The new process for the control of Venezuelan gold deposited in London is underway

British justice began examining in London Wednesday whether to accept Venezuelan Supreme Court decisions in the context of a lengthy dispute between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó for the control of reserves gold deposited with the Bank of England.

“This is not a trial on the entire Venezuelan judicial system (…) but only on five decisions,” defended Richard Lissack, a lawyer for the Bolivarian government, in his opening statement.

Venezuelan power and opposition have been facing each other since 2019 for access to 32 tons of goldworth over a billion dollars, they have been kept in the basement of the British institute for years.

In July of that year, Guaidó, self-proclaimed “provisional president” of Venezuela and recognized as such by fifty countries, including the United Kingdom, has appointed its board of directors of the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV).

The case

This ordered the Bank of England not to hand over the bars to the official board of directors, chaired by Calixto Ortega, claiming that the government would use the funds to crack down on the population.

The appointments made by Guaidó they were however invalidated by the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela (TSJ), loyal to Maduro.

After deciding in December, at the end of a two-year legal battle, that British justice actually recognizes Guaidó as the country’s legitimate and only representative, the Supreme Court of London has nevertheless ordered an analysis if the Venezuelan judicial decision effectively invalidates their appointments.

This will match Judge Sara Cockerill, of the London Commercial Court, who will hear arguments and witnesses from both sides until Monday, but will not speak immediately.

Authorities in Caracas, who in 2020 said they urgently needed the funds to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, now advocate that they shouldn’t rush to wrap up.

The arguments

Guaidó’s lawyer, Andrew Fulton, asked the magistrate to rule as soon as possible, after the end of next week’s hearings, so that the assets “Don’t stay in limbo any longer than necessary.”

Ortega went to London to participate in the trial, after obtaining a “diplomatic visa” which, according to Lissack, strengthens his legitimacy as an official representative of the BCV.

However, despite being present in court on Wednesday, he should not be questioned by decision of the judge, who in June decided to limit his participation to a prior written declaration.

The ruling party called on Wednesday as the first witness Francisco Carrasquero Lopez79 years old, former vice president of the TSJ constitutional chamber, retired in 2015.

He spoke by videoconference from Venezuela, with a time zone of five hours, as his health prevents him from traveling to London.

But several technical problems hindered and delayed his intervention.

Also scheduled is the testimony of another Venezuelan judge, Enrique Parody Gallardo, current secretary of the Tsj plenary.

Opening his arguments against the TSJ’s decisions, Fulton highlighted the “accusations of systematic lack of independence” in that organism.

And he warned that “any suggestion he testifies” like Holmblew and Parody “would feel free to give candid testimony in an English court. it’s imaginative“.

Guaidó’s lawyers denounce that the Venezuelan judicial process that canceled his appointments was not “a fair trial according to British rules” because the opposition was unable to defend itself.

During the four days of viewingThey must call as witnesses Enrique Sánchez Falcón, special prosecutor appointed by Guaidó, Ricardo Villasmil, former chairman of the board of directors of the BCV appointed by the “president in office”, and his successor Manuel Rodríguez Armesto.

They are also based on reports from various UN agencies and various NGOs on the actions of the Maduro government. in terms of human rights.

In this sense, Fulton denounced threats and “pressure, including sanctions and harassment, against judges and prosecutors”.

And he gave “several examples of rupture of the separation of powersbetween the executive and the judiciary, such as the “interference” of the TSJ in the appointment of the members of the electoral commission and in the control system of the opposition parties.

AFP agency

PB