The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced the closure of its technical office in Caracas, Venezuela, stating that the absence of progress and cooperation from the Venezuelan authorities had driven the court’s decision. This circumstance does underscore the difficulties facing international justice institutions when they deal with states under international scrutiny for severe human rights violations and a lack of accountability. Venezuela is a prime example.
The history of the ICC Caracas office
The ICC opened its Caracas office in 2024 as part of a technical cooperation agreement with the Venezuelan government, whereby the office was to provide assistance to the Venezuelan authorities in the investigation of the alleged crimes against humanity perpetrated by the state-sponsored government in 2017 and other anti-government protest repression security operations.
However, according to Niang, while there has been a “sustained commitment” from the Venezuelan officials, this has not been the case, as “real progress in complementarity remains a challenge.”
The principle of complementarity is at the ICC’s very core and prescribes that the national authorities must be conducting genuine investigations and prosecutions of the crimes before the Court would intervene.
ICC officials state that Venezuela’s efforts fell short of this threshold, resulting in the decision to withdraw its operational presence in the country and relocate the investigation’s resources to The Hague for the International Criminal Court to continue its investigation.
A lack any meaningful commitment to cooperation
Venezuelan officials attacked the ICC, saying both the court and the ICC were ‘shirking responsibilities’ and ‘lacked any meaningful commitment to cooperation’. Venezuelan officials said the Court offered neither contributions nor recommendations regarding the initiatives put forward by Venezuela, and were seeking to instrumentalize the pursuit of justice for political purposes.
President Nicolás Maduro’s government has for many years criticized the ICC, suggesting that the Court’s involvement was part of a wider campaign against Venezuela’s sovereignty. Some of the members of the Venezuelan National Assembly even proposed that Venezuela should withdraw from the Rome Statute, which is the treaty that established the ICC.
The ICC’s closure of the office and decision to withdraw from Venezuela reflect primarily a shift in strategy to reallocate limited resources while still prioritizing highly visible cases. The ICC will now shift investigative activities to The Hague and will create Justice Teams to monitor and collect evidence for active cases.
Closing the office in Caracas raises questions about the functionality of International Justice
Closing the office in Caracas raises questions about the functionality of International Justice. The International Criminal Court works with states to obtain the evidence and witnesses necessary to proceed with the case. If the state decides to withhold its evidence and resources, the case is stuck, and the Court is unable to provide accountability, an issue with the closure of the lead office.
The ICC is not abandoning the idea of an office in Caracas; they are, according to their own rationalizations, simply pivoting to more efficient Barcelona-based efforts.
In 2018, when Venezuela came to the ICC’s attention, six countries filed a Complaint to the ICC for crimes against humanity in Venezuela. The countries involved in Venezuela’s settlement agreements with ICC have been highly unreachable.
Initial hope is offered to survivors and their kin, given that the ICC intends to continue dealing with evidence, and their work will not be in vain.
The hope is genuine, even with the information offices in Venezuela. In the Assembly of States Parties, Niang said that real progress in complementarity remains a challenge. Overcoming those challenges will depend on the Venezuelan authorities’ willingness to engage, as well as the ICC’s flexibility in a more polarized world.
