IPYS: Venezuelan State infringes right to freedom of expression
Within the framework of the International Day against Impunity, the International Freedom of Expression Exchange network (IFEX) and the Press and Society Institute (IPYS) in Venezuela presented a joint report highlighting 233 violations against freedom of the press between 2008-2010 in Venezuela. The document also describes the situation in other 11 states
The warning is included in the Yearly Impunity Report 2012: Testimonies and traces of freedom of expression in Latin America and the Caribbean, released on Friday by the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network on the occasion of the International Day against Impunity.
The report indicated that some 233 violations against freedom of the press took place from 2008-2010. It included aggressions against workers of the Capriles news outlet in August 2009. The attack occurred during a peaceful demonstration against some provisions of the Organic Law on Education that may restrict freedom of expression through prior censorship. As many as 12 casualties were reported on that day.
The report, which referred to 12 Latin American countries, noted that the judicial powers in the region are "extremely dysfunctional." The lack of specialization of their officials and the lack of specialized mechanisms to monitor human rights violations, especially those violations perpetrated against highly vulnerable people, including journalists, lead to a high impunity rates.
The report is available in Spanish on http://ifex.org/americas/alc/es/impunidad2012/pdf/informe_2012.pdf.
Translated by Jhean Cabrera
Pablo Jiménez Guaricuco was summarily dismissed from his Clerk III job at the Autonomous Service of Public Registries and Notaries' Offices (Saren). He read a notice published in a newspaper on November 5 informing the public that he was no longer employed to the Saren. He was sacked despite the fact that he was taking a leave of absence from work due to a work-related accident, and that he enjoyed security of employment under the parental job-immunity privilege. Most probably, the decision was influenced by his role as a union organizer. But what did he do, besides leading protests, to deserve the sack? Well, he allegedly sent off a series of tweets that definitely hurt the sensitivity of the Saren Directorate.