On February 19, 2026, Venezuela’s National Assembly passed the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence, which seeks to extinguish criminal liability for certain acts committed in the country over the past 26 years, with the aim of promoting social peace, democratic coexistence, and national reconciliation.
Beyond the debates this law has sparked, it undeniably represents a significant development in Venezuela’s political landscape. This is further underscored by the release of a considerable number of individuals regarded as political prisoners by various organizations—an outcome that, until just a few months ago, seemed unthinkable.
It is worth recalling that amnesty laws have, in many contexts, been key tools in advancing peaceful transitions. To cite just one example from the region, the Peace Agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP) guerrilla—marking its 10th anniversary in 2026—would have been difficult to achieve without an amnesty regime for political crimes. Of course, this context differs profoundly from Venezuela’s, but the underlying point remains: Amnesties can play an important role in overcoming armed or political conflicts.
This role is grounded in pragmatism. In contexts marked by widespread human rights violations, it is materially impossible to investigate and prosecute every case individually. Under such extraordinary circumstances, judicial systems must necessarily focus criminal prosecution on the most serious crimes—those that must not go unpunished. In this regard, the law also establishes important limits by excluding such crimes from its scope of application.
Amnesties can also play a key role in (re)building trust. This is no minor issue: Distrust in institutions and among different sectors of society is often one of the most complex obstacles to reconciliation. In such situations, an amnesty that allows individuals who were imprisoned or forced into exile to return to political life can serve as a positive signal. Article 2 of the law itself introduces a relevant benchmark by linking amnesty to the creation of conditions for “political pluralism” and the “reintegration into public life” of its beneficiaries.
That said, it is important to remember that Venezuela is not yet undergoing a political transition or a deep process of transformation. This means that the implementation of the law will largely fall on a judicial system that has been questioned for years due to its proximity to the interests of the executive branch. Beyond posing serious challenges for rebuilding trust, this creates a particular paradox: The law seeks to undo the effects of certain judicial decisions, yet it depends on the very same institutions that issued them.
In this context, one of the main challenges will be ensuring that amnesties are processed with full independence, as well as according to transparent and legally criteria. Only if they are applied consistently—and with legal certainty once granted—can amnesties become a useful tool for strengthening trust in institutions and fostering reconciliation.
The opportunity should also be seized to review and adjust legal provisions that have been at the root of many of the cases the amnesty seeks to cover, such as the so-called “Anti-Hate Law,” whose “misuse” has recently been acknowledged by the President of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez.
This point is particularly relevant because, for some beneficiaries, the acts for which they were prosecuted should not have been considered crimes in the first place. The amnesty may therefore produce an ambiguous effect: It offers an immediate and legitimate pathway for individuals to regain their freedom, but it also entails accepting the premise that a crime occurred—one that the state now chooses to forgive.
A process aimed at rebuilding trust will, sooner or later, require an honest debate about this tension. Perhaps the passage of this law opens, for the first time in a long while, a space to begin having that conversation. Put differently, the true scope of this amnesty will be measured not only by the number of people it frees, but also by its ability to genuinely create the conditions for pluralism and reintegration that the law itself invokes.
______________
PHOTO: Venezuelans gather in central Buenos Aires, Argentina, on January 3, 2026, following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces. (Renan Braz/Pexels)
