Venezuela's National Assembly Has Not Reached Consensus on Amnesty Law; Discussion to Continue

On Thursday afternoon, the second discussion of the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence was deferred as no unanimous agreement was reached regarding article 7. However, the parliamentarians approved the drafting of the law up to article 6, and some of the articles approved underwent modifications.

The president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, announced on Thursday, February 12, that the discussion on the regulation has been postponed until next week.

When the parliamentarians had reached Article 7, the debate came to a standstill. Only the title of that article was unanimously modified from “Excluded Offenses” to “Personal Scope.”

The proposed amendment to Article 7 read: “The Amnesty subject to this Law covers any person who is or may be prosecuted or convicted for their alleged or proven participation in crimes or offenses committed within the framework of the events subject to Amnesty, provided they are in compliance with the law or come into compliance after the entry into force of this Law.”

After the article was read, opposition deputy Luis Florido intervened, suggesting that the text be drafted up to “the acts subject to this amnesty.” He did not agree with adding the requirement to come into compliance with the law, because according to him, by complying with the law, the person is somehow being labeled as guilty.

Immediately, the deputy from the Patriotic Bloc, Iris Varela, intervened and responded to Florido. She considered it regrettable that, “despite the spirit of coexistence offered by this law, there are voices that insist on ignoring that, in Venezuela, for years there have been attacks against the Venezuelan state, the laws, the constitution, and the life of the people.”

She pointed out that if there is one thing that Venezuelans agree on, it is that President Nicolás Maduro has been able to maintain the peace of the country. “We live in peace, we have peace in the country because in 2017 President Nicolás Maduro called for a National Constituent Assembly for peace.” She added that there have been repeated attempts by the opposition over various periods to undermine this peace.

Varela reviewed the violent events promoted by right-wing sectors since 2002.

She referred to the coup d’état of April 2002 against President Hugo Chávez, the oil sabotage of 2002-2003, Henrique Capriles’ call to “let out the anger” after losing the 2013 presidential elections, “the terrible five-year term of the 2015-2020 National Assembly,” which illegally keeps on extending its term to “collect money stolen from the public treasury.”

She added that there are some deputies who do not even want those people to acknowledge the crimes that they have committed.

“It was the United States that dropped the bombs on the country. It bombed us, it keeps us blockaded, but who asked for that? Who endorsed it?” Varela asked, referring to the sectors of the Venezuelan right that have promoted such actions against the nation, against the people.

“Who is responsible for the deaths that have occurred in the country?,” she continued. “Who are the victims? Are they the ones who are detained or the ones who died? Because when victims are mentioned, it is deliberately ignored that in 2002, when the right staged the coup against Chávez, it hired mercenaries from El Salvador, those who brought them are in hiding and have fled the country, and those snipers killed 49 people and injured 890 people.”

She also referred to the guarimbas promoted by the far right in 2017 where Orlando Figuera was burned alive in Altamira.

“It is a grotesque manipulation that the right-wingers portray them as victims of the Venezuelan State. They are not victims of the Venezuelan state! They are victims of violence, carried out by those who today seek an amnesty and do not even have the humility to acknowledge that the State, despite the attack, is granting them forgiveness for the crimes they committed, for the sake of the peace of the country, which is a higher good,” she pointed out.

Varela concluded that Article 7 clearly states that the amnesty “covers individuals who are being prosecuted or convicted for the crimes committed as long as they come forward to the authorities.”

She emphasized that someone who is unaware or has not committed any crime cannot be granted amnesty. “Whoever has not committed any crime has no reason to ask for amnesty, it is that simple. Whoever wants to be amnestied has to ask for it, has to comply with the law, and that is the crux of this law that has sparked a debate.”

She added that it is proposed to keep the article as it has been read.

In the draft that was debated and approved in the first discussion on February 5, Article 7 stated: “Persons prosecuted or convicted for the alleged or proven commission of the following crimes will be excluded from the application of the amnesty provided for in this Law:

Crimes against public property.
Serious violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Intentional homicide.
Trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances, with a minimum applicable sentence of more than 9 years in prison.

The law was announced by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez on January 30.

Consensus reached until Article 6
The title of the law remained the same: Law of Amnesty for Democratic Coexistence, as well as the title of Article 1: Purpose.

Article 1, for its part, was amended as follows: This law aims to grant a general and full amnesty for the crimes or offenses committed and occurred within the framework of the events and the time period indicated in this Law in order to promote social peace and democratic coexistence.

The heading of Article 2 changed from: “This law has the purpose of,” to simply: “Purposes.”

Article 2 reads as follows: This law aims to:

1: Contribute to the promotion of peace, democratic coexistence, rectification, and national reconciliation. (The word rectification was added)

2. Generate the conditions that favor the harmonious development of national life, public tranquility, democratic participation, and political pluralism. (It remained the same)

3. Promote the use of democratic and constitutional mechanisms to resolve the differences that arise within society and thus prevent the events subject to amnesty or similar from recurring. (The word “similar” was added to it).

A fourth point was also added, which states: Promote the reintegration into public activity of the individuals benefited by this law.

Regarding Article 3, the heading remained the same: Principles. However, the content of the article became as follows: This law is governed by the principles and values of life, liberty, justice, celerity, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility, and in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics, and political pluralism.

In addition to the fact that the word “celerity” was included, Deputy Nicolás Maduro Guerra proposed incorporating peace as a fundamental principle and value. The suggestion was unanimously approved.

The heading and Article 4 remained the same, that is, Public Order and general interest. Article 4. The provisions of this law are of public order and general interest.

Article 5 was amended as follows: In case of doubts in the interpretation or application of this law, the one that most favors the respect, protection, and guarantee of human rights shall be adopted, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Heading of Article 6 changed from “General Amnesty” to “Temporary Scope.”

Article 6 was also amended as follows: The Amnesty provided for in Article 1 encompasses all actions or omissions that constitute crimes or offenses committed and occurred between January 1, 1999, and the entry into force of this Law, within the framework of the amnestied events.

Amnesty in Venezuela Is Neither Weakness nor Oblivion

2700 contributions to the law
Given the importance of the law, the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, granted a license to the president of the Special Commission for the Public Consultation of the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence, Jorge Arreaza, and to the vice president of the special body, Nora Bracho, to say a few words regarding the debates that took place about the regulation.

In the second discussion, according to the Internal and Debate Regulations of the National Assembly, what is stipulated is the discussion article by article, which is what proceeded thereafter.

In this regard, Arreaza presented a report on the Public Consultation that began on February 7. He reported that they had received 2,700 written contributions to strengthen the law. He noted that proposals continue to arrive. He explained that assemblies were held in 24 states of the country and in the Capital District of Caracas.

He further announced that the magistrate and president of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Tania D’Amelio Cardiet, informed him that the justices of the peace were motivated to debate the law and held 2,262 assemblies in communes, sessions in which more than 25,000 people participated.

He emphasized that the debates took place in the conciliatory spirit shown by Hugo Chávez Frías on April 14, 2002, when he was rescued by the people from the clutches of the coup plotters that year.

Reconciliation does not mean erasing history
Thereafter, the opposition deputy from Un Nuevo Tiempo party, Nora Bracho, took the floor, highlighting that the deputies have put their heart into the consultation of the law.

“Reconciliation does not mean erasing history, it is dignifying it,” she said. “It is not closing our eyes, it is looking at each other eye to eye as a society. It is not surrendering to the conflict, it is overcoming it. Today we send a clear message, Venezuela can correct, Venezuela can build agreements that transcend our differences.”

She pointed out that this law must be broad in scope, it must include everyone. In this regard, she mentioned the people whom the Venezuelan right calls “political prisoners” and the so-called “persecuted” and “exiled,” who for “political reasons are today outside our space and our vision.” However, in reality, they are politicians who were detained for promoting destabilizing actions in the country, or those who have fled the country after having promoted coups and foreign invasions.

(Diario VEA)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SH