The Findings that Changed the Narrative on Venezuela - Interview with the President of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela

How has the Mission's work evolved regarding the Venezuelan situation and what key findings or moments have marked a turning point in its mandate?

Since its creation, the Mission has documented the evolution of a systematic and sustained pattern of state repression since 2014. Starting that year, the Venezuelan Government consolidated a plan to silence all critical voices. In it they persecuted not only political opponents but also anyone perceived as such, including human rights defenders, journalists and other communicators, academics, and students. The Mission also documented another pattern in which authorities use "conspiracies", real or perceived, as a justification to criminalise or repress opponents and expand the control of intelligence and security services. In addition, since 2017, various laws have been enacted that have consolidated a repressive legal framework.

Throughout its various reports, the Mission identified clear patterns regarding several crimes, including arbitrary deprivation of life/extra-judicial executions, enforced disappearances (most of which, short-term), arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and sexual violence, some of which, constitute crimes against humanity.

The most recent turning point occurred after the elections of July 28th, 2024, when the government intensified political persecution and repression by carrying out indiscriminate and selective detentions, severely restricting civic space, limiting freedom of assembly and expression for opponents or those perceived as such in different sectors of society, thus confirming the persistence of the repressive apparatus highlighted by the Mission in its previous reports.

How have Venezuelan state practices changed- or not- following your investigations and reports, and how do you interpret these changes or the lack thereof?

Since the beginning of the investigations, the Mission has observed a progressive erosion of the rule of law in Venezuela. Following the protests in 2014 and 2017, there were still limited spaces of independence within the Public Prosecutor's Office and in certain courts, which allowed some emblematic cases to be processed. However, the subordination of the judicial system to the Executive deepened, and the Prosecutor's Office has progressively acted as an advisory body to the political power. Judges, out of fear, conviction, or convenience, reproduce decisions aligned with government interests.

Emblematic cases such as that of Juan Pablo Pernalete and other young people killed during protests remain unsolved, and no violation committed after July 28, 2024, has been investigated or institutionally challenged. The absence of progress demonstrates the state's lack of willingness to ensure justice and its efforts to consolidate a system of structural impunity. The Venezuelan State has opted for a strategy of judicial simulation, without real accountability.

What is the Mission's methodological approach, and how have you adapted your work to the limitations of physical access to the country and the complexity of the Venezuelan context for reconstructing facts and reaching the conclusions you have made?

The Mission applies a methodology based on international standards for the investigation of human rights violations, focusing on rigorous fact verification, source protection, and the principle of “do no harm”. Considering the impossibility to physically access the country, the team has developed a remote investigation system, combining secure remote interviews with individuals present in Venezuela, review of audiovisual documentation, and analysis of forensic and open-source information. The Mission has also conducted several missions to third countries for in-person interviews with various sources of information.

Since July 2024, the fear among sources and defenders has increased significantly, which has necessitated reinforcing confidentiality mechanisms. The triangulation of testimonies and cooperation with international and local organisations allows us to build a solid and credible base of evidence. The Mission’s ethical commitment to victims, especially those subjected to persecution or exile, has guided every methodological decision, ensuring that the documentation serves the purposes of justice and accountability without endangering those who collaborate.

What has been the role of human rights defenders, journalists, and local organisations and authorities in the Mission's work, and what obstacles have you identified in their collaboration with international mechanisms like this?

Venezuelan human rights organisations, journalists, and defenders have been fundamental to the Mission's work, providing essential information, context, and analysis for the documentation of violations. However, cooperation with international mechanisms faces growing obstacles. The climate of repression and the criminalisation of activism, accentuated by public policy decisions like the NGO Law and official stigmatization campaigns, have severely limited the civic space.

The Mission maintains a relationship of trust and confidentiality with the organisations, avoiding the disclosure of details about their collaboration to protect them from reprisals. In parallel, limited funding and the reduction of international support have made it harder for these organisations to carry out their work. Defenders act under constant risk, facing digital surveillance and judicial threats, but they continue to be the backbone of independent documentation in the country. The Mission has underlined the importance of the international community providing sustained support to Venezuelan civil society, not only as a source of information but as an essential pillar for any future process of accountability and institutional reconstruction.

What obstacles persist for documenting human rights violations in Venezuela, and what lessons does this case offer for the future design of international mechanisms in contexts of systematic repression?

Documenting human rights violations in Venezuela continues to be an extremely dangerous task. State repression seeks not only to silence complaints but also to prevent the collection and preservation of evidence. National organisations face raids, censorship, and judicial persecution, forcing many to operate from exile or underground. The Mission has emphasised States' obligation to cooperate with international mechanisms, which includes protecting victims and guaranteeing the responsible exercise of their consular and diplomatic missions. The Venezuelan case demonstrates that, in contexts of systematic repression, it is essential to guarantee sustained resources, independence, and institutional protection for investigative missions.

It is needed to strengthen local capacities for remote documentation, establish secure channels for communication and evidence preservation, and promote coordination among international actors. Only in this way can impunity be counteracted and ensure that gross human rights violations do not escape the reach of international justice.

How can the work of the Independent International Mission and the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner complement and mutually strengthen each other to maximise their impact on documentation, accountability, and the improvement of the human rights situation in Venezuela?

The Independent International Mission and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Venezuela are distinct but complementary mechanisms. While the Mission has an independent mandate focused on investigation and accountability for gross human rights violations and crimes, the Office of the High Commissioner primarily acts through technical cooperation, public policy advice, and institutional strengthening, based, of course, on monitoring the human rights situation.

Both aim at the same goals: to protect and promote the human rights of all people in Venezuela. To maximise their impact, it is crucial to maintain timely and strategic coordination, respecting the institutional independence and mandate of the Mission, while the Office can facilitate processes of dialogue and technical assistance to institutions.

A complementary relationship between both mechanisms is key to avoid re-victimisation, reinforcing the trust of sources, and articulating international efforts toward justice and reparation.