The defense of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro presented formal requests to the United States Court to dismiss the criminal charges against him and the first lady, Cilia Flores. In the documents, filed with the Southern District Court of New York on September 2, to which the Brazil in fact had access, lawyers maintain that the US court does not have jurisdiction over the head of state of Venezuela, whose sovereign immunity is guaranteed by international law and the legal tradition of common law.
In the petition, filed on September 2, lawyer Barry Pollack, responsible for defending the Venezuelan presidential couple, argues that Maduro enjoys absolute immunity as he is the de facto head of state of Venezuela, a condition recognized by the accusation itself. The defense maintains that the Donald Trump government’s refusal to politically recognize the Venezuelan government is irrelevant under common law and international law.
“It reflects a rule that predates common law: heads of state are exempt from criminal prosecution by any national court other than the court of their own state. This immunity […] derives from the perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction over Mr. Maduro”, says an excerpt from the document, addressed to the judge in the case, Alvin Hellerstein.
“The total immunity of sovereign heads of state is a fundamental principle of customary international law and is firmly incorporated into common law,” says another excerpt.
The lawyers claim that the alleged facts, such as the issuance of diplomatic passports, government meetings, military decrees and pronouncements, constitute official acts carried out in the exercise of the positions of deputy, chancellor, vice-president and president. It also maintains that accusations of corruption or criminal intent do not nullify the official nature of the actions.
Thus, the defense proposes that the Judiciary should not defer in favor of the United States government’s decision to prosecute a foreign leader, when this decision violates legal rules.
The petition also points out differences between Maduro’s case and that of the former dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega, arguing that the Panamanian was a military officer who never held the constitutional or de facto head of state in the way that occurred in Venezuela.
Action goes against United States laws
A second petition, also related to President Nicolás Maduro, questions the legitimacy of the action within the United States’ own legal regime. The text argues that the accusation did not establish any of the five jurisdictional grounds required by law to punish conduct occurring abroad.
Under United States narcoterrorism law [21 U.S.C. § 960 a]cited in the document, jurisdiction over conduct occurring abroad requires that at least one of the following five jurisdictional grounds be met: violation of US criminal laws; the impact on trade; the targeting of U.S. nationals or property abroad; the nationality of the author; and the presence or conduct of the offender into the territory of the United States, which means that, after the conduct occurs abroad, the offender is taken to the United States or found in its territory.
In this sense, the defense argues the violation of due legal process. “The first charge seeks to charge Mr. Maduro with conspiracy to commit narcoterrorism, must be dismissed because it does not allege that the foreign conduct it claims to have occurred satisfies the jurisdictional element of § 960a; it does not pass constitutional scrutiny under the Due Process Clause,” says the lawyer.
Cilia Flores: immunity precedents
The petition filed by Cilia Flores’ defense, to dismiss the criminal charges against her, argues that, as wife and first lady of the de facto head of state, the congresswoman shares absolute immunity based on condition, in accordance with precedents in international law and US jurisprudence. Lawyers cite similar cases, such as those of the first lady of Mexico and the queen of Jordan.
“In Kline, a plaintiff sued Paloma Cordero de la Madrid — the first lady of Mexico, who ‘held no official position in the government’ — in New York. At Mexico’s request, transmitted by diplomatic note, the United States attorney for this district made a suggestion of immunity and requested the case be dismissed,” the text reads.
“In Leutwyler — the document follows — a court in this district dismissed all claims against Queen Rania of Jordan, ‘wife of the King of Jordan, acting head of state of Jordan,’ based on a Suggestion of Immunity filed at the request of the State Department, which determined that ‘under the appropriate customary rules of international law, recognized and applied in the United States, the Queen is immune from the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts in this case,’” it points out.
Lawyers argue that all the conduct attributed to the first lady, who is also a parliamentarian, arises from public functions she performed, as deputy, president of the National Assembly and attorney general, or from actions under the direction of the head of state, using the public apparatus.
The petition highlights that immunity is a right of the State and that Venezuela formally invoked it before the UN Security Council and in diplomatic documents, demanding the immediate release of Cilia Flores without ever having renounced this prerogative.
Poor health and request for house arrest
The request to annul the case against Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores must be analyzed by judge Alvin Hellerstein, in a session scheduled for November 17th. If the preliminaries are rejected, the main trial, on the merits of the charges, must begin on June 1, 2027. Before that, on October 8, the first lady must attend a hearing in which the judge will decide on the request for progression to the house arrest regime.
The request is based on medical reports that indicate a severe deterioration in her physical and cardiac health since she was detained. At 69 years old, the first lady lost more than 11 kilos in captivity, has episodes of arrhythmia, shortness of breath and intense chest pain. Currently, she uses four continuous medications.
To allow the process to be responded to outside of prison, Cilia Flores’ defense committed to a strict monitoring plan. The proposal includes 24-hour armed surveillance by a specialized private company, use of electronic ankle bracelets, passport delivery, restriction of visits and communications control. All expenses for the security scheme will be borne by the accused herself.
Name it for yourself: ‘military aggression and kidnapping’
The request to annul the case against the Venezuelan presidential couple occurs in the context of military action carried out by United States armed forces on January 3, 2026. On that occasion, bombers and American troops attacked Caracas and other Venezuelan cities, resulting in the death of at least 100 people and the kidnapping of Maduro and Cilia Flores.
In the document filed with the US Court, the couple’s defense highlights that the act was denounced by Venezuela at the United Nations as an illegal armed aggression and a direct violation of the UN Charter.
“On the same day of the kidnapping, the Supreme Court of Venezuela declared the operation a ‘foreign military aggression’ whose purpose was ‘the kidnapping of constitutional president Nicolás Maduro Moros’, classified his absence as forced and ordered the executive vice president to perform the duties of the position as interim president during this forced absence — without declaring the position vacant, but only that, to guarantee the continuity of the government during President Maduro’s absence, another person should be empowered to govern”, highlights the petition, reaffirming, therefore, that Maduro remains the head of state of Venezuela.
Maduro and Cilia’s lawyer also highlights the inconsistency of the United States government in recognizing acting president Delcy Rodríguez as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela. Which, in practice, means recognizing the legality of the elections that elected Maduro president in 2024.
“After Mr. Maduro’s kidnapping, the United States recognized Ms. Rodríguez as the head of state responsible for Venezuela and resumed diplomatic relations with the country, despite no new presidential elections being held and Ms. Rodríguez’s position stemming directly from her appointment by Mr. Maduro following the 2018 and 2024 elections, which the United States considered ‘illegitimate,’” he highlights.
Source: www.brasildefato.com.br
