A few days ago the American newspaper The Washington Post revealed that Venkateswari Alagendraone of the president’s lawyers Nicolás Maduro at the International Criminal Courtis the sister-in-law of the prosecutor of that instance, Karim Khan.
According to the criteria of
This sparked anger because the ICC is carrying out an investigation against Caracas for the case called Venezuela I, which lists crimes against humanity committed since 2014 during anti-government protests.
In view of this, The Arcadia Foundationbased in Washington, announced that it had filed a formal request to disqualify Khan with the ICC, considering that there is a conflict of interest that “compromises the impartiality of the prosecutor and puts the integrity of the judicial process at risk,” with implications for the credibility of the ICC.
But Calixto Avilarepresentative in Europe of the Venezuelan NGO Provea, explains that At this time, such a challenge is not viable. “At this stage of the procedure there would be no grounds for a challenge (…) if the same situation continues, the possibility could be opened based on rule 34,” says Ávila.
At this stage of the procedure there would be no grounds for a challenge (…) if the same situation remains, the possibility could be opened based on rule 34
Ávila says that the information must be verified and it has been shown that the link between Khan and his sister-in-law has influenced the investigationsomething that does not seem to be the case.
But another aspect that the Provea researcher highlights is that Alagendra would have been part of the team that defended the positions of the Venezuelan State during the appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court in November 2023 and said chamber did not accept the arguments.giving way to the continuity of the investigation.
This happened – explains Ávila – thanks to the defense that the Prosecutor’s Office made to dismantle the six arguments of the Venezuelan State. “So we are facing a resounding failure of the State and a team in which this person could have been involved. The important thing to highlight is that in similar situations the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has separated himself from cases such as those in Kenya and Libya and another deputy prosecutor was appointed.”
The Court has a mechanism to resolve these types of situations and, given the prosecutor’s actions so far, we would expect action on the matter in the future.
But for Ávila, another “curious” factor must also be evaluated that “fits” within the logic of the Venezuelan State of “discrediting the International Criminal Court and the Prosecutor’s Office” and that is extensible to other international bodies, as happened to Michelle Bachelet when she was High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN, who was attacked by the Venezuelan State, so this type of information could also obey more to this type of strategies aimed at disqualifying international bodies.
What stage is the ICC investigation into Venezuela at?
The Venezuela I case remains in the investigation phasebeing the first that the court opens in America, which means that at any time, in accordance with the Rome Statute and Article 58, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court can request the judges of the Preliminary Trial Chamber number one, which is the one that deals with the Venezuela I situation, to issue arrest warrants against those responsible for committing crimes against humanity.
We are facing a resounding failure of the State and a team in which this person could have been involved.
To achieve this, The prosecutor must show the judges that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime or several crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court according to the Rome Statute have been committed.
Murder, torture, imprisonment, persecution of a group for political reasons and forced disappearance are some of the crimes, but in addition, after the prosecutor presents his arguments, the judges must determine that the detention is intended to ensure that the person appears in person at the trial, that is, that he can be brought before the judges in The Hague.
Ávila explains that the second aspect is that such an arrest warrant should be aimed at ensuring that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation and the proceedings of the Court; and thirdly, it should be aimed at preventing the person from continuing to commit the crimes being investigated or related crimes.
#challenge #ICC #prosecutor #Karim #Khan #alleged #conflict #interest #case #Venezuela #succeed