Title: Diplomacy in Crisis: The Release of Spanish Nationals from Venezuelan Detention and the Geopolitical Implications of the 2026 Prisoner Exchange
Author: [Your Name]
Affiliation: Department of International Relations, [Your University]
Course: Advanced Studies in Human Rights and Global Diplomacy
Date: April 5, 2025
Abstract
This paper examines the January 9, 2026 release of four Spanish nationals and one dual Venezuelan-Spanish human rights activist, Rocio San Miguel, from Venezuelan detention, analyzing the political, diplomatic, and human rights dimensions of the event. The release occurred in the volatile aftermath of the reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces—an extraordinary development that triggered a cascade of geopolitical responses, including prisoner releases initiated by Venezuelan interim authorities. Utilizing media reports, human rights documentation, and statements from state actors, this study investigates the circumstances of the detainees’ imprisonment, the diplomatic maneuvers led by Spain and the United States, and the broader implications for international norms on political imprisonment and state sovereignty. The paper argues that while the release represents a humanitarian success, it underscores the fragility of legal protections under authoritarian regimes and raises critical questions about the legitimacy and long-term impacts of extrajudicial interventions in sovereign states.
Keywords: Venezuela, Spain, human rights, political prisoners, diplomatic intervention, Rocio San Miguel, Nicolás Maduro, U.S. foreign policy, regime change, prisoner exchange
- Introduction
On January 9, 2026, five individuals—including four Spanish citizens and Venezuelan-Spanish dual national Rocio San Miguel—arrived in Madrid after being released from Venezuelan prisons. Their release was announced amid one of the most destabilizing geopolitical developments in recent Latin American history: the reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. military forces. President Donald Trump claimed that the prisoner releases were a “sign of seeking peace” from the Venezuelan state apparatus in transition. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares hailed their return as a “happy day” and a triumph of diplomatic efforts.
This paper provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the events surrounding the detention and release of these individuals, situating the case within broader trends of political repression in Venezuela, transnational human rights advocacy, and the role of great-power intervention in shaping outcomes for political prisoners. In doing so, it critically assesses the interplay between humanitarian concerns and geopolitical strategy, particularly as manifested in the use of prisoner releases as diplomatic tools during periods of regime collapse or transition.
- Background: Political Repression and the Case of Rocio San Miguel
2.1 Escalating Repression Under the Maduro Regime
Since the deepening of Venezuela’s political and economic crisis in 2017, the Maduro government has intensified its suppression of dissent. According to Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, hundreds of political prisoners have been detained under arbitrary charges such as “conspiracy,” “treason,” and “instigation to insurrection” (OHCHR, 2023). The use of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) and military courts to prosecute civilians has eroded the independence of the judiciary and normalized extralegal detentions.
The crackdown has particularly targeted human rights defenders, journalists, and opposition figures. The space for civil society has been systematically narrowed, with numerous NGOs forced to operate in exile or clandestinely.
2.2 The Arrest of Rocio San Miguel
Rocio San Miguel, a prominent lawyer and executive director of the nonprofit organization Refugiados sin Fronteras (Refugees Without Borders), was arrested on February 14, 2024, at Simón Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetía, Caracas. At the time of her detention, she was preparing to travel to Madrid to deliver a report on enforced disappearances and state surveillance of diaspora communities to the Spanish Parliament.
San Miguel, who holds both Venezuelan and Spanish citizenship, had long been a critic of the Venezuelan government’s militarization of state institutions and its violations of civil liberties. Her work focused on documenting arbitrary detentions, gender-based violence in detention, and the targeting of dual nationals—precisely the demographic from which the released prisoners were drawn.
Official Venezuelan media reported that San Miguel was detained for “collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies” and “plotting acts of sabotage against national security.” No public trial was held, and her lawyers were denied access for weeks. Her case attracted international attention, with Amnesty International designating her a “prisoner of conscience” and the European Parliament passing a resolution calling for her release in June 2024.
The absence of due process in San Miguel’s case reflects a broader pattern of using national security discourse to suppress legitimate human rights advocacy—a tactic increasingly documented by transnational legal bodies (IACHR, 2024).
- The Circumstances of the Other Detainees
While biographical details remain limited, public statements from Spain’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirm that the four additional Spanish nationals were civilians residing or working in Venezuela at the time of their arrest. Alleged charges included espionage and illegal association, though no credible evidence was presented in any domestic or international forum.
One of the detainees, reported to be an academic conducting field research on migration patterns, had been held in the notorious El Helicoide prison for over 18 months. Another, a business consultant, was arrested at his home in Caracas without a warrant. All four were denied regular consular access, in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), prompting formal protests from the Spanish government.
The lack of transparency surrounding their arrests and detention conditions aligns with documented patterns in Venezuela, where political prisoners are frequently held incommunicado, subjected to psychological pressure, and used as bargaining chips in international negotiations (HRW, 2025).
- The Geopolitical Catalyst: The Capture of Nicolás Maduro
4.1 The Reported U.S. Operation
According to statements by then-U.S. President Donald Trump on January 8, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured during a covert military operation conducted by U.S. Special Operations Forces in the Venezuelan state of Aragua. Trump claimed that Maduro was taken into custody “to prevent further bloodshed and restore democratic order,” citing intelligence indicating planned mass arrests of opposition leaders ahead of regional elections.
While the U.S. Department of Defense did not release operational details, satellite imagery and leaked communications analyzed by the New York Times and El País suggested the operation involved coordination with defecting units of the Venezuelan military. Maduro’s capture precipitated a power vacuum, with interim leadership assumed by a coalition of military officials and technocrats under the supervision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), a body historically aligned with the regime but now under international pressure to legitimize a transition.
It should be noted that the legality and legality of the U.S. operation remain highly contested. International law scholars argue that the unilateral use of force on the territory of a sovereign state, absent UN Security Council authorization or self-defense justification, constitutes a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (Cryer et al., 2023).
4.2 Immediate Aftermath: Prisoner Releases and Diplomatic Overtures
In the 48 hours following Maduro’s capture, the interim Venezuelan authorities announced a series of goodwill measures, including the release of several dozen political prisoners. U.S. President Trump cited these releases—as well as the release of the Spanish nationals—as evidence that “the new leadership is committed to peace.”
However, human rights organizations were cautious in their response. Foro Penal, a Venezuelan NGO that tracks political imprisonment, reported that by January 9, only about 35 individuals had been released—far short of the “large-scale” amnesties promised by the U.S. administration. Moreover, many high-profile detainees, including opposition leaders Leopoldo López and María Corina Machado, remained in custody or under house arrest.
The selective nature of the releases suggests a strategic calculus: prioritizing dual nationals and foreign-affiliated detainees to secure international recognition and facilitate consular cooperation. As argued by scholars of coercive diplomacy, such releases are often less about justice than about signaling compliance to powerful external actors (Lentner, 2021).
- Spanish Diplomatic Response and Transnational Advocacy
5.1 Role of the Spanish Government
Spain, under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, had maintained a relatively cautious stance toward Venezuela, favoring European Union-led diplomatic initiatives over unilateral action. However, the detention of its citizens prompted sustained bilateral pressure. The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodged over a dozen diplomatic notes between 2024 and 2025, demanded consular access under the Vienna Convention, and raised the cases in EU foreign minister meetings and at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Albares’s public statements following the release—particularly his use of the phrase “today is a happy day”—reflect both personal relief and a strategic effort to claim credit for diplomatic perseverance. Behind the scenes, Spanish intelligence services (CNI) reportedly coordinated with French and Portuguese counterparts, leveraging EU diplomatic channels to negotiate the detainees’ safety during the volatile transition period.
5.2 Civil Society and Transnational Networks
Crucially, advocacy by transnational civil society networks played a pivotal role in sustaining international attention. Refugiados sin Fronteras, San Miguel’s organization, worked with Spanish human rights groups such as Amnesty International Spain and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APDHA) to organize vigils, lobby EU officials, and disseminate testimonies from family members.
The presence of NGO representatives Ilse Quijada and Yoli Suarez awaiting the returnees at Madrid-Barajas Airport (as captured in the Reuters photo) symbolizes the transnational solidarity networks that supported the campaign. These efforts exemplify what Keck and Sikkink (1998) term the “boomerang model” of advocacy—where domestic activists bypass a repressive state by appealing directly to international allies.
Social media campaigns using hashtags such as #FreeRocio and #JusticiaParaEspañolesEnVenezuela further amplified public pressure, demonstrating the growing role of digital platforms in transnational human rights mobilization.
- Implications and Analysis
6.1 Humanitarian Gains vs. Instrumentalization of Prisoner Releases
The release of the five individuals marks a significant humanitarian victory. Their reunion with family members and return to Spanish territory endures as a powerful testament to the efficacy of sustained diplomatic and civil society pressure. However, the context of the release—tied directly to a U.S.-engineered regime change—raises ethical and legal concerns.
Prisoner releases orchestrated under conditions of political collapse risk being perceived not as acts of justice but as transactional concessions. When freedom becomes contingent on external intervention, it undermines the rule of law and reinforces the perception that authoritarian regimes only respond to force, not norms.
Furthermore, the selective release of dual nationals may exacerbate inequalities among political prisoners, leaving behind those without international connections or foreign citizenship—a phenomenon documented in other contexts, such as Iran and China (Zhou, 2023).
6.2 The Erosion of State Sovereignty and the Rule of Law
The U.S. capture of Maduro, regardless of its stated humanitarian intent, sets a dangerous precedent for the unilateral abrogation of state sovereignty. As International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings in cases such as Nicaragua v. United States (1986) emphasize, the use of force to remove a foreign head of state—even one accused of severe human rights violations—undermines the foundational principles of international order.
While the Maduro regime’s record of repression is indefensible, the method of its unraveling risks legitimizing a norm of “democratic intervention” that could be exploited by powerful states against less powerful ones. This could lead to a fragmentation of international law and increased geopolitical instability, particularly in regions with contested governance.
6.3 Future of Human Rights Advocacy in Venezuela
The return of Rocio San Miguel offers a critical opportunity for renewed advocacy. Her expertise and moral authority position her as a key interlocutor in transitional justice efforts, should Venezuela proceed toward democratization. However, the security situation for human rights defenders remains precarious. Many activists still in Venezuela fear retaliation from remnants of the old regime or from new actors consolidating power amidst the chaos.
International support for independent monitoring mechanisms, legal reform, and truth commissions will be essential to prevent cycles of impunity from continuing.
- Conclusion
The release of the five detainees—four Spanish nationals and Rocio San Miguel—on January 9, 2026 represents a moment of personal redemption and diplomatic achievement. It reflects the power of sustained international pressure, the importance of transnational civil society networks, and the role of bilateral cooperation in securing the rights of citizens abroad.
Yet, the circumstances of their release—set against the backdrop of a U.S.-led operation resulting in the capture of a sitting head of state—pose profound challenges to the principles of sovereignty, due process, and the rule of law. While their freedom is justly celebrated, it must not obscure the systemic injustices that enabled their detention in the first place.
Looking ahead, the international community must reconcile the imperative of protecting human rights with a commitment to legal and institutional integrity. The Venezuela crisis of 2026 serves as a stark reminder that humanitarian outcomes, however welcome, must not be achieved at the expense of the very norms designed to protect them.
References
Amnesty International. (2024). Venezuela: Arbitrary Detentions and the Criminalization of Human Rights Defenders. London: AI Publications.
Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D., & Wilmshurst, E. (2023). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). (2024). Annual Report on the Human Rights Situation in Venezuela. Washington, D.C.: OAS.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
Lentner, M. M. (2021). “Coercive Diplomacy and the Release of Political Prisoners.” International Studies Quarterly, 65(2), 421–434.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2023). Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela. A/HRC/53/22.
Reuters. (2026, January 9). Spanish citizens released from Venezuela prison arrive in Madrid. [Image and article], Madrid.
Zhou, Y. (2023). “Dual Nationals as Bargaining Chips: The Instrumentalization of Detention in China and Iran.” Journal of Human Rights, 22(4), 511–528.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the staff of the European Centre for Human Rights Research and the Diplomatic Archive of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for access to background materials. Special thanks to Dr. Elena Martínez for her insights on Ibero-American legal frameworks.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.