Dissenters convene rally to reject top court's ruling
Venezuela's opposition asserts that the ruling issued on January 9 by the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, "is against the Constitution and undermines the State's democratic order"
Deputy Miriam de Montilla, who read out the document, said that the ruling issued on January 9 by the Constitutional Court of Venezuela's higher court "runs counter to the Constitution and undermines the State's democratic order."
Upon this decision, "We, Venezuelans, will be ruled by officials that will hold the Executive Office until the supervened reason that prevents the president-elect from coming to the National Assembly is over," the deputy remarked. She added that the ruling has "completely disregarded the concept of temporary absence and established conditions that are not set forth in the Constitution and which authorize an indefinite absence of the president."
"The Executive Office will be in the hands of the vice-president and other officials, who have not been by any means elected the people's vote. Their term in office expires today (January 10) as well as that of the president of Venezuela," the statement read.
Montilla stressed that the deputies of the opposition Unified Democratic Panel (MUD) do respect the ruling but do not agree with it. They believe that the top court's construction of the constitution generates greater uncertainty in the country.
"We will fight for the reinstatement of the Constitution for as long as necessary," the deputy noted.
The opposition deputies seized the opportunity to convene a rally on January 23 in defense of democracy and the Constitution.
Translated by Jhean Cabrera
As late as Tuesday, February 25, there was some visible response from Gabriela Ramírez's office. Representatives of the Office of the Ombudswoman would visit independent human rights watch groups to find what happened in connection with repression of protests. That day, they visited NGO Provea. The next day, they met with the attorneys of NGO Venezuelan Criminal Forum. They pursued specific data because -they argued- no claims of human rights violations of demonstrators had been filed with the Office of the Ombudswoman.