The Office of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) has received a report from the Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation regarding the presidential electoral process in Venezuela in 2024. The report highlights the worst form of repression, where the people are prevented from finding solutions through elections.

The Venezuelan regime has been accused of applying its repressive scheme to distort the electoral result, making it available to manipulation. The Maduro regime has mocked important actors of the international community, going into an electoral process without guarantees or mechanisms to enforce those guarantees.

The report notes that the complete manual for fraudulent handling of the electoral result was applied in Venezuela on the night of the election, in many cases in a very rudimentary manner. There has been talk of an audit or a recount of the minutes of electoral material, but this has not had the slightest conditions of security and control.

The opposition campaign headquarters has presented the minutes by which it would have won the election, but Maduro, including the CNE, has not yet been able to present the minutes by which it would have won. The Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, has expressed regret over the lack of cumulative memory of actors in the international community, which systematically leads to repeating errors.

The burden of injustice on the people of Venezuela continues, with Venezuelans once again victims of repression. The Secretary General has stated that “no revolution” can leave people with fewer rights than they had, poorer in values and principles, more unequal in the instances of justice and representation, more discriminated against depending on where their thinking or political direction lies.

According to a report released by the Organization of American States (OAS) the Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO) stated that the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential elections conducted on July 28 2024 is not acceptable. The report, directed to OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, details irregularities and structural problems that affected the voting process casting doubt on the credibility of the elections.

Election Results and Immediate Reactions

The National Electoral Council (CNE) declared Nicolás Maduro as the winner of the election stating that he secured 51.2% of the votes while his main rival, Edmundo González received 44.2%. However according to the OAS report there are differences between these official figures and independent evaluations such as exit polls and citizen led verifications that showed a clear advantage for González.

The CNEs announcement was made than six hours after the polling stations closed without providing a detailed breakdown of the results or granting access, to official tally sheets. The report criticized the CNE for labeling the results as “irreversible” despite mathematical errors and a lack of transparency.

Systematic Intimidation and Repression

The recent report from the Organization of American States (OAS) reveals a scheme orchestrated by the Maduro government to disrupt the electoral process by using tactics like fearmongering, political oppression and disqualifying opposition contenders. Of concern is the case of María Corina Machado, a prominent opposition leader who was barred from participating despite winning in the primary elections, a move widely perceived as politically motivated.

Leading up to the elections there were than 135 arbitrary arrests documented in the report, with many of them targeting individuals affiliated with the opposition. The air was thick with apprehension marked by instances of violence enforced disappearances and harassment directed at supporters of opposing parties. On election day itself there were reports of intimidation incidents occurring, such as sightings of government factions, near polling places.

Lack of Transparency and Observational Access

The OAS report underscores the importance of transparency in elections pointing out that the CNE hindered both international observers from effectively monitoring the electoral procedures. While a few civil society organizations were granted observer status by the CNE access was denied to electoral observation missions such as the European Union and the Carter Center.

Moreover the report highlights that the CNE refused entry to opposition witnesses at polling stations contributing to a decline in trust in the election process. Despite these obstacles local observers noted that opposition witnesses were present, in 90% of polling stations.

Electoral Manipulation and Clientelism

The report details how the Maduro administration used government resources to gain an edge in elections, such as offering aid in return for political backing. This tactic along with the absence of rules on campaign funding resulted in an unfair advantage for the ruling party.

Furthermore the OAS report raised concerns about the lack of autonomy within the CNE highlighting that its members have ties, to the Maduro government. This situation undermined the credibility of the electoral commission. Cast doubts on its capacity to oversee impartial and transparent elections.

Call for Accountability

Based on the evidence of irregularities the OAS has determined that the official outcomes of the Venezuelan presidential elections lack credibility and should not be recognized as reflective of democratic principles. The report emphasizes the need for transparency in disclosing voting records and urges global accountability measures against the actions of the Maduro government.

Amid protests in Venezuela following the election outcome the OAS findings underscore the ongoing struggle for democracy, within the nation. The Venezuelan populace, who displayed a dedication to exercising their democratic freedoms now confront an uncertain future as governmental authority grows stronger and dissent is suppressed.

Strasbourg, 16.07.2024 – The Council of Europe’s Access Info Group (AIG), an independent group of experts created to monitor the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents by its parties, published today its first baseline evaluation reports on 11 states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, the Republic of Moldova, Sweden and Ukraine.

The reports contain comprehensive analyses of the laws on freedom of information in these states and their compliance with the Tromsø Convention. In light of its findings, the AIG makes specific recommendations to each country on issues such as the exclusion of documents containing personal data or other content from the application of these laws, and limitations to the right to access official documents.

Other recommendations concern excessive length of review proceedings in case of access denials and shortcomings in procedures for deciding on access requests, for example, excessive discretion provided to public authorities not to release the requested information or failure to provide assistance to applicants.

The convention, in force since 1 December 2020, is the first-ever binding international legal instrument to recognise everyone’s right to access official documents held by public authorities upon request.

It lays down minimum obligations for its parties to guarantee the right to access official documents, balancing the protection of the public interest in transparency with the protection of other legitimate interests, such as national security, defence and international relations.

The treaty also establishes obligations on the procedures for handling requests for information and the review of denial decisions by an independent body or a court in case of request denials.

Reports:

* * *

The Access Info Group (AIG) is a body established by the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (also known as the Tromsø Convention) to evaluate the treaty’s implementation by the parties in law and practice and to make recommendations to fully comply with its provisions. It is composed of ten independent experts in the field of access to official documents. A second monitoring body, the Consultation of the Parties, complements its work. So far, 15 states have ratified the treaty and another six countries have signed it with a view to its ratification.