It is a Latin phrase that means “let the other party be heard too.” It became a principle of Roman law.
It is under this principle, that Alfred Zayas, a former independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, claims he will base his considerations when preparing the report on his visit to our country.
It is necessary to comment on the contradictions, half truths, manipulations, value judgements and victimization contained in the report published by this independent expert.
In the outset of his report, the expert acknowledges that in Venezuela, he observed the effects of inflation, price control and bad management, however, he does not delve too much into facts that would show that inflation in Venezuela is largely due to price controls, mismanagement and other confiscatory practices promoted by the regime.
The expert, in his report, decided to embrace the “economic war” argument as a central cause of all our economic ills, comparing it to what could have happened in Syria, Cuba and Allende’s Chile. What odious comparisons.
Somewhere in the report, the expert speaks of being a victim of persecution and intimidation through social networks, however, it is convenient to clarify that one of his actions, upon arrival in the country, was being photographed smiling, escorted by two national police in a car market in an affluent area of Caracas, showing a fridge full of cold cuts. In a clear example of provocation, which already questioned the impartiality of his observation mission.
Quoting directly from the report; “the independent expert observed the eradication of illiteracy,” which is interesting, because the only way to affirm this would be to review the figures of the last population census which show 6% illiteracy in Venezuela, a figure that is above the 4% set as a maximum limit. It seems the expert viewed these facts through the deceptive lens of the regime.
Similarly, in the report, says the expert, who observed how medical attention has been extended to all people, another blunder of our illustrious visitor, because he was unable to meet and listen to those affected and much less visit without guardianship of the regime, some hospital enclosure of the capital of the country to not go very far.
Similarly, in the report, the expert observes how medical attention has been extended to everyone. Here as well, the illustrious visitor blundered since he was unable to meet and listen to those affected and much less independently visit any hospital in the capital of our country without heavy tutelage of the regime.
Regarding the Right to Food, the expert commented in his letter that, to combat hunger, – yes, he speaks of hunger – the local supply and production committees “CLAP” supply the neediest Venezuelans with 16 kg bags of food products; In this respect, Alfred de Zayas blunders once again, since the stated bag of food does not bring that amount of products, and there are also nutritional studies that show not only the low nutritional value of the milk powder that comes in the bag but also the risks of its consumption because it is considered a product high in salts and fats.
In the writing it can be read that the expert speaks of sabotage of public goods and even of power lines; I would never have thought that the honorable bowtie wearing visitor would have given merit to the Hollywood style justifications for our energy crisis, given by the most incapable of all the ministers of the regime’s cabinet, Motta Dominguez.
“Long conversations” says the expert, were held with Pasqualina Curcio and Alfredo Serrano, two of the most dogmatic ideologues of Chavismo, however, nowhere is it mentioned that he has held similar conversations with actors, experts or academics not affected by the regime, apparently having forgotten the principle of “audiatur et altera pars”.
The economic sanctions could not be kept out of his dossier; to these sanctions, the expert attributes the shortage of insulin and antiretrovirals, ignoring the fact that shortages of these drugs were prevalent prior to the imposition of economic sanctions and fails to ask, how it is possible to import food products for CLAP bags and not for insulin and antiretrovirals.
On the issue of political mediation, it is undoubtedly the section of the brief where the expert took off his status as an independent and decided to join the ranks of the regime. A phrase like “a well-weighted agreement” can be read to refer to the agreement that the regime wanted the opposition to sign as it would take place in the Dominican Republic. Curious that an independent observer argues from what mediators of the regime imagine that it could have been a telephone call that the opposition received on the West Indian island, in short he argued from assumptions.
On the issue of political mediation, undoubtedly the section where our expert visitor removes his condition as an independent and decides to join the ranks of the regime, we find a phrase like “a well pondered agreement…” referring to an agreement that the regime wanted the opposition to sign by any means in the Dominican Republic. Funny how an independent observer argues from a view that mediators of the regime imagine what could have been a phone call the opposition received in the Antillean island, in short, our expert argued from assumptions.
As can be seen in Alfred de Zayas’ last letter, in his capacity as an independent expert (he has stopped working), he did not fully comply with the principle of “audiatur et altera pars”, however, situations affecting the bulk of the Venezuelan population, which have been denounced; It perfectly describes the humanitarian crisis that Venezuela is experiencing, without recognizing it. And the recommendations confirm a requirement that from civil society organizations we have been raising, accepting humanitarian aid.
It is finally time for the long dossier
