near-total impunity for acts of extreme severity
En las últimas semanas de septiembre de 2022, Venezuela rechazó ante el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU las conclusiones de una misión independiente que documentó ocho años de tortura sistemática, violencia sexual y represión política por parte de sus agencias de inteligencia. Caracas no respondió con evidencia sino con acusación: llamó al mecanismo una herramienta de cambio de régimen impulsada por Washington y un puñado de gobiernos latinoamericanos. En el fondo de este choque se encuentra una pregunta que la humanidad no ha sabido resolver: ¿cómo se sostiene la rendición de cuentas cuando el acusado controla el acceso a la verdad?
- Una misión de la ONU basada en 246 entrevistas confidenciales acusó al SEBIN y al DGCIM de tortura sistemática, violencia sexual e impunidad casi total desde 2014.
- Venezuela bloqueó toda visita de los investigadores al país e ignoró diez cartas oficiales en el último año, dejando a la misión sin acceso directo a su objeto de estudio.
- Caracas contraatacó calificando el informe de 'panfleto' y al mecanismo de instrumento intervencionista orquestado por Estados Unidos y gobiernos de Argentina, Brasil, Chile y Perú.
- La misión advirtió que las víctimas siguen sin acceso a justicia ni reparación, en un clima que sus investigadores describieron como de gravedad extrema.
- Venezuela prometió medidas diplomáticas para impedir la renovación del mandato de la misión, cerrando por ahora cualquier apertura hacia la cooperación internacional.
Un lunes de finales de septiembre, la Cancillería venezolana descartó como fabricación el informe de una misión independiente de la ONU que había pasado tres años investigando abusos cometidos por las agencias de inteligencia del país. La misión había presentado sus conclusiones al Consejo de Derechos Humanos: el SEBIN y el DGCIM habían torturado sistemáticamente a detenidos, cometido violencia sexual y aplastado la disidencia política desde 2014. Caracas llamó al documento un 'panfleto' y al mecanismo mismo 'paralelo, bárbaro e intervencionista'.
El trabajo investigativo descansaba sobre bases considerables. Los investigadores realizaron 246 entrevistas confidenciales con víctimas, familiares y exfuncionarios de seguridad, y revisaron documentos judiciales de ocho años. La presidenta de la misión señaló que el gobierno venezolano utiliza sus servicios de inteligencia para reprimir la disidencia, generando condiciones para crímenes graves. Otro miembro de la misión subrayó que estos actos ocurrieron en un clima de impunidad casi total, y exhortó a la comunidad internacional a garantizar justicia y reparación para las víctimas.
La respuesta de Caracas combinó negación categórica con contraofensiva política. El gobierno argumentó que la misión carecía de fundamento metodológico y nunca había pisado el país. Más aún, enmarcó todo el mecanismo como un instrumento de cambio de régimen orquestado por Washington y promovido por un pequeño grupo de gobiernos latinoamericanos que, según Caracas, también albergan graves violaciones a los derechos humanos. La Cancillería advirtió que tales pronunciamientos alientan a los sectores más extremos a continuar desestabilizando Venezuela.
El enfrentamiento reflejaba un impasse más profundo. Entre septiembre de 2021 y septiembre de 2022, Venezuela se negó a permitir visitas de la misión e ignoró diez cartas oficiales. El gobierno prometió medidas diplomáticas contra cualquier intento de renovar el mandato, condicionando su cooperación con el Consejo a términos que en la práctica excluyen toda supervisión independiente.
Lo que permanecía sin resolver era si los hallazgos de la misión ganarían peso en los foros internacionales o se disolverían en el patrón habitual de acusaciones cruzadas. La negativa de Caracas a otorgar acceso o responder a la correspondencia oficial no auguraba ningún cambio de postura. La misión había construido su caso sin observación directa del país investigado —una limitación estructural que Venezuela aprovechó para deslegitimar todo el ejercicio.
On a Monday in late September, Venezuela's Foreign Ministry released a statement dismissing a United Nations report on human rights abuses as fabrication. The independent fact-finding mission, which had spent three years investigating, had just presented its conclusions to the UN Human Rights Council: that two Venezuelan intelligence agencies—the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) and the Military Counterintelligence Directorate (DGCIM)—had systematically tortured detainees, committed sexual violence, and crushed political dissent since 2014. Caracas called the document a "pamphlet" and the mechanism itself "parallel, barbaric, and interventionist."
The mission's work rested on substantial ground. Investigators conducted 246 confidential interviews with victims, their families, former security officials, and reviewed court documents and related materials spanning eight years. The mission's president, Marta Valiñas, stated plainly that Venezuela's government "uses intelligence services and their agents to repress dissent," creating conditions for grave crimes and human rights violations including torture and sexual violence. Francisco Cox, a mission member, noted that these acts of "extreme severity" had occurred "in a climate of near-total impunity," and called on the international community to ensure victims had access to justice and reparation.
Venezuela's response was categorical denial paired with counterattack. The government claimed the mission lacked "methodological foundation" and had never set foot in the country to understand its reality. More pointedly, Caracas framed the entire mechanism as a tool of regime change, orchestrated by the United States and promoted by a "small group of governments"—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru—that themselves harbored serious human rights violations. The Foreign Ministry warned that such pronouncements "encourage and embolden the most extreme sectors to continue massive violations of Venezuelans' human rights and destabilization of the country."
The timing of this clash reflected a deeper impasse. The UN Human Rights Council noted that over the preceding year, between September 2021 and September 2022, Venezuela had refused to allow mission members to visit and had ignored ten official letters. The government's statement promised "political and diplomatic measures" against any attempt to extend the mission's mandate, framing cooperation with the council only on terms of "strict adherence to objectivity, non-selectivity, impartiality, non-interference in internal affairs, respect for multilateralism, and constructive dialogue."
The substance of the allegations centered on a pattern. Since 2014, when radical opposition sectors organized antigoverment protests that left more than one hundred dead, the intelligence agencies had allegedly targeted both actual and perceived opponents. The mission described SEBIN and DGCIM as "well-coordinated and effective structures" applying torture of "extreme gravity." Yet Venezuela's government saw in the report not accountability but interference—a weaponization of human rights language by hostile powers seeking to destabilize the state.
What remained unresolved was whether the mission's findings would gain traction in international forums or fade into the familiar pattern of competing accusations between Caracas and its critics. The government's refusal to grant access or respond to official correspondence suggested no imminent shift in posture. The mission's third report since 2019 had documented its case without direct observation of the country it investigated—a structural limitation that Venezuela seized upon to delegitimize the entire enterprise.
Citas Notables
Venezuela's government uses intelligence services and their agents to repress dissent in the country— Marta Valiñas, president of the UN fact-finding mission
The international community must do everything possible to ensure victims have access to justice and reparation— Francisco Cox, member of the UN mission
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Venezuela reject this report so forcefully, rather than engage with specific allegations?
Because accepting the premise—that the mission has standing to judge Venezuelan institutions—would concede something Caracas cannot: that external bodies have the right to investigate and condemn its security forces. The rejection is as much about sovereignty as it is about the facts.
But the mission interviewed 246 people. That's not nothing.
No, it's substantial. But Venezuela argues those interviews happened outside the country, filtered through people with political motives. Without direct access, without being able to cross-examine, Caracas says the mission built a narrative rather than discovered truth.
The government hasn't responded to ten letters in a year. That looks like evasion.
It does. But from Caracas's perspective, responding legitimizes the mechanism itself. Every letter answered is an acknowledgment that this body has authority over Venezuelan affairs. Silence is a form of refusal.
What about the torture allegations? Those are specific claims about specific practices.
They are. And if true, they're grave. But Venezuela frames them as political weaponization—exaggeration or invention by opponents seeking regime change. The government points to opposition violence in 2014 and 2017 as context for security responses.
So there's no common ground here at all?
Not at this moment. One side sees a credible investigation; the other sees a tool of foreign interference. Until that gap closes—and it won't close soon—reports will be issued and rejected in parallel.