Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the committee for this invitation to expose the situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.
I want to shift to Spanish for better understanding.
[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]
During my presentation, I would like to speak about two examples with regard to the situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela: in the first place, about the situation of the coverage that journalists are trying to carry out with regard to the current humanitarian crisis; and second, with regard to the de facto government that came into power on January 10, in the name of Nicolás Maduro.
I would like to provide more details about the violations of these freedoms since 2018. I would also like to mention that the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the IACHR publishes an annual report regarding the situation of freedom of expression. There's a chapter specifically about Venezuela, and I recommend that you read it. You will be able to find more information that pertains to my presentation.
With regard to freedom of expression in Venezuela, in the last two months—and Mr. Correa already mentioned this—the mechanisms of censorship and blocking platforms, social media, on the Internet multiplied. There was an increase in the restriction of journalistic coverage. This was all carried out by the government in Venezuela and through their telecommunications commission.
During the development of this political crisis that is affecting Venezuela, several media sources were blocked, such as YouTube and Google, as well as access to Facebook, which has been intermittent. In different times, at different moments, the Venezuelan population did not have access to information through the Internet, which was reported by the media, such as EL TIEMPO in Colombia. During protests and events that have taken place in the past few weeks, the national television in Chile and Radio Caracol were blocked from the subscription channels, and this was an order from Conatel, the national telecommunications commission.
We have seen these blocks happening in a systematic way for the past year. They are also blocking channels such as CNN and certain Colombian networks. Journalists and reporters from radio and television who have the broadest reach, such as Miguel Rondón, reported that their programs have been suspended and that they have lost their licence as a result of the pressure they have received from authorities.
The deportations of correspondents and teams of foreign press have been happening constantly for the past four years, and we have a record of 20 cases, as the director of Espacio Publico already mentioned. But in the last two weeks, there were some very significant cases—those from Reuters and the French press. The most symbolic is that of the journalist Jorge Ramos and his team from Univision, as a result of questions that the president thought were uncomfortable. The material of that interview was destroyed and he was detained arbitrarily for several hours and then he was deported.
In the last two years, journalists have also had to suffer certain repressions. For example, journalists from France and Uruguay, and Billy Six from Germany, as well, have had negative experiences.
Now this has become even more worrisome, when we consider the fact that the state is applying a law, the so-called anti-hate law, on social media. This has been going on for at least a year and a half, and there's the threat of imprisonment when they find what they call expressions of hate, discrimination or terrorism. However, the definition of these circumstances is vague and ambiguous within the legislation, which establishes penalties for people who do so.
Along with the rapporteur from the United Nations, we have said that these are violations of international rights, and that this severely affects the ability of citizens to receive and disseminate information that is of public interest in a moment of crisis.
I think that the government has expressed the idea that it is all right to punish the media for the kind of information they are publishing, to block access to platforms, to take away licences and to deport journalists. There are other violations that we have been recording, such as the discriminatory distribution and the lack of distribution of paper for print media.
During 2018, this crisis in freedom of expression significantly worsened, and the deterioration of this freedom can be seen in criminal cases that were held against people who investigate, and the arbitrary detentions of journalists who cover protests. It also includes the detention of leaders of the opposition who were detained because they expressed ideas or positions that were critical of the government. This practice has been extended to citizens who use social media to provide information that is of public interest.
This law, supposedly against hate, was also applied against protesters and other citizens, with the effect of intimidating people for expressing themselves against the government. Local organizations of civil society have reported many cases of threats against journalists. Many of these people were forced to delete the material that they had recorded on their phones or on their cameras. Their equipment was confiscated, and there were also cases in which foreign correspondents who were covering incidents in the country were expelled.
The government has also developed new strategies to try to control the messages that are published online by blocking certain websites and by surveilling communication among citizens on social media. There are some concrete examples that I would like to share with you.
In 2018, the special rapporteur—