( Spanish) – The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) of Venezuela ratified this Friday the controversial ruling of the Electoral Chamber that in August validated the decision of the National Electoral Council (CNE) to proclaim President Nicolás Maduro the winner of the July 28 elections .
The ruling, published on the Court’s website, considers that the Electoral Chamber “collected and examined all the necessary evidence in accordance with the facts and the law, including an exhaustive, detailed and complete expert opinion” and that with this “the unobjectionable integrity of the results announced by the National Electoral Council.” Both the CNE and the TSJ are made up of people related to the ruling party.
The ruling of the Electoral Chamber was challenged by former presidential candidate Enrique Márquez, of the Centrados party, who in mid-September said that he would ask the Constitutional Chamber to annul the resolution.
This Friday, after the dissemination of the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber, Márquez announced on his X account that on Monday he will rule on this decision.
Both Márquez and the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD), which brings together the majority opposition and nominated Edmundo González Urrutia, question the results that the CNE announced since the night of July 28.
The majority opposition affirms that the true winner of the elections was González Urrutia based on the minutes of the centers and voting stations in their possession (close to 80% of the total), obtained through their electoral witnesses, which show that González he had 67% of the votes.
Observer organizations such as the Carter Center and several countries are calling for the results to be published broken down by voting centers and polling stations, something that has not happened more than two months before the elections.
On the other hand, Maduro and his allies maintain that his victory was clear and that he will begin a new mandate on January 10, and they reject criticism from abroad with the argument that it constitutes an interference with Venezuela’s sovereignty.
Add Comment