Usually self-contained and careful of adjectives to label the government, Pedro Nikken seems to have left behind the moderation characteristic of jurists, as he is astounded, among others, by the government action taken against daily newspapers El Nacional and Tal Cual.

[Background: On Friday, August 13, daily newspaper El Nacional, a critic of the government of President Hugo Chávez, released on its front page a photo of dozens of bodies piled up at the Caracas morgue. The day after, Tal Cual, another daily newspaper also critic of the government, published again the same photo. In reply, a Caracas court banned newspapers from releasing images and information of a violent content.]

But the ex president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights spares no words to lash out at previous governments labeled as the Fourth Republic. "Their sin was having doing it badly, to such an extent that the people handed themselves over the hands of a frantic military man who is leading the country to hatred and havoc. "The photo of El Nacional was not forged, it was not tampered and it was certified that it had been taken in December by a poaching photographer. It was tough and I think nobody liked it, but it referred to a specific fact. I reminded me of reasoning at the European Court of Human Rights, under which in practicing journalism, sometimes exaggeration and even provocation, are legitimate.

It was provocation.
Provocation as to reality. Venezuela has fallen prey to social violence.

If, after 11 years of government, social policies would work, the crime rate should have dropped.
That's right. The social situation is pathetic because of poverty and marginality. An atmosphere of hatred and scorn of each other has been created; impunity prevails and nothing prevents anyone from finding a job as a hooligan. That is the only open labor market.

Was such a reality created "by spontaneous combustion"?
It was created by the polarization climate, an essential seasoning for the current political process.

In this context, do you justify the publication of the photo?
Yes, I do. It is an expression of the ongoing situation in the country in form of graphic journalism. It might be, there is, a legitimate dose of provocation. But, otherwise, the democratic system of freedom of expression, enshrined in the Constitution and international conventions, allows the adoption of subsequent measures, because it is not "preventive," but repressive.

The government vows that it is for the sake of children's mental health.
Children's interest is just a screen in the government interest. Children's wellbeing is not at stake, because they should be thoroughly informed. Or is it that children are not people with all rights? That is a conquest of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Can this situation change by democratic means?
It is impossible by non-democratic means and the democratic way should be taken ad nauseam.

Translated by Conchita Delgado