After a four-day trial that ended on July 18, Judge Sara Cockerill of the London High Court ruled this Friday in favor of the board of the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) appointed by the opposition Juan Guaidó in the gold case of Venezuela deposited in the Bank of England.
Cockerill, from the Commercial division, has considered that he cannot accept the judgments of the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) that annulled Guaidó’s appointments to that board, as there is no “legal basis” in the United Kingdom to do so.
However, the judge has not authorized the opposition team to access the reserves -it must be determined in another hearing-, despite the fact that the board is considered valid and Guaidó is recognized by the British Government as the only legitimate president, on an interim basis. , from the Latin American country.
The BCV board appointed by Nicolás Maduro has indicated to Efe that it is considering appealing the ruling, which comes after the British Supreme Court already decided on several preliminary issues in 2021.
Thus, the highest judicial instance of the United Kingdom established that the London Executive only recognizes Guaidó, and not Maduro, as head of Venezuela, and that, therefore, the acts and decisions of the opponent must be considered sovereign, based on the English legal doctrine of One Voice, which obliges the State estates to proceed unified in foreign policy.
Cockerill had to determine if the English Justice could accept the judgments of the Caracas Supreme Court that invalidated Guaidó’s appointments to his “ad hoc” board, since they must be seen as “sovereign” acts.
In her opinion today, the judge specifies that these rulings, a pillar of the legal arguments of the Maduro side, effectively invalidate Guaidó’s appointments, but concludes that she lacks a basis in her jurisdiction to accept them.
In addition, he points out that, even if they could be recognized, doing so “would conflict” with the One Voice doctrine.
The recognition would also suppose, as the lawyer of the Guaidó side argued, a violation of the right of the opponents to a fair trial, since they were not present nor were they summoned when the TSJ ruled on their case.
Cockerill did observe, however, that Guaidó’s party did not provide “sufficient evidence” in its argument to show that the Venezuelan Supreme Court is not independent or impartial.