The terrorism courts: the judicial weapon Chavismo forged to silence Venezuela

In October 2012, Venezuela's Supreme Court of Justice, under Hugo Chávez, approved a resolution that would establish a judicial structure to combat terrorism. This resolution, officially published in January 2013, created special tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases.

Thirteen years later, human rights defenders and legal experts argue that this administrative structure has evolved into an efficient judicial machinery for suppressing political adversaries. They contend that the term "terrorism" has become an elastic concept, applied to a range of activities from actual attacks to social media comments, leading to the conviction of political prisoners and prolonged arbitrary detentions.

The core of the criticism lies in the legal foundation of these tribunals. The Organic Law against Organized Crime and Terrorism Financing, also enacted in 2012, does not stipulate the creation of special courts for terrorism. This contrasts with other laws, such as those protecting children or women's rights, where specific courts were explicitly mandated by the legislature.

Critics point out that these special courts operate without independent judges, public proceedings, or genuine access to defense. They function as a "factory of exemplary sentences," tailored to the government's needs rather than operating with checks and balances.