Constitutional lawyer and human rights activist MarÃa Alejandra DÃaz has become a symbol of why, as she puts it, the rule of law in Venezuela is “in frank deterioration†after the July 28 presidential elections.
DÃaz filed a legal recourse before the Supreme Court of Justice’s (TSJ) Constitutional Chamber on November 4. It requested that the TSJ ask the National Electoral Council (CNE) to comply with its legal obligation — and an August 22 TSJ Electoral Chamber ruling that ratified incumbent president Nicolás Maduro’s electoral victory — by publishing the results of the July 28 presidential election.
Instead, the TSJ declared the appeal inadmissible, fined DÃaz, suspended her from professional duties and threatened her with arrest.
Â鶹´«Ã½â€™s Federico Fuentes spoke to DÃaz about her case, the election results and the situation facing what she terms “prisoners for protestingâ€.
* * *
Could you explain what has happened with your case?
The first thing we tried was filing a Request for a Constitutional Review of the TSJ Electoral Chamber’s August 22 ruling on the grounds that it was unconstitutional [because only the CNE has the power to act as an electoral arbiter].
On October 11, the Constitutional Chamber responded to us that the Electoral Chamber’s ruling was valid and final.
So, we tried another avenue. Understanding that even if we disagree with the Electoral Chamber’s ruling we needed to abide by it, we lodged a legal recourse on the grounds that the CNE had failed to publish disaggregated results.
What did the Constitutional Chamber do? It declared it inadmissible without even reviewing its merits.
On top of that, it accused me of “recklessnessâ€, fined me and ordered the Bar Association to open a disciplinary investigation against me. I was also suspended from practising my profession, which is an unprecedented move never before seen in the country.
On top of this, they have indicated — with what intention, we do not know — that they could potentially arrest me in accordance with the 1988 Law of Appeals.
This law directly contradicts rights enshrined in the constitution [approved by the people in a referendum in 1999] because no one can be placed under arrest — house or otherwise — if it is not proven that they have committed an infringement or crime.
All of this is a very serious precedent not only because it imposes a punishment without any due process, but because it serves as a warning to anyone thinking about defending the rights of any citizen. So, of course, there is a lot of fear and uncertainty within the Venezuelan Lawyers’ Guild.
I have had to confront this alone, although supported by comrades in the , groups of lawyers and ordinary citizens. I have to thank the Venezuelan people because it was citizens who collectively raised the money, which I did not have, to pay the fine.
But, so be it. I believe we have to continue fighting and seeking spaces to advance our struggle.
Why do you keep insisting the election results must be published?
Because it is a very serious matter when, in the face of reasonable doubt, you insist on proclaiming a winner. Reasonable doubt damages the legitimacy of any incoming government.
Moreover, the CNE said there was a hacking [of the electronic voting system] and Venezuelans have the right to know to what extent this hacking could have affected the results. The only way to find that out is by counting the paper ballots in the ballot boxes, as occurred on other occasions.
Furthermore, if you publish the results, whoever believes there was a different outcome [based on tally sheets that party scrutineers are given at each voting centre] can challenge it.
We insist on publishing the results because it is the constitutional path, because it is the political path, because it is our right and because we defend the Venezuelan electoral system, which until now was transparent and clean, but has now been tainted by such actions.
We must insist on doing politics and defending transparency, popular sovereignty and the constitution.
Government spokespersons have publicly defended the detention of some 2000 people they called “terrorists†for protesting after the elections. You signed an open letter to Maduro denouncing that these political prisoners have been denied their basic rights. Could you tell us why?
Well, in principle, because we should support any steps to free Venezuelans who have not committed crimes and whose right to a defence and due process has been violated through arbitrary detention.
But I want to make it clear that I am very wary of the category of political prisoner. I prefer to talk about prisoners for protesting, or prisoners for demanding political or labour rights, which is different.
The category of political prisoner is a category that is used more generally, but we are defending all those imprisoned for protesting to demand political or labour rights.
In Venezuela, there are 191 trade union leaders and workers in prison for demanding their labour rights. This must also be denounced and these prisoners should be included in any request to the government to consider extraordinary measures for their freedom.
We are fighting to support their families and ensure that justice is done in cases where people have been detained unfairly.
But it is the case that extreme right-wing sectors have used violence as part of their destabilisation campaigns...
We know that. There are people who, for example in 2014 and 2017, even burned people alive just because they looked like Chavistas [government supporters]. I have not forgotten that.
And I am not requesting amnesty or freedom for those who have committed crimes involving human rights violations or corruption. But those who only went out to protest, without causing any damage or harming anyone, cannot be treated the same.
We are not asking for impunity, we are asking for justice. We are asking that in those cases where no serious crimes have been committed, that those cases be reviewed and the prisoner be given an amnesty or pardon and released.
There are children between the ages of 14 and 17, minors, and people with different disabilities, currently in prison. That is our concern.
Given all this, what is the situation today in terms of the rule of law in Venezuela?
It has been very badly damaged. The principles and guarantees established in the constitution are not being respected. The rule of law is in frank deterioration.
That is very dangerous not only for the rule of law but for democracy, because if there is no justice and no rule of law, there is no democracy. Democracy in Venezuela has been mortally wounded.
What is happening is very dangerous. Instead of contributing to a peaceful resolution, a dangerous decision has been taken to close off any institutional avenue for resolving the conflict and crisis in Venezuela.
Many left-wing activists are concerned that talking about the situation of these prisoners or questioning the elections could fuel the arguments of US imperialism and the Venezuelan right-wing in favour of sanctions and other violent actions against the Venezuelan people. How do you respond to these concerns?
I completely dissociate myself from those kinds of arguments. We are not defending violence. We are demanding our constitutional right.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the human rights violations that are occurring because that would only further deepen the political crisis in the country.
I will never agree with sanctions, because it is always the people who bear the cost. Moreover, sanctions have contributed to internal corruption and have served as an excuse to open the door to foreign investment and do away with labour rights.
What we are defending is the rule of law and the political model enshrined in the Constitution.
Anyone who has committed a crime, even a political one, cannot have impunity — especially those who have called for sanctions, an invasion, or the president’s assassination.
We even have deputies sitting in the National Assembly who have called for an invasion, for sanctions and for Maduro to be killed. This is incomprehensible and only undermines the credibility of state institutions and the rule of law.
So, we are in a difficult position because we are demanding justice while caught between two warring parties, and asking both sides to respect the rule of law and the constitution.
But it seems both sectors are intent on continuing head-on towards a collision in the run-up to January 10 [when the new president is set to be inaugurated], which could end very badly.
That is precisely what we want to avoid.
[Read the full interview at .]