The United States has turned to a rarely used federal torture law to strengthen its criminal case against former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, bringing allegations of political repression and human rights abuses into the center of a prosecution that initially focused on drug trafficking.
Maduro, 63, and his wife, Cilia Flores, 70, have pleaded not guilty to an expanded indictment accusing them of conspiring to torture political opponents to preserve their grip on power. Their trial is scheduled for June 2027.
The couple were captured in January during a US military raid in Caracas ordered by President Donald Trump and subsequently brought to New York to face federal charges.
The new allegations place Maduro and Flores among just eight people identified in a review of court records as having been charged under a 1994 US law criminalizing torture committed abroad. The statute covers acts intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain on people in custody.
The case stands apart from previous prosecutions under the law. It is the first time the United States has pursued a head of state over allegations that he authorized torture within his own country, according to Michel Paradis, a partner at the Steptoe law firm who previously represented detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
Paradis described the prosecution as a landmark case, underscoring the unusual legal and political territory it enters.
From Drug Trafficking to Alleged Political Repression
The expanded indictment represents a significant change in how prosecutors intend to present their case.
Maduro and Flores continue to face accusations involving drug trafficking and the alleged use of political power to assist criminal networks and accumulate wealth. The torture allegations, however, could bring a wider account of the government’s treatment of opponents during Maduro’s 13 years in office before the jury.
Former federal prosecutor Artie McConnell said the additional charges marked a substantial escalation, putting alleged torture and political repression at the heart of the government’s argument.
The prosecution could benefit from presenting a broader picture of how Maduro allegedly sought to maintain control, legal experts said. Testimony from people who claim to have suffered abuse may also carry more weight with jurors than evidence built primarily around alleged drug trafficking.
Maduro’s legal team did not respond to requests for comment.
Attorneys representing Flores, Mark Donnelly and Andres Sanchez, said she was completely innocent. They also indicated they would revise an earlier request to dismiss the indictment on sovereign immunity grounds, which argues that a head of state should be protected from prosecution, to address the newly added allegations.
The Manhattan US Attorney’s office declined to comment.
A Law Used in Only a Handful of Cases
Congress enacted the 1994 statute to fulfill US obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture.
Its use has remained limited. Four defendants charged under the law have been convicted, including members of paramilitary groups in Liberia and Gambia, a former Syrian prison chief who served under Bashar al-Assad, and a US citizen accused of operating an illegal arms factory in Iraq where a worker was allegedly tortured.
Those convicted have received prison sentences ranging from 60 to 97 years.
Each torture count carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison. If a victim dies as a result of torture, the punishment can rise to life imprisonment or the death penalty. Multiple convictions can result in longer sentences.
Maduro and Flores do not face the death penalty under the new allegations because they are charged with conspiring to commit torture rather than personally carrying out the acts.
The law also places limits on who can be prosecuted. Defendants must be US nationals or physically present in the United States. The charges against the Venezuelan couple followed their transfer to New York after the January raid.
Prosecutors Point to Alleged Abuse of Detainees
The revised indictment contains more detailed descriptions of alleged victims and incidents, potentially giving prosecutors a stronger foundation for their case.
One episode cited in the document dates to 2018. Prosecutors allege that Venezuelan military officers struck a detainee with a machete and sprayed the person with a chemical irritant during questioning about the whereabouts of a political opponent of Maduro.
Former Manhattan federal prosecutor Shane Stansbury said testimony from people who experienced the alleged abuse could prove particularly influential at trial.
Three of the alleged victims identified in the indictment are US citizens. Their accounts could have a particular impact on jurors, McConnell said.
Even so, prosecutors are expected to rely on cooperating witnesses to connect Maduro and Flores to the alleged conspiracy. Such witnesses can provide evidence about decisions made behind the scenes, but their credibility is often challenged because they may have participated in the conduct under investigation or have their own criminal records.
At a court hearing on October 8, Manhattan federal prosecutor Kevin Sullivan said cooperating witnesses would testify about the couple’s alleged involvement in the torture conspiracy.
Their evidence could therefore remain central to the government’s effort to establish responsibility at the highest levels of the Venezuelan government.
Earlier Cases Show the Law’s Limits
The US government’s previous attempts to prosecute torture committed overseas have produced mixed results.
Sulejman Mujagic, a resident of upstate New York who was charged in 2012 with torturing a soldier following the breakup of Yugoslavia, was extradited to Bosnia for trial in 2013.
Another defendant, Sead Miljkovic, faced US torture charges over alleged abuses in Bosnia but was acquitted by a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 2025. He later pleaded guilty to passport fraud and has since left the United States, according to his attorney, Bryan Hoss.
Hoss argued that inconsistencies in the alleged victims’ accounts weakened their credibility and that the conduct attributed to his client did not meet the legal threshold for torture. He also suggested jurors may have questioned why the United States was pursuing the case.
The circumstances surrounding Maduro’s prosecution could make it easier for jurors to understand the government’s rationale, Hoss said, given that the defendant is a former national leader.
For prosecutors, the challenge will be to turn allegations of state-sponsored abuse into evidence that meets the demanding standards of a criminal trial. The outcome could have implications well beyond Maduro himself, testing how effectively a rarely invoked US law can be used against a former leader accused of using torture to retain power.
