MASAYA, NICARAGUA – Reynaldo Urbina rides his motorbike around the streets of Masaya, Nicaragua, with agility, despite having only one arm. Nearly seven years ago, at the height of a US- supported coup attempt against Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista government, Urbina was one of those guarding the city’s municipal warehouse when it was attacked by around 200 armed protestors. Warned of the impending attack, the guards had been ordered to hide their weapons and not resist capture, to minimize casualties.

But Urbina was suspected of knowing the whereabouts of the city’s mayor, whom the hooligans sought to assassinate, so they threw him to the ground and smashed his left arm with a rifle butt until it was practically destroyed. Urbina escaped, but his arm could not be saved, and was later amputated.

When a team was sent by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to Nicaragua to collect evidence on human rights abuses a few weeks later, Urbina was among those offered by the government as a witness. But the team refused to meet him.

The UN’s 40-page report, issued in August 2018, devotes just five paragraphs to violence by anti-government factions; the rest blames the government and its supporters for practically every other violent incident, including many (like an arson attack on a pro-Sandinista radio station) that were clearly part of the coup attempt.

Some time after the coup attempt, Nicaragua’s then vice-minister for foreign affairs, Valdrack Jaentschke, described an exchange with Paulo Abrão, who was the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The IACHR was another of the bodies which had launched investigations of human rights abuses in 2018. Valdrack had asked Abrão why visiting investigators were not collecting evidence of the severe opposition violence which had taken place. Abrão gave two reasons: that human rights abuses can only be carried out by the state, and that violence by civil society groups is just “common criminality” and therefore not within the investigators’ mandate.

Israeli regime cutout hosts Nicaraguan regime change operative Maradiaga at UNHRC

This February 28 this year, when the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held a session on human rights in Nicaragua, a key witness who played a leading role in the coup against Nicaragua’s elected Sandinista government appeared by video to deliver a denunciation of his enemies in Managua.

He was Felix Maradiaga, a US government-sponsored regime change operative who was one of the main organizers of the coup attempt. As The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal reported, Maradiaga’s IEEPP think tank had been funded with hundreds of thousands of dollars in support from the National Endowment for Democracy, the regime-change arm of the US government.

In June 2018, the Nicaraguan police charged Maradiaga with overseeing an organized criminal network that murdered several people. Relieved of this charge in a post-coup amnesty in 2019, he was arrested again, this time for treason, in 2021. Released again – this time into exile in the United States – Maradiaga was awarded a major prize from the UNHRC in 2023 as a “human rights defender.”

Maradiaga’s most recent UNHRC appearance was hosted by UN Watch, an Israeli regime cutout which maintains a constant presence in Geneva, relentlessly attacking the UN to shield Israel’s system of apartheid. But what interest would an Israel lobby outfit have in backing Nicaragua’s opposition? The motive clearly relates to the Sandinista government’s longstanding support for Palestinian self-determination, a stance which led it to sever diplomatic ties with Israel and bring legal action against Germany in 2024 for assisting Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip. (All of Nicaragua’s top opposition figures are vehemently pro-Israel).

A day before Maradiaga’s appearance, Nicaragua’s government issued a statement accusing the UNHRC of being “a platform for those who are attempting to destabilize Nicaragua and are the perpetrators of numerous murders, abductions, and violations of human rights of the Nicaraguan people.” It went on to announce its “irrevocable” withdrawal from the multilateral body.

Nicaragua’s patience had run out. Not only was the UNHRC platforming Maradiaga, but they had published a new report on alleged “human rights violations.” The report comes from the so-called “Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaraguan” (GHREN) set up by the UNHRC in 2022. It supposedly describes human rights in Nicaragua in the period from 2018 onwards, but to anyone who lives in the country (as I do) and witnessed the violent coup attempt that took place in April-July that year, it is an extraordinarily partial and biased document.

The most egregious bias is the report’s treatment of opposition figures like Maradiaga as victims, not perpetrators. It is true that there have been arrests, imprisonments and the expulsion from the country (with US agreement and facilitation) of many of those arrested. But the GHREN appears never to have asked if they might be guilty of criminal acts. The new report refers disparagingly to government statements “alleging” that 2018’s events were an attempted coup. Instead, according to the GHREN, “legitimate protests” took place and were subject to a “violent and disproportionate crackdown.”

Yet as The Grayzone reported back in 2019, the real story was very different. Of the official death toll of 253, just 31 were known supporters of the opposition, 48 were probable or actual Sandinista supporters, 22 were police and the majority (152) were members of the public, many of them attacked at armed opposition roadblocks. Simply by omitting the facts that 22 police officers were killed, some after being tortured, and that over 400 police were injured, the GHREN reveals an extraordinary bias which invalidates its report.

The GHREN members are fully aware of the real story, but they simply choose to ignore it. They quite deliberately feed Washington’s narrative, repeated by its allies and by the corporate media, that what happened in 2018 was a series of peaceful protests, not a violent coup attempt that endangered thousands of Nicaraguans and hit the livelihoods of millions.

Their first, 300-page report in March 2023 also made little reference to opposition violence, and as result it was strongly criticized in a letter to the UNHRC, organized by the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition and signed by many prominent human rights experts and by 119 organizations and 573 individuals, and accompanied by a detailed critique of the report. A separate document analyzed their error-strewn case study of Masaya, where I live, referring them to overlooked crimes such as the torture of Reynaldo Urbina. Neither the letter nor the accompanying evidence received any response, but it can be assumed that the “experts” are at least aware of that they were sent.

When the GHREN produced a second report, in March 2024, another letter of protest was submitted, again receiving no response. This was also signed by human rights experts and a large number of organizations and individuals. It was sent personally to the president of the UNHRC by Alfred de Zayas, Professor of International Law in Geneva and a former UN Independent Expert. According to de Zayas, the report was “methodologically flawed, biased and should never have been published.”

When there was again no response, a third letter was sent in September 2024, urging the UNHRC to close down the GHREN on the grounds that its reports are incompatible with UN and UNHRC resolutions, do not meet the assignment they were given, and ignored legitimate and detailed evidence submitted. Not surprisingly, there was no reply.

The intention to ignore these criticisms could hardly be more obvious, despite the GHREN’s claim to exercise “independence, impartiality, objectivity, transparency, integrity.” Or, as the letter from Valdrack Jaentschke (now Nicaragua’s foreign minister) puts it, the UNHRC (in publishing the GHREN’s work) “violates its own regulations.”

This is part of a well-established pattern, referred to by Cuban and Venezuelan officials at the UNHRC’s recent session as well as those from Nicaragua, in which the council listens to and records only one side of the story when investigating human rights “violations” by Washington’s enemies. In his book on “the human rights industry,” de Zayas specifically accuses the GHREN of being set up for the purpose of “naming and shaming” the Nicaraguan government, not for objective investigation.

Instead of answering criticisms, the GHREN cynically repeats an accusation made in its previous reports, that Nicaraguan authorities were given the chance to respond to its allegations but failed to do so. Had they investigated Nicaragua’s reticence, they might have uncovered the Urbina case and several others where the government tried and failed to engage with such exercises.

Notable among these was the visit in 2018 by an earlier “interdisciplinary group of independent experts” whose similarly error-strewn report, about that year’s violent “Mothers’ Day march”, also showed overwhelming partiality and anti-government bias. Soon after this visit the government made the understandable decision to refuse cooperation with future investigations by multilateral bodies, and later to deny them permission even to enter the country. Its recent withdrawal from the UNHRC itself was a logical last step.

From Washington’s viewpoint, the GHREN’s new report could hardly have been better timed. Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio had already branded Nicaragua’s government (along with those of Cuba and Venezuela) as “enemies of humanity.” Not only does the report bolster this view, but it even advocates the tightening of sanctions on Nicaragua that Rubio is known to be contemplating.

The GHREN specifically calls for Nicaragua to be penalized under the regional trade treaty, known as CAFTA, which enables Nicaragua to trade with its Central American neighbors and the US on favorable terms, and is of massive importance for the country’s economy and hence for Nicaraguan livelihoods. The GHREN’s recommendation is in direct conflict with one of the UNHRC’s own resolutions: UNHRC Resolution 48/5 in 2021 states that such sanctions (“unilateral coercive measures”) violate international law and human rights. Rubio said in Costa Rica on February 4 that the trade treaty’s purpose was to “reward democracy.” Visiting Central America’s right-wing governments to drum up support for tightened sanctions, he claimed that Nicaragua “…is not a democracy. It does not function as a democracy.”

The GHREN’s report, issued just three weeks after Rubio’s visit, suggests that penalties could be applied under CAFTA’s “democratic clause.” Yet the trade treaty does not have such a clause; it only has a passing reference, in its preamble, to “sustaining the rule of law and democracy.” An impartial group of “experts” in international law, such as the GHREN, ought to be aware of the need for precision in their recommendations, and certainly should avoid calling for actions that would be in breach of international law.

Clearly the GHREN has no such inhibitions. It has provided Rubio with a recommendation that he can use to damage Nicaragua’s economy and harm its working people. Members of Nicaragua’s elite classes, like Felix Maradiaga, will continue to have a voice at international forums; ordinary Nicaraguans whose human rights were permanently damaged in 2018, like Reynaldo Urbina, remain invisible.

Published in The Grayzone and also in Dissident Voice, Popular Resistance, Antiwar.com, Orinoco Tribune, Resumen Latinoamericano, ZNetwork and Internationalist 360, (y en español en Grayzone Español, La Primerisima y Tortilla con Sal).