CARACAS- In the midst of an unprecedented crisis in the Venezuelan judicial systemthe fundamental right to private defense faces an imminent threat.
The imposition of restrictions by the Chavista regime has left prisoners in a desperate situation and stripped of legal options. The judicial system, supported by the interests of Chavismo, shows partial and biased justice, especially evident in political cases where the accused lack a legitimate defense.
The flagrant violation of the right to choose one’s own defense, enshrined in the Venezuelan Organic Code of Criminal Procedure and in international treaties, results in the assignment of supposed public defenders who often do not fulfill their basic responsibilities.
This situation not only affects political defendants, but also ordinary detainees, nullifying the crucial role of the defense lawyer in guaranteeing a fair and impartial trial. Venezuelan justice, instead of protecting citizens, becomes an instrument of repression and control.
Venezuelan society continues to face the challenges of a questioned judicial system, which calls into question the validity of the rule of law and the protection of human rights in the country.
Venezuelan legal specialist
The prominent lawyer Blanca Rosa Mármol de León is recognized as a prominent figure in the legal field of Venezuela, thanks to his extensive career in Criminal Law, which has left a lasting mark on national jurisprudence. During her outstanding period as a judge of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela (2000-2012) and later as a judge emeritus, the doctor has contributed numerous votes and relevant decisions. Respected in the legal field, her experience and knowledge position her as an invaluable source of wisdom and guidance for the legal community.
In an interview published by the newspaper El Nacional, the jurist stated:
“There is no rule of law. The Legislative, Judicial and Electoral Powers are controlled by the regime. Consequently, the laws, decisions and the results of the elections are made following orders from the Executive”said Mármol de León.
He also highlighted “the best demonstration of this is the conduct of the governing officials of the National Electoral Council in the face of the next presidential elections, when they did not admit, without any legal or constitutional basis, the candidacy of María Corina Machado, elected in the primaries by more than two million Venezuelans. They admitted, once again, the candidacy of Nicolás Maduro, who does not meet the constitutional requirements to run for the Presidency of the RepublicWell, in the best of cases, he has dual nationality. The persecution of political dissent is further evidence of the absence of the rule of law. To put it clearly: In Venezuela there are no instances to which to go,” said the judge.
—What is your opinion about the Venezuelan government’s refusal to allow the participation of private lawyers in the defense of the detainees?
—It is a violation of the legal and constitutional rights of people subjected to criminal trials. The right to specifically appoint a trusted lawyer, as the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure says, is inalienable and undoubtedly affects the right to defense of the accused by not allowing him the advice of his trust. Undoubtedly, it is an attack on the rights of people subject to criminal investigation and also on the professional practice of practicing lawyers by not allowing them to carry out their professional work. The effective exercise of the right to defense in the country is evidently violated.
—What are the legal and constitutional implications of this denial in terms of respect for due process and human rights in Venezuela?
—Respect for the human right to defense does not exist and neither does that of due process.
—What could be the reasons behind this policy by the Venezuelan government?
—The reasons are evidently political because in this way they control the alleged defense of the accused since the public defender, like the other judicial officials in this regime, will give orders evidently in order for the accused to be convicted by virtue of a poor defense. . There will be exceptions, we should not rule them out, but the public defenders thus ‘designated’ will fear being dismissed if they do not comply with the instructions received, and it should be noted that these are cases of political persecution.
—What legal actions can be taken to address this violation of detainees’ rights and ensure access to an effective legal defense?
—Legal actions in these cases are difficult because the accused does not have a lawyer, to put it clearly, since the action would be aimed at revoking the one who has been imposed on him. A Judicial Amparo would proceed, within the country, with foreseeably negative results and then resort to international bodies denouncing the conduct of the regime.
—What recommendations could you make at the national and international level to address this situation and protect the rights of detainees in Venezuela?
—Human rights defense organizations play an important role in this situation, corresponding to the reporting of this situation. The relatives of the detainees could also join them. Special mention deserves the fact that there must be pronouncements from the Bar Associations at the national level due to the nature of the violation, the right to defense in court for the accused, and violation of the right to practice the profession for lawyers. It must be said that the judge before whom this compulsory appointment of a defender is made must prevent it and is obliged to guarantee the defendant the right to freely appoint his defender. Only… here in Venezuela, the judges are afraid. Fear of being dismissed and fear of even being prosecuted and detained for their decisions.
Originally published in The National
Source: Editorial With information from El Nacional
