The International Criminal Court (ICC) has decided to close its office in Caracas, generating a wave of questions, especially about the future of investigations involving Venezuela. This announcement was made by Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang, who emphasized the lack of progress in investigations conducted by Venezuelan authorities. Despite this, the ICC assured that it will continue investigating possible humanitarian crimes that have occurred in the country since 2014.
Office in Caracas: The ICC’s decision may have been a physical, not a legal, setback
The ICC office in Caracas, inaugurated in 2024, became a symbol of an attempt at technical cooperation with the Venezuelan government. According to Niang, despite proposing a “sustained commitment” to the office, real progress remained distant. Internal assessments showed that local authorities had not made or demonstrated sufficient progress to justify the continued presence of the ICC team in the country. Faced with the need to prioritize resources, in addition to the lack of results, the ICC opted to close its Caracas office; however, Niang reaffirmed that investigations would continue from The Hague.
The Venezuelan government reacted harshly to this decision. Some parliamentarians even declared that the ICC court is “useless” and insinuated that they should be abandoned by the country. Another statement made it clear that government officials accused the ICC of “shirking its responsibilities,” and that the office did not contribute to local initiatives.
The Venezuelan government reacted harshly to this decision. Some parliamentarians even declared that the ICC court is “useless” and insinuated that they should be abandoned by the country. Another statement made it clear that government officials accused the ICC of “shirking its responsibilities,” and that the office did not contribute to local initiatives.
The Venezuela Case I: Protests, repression, and serious accusations
This first case, called Venezuela I, was submitted to the ICC by several countries, such as Argentina, Canada, and Colombia, in 2018. It includes allegations involving violent repression by the government, violations of freedom, and even deaths during popular demonstrations.
The Venezuela II Case: When the Government Becomes the Complainant
Unlike the previous year’s case, the investigation called Venezuela II was opened at the government’s own initiative. In 2020, Caracas requested that the ICC analyze the US sanctions and determine if they could be classified as crimes against the country. Despite this, the investigation has only progressed to the preliminary phase. To date, the court has not concluded as to whether these measures constitute a violation of the Rome Statute.
The ICC office in Caracas stated that it is still evaluating some information about this case, but that, so far, there are no guarantees of the opening of a formal investigation into the matter. This did not prevent the Venezuelan government from using this process as a political argument to reinforce a narrative that US sanctions are a form of aggression against the country.
What can we expect from the Venezuelan cases after the closure of the ICC office?
Even if the office is closed, the ICC court states that it will continue to receive and analyze information from both cases. For them, this cancellation of their physical presence in Caracas does not represent an abandonment of the country, but rather a reorganization of priorities.
With the closure of the ICC office in Caracas, a new chapter begins in this troubled relationship between the court and the Venezuelan government. This decision makes it clear how the lack of internal progress has affected the persistence of external investigations. Meanwhile, all the people of Venezuela who suffer — the victims, their families, and human rights defenders — are still waiting for concrete answers regarding the open cases.
