to justice.

When I worked at Free Press Unlimited, managing the Legal Defense Fund under the Reporters Respond programme (funded at the time by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs), we supported journalists facing repression. This included covering legal defense costs, strengthening security measures, or facilitating relocation to safer locations, both inside and outside the country. The stories we heard were heartbreaking. Imagine fearing for your life, and for the safety of your loved ones, simply because you reported on corruption. I sincerely hope their sacrifices are not forgotten.

Geraldine: Civil society understands that procedural frameworks and sentences are not enough to undo the damage that has been done. The on-the-ground work of international organisations, such as Amnesty International, have played a fundamental role in raising awareness, calling for urgent actions and protection in high-risk situations, reminding us all that human rights are indivisible and providing not only essential evidence-gathering but also tremendous capacity-building for the pursuit of justice.

While accountability is fundamental, justice is also memory building, reparation, protection and healing from the ongoing impact of abuses (displacement, irreparable losses, transnational repression…). I can personally attest not only to the extraordinary work in favour of accountability they do, but to the life-saving role organised civil society has played for me and many other victims. I am particularly grateful to Amnesty International for their campaigning, and to COFAVIC, for example, that has not only been the champion of victims and survivors in the international litigation arena, but has provided invaluable support to families in what becomes a lifelong mission of reparation. Their support telling our stories, in all sorts of forums, matters. The work of not forgetting matters. Their teams stand by families wherever they are, offering a safe space for grief and building bridges with researchers, storytellers and activists to document and build a collective memory, as there will be no justice without it. 

What would genuine accountability look like for victims of human rights abuses? How meaningful has the involvement of the UN FFM been for victims? 

Victoria: On 20 January 2026, eighteen national and international civil society organisations –including COFAVIC and JEP– issued a landmark document titled “Ten Urgent Demands for a Genuine Democratic Transition in Venezuela”. The document represents a coordinated effort to establish the parameters for any future transition, insisting that truth, memory and comprehensive reparations for victims must be at its centre, and demonstrating that genuine accountability for victims would require several concrete elements. First of all, it calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including an end to all forms of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance; the repeal of the state of emergency and all legal instruments used to criminalise dissent; the disarmament and dismantling of all security forces or armed groups that engage in acts of persecution or repression against the civilian population; formal recognition of all non-profit organisations in the country; access to Venezuelan territory for international human rights protection mechanisms, including the IACHR and the UN FFM; and the establishment of independent transitional justice mechanisms with meaningful civil society participation.

On 19 February, the Amnesty Law (first announced on 30 January) was approved. The bill has drawn widespread criticism for its opaque criteria, its failure to acknowledge harm to victims, and its use of “state clemency” language that reframes the state as benefactor rather than perpetrator. Crucially, it does not reflect the demands of civil society, and advocates have condemned it as deeply revictimising. The law excludes from amnesty “serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, intentional homicide, grievous bodily harm, drug trafficking, and offences under anti-corruption laws.” It also excludes individuals prosecuted or sentenced for “promoting, instigating, requesting, invoking, favouring, facilitating, financing or participating in armed actions or use of force against the people, sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Venezuela by “foreign states, corporations or persons.”

In practice, these exclusions leave hundreds beyond the bill’s scope, since charges such as “terrorism” and “attempted magnicide” are routinely used to criminalise dissent. In response, on 20 February, more than 200 political prisoners, including foreign nationals held in El Rodeo I prison, launched a hunger strike. As of 1 March, at least 18 Colombian detainees are known to be continuing the strike, which has now entered its 240th hour.

Geraldine: Genuine accountability for victims will only take place when there is an immediate cessation of all abuses, the prosecution of those responsible for the greater harms, an effort to preserve a collective memory about past violations, victims and their families are provided with remedies, and State and non-State actors are committed to non-recurrence. All of this requires, first and foremost, to clarify the truth. 

While the UN FFM’s mandate won’t, by itself, serve justice, it has been systematically capturing the truth. Humanity has learned that crimes must be named – but they also must be tracked, and, in the face of profound limitations, the Mission has managed to monitor and stay with the situation for years, allowing them to capture and acknowledge what has happened to so many. Their work, essential for future accountability, not only unlocks the understanding of what would be an otherwise obscured situation, but it also tells victims and survivors that what happened to them really happened. It’s not uncommon in international fora to push for a vision of “giving a voice to the voiceless”. But Venezuelans are not voiceless; they have been unheard. This recognition is of incalculable value in a context where the Venezuelan state, as perpetrator, continuously deny the allegations of survivors and many in the global stage dismiss our lived experience. This truth-gathering mission tells the world: We have investigated, listened, challenged, verified… and we can conclude, what the victims are saying, what they went through, all is true.

What are your reflections on how the Netherlands and other EU states have responded to the human rights and refugee crisis in Venezuela and what would you like to see going forward? 

Victoria: As of November 2025, Venezuelans constitute the largest group of people seeking asylum in the EU, followed by Afghans, Bangladeshis, and Syrians. Venezuela is also the third most common nationality among unaccompanied minors applying for asylum for the first time in the EU, after Somalia and Eritrea, and tied with Afghanistan. Despite these numbers, concerning reports have emerged of asylum denials and deportations since 2024. According to the Saxon Refugee Council, approximately 80 percent of Venezuelan asylum applications in Saxony were rejected in 2024, and deportations have increased. These practices may violate the principle of non-refoulement ─the fundamental obligation under international law not to return individuals to countries where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm.

Turning to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the situation in its Caribbean constituent countries is particularly worrying. By mid-2025, Aruba and Curaçao were among the countries hosting the largest number of refugees relative to their national populations in the world ─with Aruba ranking second and Curaçao fourth, according to UNHCR data─ the vast majority of whom are Venezuelan. Yet many of these individuals find themselves trapped in legal limbo, holding irregular status and having limited access to basic services, employment, or legal pathways to protection.

In Aruba, approximately 1,348 people were deported back to Venezuela between 2020 and 2022, according to interviews with officials cited in a 2024 CSIS report ─again in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Curaçao has never ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, so Venezuelans seeking international protection must rely on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture). However, authorities do not consider the circumstances forcing Venezuelans to flee severe enough to meet the criteria of Article 3, thereby denying them this protection and leaving thousands of displaced people without legal status and at constant risk of detention and deportation.

On a more positive note, there are important examples of public–private partnerships and civil society contributions that deserve recognition. The Dutch Embassy in Venezuela has played an invaluable role for years, particularly under figures such as Mr Hugo Grondel. Its constant support for Venezuelan civil society and the democratic opposition has not been without consequences. In January 2025, the Venezuelan government retaliated by limiting the number of accredited Dutch diplomats in Venezuela to three and giving them 48 hours to comply. Those who remained are now required to obtain written authorisation from the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry to travel more than 40 kilometres from central Caracas.

Shelter City, an initiative founded by Justice & Peace Netherlands in 2012, offers human rights defenders at risk a temporary safe haven. In 2025 alone, three Venezuelan human rights defenders, including myself, were hosted. The Shelter City network currently consists of 14 participating cities in the Netherlands: Amstelveen, Amsterdam, Deventer, Eindhoven, Groningen, Haarlem, Maastricht, Middelburg, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, The Hague, Tilburg, Utrecht, and Zwolle. This is made possible through alliances between the municipalities of these cities, as well as local communities and organisations.

In my own case, the Municipality of The Hague has provided my accommodation during my stay here, and the city has recently renewed its cooperation with Justice & Peace for a minimum of four further years. The T.M.C. Asser Instituut has also been invaluable in supporting my work and research through its partnership with Shelter City (a constant since 2017), even lending me a computer during my stay so that I could continue my research, as I do not currently have one of my own.

Tomás: Diplomatic officials (particularly those stationed at the Dutch Embassy in Caracas) have often been incredibly committed and supportive, especially because the Dutch diplomatic mission was inactive for many years. During my work supporting journalists, embassy staff were always proactive and responsive. I was always grateful for the support they provided.

However, as a dual citizen of Venezuela and the Netherlands, I am disappointed with the broader political response of the current Dutch government. This is particularly striking given that parts of the Kingdom (namely Aruba, Curaçao, and Bonaire) lie only a few kilometers from the Venezuelan coast. 

On the one hand, the government has been hesitant in clearly defending the primacy of international law and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, especially in discussions involving the United States, including in contexts where sanctions have targeted staff of the International Criminal Court, located here in The Hague itself. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. David van Weel, has declined to provide clear public statements on this issue, despite its significance and, in my view, its quite uncontroversial nature.

On the other hand, I believe the Netherlands (and the EU) could play a more proactive role in supporting democratic guarantees and restoring human rights protections. Venezuelans should not feel abandoned, caught between power dynamics in Caracas and Washington.

Defending international law and supporting democratic transition are not mutually exclusive objectives. But they both require being more critical of both the United States and Venezuelan authorities. They can and should be pursued simultaneously. Venezuelans deserve a respected voice in determining their own future. That is what we have been asking from the Venezuelan authorities, and now also from international actors.

What does the situation in Venezuela reveal about international law in general? In your view, who does international law protect and apply to? 

Tomás: Venezuela exposes the structural tensions within international law. Tensions that have long existed but are now more visible. It highlights the ambiguity surrounding the principle of self-determination, the representational crisis of a system that formally recognizes only states as subjects of international law, and the limitations of enforcement mechanisms.

Personally, for me, it is a reminder that international law has always been an expression of power, much in the way the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, articulated at the World Economic Forum. It is a system shaped by power dynamics. In the past, that power was at least framed within the moral language of democracy, human dignity, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Today, however, it feels as if that restraint (or that pretense) is fading rapidly, and power is revealing itself in a more raw, unapologetic and shameless way.

International law is relevant only to the extent that we collectively choose to believe in it and insist on its application. And despite all the contradictions and evidence that might suggest otherwise, I still want to believe in it. But for it to remain meaningful, it will have to adapt quickly to the uncharted political reality we are now living through. As a discipline, we may need to confront and move beyond long-standing taboos… Otherwise, we risk becoming irrelevant.

Geraldine: We are such a fascinating and, unfortunately, increasingly relevant case-study of the interaction between the political-legal turns that collapse democracies in favour of authoritarian regimes and the plethora of international frameworks that have all been built on the basis of state cooperation. 

There is no doubt that international law has provided a uniquely sophisticated system that sought to address what for much of human history seemed impossible or utopian: to clarify and codify a playbook for all, one that dissipated conflict, solved questions and settled issues peacefully. But two important things are also true, and the Venezuelan case is evidence of this: Such a sophisticated system has rendered itself so complex that it has reached a point of too many frameworks where none of them are fully satisfactory; and, whereas international law was pinned to states pledging themselves to achieve universal respect for and observance of these playbooks, authoritarian tendencies and regimes no longer are interested in engaging with frameworks that constrain or limit their power in favour of moral agreements such as freedom, justice and peace. 

Venezuela is a clear example of how, for a non-democratic state, there are no incentives nor intentions to submit themselves to the obligations and duties to respect, protect and fulfill human rights they themselves drafted and ratified. It’s a case-study of regression. International law has been a tool of obligations and duties designed by states, enforced by states. Human rights have been constructed on the basis that there was a universal recognition of human dignity, the public duty to protect and take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of fundamental rights. But in a world where states themselves are curtailing those rights, signing themselves out of their obligations and sabotaging the frameworks that could hold them accountable, the international law solution is profoundly weakened. This poses a challenge for those of us who insist on international law solutions, who are struggling to contain and respond to the fatal flaw of a system that relies on the perpetrators’ cooperation. Although the future belongs to the future, we owe ourselves to not stop working on revitalising the ways in which we can uphold and promote a genuine commitment to humanity’s dignity. 

Photo attribution: ‘A member of CLIPPVE outside Zona 7, a detention and torture centre in Caracas’ (January 2026) by Rosalí Hernández Marcano (reproduced here with permission).