Venezuela's Preposition on Human Rights and an International Criminal Court We the government of Venezuela formally state our stance on the current issues for negotiation of human rights. We view these human rights as a universal standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. To end that every individual and every resident to society, understanding this preposition shall keep it constantly in mind of our point of view on the following issues and circumstances to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures to conserve recognition on the outlook of these circumstances.
For the issue of international standards of addressing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the issue of the UDHR being transformed from a "standard of achievement" to a binding international agreement we formally believe that it should be binded, but to some extent. If The Declaration of Human Rights was to be binded, it would be a standard that every country will be expected to uphold in agreement.
We believe that the UDHR needs some minor changes in clarity and understanding before it should be binded.
The main rights in the UDHR that deserve a priority of protection would be education and health care. Education, due to the fact that the country should be advancing in the generations of their citizens only for the common good that every citizen will gather a more realization and be able to work well with one another. Health care should be a major priority for the care of each and every citizen to be equally treated and hospitalized for health and common well being.
On the issue of who the UDHR actually applies to, we believe that the document should apply to every individual in every country as universal guidelines of common respect and order amongst every citizen of every country or civilization. Yet, the fact that it is only a document of guidelines as present, If changes were applied to the UDHR, we believe they should be as detailed as possible, so therefore, there are no misunderstandings in the clarity of the document and everyone is on topic. Yet, no matter what, some countries won't even want to have anything to do with the UDHR. The UDHR would also be time consuming for many leaders and representatives to sign. Our main view on the UDHR is that it should become binding to all countries after changes are made in clarity and the specificness of its aspects. For its sovereignty we sincerely believe that it should be second to national sovereignty.
On the issue of the penalties for countries that do not uphold the rights that they have pledged and guaranteed to their citizens we believe that this document should be highly respected and followed as pledged. Therefore, if a country were to pledge to the UDHR and not uphold the rights we sincerely believe that they should be fined a certain amount of money only for consequence and seeing correction and justice to respect their citizens and everyone else that pledged to the document.
If someone were to sanction other countries with out the presence of media in a non-political way, we believe this would be nearly impossible and is also unjust for the likely understanding and growth of the economies around to be influenced by this justice.
For issues on the matter of the construction of an "International Criminal Court," we believe that one should be established yet mostly to enforce the UDHR and with limitations by the power of the people. We think the ICC is a great idea to influence other countries in a just and orderly manner as for them to get a more understanding of the common standards of the UDHR. Yet no matter how reluctant this would be, the public would always have views on the trails from the ICC.
We want the ICC to be established only after changes are made to its power and limitations only to protect and provide a well organized environment for the people. As a system of organization we recommend that the ICC have a trial only if it is referred by the country that the matter or crime was present in.
If there was construction of an International Criminal Court, it should not be able to hold cases without consent of the Security Council because of the limitations and powers of the justice system because of the order and sufficiency of the law.
If there was construction of an International Criminal Court, there should be changes in the power of the court voted in by majority of the other countries that follow the same guidelines of rights of their people and the same type of governments that uphold the UDHR.
If there were construction of an International Criminal Court, there would be no real way to control the knowledge of the public but only to lower the publicity that each case will receive.
As a follow up we highly respect both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court and would like to see changes in the UDHR as enforced by other means mostly by the ICC but with power from the people as a structure and order to a system of benefits and justice for all.
In concluding this document, the proceeding on all stances are our current views on each circumstance as of November 7, 2001