Vance Center Submits Amicus Brief on Inter-American Court’s Jurisdiction to Hear Cases of Human Rights Violations in Venezuela

May 23, 2024 – The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice of the New York City Bar Association, along with counsel Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, today filed an amicus curiae brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the case Chirinos et al. v. Venezuela.  

The submission relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases concerning human rights violations in Venezuela that occurred after Venezuela’s withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights in 2013. The amicus finds that the Court has jurisdiction over Venezuela and that it may exercise that jurisdiction with respect to human rights violations committed after 2013, and urges the Court to uphold its jurisdiction to hear the case of Chirinos et al.  

Background 

This case involves human rights violations that occurred after September 10, 2013, when Venezuela’s withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) became effective. As a result, the State of Venezuela has contended that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. However, in early 2019, the interim government of Venezuela annulled the previous withdrawal from the ACHR, and was recognized as the representative of the Venezuelan State by the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In July 2019, the interim government restored the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction through a letter to the OAS confirming Venezuela’s “unconditional recognition of the competence” of the Court to hear all cases relating to interpretation or application of the Convention retroactive to 10 September 2013, as if the withdrawal had never taken place. 

Conclusions 

The amicus curiae brief filed by the Vance Center and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP addresses two key issues: whether the Court has jurisdiction over Venezuela as a result of the interim government’s ratification of the Convention and acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction in July 2019; and whether the Court may exercise retrospective jurisdiction over Venezuela with respect to alleged human rights violations committed after September 10, 2013. 

On the first point, the amicus brief concludes that the Court has jurisdiction over Venezuela because the state validly ratified the Convention and consented to the Court’s decision-making power. It also finds that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Venezuela with respect to human rights violations committed after the original denunciation took effect in September 2013, and before Venezuela re-acceded to the Convention in July 2019. 

This finding has implications for other cases concerning human rights violations in Venezuela that are currently before the Inter-American Court. The brief notes that the Court’s finding of jurisdiction in this case would set an important precedent for future cases related to Venezuela and provide a crucial legal framework for protecting the rights of victims of human rights abuses in Venezuela.  

See the full amicus brief here.