Inter-American Court of Human Rights Aligns with Vance Center’s Brief in Decision Favoring Victims of Human Rights Violations in Venezuela

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights courtroom during the hearing over preliminary objections in the case of Chirinos Salamanca et al. v. Venezuela, held in San José, Costa Rica. Source: @CorteIDH Flickr.

In August, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued a decision affirming its jurisdiction to hear cases involving human rights violations committed after September 10, 2013, when Venezuela withdrew from the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). The Court’s recent judgment determined that the Convention remains in effect for Venezuela and that the Court has jurisdiction to continue hearing the case of Chirinos Salamanca et al. v. Venezuela, which relates to alleged human rights violations that occurred between 2016 and 2018. 

In its ruling, the Court referenced amicus submissions it had received, including one filed in May 2024 by the New York City Bar Association’s Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice together with Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. The brief urged the Court to confirm its jurisdiction, opening a path for victims of human rights violations in Venezuela to seek justice at the regional level.  

The Vance Center welcomes the Court’s decision, which reflects the arguments advanced in the brief, and marks a critical step toward accountability for victims of human rights violations committed after 2013. 

The Court’s judgment rejected objections raised by the Venezuelan State, which argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged violations took place after its 2013 withdrawal from the ACHR. Central to the Court’s reasoning was determining who held legitimate authority in Venezuela during the period in question, and whether actions to exercise power stemmed from that authority.  

In the brief, the Vance Center and Debevoise legal team argued that the Court should find it has jurisdiction because Venezuela validly re-ratified the Convention and re-accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in 2019, and that the ACHR and other international conventions establish that the OAS Secretary General’s deposit records are decisive for establishing a State’s consent to be bound by a particular treaty 

The brief also concluded that the Court could exercise jurisdiction over Venezuela with respect to alleged human rights violations committed between September 2013 and July 2019, when Venezuela’s interim government annulled the 2013 withdrawal formally re-acceded to the Convention. In its formal communication to the OAS, the interim government confirmed its “unconditional recognition of the competence” of the Court to hear all cases relating to interpretation or application of the Convention, applied retroactively to 10 September 2013, as if the withdrawal had never taken place. 

The Court’s 2025 judgment supported this analysis, recognizing that Venezuela’s 2019 actions restored the Convention effective as of September 2013, enabling the Court’s jurisdiction over post-2013 facts.  

The brief noted that this decision to ratify the Convention and retroactively accept the Court’s jurisdiction “aligns with international norms and practice, including prior Court decisions.”  The Court aligned with this analysis in paragraph 56 of its judgment, where it concluded that,“in accordance with public international law, the practice recognized in other international systems, and the legal framework of the Inter-American system, the ratification of the Convention, under the terms set out above, produced retroactive effects. In that sense, the American Convention is deemed to have been in force uninterruptedly for the State from the date of its denunciation until the deposit of the instrument of ratification on July 31, 2019.” 

The Court’s judgment carries important implications for the rule of law, human rights protections, and democratic governance in Latin America. It ensures that victims of human rights violations in Venezuela can continue bringing their cases before the Court to seek justice and accountability, regardless of when the violations occurred. More broadly, the decision affirms the essential role of human rights treaties in protecting against state abuses and actions that undermine democracy in Latin America and positions the inter-American protection system as a “safeguard” for all citizens, regardless of the actions of their governments.