Human rights attorney quits court over failure to prosecute Venezuela

A prominent human rights attorney has parted ways with the International Criminal Court to protest what he sees as an unjustified failure of its chief prosecutor to indict members of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government.

Chilean-born Claudio Grossman, a past president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has left due to the failure to bring prosecutions for crimes against humanity, The Associated Press has learned.

He was appointed special adviser to ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in November 2021 on the deteriorating human rights situation in Venezuela.

In a harshly worded email last month to Mr Khan, Mr Grossman said his ethical standards no longer allow him to stand by silently as Mr Maduro’s government continues to commit abuses, expel foreign diplomats and obstruct the work of human rights monitors from the United Nations — without any action from the ICC.

Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, right, shakes hands with National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez during a meeting at the National Assembly (AP/Ariana Cubillos)

“I can no longer justify the choice not to take correspondingly serious action against the perpetrators of the grave violations,” Mr Grossman wrote in an email rejecting an offer by Mr Khan’s office in September to renew his contract.

A copy of the email, which has not been made public, was provided to the AP by someone familiar with the ICC investigation into Venezuela.

Following inquiries with Mr Khan’s office, Professor Grossman’s name was removed from the court’s website listing him as a special adviser.

“The Prosecutor is extremely grateful to Professor Grossman for the expertise and work he has rendered,” the prosecutor’s office said in a statement without addressing Mr Grossman’s stated reasons for cutting ties with the court, which based in The Hague, Netherlands. Professor Grossman declined to comment.

The pressure on Mr Khan to indict Venezuelan officials, including Mr Maduro, comes as he battles allegations of misconduct with a female aide and the threat of US sanctions over his decision to seek the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The Rome Statute that established the court took effect in 2002, with a mandate to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide — but only when domestic courts fail to initiate their investigations.

Calls for faster progress in the court’s only ever investigation in Latin America have grown louder as Mr Maduro tightens his grip on power, preparing to be sworn in for a third term on January 10 following an election marred by serious allegations of ballot box fraud and a post-election crackdown.

More than 2,000 people were arrested and 20 killed following the vote.

The US and even some fellow leftist leaders in Latin America have demanded authorities present voting records, as they have in the past, to refute tally sheets presented by Maduro’s opponents showing their candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, prevailed by a two-to-one margin.

Many in Venezuela’s opposition have complained that the ICC is applying a double standard, moving aggressively to seek the arrest of Mr Netanyahu and Russia’s Vladimir Putin for atrocities in Gaza and Ukraine while showing undue leniency with Venezuelan officials Mr Khan has been investigating for more than three years.

“There is no justification whatsoever for the inaction,” Mr Gonzalez and opposition leader María Corina Machado wrote in a recent letter to Professor Grossman and 18 other special advisers to the court appealing for their help.

“What is at stake is the life and well-being of Venezuelans,” they added in the letter, which was also provided to the AP by the person familiar with the ICC investigation. “This unjustifiable delay will cast legitimate doubts about the integrity of a system of accountability that has been an aspiration for the whole world.”

Claudio Grossman, chairperson of the Committee against Torture speaks during a press conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations AP/Keystone, Martial Trezzini)

At the request of several Latin American governments, Mr Khan three years ago opened an investigation into Venezuelan security forces’ jailing, torture and killing of anti-government demonstrators.

At the same time, he promised technical assistance to give local authorities an opportunity to take action before the ICC, a tribunal of last resort.

Earlier this month, Mr Khan delivered some of his harshest comments to date about the human rights situation in Venezuela, warning that officials’ repeated promises to investigate alleged abuses “cannot be a never-ending story.”

“I have not seen the concrete implementation of laws and practices in Venezuela that I hoped for,” he said in a speech at ICC headquarters. “The ball is in Venezuela’s court. The track of complementarity is running out of road.”

Mr Maduro’s government, in response, said in a statement that it “deeply regrets that the prosecutor is being led astray by campaigns that have emerged on social networks promoted by the extreme right, Zionism and Western powers seeking to apply legal colonialism against Venezuela.”

Some Venezuelan critics have linked what they view as foot-dragging to a potential conflict of interest involving Mr Khan’s sister-in-law, international criminal lawyer Venkateswari Alagendra, who has appeared on behalf of the Venezuelan government in two hearings before the court.

An ICC code of conduct directs prosecutors to abstain from any conflicts that may arise from “personal interest in the case, including a spousal, parental or other close family, personal or professional relationship with any of the parties.”

Ms Alagendra has previously worked with Khan and his wife defending Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan dictator, at the ICC.

Mr Khan’s office declined to comment about the relationship.

But in a filing this month seeking dismissal of a request for recusal filed by the Washington-based Arcadia Foundation, he said a sister-in-law is not a close enough personal relationship requiring automatic disqualification and that he doesn’t recall ever discussing the Venezuela probe with Ms Alagendra, who is just one of several attorneys defending the South American government.

“No fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias,” Mr Khan wrote, adding that he continues to actively and independently investigate the situation in Venezuela.

Those claiming to be victims of the Maduro government have pushed for the court to wrap up its investigation without taking a position on whether Mr Khan should be recused.