Clinic Observes Hearing in Costa Rica on Key Human Rights Issue

The University of Virginia School of Law’s International Human Rights Law Clinic traveled to Costa Rica earlier this month to attend a hearing at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights examining Venezuela’s presidential crisis.

Clinic students Luci Harris ’25, Walter Gabriel ’26 and Elijah Brown ’26 joined clinic director and Professor Camilo Sánchez to observe the work of the court in San José on Feb. 5. Sánchez, who also co-directs the school’s Immigration, Migration and Human Rights Program, recently recounted their experiences and the issues at stake.

The Inter-American Court is one of three regional tribunals protecting human rights, alongside the European Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It is an autonomous judicial institution whose purpose is to apply and interpret the American Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty ratified by nearly 20 states in the Americas.

The primary goal of our visit was to listen to the arguments of a jurisdiction hearing held by the court on Feb. 5 regarding a case related to Venezuela, where the court has the responsibility to rule on a series of politically significant human rights cases. These cases carry broader implications, as they address an issue of public international law that has not been examined by similar courts before: the determination of what constitutes a legitimate government of a country.

Venezuela has faced a profound political and humanitarian crisis in recent years. As part of its political instability, in 2012, the government of Hugo Chávez decided to sever its relationship with the court, a legal act known as the “denunciation” of the treaty.

Several years later, in 2018, Venezuela held highly contested presidential elections, which the majority of countries in the region considered to be neither fair nor democratic, leading several states from the region and the world to refuse recognizing Nicolás Maduro as the election’s winner. In light of this situation, the Venezuelan Parliament declared that due to the absence of a constitutional president, the constitutional succession of power should be applied, temporarily placing the presidency in the hands of the president of the Parliament, Juan Guaidó, an opposition leader. Guaidó, assumed office in the assembly and quickly accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The move set off a presidential crisis that continued for years.

To decide on the cases currently in its docket, the court must determine whether the opposition’s act was legitimate according to international law. This is the most intriguing aspect of this case. There is no written treaty or norm that clearly defines what constitutes a legitimate government of a country, and there is an ongoing debate regarding the practice and customs of states and international organizations in this regard.

As if this were not already complicated and interesting from a legal standpoint, the acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction that occurred in 2019 was done retroactively. This raises a debate not only about who made the recognition, but also about the scope of that recognition.

All of this is part of a very complex and volatile political situation in Venezuela that, unfortunately, affects millions of people in Venezuela and neighboring countries. In January, Nicolás Maduro was sworn in as president of Venezuela again, despite evidence that election tallies showed his opponent, Edmundo González, won the election.

Because of the unique aspects of international law and the implications of this case, the clinic decided to keep an eye on this litigation. Once we were back from the hearing, we wrote an amicus curiae brief to help the court reach a decision that is consistent with international law, drawing from our research on public international law. We are hopeful that in a few months, the court will announce its decision on this case, which will set the stage for a number of other pending cases. If the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, all pending cases will likely follow the same path.

The precedent could assist other institutions and governments dealing with situations far beyond our region. Earlier this month, the Taliban — the de facto but largely unrecognized government in power in Afghanistan — decided to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The research we conducted for the Venezuelan case could also be of use in such a case.

We also took the opportunity during our visit to learn more about the inter-American human rights system and international litigation. We stopped by the offices of the Center for Justice and International Law, known as CEJIL, and had insightful discussions with their lawyers. Additionally, we met with the plaintiffs, who work for a Venezuelan organization called Defiende Venezuela, and connected with members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.