Carlos Correa

Cases

Relevant SG report

From Country

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 6.42375

Longitude: -66.58973

From Region

UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report

Type of rights defended

Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?: No

Engagement with UN body

Type of attempted engagement

Reprisal information: On 9 November 2020, special procedures mandate holders raised concerns about high-ranking State officials’ public and social media stigmatization of NGOs, which they said appeared to be acts of reprisals for their cooperation with the UN, including the FFM (VEN 10/2020). On 24 September 2020, the online portal Misión Verdad (Mission Truth) released an article titled “Dismantling the report of the ‘Independent Fact-Finding Mission in Venezuela’: the sources.” The article named five NGO sources for the report and two of its directors: Comité de Familiares de Víctimas del Caracazo (COFAVIC); Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social (OVCS); Centro de Justicia y Paz (CEPAZ); Control Ciudadano (and its director Ms. Rocío San Miguel); and Espacio Público (and its director Mr. Carlos Correa).

The article accused the NGOs of “participat[ing] in this compilation of unsupported accusations,” and receiving foreign funding “to destabilize the country”. The article also reportedly featured a photograph of Ms. Liliana Ortega Mendoza, Co-Founder of COFAVIC, whose case was included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General (A/HRC/42/30, para. 81 and Annex I, para.115). The information was shared on Twitter by the Minister of Foreign Affairs (VEN 10/2020). Subsequently, Government officials have made similar public remarks against members of civil society, including through institutional media channels and official websites.

Types of reprisals suffered

Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?: Yes

Government response content: Government responded to mandate holders, stating that freedom of expression is recognized and protected in Venezuela and that there is open public debate about all topics concerning national affairs in which NGOs are free to participate. In this context, the Government contended that references made by actors in public life cannot be considered as “harassment”. It noted that NGOs, as key actors in the democratic debate, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and should have higher tolerance to criticism.

On 26 August 2021, the Government responded to the note verbale sent in connection to the present report, stating that none of the cases included can be linked to intimidation and reprisals for cooperation with the UN. The Government categorically rejected the way in which the report has approached the cases as alleged reprisals for cooperation with the UN when most of them are allegations and assertions without any legal basis, including those made in connection with the fact-finding mission. Regarding the case of NGOs Azul Positivo, the Government referred to its firm and exhaustive reply provided to special procedures mandate holders on the case. Furthermore, the Government informed that a process of dialogue is currently underway with NGOs working on human rights and humanitarian law to exchange ideas and opinions on their work and the possible obstacles they have faced, and with the cooperation of the OHCHR Office in Venezuela.

Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?: No

Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?: No

Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?: No