/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/label-Opinion.jpg)
The arrival of women to the highest offices of the executive branch is an unequivocal sign of democratic progress and institutional maturation. However, in exceptional cases this narrative becomes profoundly problematic when their political careers have been forged at the apex of regimes identified as responsible for crimes against humanity and systematic patterns of state repression.
Such is the case of the parallel trajectories of Samia Suluhu Hassan in Tanzania and Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela: both have moved from the vice‑presidency of governments denounced for the commission of serious human rights violations to exercising the headship of state, without any genuine process of accountability and without effective mechanisms of transitional justice, least of all at the international level.
This article argues that these political itineraries exemplify a structural pattern of a “pipeline from complicity to impunity”, in which the summit of executive power becomes a refuge from international criminal responsibility. At the same time, it contends that the very legitimacy of democracy as a human right is eroded when those who inherit power from perpetrator regimes do so under the cloak of institutional continuity, but without assuming the obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish the most egregious crimes.
Tanzania: From the vice‑presidency under Magufuli to Hassan’s presidency
During the presidency of John Pombe Magufuli (2015-2021) Tanzania experienced an accelerated deterioration of fundamental freedoms and a sustained pattern of serious human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, mass arbitrary detentions, persecution of political opponents, harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and LGBTIQ+ persons, as well as severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Samia Suluhu Hassan served as vice-president throughout this period, forming part of the hard core of power, with direct access to decision‑making and institutional knowledge of the conduct of the state security apparatus and its criminal structure.
Far from publicly distancing herself from such conduct, the then vice-president did not resign, did not denounce the atrocities and did not promote structural reforms to prevent the continuation of abuses. This inaction, in a context of knowledge and a position of authority, seriously raises the issue of her potential responsibility, at least on the basis of command responsibility for failing to prevent or repress crimes committed by subordinates, in accordance with the standards developed in the Rome Statute and in the case law of international criminal tribunals.
After Magufuli’s death in 2021, Hassan assumed the presidency by operation of the constitutional line of succession. Although in her initial speeches she deployed reformist rhetoric, the factual reality of the country has shown an absence of effective mechanisms of accountability for the crimes of the previous period. No independent truth commissions have been established, no credible criminal investigations have been opened into extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, and no effective reparation has been ensured for victims.
Read more: In digital silence and darkness, they massacred Tanzanians
The drift has worsened during the exercise of her presidential mandate and particularly during the 2025 electoral cycle, in which she was elected president amid multiple challenges and bloodshed. Various reports by human rights organisations and electoral observer missions have documented new atrocities committed by security forces during the most recent elections, including excessive lethal use of force against demonstrators, mass arrests of opponents, cases of torture and enforced disappearances in key regions of the country. As head of state and commander‑in‑chief during that cycle, Hassan stands at the centre of allegations of crimes against humanity relating to the electoral repression at the end of 2025, insofar as these acts form part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population and she has acted with knowledge of that attack.
In this context, in my capacity as a member of the Bar of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and together with the Human Rights Section of the Madrid Bar Association (ICAM) and the Human Rights Institute of the World Jurist Association, we have submitted a formal communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC specifically directed against Hassan for her alleged responsibility in the commission and tolerance of crimes against humanity during the 2025 electoral process, as well as for the continued impunity for violations committed under Magufuli’s regime. This communication sets out and evidences the pattern of abuses, the command structure involved, the lack of genuine domestic investigations and the need to activate the ICC’s jurisdiction in view of the manifest lack of state willingness to prosecute those responsible.
Venezuela: Rodríguez’s trajectory and the impact of Maduro’s arrest
In parallel, Venezuela offers a paradigmatic case of power consolidation in contexts of state criminality. The regime headed by Nicolás Maduro has been the subject of multiple reports by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Independent International Fact‑Finding Mission on Venezuela and prominent international organisations, documenting extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions, torture, enforced disappearances and systematic persecution of opponents, human rights defenders and journalists, amounting to crimes against humanity. Likewise, since 2015 we have submitted multiple communications to the ICC, substantiating the perpetration of crimes against humanity by the Maduro regime and its acolytes.
Rodríguez served as executive vice‑president of Venezuela, situated at the apex of the power apparatus, with responsibilities in political, economic and security coordination, and for years she held the highest hierarchical position over the civilian intelligence police (Sebin), forming part of Maduro’s inner circle of trust. In that role, she not only failed to distance herself from the regime’s repressive policy, but also supported it discursively and institutionally, participating in the public justification of repression and in the disparagement of victims and human rights organisations. This once again raises the issue of her responsibility, both for direct participation in the implementation of repressive policies and on the basis of command responsibility with respect to security agencies and para‑police structures.
The political situation shifted when Maduro was arrested and brought to trial in the US in criminal proceedings relating to serious transnational offences. This event generated an abrupt reconfiguration of internal power. By virtue of the institutional architecture of the regime and the very concentration of power in the figure of the vice-president, Rodríguez assumed the office of president of the republic. Her accession to the headship of state does not result from a genuine and free electoral process, but from an intra‑regime succession triggered by the deprivation of liberty of the incumbent and his submission to foreign criminal jurisdiction, similar to Hassan’s assumption of power in Tanzania.
Thus, Rodríguez’s presidency rests on a doubly problematic foundation: on the one hand, the organic continuity of the repressive apparatus that operated under Maduro’s command, without institutional vetting, acknowledgement of harm or, even less, accountability; on the other, the absence of a process of democratic legitimation through free, competitive and verifiable elections. The combination of these circumstances reinforces the need to examine her potential international criminal responsibility, both for crimes committed during the period in which she served as vice-president and for the failure to adopt measures to investigate and punish those responsible once she assumed the presidency.
As in the Tanzanian case, in representation of victims of crimes against humanity in Venezuela we have submitted formal communications to the ICC Prosecutor’s Office, providing documentary, testimonial and expert evidence on the pattern of systematic attacks against the civilian population, the command structure of the various security bodies and the participation or acquiescence of senior officials, including Rodríguez. These communications seek to trigger the prosecutor’s responsibility to move towards the consolidation of formal investigations and subsequent trials, and to ensure that those who currently hold executive power are included within the scope of international criminal scrutiny, as required by law.
The ‘pipeline from complicity to impunity’ and the instrumental use of gender
The cases of Hassan and Rodríguez reveal a common pattern: the vice‑presidency functions as a privileged space of power enabling its holders to benefit from the advantages of proximity to the head of state in contexts of governmental criminality, and later to present themselves as figures of “moderate” institutional continuity when political circumstances so require. This “pipeline from complicity to impunity” can be characterised by three elements:
- A position of formal authority and knowledge of the facts, sufficient to trigger duties of prevention, investigation and sanction;
- Failure to adopt measures to prevent the commission of crimes or to ensure accountability, both during the period in office as vice-president and upon assuming the presidency; and
- Use of the narrative of stability and institutional continuity to block or distort potential efforts at transitional justice or international criminal jurisdiction.
To this must be added a specific gender dimension. The arrival of women to the presidency, having been part of the leading core of perpetrator regimes, is presented both domestically and internationally as a symbolic triumph of equality and women’s representation in power. However, when this discourse is used to divert attention from accountability obligations, it conceals an instrumentalisation of gender: the image of “female leadership” becomes a pretext for the continuation of impunity policies. The demand for substantive equality also implies requiring women leaders to meet the same standards of international criminal responsibility as their male counterparts.
Democracy, international criminal justice and the right to accountability
International human rights law has evolved towards the recognition of democracy not only as a political principle but as a human right: the right of peoples and individuals to take part in the conduct of public affairs through periodic, genuine elections free from coercion. This right is emptied of content when those who exercise power have been involved, by act or omission, in crimes against humanity and systematically reject any effective accountability mechanism.
Comparative transitional justice experience shows that lasting democratic stability requires confronting the legacy of mass atrocities through judicial and extrajudicial measures. The alternative – “transition without justice” – tends to entrench cultures of impunity that erode public trust, weaken the rule of law and facilitate the re‑emergence of authoritarian practices. In Tanzania and Venezuela, the continued presence in power of individuals linked to repressive apparatuses, now turned heads of state, places both countries at a historical crossroads: either structural impunity is reinforced, or a genuine process of responsibility in favour of victims is set in motion.
In this respect, international criminal justice, and in particular the International Criminal Court, play an indispensable role as a forum of last resort when states cannot or will not investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity. The communications submitted on behalf of victims against Hassan for the 2025 electoral atrocities in Tanzania, as well as the communications against Rodríguez for her involvement and responsibility in the Venezuelan context, are not mere symbolic acts: they constitute the formal activation of the international mechanism designed to ensure that those most responsible do not remain above the law, whatever their current position within the power structure.
Conclusion: without accountability there will be no democracy
The cases of Hassan and Rodríguez clearly show that institutional continuity without accountability is, in reality, continuity of impunity. Their status as presidents, arising in one case from the death of the previous leader and in the other from the arrest and prosecution of the head of the regime abroad, cannot serve as a shield against the obligations arising from international criminal law.
From my experience representing victims before the ICC, I have witnessed the profound impact that the absence of justice has on those who have suffered arbitrary detention, torture, the disappearance of their loved ones and extrajudicial executions. Each day that passes without investigation or punishment sends a devastating message: the lives and dignity of victims are worth less than political or geopolitical convenience. That message is incompatible with the very idea of democracy as a human right.
It is therefore essential to affirm, with complete clarity, that there can be no genuine democracy where crimes against humanity persist without judicial response. Safeguarding democracy requires choosing accountability over impunity. It requires that responsibility also reach those who, like Hassan and Rodríguez, have moved from vice‑presidential complicity to the headship of state. Only in this way will we be able to honour victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation, and protect democracy as a true human right and not as a mere rhetorical façade. DM
Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, ICC’s List of Counsel, professor of international law, UNIE president, president of the Human Rights Institute of the World Jurist Association and a partner at the Cremades & Calvo‑Sotelo law firm.