On August 21, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its decision on the preliminary objections raised by Venezuela in the case “Chirinos, Salamanca et al.”, affirming the continued applicability of the American Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) to that country and the Court’s contentious jurisdiction over Venezuela since 1977.
Background
A series of tensions arising from IACtHR decisions had led Venezuela to denounce the Convention, formally withdrawing from the treaty in September 2013. Likewise, adverse decisions by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), together with the deterioration of regional relations within the framework of the Organization of American States (OAS), prompted Venezuela to denounce the OAS Charter in April 2017.
Meanwhile, the country’s political and institutional crisis continued to deepen. Following presidential elections in May 2018 marred by serious transparency concerns, numerous states refused to recognize Mr. Maduro as head of state and government of Venezuela. Subsequently, in January 2019, the opposition-majority National Assembly appointed Deputy Juan Guaidó as interim president and head of the executive branch.
The OAS Permanent Council recognized Mr. Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela and accepted his envoy as the state’s representative before the organization. This is relevant because, on March 7, 2019, acting pursuant to his appointment as interim president, Mr. Guaidó revoked Venezuela’s denunciation of the OAS Charter—still within the treaty’s extension period—and, on July 31, 2019, he re-ratified the Convention, retroactively nullifying the 2013 denunciation.
In this context, the Court was called upon to determine its own jurisdiction over Venezuela in relation to contentious cases arising after September 10, 2013.
The Parties’ Positions
As expected, the State raised its preliminary objections regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Court (ratione voluntatisand ratione temporis), arguing that Venezuela’s denunciation of the Convention remained in force and that the expression of consent and deposit of the instrument of ratification signed by Mr. Guaidó constituted a violation of a fundamental norm of international law, since, according to the State, he did not exercise Venezuela’s international representation.
For the IACHR and the representatives, the recognition of the government led by Mr. Guaidó by the OAS Permanent Council and General Assembly, as well as the accreditation of his envoys before the organization and the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Convention by the treaty’s depositary, established the validity of the treaty in accordance with the terms of the re-ratification, granting the IACtHR uninterrupted jurisdiction over Venezuela and fully nullifying the effects of the denunciation.
Alternative Solutions
In a matter of regional significance, several amicus curiae revisited the discussion on the standards governing the denunciation of human rights treaties such as the American Convention, as developed in Advisory Opinion OC-26.
While there are several variations of this argument, the central line of reasoning holds that when a denunciation fails to meet the standards set out in that Opinion, and when the collective guarantee assigned to the States and political organs of the OAS proves ineffective, the IACtHR may judicially exercise that collective guarantee through a review of the act of denunciation.
This would render invalid those denunciations deemed incompatible with the Convention—particularly those occurring in contexts of massive human rights violations and in fraud of the State’s obligations under the Convention.
In the present case, this approach would suggest that the IACtHR could declare null and void the 2013 denunciation, on the basis of serious human rights violations, the deterioration of democracy, the rule of law, and judicial independence, as well as the ineffectiveness of the collective guarantee.
However, it must be noted that the criteria established in OC-26 were issued in December 2020, and their retroactive application to facts dating back to September 2013 raises legitimate concerns regarding legal certainty and the reasonable expectation of consistency in judicial decisions within the system.
Moreover, similar to the State’s argument concerning the re-ratification, this approach would empower the IACtHR to review treaty-related acts, thereby extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits established by the Convention and creating a scenario of lesser systemic stability. As a result, States would be unable to freely ratify or denounce the Convention, and other State Parties would be deprived of their ability to assess such acts through the OAS political organs.
This would represent a substantial expansion of the Court’s recent reasoning in OC-26, which had confined itself to establishing a political (not judicial) guarantee—an extension that could prove legally precarious for the States Parties.
Another proposed approach focuses on assessing the act of denunciation in light of domestic constitutional norms. Under this view, Article 23 of the Venezuelan Constitution is of particular relevance, as it serves as a rule of recognition for the Convention and other (substantive) norms of international human rights law, integrating them into the constitutional framework and transferring to them its formal and substantive characteristics.
Accordingly, the modification or abrogation of such assimilated international norms would require the same procedures as those established for amending or repealing original constitutional norms. This would, therefore, entail a legality review of the denunciation.
Yet, such an approach encounters the difficulty of subjecting the IACtHR to questions of constitutionality regarding acts of public power, effectively recognizing its inherent authority to annul them. In this scenario, the IACtHR would act as a guarantor of domestic law, exceeding its statutory mandate and generating tensions with national judicial bodies charged with overseeing the legality of acts of public authority within their own jurisdictions.
This does not, of course, imply that the Convention ceased to have effect within Venezuela as a result of the denunciation. It is necessary here to distinguish between the internal and external effects of the act of denunciation.
Indeed, the denunciation seeks only international effects and cannot extinguish the content and scope of Article 23 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which continues to operate as a reference norm linking to the Convention and other treaties, unless such instruments are repealed through constitutional means. Therefore, the provisions of the Convention have retained full validity within Venezuela’s constitutional order even after the denunciation.
By contrast, the denunciation produces international effects, releasing the State from its international obligations under the treaty and from international responsibility for their breach. Conversely, a constitutional amendment that repealed an international norm assimilated under Article 23 would not release the State from its international obligations regarding that norm, nor from its responsibility for breach, as long as the treaty remains in force with respect to that State.
This distinction was likewise acknowledged by Venezuela’s domestic judicial bodies, which continued to apply the Convention substantively as an internal constitutional standard.
The Legal Basis of the Court’s Decision
The IACtHR’s ruling was grounded in the retroactive ratification carried out by the government recognized by the organs of the international organization, thereby avoiding the need to assess a potential nullity of the act of denunciation in the specific case.
Nevertheless, the Court took the opportunity to reiterate the necessity of applying standards beyond mere state consent when evaluating the denunciation of a human rights treaty, and it acknowledged the existence of a significant deterioration of the democratic rule of law in Venezuela at the time of the denunciation.
Conclusion
The Court opted for a solution based on international law—formal and legally unassailable—that provided a logically consistent foundation and a satisfactory outcome while respecting state sovereignty and the political dynamics within the organs of an international organization.
The decision also carries a crucial democratic dimension. The Court emphasized that Venezuela’s denunciation of the Convention in 2013 occurred amid a weakening of the rule of law, reaffirming that human rights treaties function as safeguards against authoritarianism. The practical consequence is clear: the continued validity of the Convention ensures Venezuelan victims’ access to international justice. At the same time, it confirms that the democratic principle is an essential component of the Inter-American System and cannot be disregarded at the discretion of any government.
Ultimately, the judgment reopens the doors of the IACtHR to all victims of human rights violations in Venezuela, restoring access to vital international mechanisms for justice and reparation, as well as contributing to the construction of historical memory regarding a tumultuous period marked by the breakdown of democracy and the rule of law.
Photo credit: Inter-American Court of Human Rights