(Translation of an interview with Infobae published in Spanish)

He is one of the main officials of the Organization of American States. “Ten years of national and international impunity by the regime’s authorities have not served to restore democracy in the country,” he said.

Gonzalo Koncke is one of the people closest to Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS). And as Chief of Staff of the Uruguayan diplomat, he is one of the officials who best understands the harsh reality that Venezuelans are experiencing and the fraudulent maneuvers that Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship committed in the last presidential elections. “It seems that no one has the tally sheets,” Koncke said in dialogue with Infobae: “Not even the PSUV table witnesses. Neither the CNE nor the PSUV have been able to produce them. It´s mind-boggling and something never really seen before. Imagine the act of faith that it would require to validate the result presented by the CNE without any evidence a week later.”

Below is the full interview:
- Where are the CNE's tally sheets? Why don't they appear?

- Note that we have spent a week with the CNE publishing results without presenting the slightest evidence of their origin, without indicating where they come from. We are facing the case of the longest electoral cyber blackout ever seen. And blackouts like this are practically always linked to fraud or an attempt at fraud or malicious manipulation of the results. It is when the flow of electoral information is cut off because it is necessary to take action to "adjust" the results. We have had electoral blackouts in the Hemisphere for one night, for 23 hours, in which it is clear that there was a lot to adjust. But imagine in the case of Venezuela how much there could be to adjust in a blackout of one week! The issue is that when information continues to be published as it comes in, as it should be, there is generally no room to make the "adjustments" to which I referred, which obviously have to do with how the electoral result is "fixed." The strange thing, at the same time, is that it seems that no one has the tally sheets, not even the PSUV witnesses. Neither the CNE nor the PSUV have been able to produce them. It´s mind-boggling and never really seen before. Imagine the act of faith that it would require to validate the result presented by the CNE without any evidence a week later. That is why, when they talk about the urgent publication of the tally sheets by the CNE, I suppose they mean that they should have been published urgently on Sunday of last week. I can´t imagine how they would turn up now and say “here are the tally sheets!”

- What do you think of Maduro’s judicialization of the election?

- It cannot be taken seriously that the dictatorship’s court decides whether the dictatorship won or lost the election. Isn’t it the same court that has ensured the regime’s impunity for the perpetrators of torture and extrajudicial executions? I believe that there is only one institution of the regime that could ensure more support than the CNE with the purpose of allowing the Maduro government an even more unguaranteed outcome and that is the Supreme Justice Tribunal (TSJ).

- What role has the OAS played and what role should it continue to play? What do you expect from the positions of allies and not so allies?

- The OAS has done more in the case of Venezuela than any other organization: in 2016 it declared the alteration of the constitutional order of Venezuela as indicated by the Inter-American Democratic Charter, declared the illegitimacy of Maduro's reelection in 2018, presented a Report with the charges of Crimes Against Humanity in Venezuela that were a fundamental basis for the opening of the investigation by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, organized the first donors' table to address Venezuelan migration. And more, much more, remember for a moment the year 2016, no country spoke at that time of political prisoners in Venezuela, the repression was not questioned in international organizations, no one had questioned the flagrant disregard of the National Assembly elected in 2015, none of that happened. And the first institutional voice that questioned all these abuses that culminated in the delegitimization of the regime was that of Almagro, from the OAS and even before. There is good reason for the irrational hatred of the authorities of the regime against Secretary General Almagro.

- Is the General Secretariat making up for the inefficiencies of the deliberative bodies?

- Not at all. The Permanent Council and the General Assembly have done a lot, and the issue of Venezuela has always been on the agenda with important resolutions such as those I have already mentioned.

- The Secretary General has been attacked on the issue of Venezuela for being supposedly intransigent.

- Not at all, that is not the case, and the facts prove it. It is a team that works hard on all issues. I will mention some without trying to be exhaustive: Almagro has insisted and worked on humanitarian support for Venezuela, even against the opinion of people who said that this helped the dictatorship; he has maintained dialogue with people linked to it; he did not immediately come out to speak out on election day, last Sunday, or even on Monday, and there were people who also criticized him for this. He always proposed a constructive agenda; remember for example that at the time he raised the need for a cohabitation agreement that would have been the solution to avoid much suffering in the country. That cohabitation agreement that the Secretary General proposed today is viewed favorably even by some of his biggest critics on one side or the other. With a little maturity on both sides, that is still a possible solution. You realize that many times we do not even get credit for those proposals, and we do not see a problem with that because neither Almagro nor the General Secretariat work to obtain recognition, but to find solutions for democracy and prosperity for the people. But those of us who see that work up close are clear that we have done more for peace in Venezuela than any other regional or global political actor.

- You have played a fundamental role in advancing allegations of crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court. How has your recent work been?

- The Panel of Experts, after its original report in which it exposed allegations of extrajudicial executions, torture, forced disappearances, political imprisonment, has continued its work. In fact, it recently held new hearings with victims, family members and witnesses. The Panel has presented new reports with information of fundamental importance for the work of the Prosecutor's Office. Work has continued with the CASLA Institute, which submits an annual report to the Organization within the framework of the agreement we have. These reports always contain a great deal of information and have a profound impact due to the quality of their content. On the other hand, you saw that the Secretary General announced his request that the Attorney General's Office take urgent measures, including the eventual arrest warrant for those especially responsible. This had an immediate impact on the regime, which practically led to the number of murders during the protests being halted. It is clear that the regime feels that voice when it speaks. Complaints of other crimes against humanity linked to political persecution have continued to be received. You have seen that the investigation includes complaints for crimes from 2014, see that we are already in 2024. Ten years later there is still impunity.

- Is this issue important in the development of a way out for democracy in Venezuela?

- It is very clear that 10 years of national and international impunity of the regime's authorities have not served to restore democracy in the country. In any negotiation, there is always someone who has the idea of impunity, and at the end of the negotiations, Venezuela continued to be a non-democratic regime and its authorities unpunished. As you can see, this has always benefited the dictators - and who knows why they have benefited from this - and not the people of Venezuela.

- Is Maduro afraid? Is that why he clings to power? Can Edmundo's victory be recognized? Is that the same as recognizing Guaidó?

- The two situations you raise have no point in common. In this regard, I must say that in this case the OAS General Secretariat has indicated, following the technical reports - those prepared by the Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO) and by the Carter Center - that this has not been a democratic election. I do not believe that it was done this way to harm Maduro. Rather, it seems like a desperate attempt to do the opposite, so we perfectly understand that Edmundo Gonzalez is recognized as the winner, as well as we understand that there are others who need to reinforce the evidence. The General Secretariat made its first statement on the matter.