Dear Ms. Jiménez,
I read in disbelief the semantic debate you had yesterday in the Senate with my esteemed friend Iñaki Anasagasti. Your claim that there are no political prisoners in Venezuela is not only insulting but also false, and I will explain the reasons so that your ignorance on the subject does not leave you, and consequently Spain, poorly positioned on the international stage.
Interestingly, in the past few days, I had to send Iñaki a clarification regarding an article he published on his personal blog that specifically refers to you, which was incorrectly attributed to me instead of citing the original source.
In any case, Ms. Jiménez, please know that there are indeed political prisoners in Venezuela. Before you hastily make public assertions, you should properly educate yourself, especially when it is so easy for anyone with internet access to subject your statements to public scrutiny. You claim that neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch recognize the existence of political prisoners in Venezuela. Be aware that the case of Judge Maria Afiuni, for example, has been reported by both Amnesty International (20 results here) and Human Rights Watch (16 results here), indicating that you seem to care little about the well-being of your Venezuelan counterparts.
In addition to the cited organizations, which according to you are the only ones with the authority to define whether a person held illegally in prison for political reasons is a political prisoner, you would do well to consider the statements regarding the Afiuni case issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, voiced by the President-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Mr. El Hadji Malick Sow; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms. Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque e Silva; and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms. Margaret Sekaggya.
If you believe that the cited organizations lack credibility regarding the existence of political prisoners in Venezuela, as a last resort, perhaps you should consider the danger faced by an innocent woman deprived of her liberty for doing her job and upholding the law, as highlighted in the following precautionary measure issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights:
MC 380/09 – María Lourdes Afiuni, Venezuela
On January 11, 2010, the IACHR granted precautionary measures in favor of María Lourdes Afiuni, Venezuela. The request for precautionary measures alleges that on Sunday, January 3, 2010, a group of individuals deprived of liberty at the National Institute of Female Orientation (INOF) attempted to signal a “war” or “riot” by placing tape on their legs and heads. They allegedly planned to “burn the judge alive,” referring to Ms. Afiuni, as well as three other detainees considered close to her. It is claimed that this group attempted to pour gasoline in the area where Ms. Afiuni is imprisoned and set her on fire. The Inter-American Commission requested the State of Venezuela to take necessary measures to guarantee the life and physical integrity of the beneficiary; to ensure that the beneficiary is transferred to a safe location, and to inform the IACHR about the actions taken to judicially clarify the events that warranted the adoption of precautionary measures.
Judge Afiuni is not alone in her ordeal. The death of Franklin Brito, due to political causes and the inhumanity of a militaristic state, is still fresh in the memory of Venezuelans. There are many other cases, Ms. Jiménez, do not deceive yourself.
Your attitude is similar to that of Judge Varela in the Garzón case; that is, adopting unsustainable positions in a world defined by the universality of international law and the free flow of information.
Your ignorant statements have done a disservice to the victims of human rights violations: educate yourself, and if your conscience allows it, retract your statements.
Sincerely, Alek Boyd