International

Opponents at the Embassy of Argentina in Venezuela, waiting for a permit that does not arrive

Six Venezuelan opposition members are asylum at the Embassy of Argentina in Caracas waiting for the Government of Venezuela to grant the safe-conducts to leave the country. A possibility classified as mandatory in the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum (1954), but of “limited” application in practice, experts say.

Although the convention says that “the asylum State can request the departure of the asylum seeker for foreign territory,” and expressly indicates that “the State is obliged to give immediately (…) the corresponding safe-conduct.” “Except in case of force majeure” is added, without specifying more, which leaves the door open to different criteria.

For Simón Gómez, professor of International Law at the Andrés Bello Catholic University, “force majeure” is a concept “on which there is a relative general acceptance of its meaning.” It refers to “circumstances resulting from a natural tragedy” that prevent “conferring the safe conduct.”

But the president of the College of Internationalists of Venezuela, Juan Francisco Contreras, told EFE that it must be located in 1954, the year in which the convention was created, when many countries “had military and dictatorial regimes.” So “a kind of window was always left to be able to justify some kind of denial.”

For these reasons, both agree that Venezuela could not argue “force majeure” to deny safe conduct. However, they recall that there are examples of governments that have denied safe conducts citing the article of the convention that states that “it is not lawful to grant asylum” to people who, when requested, “are indicted or prosecuted” before “competent ordinary courts and for common crimes.”

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

A recent example is the case of Ricardo Martinelli, former president of Panama who was in asylum at the Embassy of Nicaragua, whom Justice sentenced to 10 years in prison for money laundering. A conviction that served as an argument for Panama to deny the safe conduct.

The opposite case is that of Pedro Carmona, who, after an unsuccessful coup d’état against Hugo Chávez in 2002, sent to the Colombian Embassy in Caracas. Although he was accused of rebellion, Chávez himself granted a safe-conduct.

“I must say that, in the face of the sovereign decision (…) of the Colombian Government to grant diplomatic asylum to Dr. Carmona (…) in the next few hours I will issue the safe-conduct to leave Venezuela (…). We are obliged from the point of view of International Law,” Chávez said in May 2002.

The Government has not yet confirmed whether it will approve or deny the safe conduct to the opponents, but the vice president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Diosdado Cabello – without a charge in the Executive -, assured that he refused.

On May 30, Argentina demanded from Venezuela “the immediate issuance of safe-conducts,” in “compliance” with the 1954 Convention.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

However, for José Bruzual, professor of Public International Law at the Central University of Venezuela, this case “is not resolved solely with legal criteria.”

“It’s a dilemma from the beginning. The Asylum State has the power to grant asylum, but the territorial State can argue about the nature of the crimes and refuse to grant the safe conduct. In practice, those people can stay there for a long time,” he added.

The six opponents took refuge at the Embassy of Argentina after the Prosecutor’s Office accused them of several crimes, such as conspiracy and treason, among others.

According to the convention, the asylum officer “will take into account” the information of the territorial government on the crimes, but “his determination to continue the asylum or demand the safe conduct for the persecuted will be respected.”

If Venezuela denies the authorization, the convention does not contemplate that any international organization orders the issuance of the permit, so “there is no way to force the country to give the safe conduct,” said expert Contreras.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

The asylum seekers at the Embassy of Argentina are Pedro Urruchurtu, Magalli Meda, Claudia Macero, Humberto Villalobos – all members of María Corina Machado’s party -, former deputy Omar González and Fernando Martínez Mottola, adviser to the opposition coalition Plataforma Unitaria Democrática.

International

Bolivia Orders Three Investigations Into Deadly Military Plane Crash

Bolivia’s Defense Minister Marcelo Salinas announced Monday that three separate investigations will be conducted into Friday’s crash of a military cargo aircraft at El Alto International Airport, near La Paz, which left at least 22 people dead.

The Hercules aircraft, operated by the Fuerza Aérea Boliviana (FAB), was transporting cash intended for the Central Bank of Bolivia when it overshot the runway after landing from the city of Santa Cruz. The plane reportedly traveled nearly one kilometer beyond the airport perimeter.

The incident sparked chaotic scenes, with individuals attempting to collect scattered banknotes. Authorities detained 51 people in the aftermath, and the government declared three days of national mourning.

Multiple Investigations Underway

The first inquiry is being led by a military board from the Bolivian Air Force, which has already taken custody of the aircraft’s black box for analysis.

Minister Salinas said two additional investigations will follow — one conducted by the insurance company and another by the aircraft’s manufacturer.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“At least two more investigations will come, that of the insurance company and that of the aircraft manufacturer,” Salinas said during a press conference in Santa Cruz.

He cautioned that the investigative process could take between three and six months, noting that the black box cannot be opened in Bolivia due to the lack of specialized laboratories for analysis.

Awaiting Official Findings

Salinas stressed that the FAB investigative board is the highest authority in the case and urged the public to wait for its conclusions to avoid speculation about the causes of the crash.

He also confirmed that the government has contacted the families of the 22 victims and the 37 injured, as well as the owners of 15 damaged vehicles, to coordinate procedures with the insurer and cover the corresponding expenses.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

International

Mexico Calls for Immediate Probe After National Dies in ICE Custody

Mexico’s Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE) on Monday called on U.S. authorities to conduct an “immediate and thorough” investigation into the death of a Mexican national while in custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a processing facility in California.

In a statement, the Mexican government described the death as “regrettable” and urged U.S. officials to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case in order to “determine responsibilities and ensure that such events do not happen again.”

Death at Adelanto Processing Center

According to available information, the Mexican citizen died at the Adelanto Processing Center in California while under ICE custody. Authorities have not yet released the individual’s identity or the cause of death.

Following the incident, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry formally requested “detailed information” from U.S. authorities, including the detainee’s medical records and custody reports.

Consular Assistance Activated

The Mexican Consulate in San Bernardino, California, has activated consular assistance protocols to provide ongoing support to the deceased’s family. Officials have contacted relatives to express condolences and offer legal guidance, as well as assistance with the necessary procedures to repatriate the remains.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“The handling of situations like this and the establishment of mechanisms to resolve them are priorities for the Government of Mexico,” the Foreign Ministry said, adding that it will formally request an investigation into any systemic conditions that may have contributed to such incidents.

Local Mexican media reported that seven Mexican nationals died while in ICE detention last year — the highest number recorded since the agency was created.

International

Anti-ICE Billboard Campaign Targets Immigration Spending in 31 U.S. Cities

More than 200 billboards criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began appearing Monday in 31 cities across the United States, including Miami, as part of a campaign highlighting the high cost of immigration enforcement operations for taxpayers.

The initiative, titled “ICE Costs Us,” was launched by the civil rights organization Mijente and will run for four weeks.

Criticism of Spending and Enforcement Tactics

The billboards feature images of ICE agents during arrests or carrying military-style weapons. According to the organization, spending on military-grade equipment for the agency has increased by 600 percent in recent years.

Several signs display messages such as:
“Your taxes are being wasted” and “ICE’s cruelty costs you $28 billion,” referring to the agency’s annual budget.

In a statement, Marisa Franco, co-founder of the Mijente Support Committee, said:
“For too long, our government has prioritized building cages and investing billions in an immigration enforcement apparatus that has left families torn apart and communities terrified.”

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

She added that “Millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, yet this violent agency continues operating with a blank check. These decisions do not make us safer nor improve our economic security. Our billboards highlight these choices and demand a different path.”

Budget Debate and Medicaid Comparison

The campaign also draws a comparison between ICE’s funding and the estimated 17 million people who could lose health coverage under Medicaid due to federal budget cuts under President Donald Trump.

Other billboard messages seen in various cities include:
“They get billions to beat us; we get layoffs and rising rents” and “Funding ICE is a fast track to fascism.”

Organizers say the goal is to spark public debate about the allocation of federal funds for immigration enforcement and the broader economic and social impact of such policies on communities nationwide.