Nicolás Maduro tells New York court new torture allegations are ‘false’

Maduro and Cilia Flores pleaded not guilty in the New York case. Judge Alvin K Hellerstein entered the pleas for them. Maduro did not simply answer the judge’s question. He twice criticized the indictment instead, calling its claims “false accusations and false testimony.” Flores directly said, “I am completely innocent. I am not guilty.”

The rewritten indictment accuses them of helping lead a state-sponsored repression campaign. It alleges torture of scores of victims, including three Americans. Prosecutors say Maduro and Flores helped create and operate the system. Earlier, they also pleaded not guilty to drug charges alleging a conspiracy to send cocaine into the United States.

The pleas begin the next stage of the legal case; they do not decide guilt or innocence. Maduro’s attorney said he denied the charges and looked forward to trial. His lawyers also argue that the drug case should be dismissed because he and Flores held senior positions in Venezuela’s government.

The rewritten indictment presents Maduro and Flores as leaders of a state-sponsored campaign of repression in Venezuela. It says the alleged system tortured scores of people, including three Americans. The accusations matter because they describe possible responsibility at the top of government, rather than isolated abuse by individual officers.

Prosecutors allege that Maduro personally recommended torture methods, received updates about particular victims, and threatened to kill one prisoner’s child. The indictment says victims were beaten, asphyxiated, and shocked with electricity. It also alleges that Flores, a former attorney general, helped develop the repressive system and ordered torture against specific people.

These remain allegations, and both defendants pleaded not guilty. Maduro has denied wrongdoing for years, including allegations connected to the international criminal court’s investigation into crimes against humanity. The revised indictment covers alleged torture from his rise to power in 2013. The case will now proceed through the US court system unless the judge grants later legal challenges.

The alleged campaign was large enough to involve “scores” of victims. That word indicates many people, but the article gives no precise number. The indictment identifies three Americans among those allegedly tortured. This makes the case international in both its alleged conduct and its victims.

The alleged scale matters because prosecutors are describing a system, not one disputed incident. According to the indictment, the system used beatings, asphyxiation, and electric shocks. It also alleges that senior leaders received information about particular victims and directed or influenced how torture was carried out. Those details are intended to connect leadership decisions with individual abuse.

The article provides no complete victim list or final count. It says the alleged torture stretched back to Maduro’s ascent to power in 2013. Maduro and Flores deny the accusations and pleaded not guilty. The court must determine whether prosecutors can prove the alleged campaign, its scope, and each defendant’s role at trial.

Torture is the deliberate infliction of severe physical or psychological suffering, often to punish, intimidate, obtain information, or control someone. The article identifies torture as a crime under international law. In this case, prosecutors say the alleged abuse formed part of an organized repression system rather than being accidental or isolated.

The rewritten indictment says victims were beaten, asphyxiated, and subjected to electric shocks. It also describes psychological torture. Maduro allegedly threatened to kill one prisoner’s child. Prosecutors further allege that he recommended methods and received updates about individual victims, while Flores ordered torture against some people. These claims describe both direct suffering and leadership involvement.

The allegations have not been proven in court. Maduro called them false accusations, and Flores pleaded not guilty. The court will examine the evidence and decide whether prosecutors establish the alleged acts and the defendants’ responsibility. The article adds that torture can be prosecuted outside the country where it happened, regardless of victims’ nationality.

A not-guilty plea means the defendants contest the charges, so the case continues rather than ending with an admission. Prosecutors and defense lawyers prepare their arguments and evidence, while the judge manages hearings and scheduling. The plea itself does not establish that Maduro or Flores committed any crime.

At this hearing, Judge Hellerstein entered pleas for both defendants. The lawyers then told him that both sides wanted the trial date changed. They proposed moving it from 1 June to 14 June. The article does not give their reasons, so the exact cause of the requested delay is not stated. The judge would need to address the scheduling request.

The case may also involve a legal challenge over immunity. Attorneys for Maduro and Flores say the drug case should be dismissed because they were Venezuela’s leader and first lady. Meanwhile, prosecutors must pursue the rewritten torture charges. The next major step identified in the article is continued court proceedings leading toward trial, if the schedule is changed.

The article describes a rule of international law that allows torture cases to be prosecuted outside the country where the alleged abuse occurred. It also says prosecution does not depend on the victims’ nationality. In principle, that gives a US court authority to pursue qualifying torture allegations connected to conduct abroad.

The mechanism is jurisdiction based on the nature of the alleged crime, not simply on where the victims lived. The article says torture is a crime under international law. Therefore, a foreign location or foreign victims does not automatically prevent a US prosecution. In Maduro and Flores’s case, prosecutors brought allegations involving an alleged Venezuelan torture system into a New York court.

The article stresses that this power is rarely used. Foreign officials have been prosecuted in the United States only a few times. Its examples include the son of Liberia’s former president, Russians accused of war crimes in Ukraine, and a former prison warden in Syria under Bashar Assad. Maduro and Flores still deny the charges, and the court must determine whether the case can proceed.

Immunity is a legal protection that can shield certain foreign officials from another country’s courts for acts connected to official duties. Maduro and Flores’s attorneys argue that the drug case should be dismissed because he was Venezuela’s leader and she was the first lady. Their position is that those roles should protect them from the US prosecution.

The claim is especially significant because Maduro served as Venezuela’s president from 2013 until his capture, while Flores was a former attorney general. The article does not say whether the immunity argument will succeed. It distinguishes the argument from the allegations themselves: prosecutors accuse the couple of conspiring to flood the United States with cocaine, while the revised indictment adds torture allegations.

Prosecuting foreign officials in the United States is exceedingly rare. The article names only a few comparable cases, involving the son of Liberia’s former president, Russians accused of Ukraine war crimes, and a Syrian prison warden. That rarity reflects the unusual legal and diplomatic issues involved. The court must decide how the cases proceed.