{"id":6668,"date":"2026-08-20T18:40:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T16:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/?post_type=blog&p=6668"},"modified":"2026-08-20T20:06:57","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T18:06:57","slug":"libertad-circulacion-represion-regimenes-autoritarios","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/libertad-circulacion-represion-regimenes-autoritarios\/","title":{"rendered":"Are Restrictions on International Freedom of Movement a Form of Repression in Authoritarian Regimes?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This blog post was translated from the original Spanish version by using AI tools.<\/em>
If you encounter any errors,\u00a0please contact us<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are restrictions on international freedom of movement a form of repression in authoritarian regimes?<\/em> That is the central question behind the research carried out and published in the book “The Ius Constitutionale Commune’s Response to Autocratization: The Case of Venezuela”<\/em><\/a>, coordinated by Drs. Armin von Bogdandy and Mariela Morales Antoniazzi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research distinguishes among several measures recently used in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and systematizes the regulations governing them, identifying common elements and situating them alongside other States. For comparative purposes, it also examines Latin America’s history in the 1970s, drawing on reports from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to determine whether similar restrictions were used during that period. Finally, it explores the applicable inter-American standards and the serious harm these measures cause to democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measures Adopted in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela: Common Features<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

These specifically include bans on nationals leaving the country, bans on foreigners or nationals entering it, the revocation or cancellation of passports, loss of citizenship, and deprivation of nationality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which rights are implicated will depend on the specific case and the measure adopted. Even so, loss of nationality or citizenship, and restrictions on entering or leaving the country \u2014 including passport cancellation \u2014 will generally engage Articles 20 (right to nationality), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), and 23 (political rights) of the American Convention on Human Rights<\/a> (ACHR). Depending on the grounds behind such restrictions, a case could also involve freedom of thought and expression (Article 13 of the ACHR) and the principle of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 1.1 and 24 of the ACHR). A third consideration concerns how and by whom these measures were adopted, as well as any available means of challenging them, which brings due process and judicial guarantees and protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the ACHR) into play. Finally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has referred to the right to defend democracy (L\u00f3pez Lone et al. v. Honduras<\/a><\/em>, 2015) and, more recently, recognized the right to defend rights as a standalone right (Members of the “Jos\u00e9 Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers’ Collective v. Colombia<\/a><\/em>, 2023) \u2014 both of which could apply here if the measure is understood as retaliation for exercising these rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor went further still, recently outlining a right to democracy<\/em> in his concurring opinion in Capriles v. Venezuela<\/em><\/a> (2024). This right could likewise come under threat in these scenarios, particularly when such measures form part of a broader pattern of repression against the opposition or the erosion of democratic foundations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A review of the regulations in force in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela reveals several shared patterns:<\/p>\n\n\n\n