The United States has expanded its criminal case against ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by invoking a rarely used federal law that criminalizes torture committed overseas. The new charges place alleged human rights abuses and political repression at the center of a prosecution that previously focused primarily on drug trafficking and related offenses.
According to a Reuters review of court records, Maduro and Flores are only the seventh and eighth individuals identified as having been charged under the 1994 law. Both pleaded not guilty last week to an expanded indictment accusing them of conspiring to torture political opponents to maintain their hold on power. Their trial is scheduled for June 2027.
The couple was captured in January during a U.S. military raid in Caracas ordered by President Donald Trump and subsequently brought to New York to face federal charges.
Legal experts say the case represents a significant development in the application of U.S. torture legislation. Michel Paradis, a partner at Steptoe who previously represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay, described it as a landmark case, noting that it marks the first time the United States has prosecuted a head of state for allegedly authorizing torture within their own country.
Torture allegations broaden the prosecution
The expanded indictment allows prosecutors to present a wider account of how Maduro allegedly used criminal activity and political repression to retain power during his 13 years in office.
Artie McConnell, a former federal prosecutor specializing in national security matters, described the torture charge as a significant escalation because it places alleged abuses against political opponents at the center of the government’s case.
The indictment reportedly includes detailed descriptions of alleged victims and specific incidents. In one example from 2018, prosecutors allege that Venezuelan military officers struck a detainee with a machete and sprayed him with a chemical irritant while questioning him about the whereabouts of a political opponent of Maduro.
Three alleged victims identified in the indictment are U.S. citizens. Legal experts suggest their testimony could carry particular weight with jurors.
Shane Stansbury, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, said testimony from alleged torture victims could prove influential during the trial.
Although prosecutors are expected to rely on cooperating witnesses to connect Maduro and Flores to the alleged conspiracy, the expanded charges could also allow the government to present testimony from people who experienced the alleged abuses directly.
At an October 8 court hearing, Kevin Sullivan, a prosecutor with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office, said cooperating witnesses would testify about the couple’s alleged involvement in the torture conspiracy.
Maduro and Flores challenge the charges
Lawyers representing Maduro did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
Flores’ attorneys, Mark Donnelly and Andres Sanchez, maintained that their client is completely innocent. They also said they would revise an earlier motion seeking dismissal of the indictment on sovereign immunity grounds, which generally concerns legal protections afforded to a sovereign state and its representatives.
The U.S. government’s ability to pursue charges under the 1994 statute depends on specific jurisdictional requirements. Prosecutors can bring such cases against U.S. nationals or individuals physically present in the United States. The charges against Maduro and Flores followed their transfer to New York after the January raid.
The law was enacted by Congress to implement U.S. obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Each torture count carries a potential prison sentence of up to 20 years. If a victim dies as a result of torture, the statute permits life imprisonment or the death penalty. However, Maduro and Flores are not eligible for the death penalty under the charges currently brought against them because they are accused of conspiracy rather than personally carrying out torture.
Individuals convicted of multiple acts of torture can face substantially longer sentences. Previous defendants convicted under the statute have received prison terms ranging from 60 to 97 years.
Previous cases highlight challenges for prosecutors
The U.S. government has not secured convictions in every case brought under the law.
Sulejman Mujagic, who was charged in 2012 over alleged torture committed during the conflict following the breakup of Yugoslavia, was extradited to Bosnia in 2013 to face trial there.
In another case, Sead Miljkovic was acquitted of U.S. torture charges by a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 2025. He subsequently pleaded guilty to passport fraud and has since left the United States, according to his lawyer, Bryan Hoss.
Hoss argued that inconsistencies in the alleged victims’ accounts undermined their credibility and questioned whether the alleged conduct met the legal definition of torture. He also suggested jurors may have questioned the U.S. government’s decision to pursue the case.
Nevertheless, the Maduro prosecution presents a different set of circumstances because the defendant is a former head of state, potentially making the allegations and their broader political implications easier for jurors to understand.
The expanded indictment marks a major shift in the case, bringing allegations of torture and political persecution alongside the existing accusations of drug trafficking, money laundering and related offenses. The proceedings are expected to test the reach of U.S. law in prosecuting alleged human rights abuses committed abroad.
