Statement on the Announcement of Reform and Renewal of the Supreme Court of Justice within the Framework of the Dialogue Table

The undersigned civil society organizations take note of the joint statement issued on August 12 by representatives of the government and the National Assembly elected in 2015, announcing the launch of a process to reform the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice (LOTSJ) and to renew all of its justices.

We take note of this announcement with particular attention, as it places at the center of the institutional re-establishment agenda precisely the structural issue that we have identified for years as an unavoidable condition for any meaningful change in Venezuela: the role played by the Judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), as an instrument of repression, political persecution, and the progressive dismantling of the rule of law. The fact that judicial reform is explicitly included in the agenda of this dialogue table is, in itself, an acknowledgment of a reality that civil society has consistently documented. The announcement made by the dialogue table confirms the continued relevance and urgency of our longstanding warnings.

This announcement is not a new issue for those who have closely followed the state of justice in Venezuela. In this regard, we reaffirm and echo the proposals developed by Venezuelan civil society over the years, as well as the recommendations issued by international mechanisms on this matter. We make these inputs available to all parties involved so that they may be fully utilized: the technical expertise and documentation already exist and must be used.

Accordingly, we reaffirm the concerns and demands we raised just last week, on August 6, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), where we outlined the risks and minimum conditions that any process aimed at re-establishing the justice system must meet. These conditions have been formally reflected in the Justice, Truth, and Rule of Law Thermometer: 

“No credible institutional reform is possible as long as the justice system remains an instrument of political power. An explicit political agreement—subject to international and civil society verification—must establish the independence and impartiality of the justice system as a prerequisite for any process of institutional change. Such an agreement must include mechanisms to prevent interference by the Executive and Legislative branches, as well as by any other public authority, in judicial decisions; the vetting and removal of judicial officials, prosecutors, and public defenders who participated in repression; and the immediate suspension of those facing proceedings for human rights violations.”

In light of the potential process of institutional re-establishment, we agree that this is a historic opportunity to establish democratic institutions. For the first time since the 1999 Constitution entered into force, there is a possibility that the selection of Supreme Court justices will fully comply with the constitutional framework. By placing this issue on the institutional re-establishment agenda, a window of opportunity has opened to address the deficiencies that have characterized previous processes to reform the Supreme Court and the justice system as a whole.

Beyond this prior political agreement, we demand that the selection process for Supreme Court justices meet, at a minimum, the following technical safeguards:

1. Full publication of the evaluation criteria. This is expressly required under Article 73 of the LOTSJ. Without rules established and made known in advance—including the weight assigned to professional experience and how independence, ethical track record, legal expertise, and respect for human rights will be assessed—it is impossible to determine whether appointments will be based on merit or political preferences.
2. Public access to the applicants’ files, not merely the list of names. Civil society must be able to review and assess the candidates’ professional backgrounds, potential conflicts of interest, and links to state institutions.
3. Establishment of an independent technical committee with the participation of national and international experts, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), universities, and civil society. This committee should accompany the evaluation of candidates according to the established criteria, without replacing the Judicial Nominations Committee, while providing independent and objective verification of compliance with those criteria.
4. Reconstitution of the Judicial Nominations Committee in accordance with the Constitution, restoring to civil society—and not to the National Assembly—the central role in the preselection of candidates that the constitutional framework assigns to it.
5. Reconfiguration of the Citizen Power Evaluation Committee, appointed last April in violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the Organic Law of Citizen Power, which is responsible for evaluating candidates for the positions of Attorney General and Ombudsperson. The committee currently consists of 13 members of the National Assembly, whereas it should be composed of members of civil society. Particularly irregular is the fact that its chair is also the chair of the Judicial Nominations Committee.

Given the structural role that this court has played in repression, political persecution, and the progressive dismantling of the rule of law, we will closely monitor and follow every stage of this process. The opening of this process within the framework of the negotiation table may represent a genuine opportunity to correct a system that, until now, has been characterized by opacity and political control. However, this opportunity will only be meaningful if it results in judicial independence that is both verifiable and sustainable over time.

The reconstruction of the rule of law in Venezuela begins with restoring the independence of its judges. That trust can only be rebuilt through a constitutional, transparent, participatory, and merit-based selection process.

Endorsed by:

• Acceso a la Justicia
• Aula Abierta
• Caleidoscopio Humano
• Center for Human Rights of the Andrés Bello Catholic University (CDH-UCAB)
• Centro de Justicia y Paz (CEPAZ)
• Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
• Civilis
• Committee for the Freedom of Political Prisoners
• Defiende Venezuela
• Freedom House
• Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
• Ideas por la Democracia
• Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón
• Lateral Lab
• Global Observatory for Communication and Democracy
• Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
• PROVEA
• Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center
• Voces de la Memoria

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.