AT THE SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ON THE SITUATION IN VENEZUELA

August 16, 2024 - Washington, DC

We welcome the adoption of the resolution by consensus. We especially value its importance, the principles, and the values that it defends, and how it rightly contributes to a democratic transition in Venezuela.

It is important because we should recall that the electoral authority declared a president without a single document to back up its decision, without complying with the law, and in flagrant contradiction with the documentation gathered by the polling station witnesses.

Today we see how the regime persecutes and oppresses, how it imprisons dissenting voices, how it curtails freedom of expression: four journalists have been detained and are being prosecuted on terrorism charges; international media press teams have been expelled from the country, and journalists and human rights defenders have had their passports cancelled, even as there have been multiple restrictions on the right to information, with government blockades of online tools, from the opposition’s own page for disclosing results, to social networks, instant messaging services, and media outlets.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the members of the Carter Center and United Nations teams on their work; under conditions of great hostility, they have shed light on this electoral process in Venezuela.

The conclusions reached by those experts are completely consistent with the report I requested from our Department for Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO) that I shared two days after the election.

Three teams comprising the world’s leading experts in electoral matters reached the following conclusions:

• the electoral process was plagued with irregularities and does not meet international standards.
• in the pre-election period there were restrictions on civic and political participation, and the campaign period was completely undemocratic, favoring the government.
• on election day, the citizenry turned out peacefully in large numbers to cast their vote, in spite of the restrictions suffered by some domestic observers and party monitors.
• on election night, the transmission of results proceeded well at first, but was abruptly interrupted without explanation. The electoral authority (CNE) later spoke of a terrorist cyberattack but never conducted post-election audits, including one that would have been key to revealing information about alleged external attacks that they have been unable to prove.
• the CNE has yet to publish a single election return to validate its claims or results at the polling station level.

There are two key elements of the report of the UN Panel of Experts that I believe are worth highlighting, and I quote: “The CNE had put in place arrangements for the production of printed results protocols, at the polling station level. This was a key transparency safeguard (i.e., a paper trail), with several security features such as QR and hash codes with unique signatures, as well as physical signatures of officials and agents. These security features, as a whole, appear to be very difficult to be fabricated. The legal framework stipulated that each original printed protocol was to be sealed and safeguarded by military personnel. Copies were to be distributed to polling officials, party agents, and accredited observers. However, the Panel received several reports that agents of opposition parties had been prevented from obtaining such a copy. Moreover, despite assurances that it would do so, the CNE has not published these results protocols.” Nor has the Ministry of Defense presented those returns, which was supposedly its electoral duty to safeguard. This is not only mentioned by DECO in its report; I also presented it to you at the Permanent Council meeting of July 31.

“The Panel reviewed a small sample of the documents that are currently in the public domain (including those posted online by the opposition) and [concluded that all] of those reviewed exhibit all the security features of the original result protocols. This suggests that a key transparency safeguard may be available, as intended, with respect to any officially released results. The published returns account for 83.5% of the votes; without the remaining returns, it is impossible for 100% of the votes to go to the regime’s candidate, and even then, it would not be enough for him. It would seem clear, therefore, that he lost the election.”

The High Representative of the European Union publicly welcomed yesterday the work of the United Nations experts and confirmed “in line with the reviews and assessments of several independent organizations, the reliability of the copies of the electoral records published by the opposition. According to these published copies of the ‘actas,’ Edmundo González Urrutia would appear to be the winner of the Presidential elections by a significant majority.”

I have been remembering in recent weeks a phrase that I quoted to some of you before the election: “We all know what’s going to happen here and we have to be prepared for that.” Here we all knew what was going to happen and we had to be prepared for it. And all of us here know what is happening and we must act accordingly.

We can never ask people to submit; we must demand an end to the repression and torture, that political prisoners be released, and that journalists be allowed to work freely. When we spoke about alternatives to a peaceful transition this was a referendum on that issue. All that the people of Venezuela would like is a peaceful transition.

We can never, from here, tell the citizens of the Americas that elections are not the vehicle for reaching power. We cannot tell anyone what to do either. Each person acts according to their political, economic, social, or commercial interests; we each do what we consider appropriate. In that sense, we have also taken steps: I requested the report from DECO and sent communications to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which has certainly not relented, chosen to remain hidden, or tired in its efforts. We greatly value the commitment shown on this and all other occasions by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. I cannot quote it today without a deep sense of pride in the inter-American system, which contributes so much to democracy and human rights in the region.

Hopefully, the efforts to achieve a democratic transition will yield results, which have not been forthcoming so far. If only the regime’s interlocutor would, for once, act in good faith. Extricating ourselves from dictatorships requires an effort from us all. It requires a firm and clear dialogue: no one should ever have to put up with another day of a dictatorship. Dialogue is fundamental, as it has been with all dictatorships in the Americas. It has been fundamental in denouncing human rights violations, crimes against humanity, repression, political imprisonment, and torture committed by dictatorships.

In this instance it has been as fundamental to restoring democracy as in all the others; and not only dialogue, but firm dialogue. Dialogue cannot fail ever, it must be resolute, it must produce results.

The international community must be clear and consistent. The Organization definitely has the credentials; you have reiterated as much, we all have here: in the cases of Guyana and Guatemala it demonstrated that it knows, that it can, and it succeeded; it achieved clear, specific, concrete outcomes resulting in a transition to democracy. The results were clear, abundantly clear, and better than any other, much better.

We welcome the report of the IACHR and the Office of the Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression regarding arbitrary use of force, arbitrary detentions and forced disappearances, judicial persecution and harassment, censorship, and restriction of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, as well as obstacles to human rights work.

We also welcome the response from the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to the effect that it is working and following events in Venezuela, and that the principles of collaboration and complementarity do not exempt the International Criminal Court from its duty to act when necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.