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

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Policy Allowing Deportations to Third Countries

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the policy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration allowing immigration authorities to deport foreign nationals to third countries without prior notice or the opportunity to object is unlawful. The decision marks another legal setback for the administration on immigration matters.

Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down the regulation issued last year, which stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not required to notify migrants if they were to be sent to countries other than the one listed in their removal order, provided that receiving nations offered assurances they would not face persecution or torture.

Murphy ordered the measure vacated but granted a 15-day delay before the ruling takes effect, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal.

In his decision, the judge concluded that the policy violates federal immigration law and migrants’ due process rights. He also questioned the lack of transparency surrounding the alleged assurances provided by receiving countries, stating that “no one really knows anything about these supposed ‘assurances.’” He added, “It is not right, and it is not lawful.”

The ruling follows several legal disputes involving deportations to third countries. Last year, the executive branch deported more than 200 Salvadorans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, invoking an old wartime law. The White House also held talks with Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda about receiving migrants who are not citizens of those countries.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

In May, the same judge determined that the government violated a court order when it attempted to remove a group of immigrants with criminal records to South Sudan without prior notice or an opportunity to raise claims of fear of persecution.

Although President Donald Trump took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily allowed the deportations to resume while a final decision was pending, the White House is expected to again appeal to higher courts to overturn this latest judicial ruling.

International

Cocaine Production Surges 34% in 2023 as Market Expands into Africa and Asia

The global cocaine market is the fastest-growing among all illicit drugs worldwide, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) warned on Thursday in its annual report presented in Vienna.

The body attributes this expansion to the sustained rise in production in South America — particularly in Colombia — as well as increasing demand in emerging regions such as Africa and Asia.

According to the report, global cocaine production surpassed 3,700 metric tons in 2023, marking a 34% increase compared to 2022. This growth is largely driven by the expansion of illicit coca cultivation in Colombia and the greater production capacity of clandestine laboratories.

The INCB noted that the market has not only grown in volume but has also diversified and become more globalized. While Europe and North America remain the primary destinations, trafficking routes now reach “all regions of the world,” including Africa — traditionally considered a transit zone — and Asia, where the presence of cocaine was previously marginal.

In Western and Central Europe, for the fifth consecutive year, seizures in 2023 exceeded those in North America, consolidating the region as the leading destination market. Between January 2019 and June 2024, more than 1,826 metric tons of drugs bound for European ports were seized, of which 82% was cocaine, equivalent to 1,487 metric tons.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

The report also highlights that seizures in Africa rose by 48% in 2023 compared to 2022, reflecting the expansion of the market on the continent. Globally, the number of cocaine users increased from 17 million in 2013 to 25 million in 2023.

International

Clinton Accuses Republican Committee of Using Epstein Case to Shield Trump

Former U.S. Secretary of State and former First Lady Hillary Clinton denied on Thursday before a congressional committee that she had ever met convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in person or had any knowledge of the crimes he committed.

Clinton testified behind closed doors from New York before the House Oversight Committee. The wife of former President Bill Clinton — who is scheduled to testify on Friday — accused the Republican-controlled committee of summoning her in order to “distract attention” and “cover up” the activities of President Donald Trump, who had past ties to Epstein.

“I do not recall ever meeting Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane nor visited his island, his homes, or his offices. I have nothing further to add,” she stated.

The former Secretary of State emphasized that she “had no idea about the criminal activities” of the financier, who died in prison in 2019. “Like any decent person, I was horrified when I learned of his crimes,” she said.

Clinton described the Epstein case as “a tragedy” and “a scandal” that deserves “a thorough investigation,” but criticized the committee for failing to summon what she called the truly relevant individuals.

20260224_estafa_mh_728x90

“Instead, you have asked me to testify, knowing that I have no knowledge that would serve your investigation, with the purpose of distracting from President Trump’s activities and shielding him despite the legitimate demand for answers,” she said.

The questioning, conducted behind closed doors in Chappaqua, New York — where the Clintons reside — took place one day before former President Bill Clinton was scheduled to appear at the same location.

Although the Clintons initially declined to testify before Congress, the threat of being held in contempt ultimately led the former presidential couple to agree to appear and explain their relationship with Epstein.