1. REPÚBLICA
BOLIVARIANA
DE
VENEZUELA
ASAMBLEA NACIONAL
Caracas, july 25, de 2013
Members of Parliaments of the World
REF: ATTACK ON PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
IN VENEZUELA. THE CASE OF RICHARD
MARDO.
Esteemed colleagues:
We the undersigned, MARÍA CORINA MACHADO, DINORAH FIGUERA, EDGAR
ZAMBRANO, CARLOS BERRIZBEITIA and HÍRAN GAVIRIA, representatives
elected by the people of Venezuela, and leaders of the opposition bench in the
National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, would like to inform
you of the grave threats that parliamentary immunity is currently facing, specifically
in regards to Rep. Richard Mardo, who will be stripped of his parliamentary
immunity on July 30 of this year. Such a situation compels us to request your
support.
I
BACKGROUND
On February 2013, during a plenary session of the National Assembly,
Representatives Diosdado Cabello and Pedro Carreño, members of the
government party (PSUV), publicly accused Rep. Richard Mardo of incurring in
acts of corruption after having received checks and wire transfers amounting to
important sums of money, allegedly originating from contractors employed by
municipalities and governorships currently presided by Primero Justicia, the
opposition party of which Rep. Mardo is an active member.
The financial documents that served as evidence for Rep. Cabello’s and Rep.
Carreño’s allegations were submitted before the Attorney General of the Republic
at the same time that a warrant for Rep. Mardo’s arrest was issued, despite the
fact that the latest financial movements on record date back to the year 2011, a
time which precedes Richard Mardo’s condition as a parliamentarian.

2. Other investigations were launched in parallel, one by the National Assembly’s
Accountability Commission (Comisión de Contraloría de la Asamblea General),
and another by the Attorney General’s office, neither of which allowed the
involvement of Rep. Mardo, who was even barred from seeking and appointing
legal council, obtaining access to the investigation records, or examining the
evidence brought forth against him. It is worth noting that the National Assembly’s
Accountability Commission carried out its investigation of Rep. Mardo well into the
present month of July, 2013, even though repeated calls for investigating PSUV
Representatives for similar charges have been systematically denied, invoking the
precept of parliamentary immunity. In the case of Rep. Richard Mardo, this
consideration was summarily overlooked. 1
As a further injustice, the claim presented by government-party Representatives
eventually became a formal request for impeachment, presented by the Attorney
General before the Supreme Justice Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia) on
March of this year, wherein Rep. Mardo was charged with alleged crimes of Fiscal
Fraud and Money Laundering. Only then was Rep. Mardo allowed to finally access
the investigation records which were compiled without his involvement, and thus
confirm that the evidence which supported and motivated the Attorney General’s
charges were forged, tampered with and manipulated in order to make it seem as
though Rep. Mardo was the direct beneficiary of the checks and wire transfers. In
other words, the evidence officially presented by the State was fraudulent. A
complaint was filed before the Court in response to these findings, which has yet to
be accepted by the Court.
Also worth noting, amongst the evidence that the State has presented to support
its petition for Rep. Mardo’s impeachment are several wire transfers in which Rep.
Mardo is the benefactor and not the beneficiary, wire transfers in which funds are
moved between Mardo’s own personal accounts, and a report from the National
Anti-Drug Agency (Oficina Nacional Antidrogas) which clears Rep. Mardo´s
financial records from any suspicious activities. Despite all this, and in a gross
violation of due process, the Attorney General requested that Rep. Mardo be
suspended from his office and barred from exercising his post as a Member of
Parliament, so that a further investigation may be carried out in order to establish
criminal responsibility, all the while admitting that there are no elements that prove
the illicit origin of Rep. Mardo’s funds.
Furthermore, it has since been proven that the documents supporting the State’s
charges against Rep. Mardo are copies that do not originate from a government
body nor from any financial institution that could attest to their authenticity. In fact,
said documents, to be used as evidence for Rep. Mardo’s impeachment, originate
from his political adversaries Rep. Cabello and Rep. Carreño.
1
http://elimpulso.com/articulo/la-asamblea-nacional-se-niega-a-investigar-a-julio-chavez#.UfElUG0zmZQ
http://www.talcualdigital.com/nota/visor.aspx?id=82525&tipo=AVA

3. All of the arguments hitherto stated have been presented before the Supreme
Justice Tribunal and its Constitutional Chamber. They have either yet to be
resolved, or they have been rejected outright.
It is worth noting that it is impossible for Rep. Mardo to have perpetrated the
alleged crimes that he has been charged with, Fiscal Fraud and Money
Laundering. To date, the National Tax Agency (SENIAT) has not raised any doubts
about Rep. Mardo’s tax returns, and only after this argument was presented before
the Supreme Justice Tribunal were Rep. Mardo’s financial activities audited, a
process which has not yet concluded. Neither the Attorney General nor the
National Assembly’s Accountability Commission have been able to so much as
suggest a possible illicit origin for the funds and assets that Rep. Mardo allegedly
laundered.
II
THE ATTACK ON PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
The aforementioned facts notwithstanding, on July 16, 2013, the Supreme Justice
Tribunal agreed to hear the Attorney General’s petition for stripping Rep. Mardo of
his parliamentary immunity through an impeachment. 2
In its ruling, the Supreme
Justice Tribunal ordered the President of the National Assembly, Rep. Diosdado
Cabello, to be notified “that the National Legislative Body should deliberate about
removing Richard Miguel Mardo Mardo´s parliamentary immunity, an action
which, if taken, is fully in accordance with Art. 380 if the Procedural Criminal Code.”
This clearly demonstrates how the government party’s sole objective, in collusion
with institutions such as the Supreme Justice Tribunal, the Attorney General, and
the National Assembly, rather than fully investigating an (nonexistent) act of
corruption, is to separate Richard Mardo from his office as a Member of Parliament
and bar him from exercising any other public office for the duration of the trial, as
stated in the unconstitutional Art. 380 of the Procedural Criminal Code.3
If this
PSUV-sponsored ploy succeeds, Richard Mardo would not be able to run for office
in the upcoming Dec. 8 municipal elections, despite enjoying a wide margin of
popularity as a leader in his home state of Aragua, where he obtained 44,17% of
the vote in 2012 state elections. 4
Worth noting is the fact that the government party (PSUV) is treating the removal of
parliamentary immunity, the separation of Rep. Mardo from his office, and his being
2
http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/tplen/julio/38-16713-2013-2013-000060.html
3
“Artículo 380
Suspensión e Inhabilitación
Cumplidos los trámites necesarios para el enjuiciamiento, el funcionario o funcionaria quedará suspendido o
suspendida e inhabilitado o inhabilitada para ejercer cualquier cargo público durante el proceso”.
4
http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_regional_2012/r/1/reg_000000.html

4. barred from exercising public office as if the three consequences were legally
synonymous, which they are not.
Firstly, parliamentary immunity is a safeguard for the free exercise of legislative
duties; a constitutional guarantee meant to ensure the independence and
autonomy of the National Assembly. It is a procedural requirement that protects
Representatives from being tried, detained, searched, or seized, without having
previously fulfilled constitutionally mandated formalities, such as an impeachment
hearing before the Supreme Justice Tribunal, which must itself be approved by the
National Assembly. The removal of parliamentary immunity only supposes the
ability to subject an elected Representative to an investigation or legal process,
while he or she is still in office.
The separation of a Representative from his or her office is a power attributed
exclusively to the National Assembly, as stated in Art. 187, section 20 of the
Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which requires that a two-
thirds majority for said motion to be approved. 5
Lastly, barring an individual from public office is an accessory penalty that can only
be decided by a duly constituted court; only after the accused is tried, proven guilty
and such ruling is not appealable. In the case of Rep. Mardo, the State seeks to
remove his parliamentary immunity, separate him from his office and bar him from
public office without regard for parliamentary procedure or constitutionally
established norms.6
III
THE ATTACK ON DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
In Venezuela, Representatives before the National Assembly are elected by the
people they represent. They are granted the privilege of parliamentary immunity in
Art. 200 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which reads:
5
“Artículo 187. Corresponde a la Asamblea Nacional:
(…)
20. Calificar a sus integrantes y conocer de su renuncia. La separación temporal de un diputado o
diputada sólo podrá acordarse por el voto de las dos terceras partes de los diputados y las
diputadas presentes” (negrillas añadidas).
6
Ya la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (caso: Leopoldo López v. República Bolivariana de
Venezuela) ha condenado la aplicación de inhabilitaciones para ejercer cargos públicos, sin debido proceso y
sin la intervención de autoridad judicial. Especial énfasis hizo la Corte en que dichas habilitaciones limitan el
derecho al sufragio, tanto activo como pasivo, y por tanto deben contar con garantías especiales. V.
http://joomla.corteidh.or.cr:8080/joomla/es/jurisprudencia-oc-2/38-jurisprudencia/1450-corte-idh-caso-lopez-
mendoza-vs-venezuela-fondo-reparaciones-y-costas-sentencia-de-1-de-septiembre-de-2011-serie-c-no-233

5. Article 200. Representatives before the National Assembly
will enjoy immunity in the exercise of their duties from the time
of their proclamation until the conclusion of their term in office
or their resignation. In case of alleged criminal acts
perpetrated by members of the National Assembly, the
National Assembly will defer exclusively to the Supreme
Justice Tribunal, which is the only authority which may rule
upon the detainment of a member of the National Assembly,
with previous consent from the National Assembly. If a
member of the National Assembly commits a flagrant crime,
the authorities may place him or her under custody in his or
her residence, and will immediately inform the Supreme
Justice Tribunal.
Public officials that violate the immunity of members of the
National Assembly will incur criminal responsibility and will be
punished in accordance with the law.
Parliamentary immunity is a constitutional guarantee that not only protects
Representatives individually, but also safeguards Parliament as a democratic
institution, as well as the people’s representation in public affairs.
At the present, in Venezuela, parliamentary immunity of Representatives has
become seriously damaged, as is being evidenced in the case of Rep. Richard
Mardo. In an upcoming plenary session of the National Assembly, on July 30,
2013, the State seeks to remove Rep. Mardo’s immunity, separate him from his
office, and politically disqualify him through a simple majority vote of the
government party in parliament, and not, as established in Art. 187 of the
Constitution of the Boilvarian Republic of Venezuela, through a two-thirds majority.
Such was the public announcement made by President of the National Assembly,
Rep. Diosdado Cabello. 7
These acts against the National Assembly, against Representatives and, in
summation, against the Venezuelan people, gravely affect the development of
democratic institutions and may constitute a dangerous precedent for Venezuela,
as well as for the entire region.
7
http://informe21.com/politica/allanaran-inmunidad-parlamentaria-de-richard-mardo-la-proxima-semana-
dijo-cabello

6. IV
REQUEST
On behalf of the Venezuelan people, whom we represent, we urge that you submit
this document for the consideration of the Parliament to which you belong, so that
your legislative body may condemn this affront to the constitutional order and to
democracy. We also ask that a representative be sent to Venezuela on Tuesday,
July 30th
, when it has been announced that Representative Richard Mardo will
have his parliamentary immunity removed, to the detriment of the Rule of Law, and
as a further step in the criminalization of political dissidence in our country.
Above all, we ask for your prompt attention to this message, and a expeditious
reply to the same.
Respectfully,
MARÍA CORINA MACHADO DINORAH FIGUERA
EDGAR ZAMBRANO CARLOS BERRIZBEITIA
HIRÁN GAVIRIA