Camillo Castro, the French citizen detained in Venezuela by the regime of coup-born dictator Nicolás Maduro, has returned home. Castro’s return to France reignites the debate over how the Venezuelan government treats foreign nationals and political opponents held in the country’s prisons.

A piece of context for those who have not been following the Venezuelan situation: Amnesty International has denounced the policy of “forced disappearances” implemented after the re-election of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, targeting opposition members and foreign citizens. “Venezuelan authorities seem to be using this practice to justify their narratives about ‘foreign conspiracies’ and as a bargaining chip in negotiations with other countries,” the human rights organisation said.

Italian media, in reporting the news, have highlighted the obvious similarities with the case of Alberto Trentini, the Italian aid worker kidnapped in Caracas a year ago.

They were held in the same prison, both without charges and without trial. Neither France nor Italy recognises the legitimacy of the sham elections that allegedly (the opposition has denounced fraud) confirmed Maduro at the helm of his country. Both France and Italy are allies of the United States, which has nevertheless deployed military vessels off the Caribbean coast—officially as part of an anti-drug operation, but which many argue (and likely rightly) is part of a broader plan to force Maduro—by gentle or harsher means—to leave power.

The same journalists drawing these parallels also recall that on November 12, during a visit to Canada, French minister Jean-Noël Barrot criticised U.S. military operations “because they disregard international law,” hinting at a causal link between the criticism of Trump and Castro’s release.

Should Italy follow the French example? Is it right to grant Maduro the international recognition he is seeking, using kidnapping as a negotiation tool? I believe it is a question worth asking.

My invitation is to ask ourselves this question now, not with hindsight, because it is a question of universal value. My invitation is to ask ourselves this question while thinking (in addition to Trentini, of course) about the definite consequences it would have for Venezuelan citizens, rather than the hypothetical consequences it might have for American ones.

This is not an invitation to ask whether the military solution is the right one. On this point, the answer is simpler for each of us, because it is based on deep individual convictions; simpler does not mean obvious or trivial, because it still carries consequences.

Nor is this a rehash of the old dilemma about whether or not to negotiate with terrorists (or dictators), since this is a question each of us has already answered in similar situations.

The Italian dilemma: engage with Maduro or isolate the regime?

Is it right for Italy to decide to leave Venezuelans in Maduro’s grip? Thinking that it is not right means making life more difficult, because it would mean finding a less immediate solution for Trentini; it would mean accepting that such a solution might also involve forcing Maduro from power, by gentle or harsher means.

Are we ready to stand with the Venezuelan people even if it would mean, temporarily, standing on the same side as Donald Trump?

Let us ask ourselves now, because hindsight makes everyone clever. I have yet to give myself an answer; this reflection spoken aloud is meant to encourage us to consider what is at stake, with all its implications. An invitation to ask ourselves all the questions—even those for which we do not yet have a comfortable answer stored away in one of the drawers of our mind.