A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

GE.12-11311 (E) 120312 260312

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its sixty-first session, 29 August–2 September

2011

No. 27/2011 (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)

Communication addressed to the Government on 14 June 2011

Concerning Mr. Marcos Michel Siervo Sabarsky

The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the former Commission on Human Rights, which clarified and extended the Working

Group’s mandate by resolution 1997/50. The Human Rights Council approved the Working

Group’s mandate in its decision 2006/102 and extended it for a further three-year period in

resolution 15/18 of 30 September 2010. In accordance with its methods of work, the

Working Group transmitted the above communication to the Government.

2.

The Working Group considers that deprivation of liberty is arbitrary in the following

cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or

her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to the detainee) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from a judgement or sentence

resulting from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19,

20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are

concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating

to the right to a fair trial, spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in

the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity

as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of an administrative or judicial remedy

(category IV);

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

General Assembly

Distr.: General

29 February 2012

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

2

GE.12-11311

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of the international

law for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language;

religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation;

disability or other status, and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of

human rights (category V).

3.

The Working Group regrets the Government’s failure to reply to the communication

addressed to it. For this reason, the Working Group will adopt its Opinion on the basis of

the source’s submissions.

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

The source states that Mr. Marcos Michel Siervo Sabarsky, a married Venezuelan

national who works as a manager, was the chairman of the Venevalores brokerage firm in

Caracas. Mr. Sabarsky was arrested on 19 May 2010, without a prior court order, by police

officers of the Organized Crime Division of the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic

Investigation Unit (CICPC) attached to the Ministry of People’s Power for the Interior and

Justice. The arrest took place during a raid on the head office of Venevalores.

5.

The information received indicated that Mr. Sabarsky’s arrest infringed the

provisions of article 44 of the Venezuelan Constitution. Mr. Sabarsky was detained for 3

days without a court order. On 22 May 2010, he was brought before a provisional judge of

the sixteenth court of first instance responsible for the criminal court circuit of the Caracas

Metropolitan Area, in order that an oral hearing of the detainee might be held. At this

hearing, the judge cancelled the warrant for Mr. Sabarsky’s arrest on the grounds that it did

not comply with the requirements set forth in the above-mentioned article 44 of the

Constitution. The judge did not, however, order his immediate release, as he should have

done, but remanded Mr. Sabarsky in custody.

6.

The source claims that, in ordering pretrial detention, the judge apparently accepted

the initial classification of the offences by the provisional prosecutors of the national Public

Prosecution Service’s Offices Nos. 23 and 71, who had full competence, with regard to the

following offences: illegal procurement of foreign currency; fictitious stock market

transactions, and criminal association. When they filed charges against Mr. Sabarsky, the

provisional prosecutors dropped the charge of fictitious stock market transactions and

replaced the charge of illegal procurement of foreign currency with one of illegal foreign

currency transactions, an offence for which provision was made in the 2010 amendment of

the Act on illegal foreign exchange transactions.

7.

Mr. Sabarsky was therefore accused of two offences, namely illegal foreign currency

transactions and criminal association, because, through Venevalores, he had engaged in

stock market transactions that were perfectly legal when they were performed, because they

were covered by an exception expressly laid down in the Act on illegal foreign exchange

transactions (published in the Gaceta Oficial on 28 December 2007) which was in force at

the time of the alleged acts. According to this Act, irrespective of its amount and even if it

did not pass through the Central Bank of Venezuela, a bond transaction was not deemed to

be an illegal exchange transaction.

8.

The source draws attention to the fact that the new Act on illegal foreign exchange

transactions, which is now in force, was published on 17 May 2010, two days before Mr.

Sabarsky’s arrest. It was only as from that date that the Central Bank of Venezuela was

given exclusive competence to buy and sell foreign currency of any amount, including bond

transactions. The source therefore makes it clear that a criminal law was applied to Mr.

Sabarsky ex post facto.

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

GE.12-11311

3

9.

The source contends that if there is no offence there can be no “criminal

association”, an offence defined in the Act on organized crime, published in the Gaceta

Oficial on 27 September 2005. In order for there to be criminal association, at least three

persons must have participated in an act or omission classified as an offence with a view to

committing the offences defined in the above-mentioned Act. Mr. Sabarsky was not

accused of offences under the latter Act, but of offences under the Act on illegal foreign

exchange transactions. There was no criminal association.

10.

The source holds that, at all times Mr. Sabarsky, as chairman of Venevalores,

complied with the regulations governing the activities of brokerage firms. In accordance

with the criminal law principle nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia his arrest was

not justified because there was no prior legislation to warrant it. None of this person’s

alleged conduct corresponds to the constitutive elements of an offence defined in

Venezuelan legislation prior to the acts with which he is charged.

11.

Mr. Sabarsky has been deprived of liberty and is being put on trial for an act which

did not constitute an offence when it was committed. His pretrial detention is therefore

devoid of any legal basis. The Public Prosecution Service has acted arbitrarily by

retroactively applying the provisions of the new law to Mr. Sabarsky, that is to say it is

charging him under a criminal law adopted after the acts of which he stands accused. His

detention is manifestly arbitrary, in that it does not rest on any legal provision.

12.

The source adds that Mr. Sabarsky’s detention has damaged his health. He suffers

from a heart complaint which cannot be treated properly in prison. For this reason, the

supervising judge decided to transfer his place of imprisonment to his home, which was to

be duly guarded by police officers of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN)

“for enforcement purposes and with a view to ensuring the medical progress of the

accused”. This decision was, however, set aside without valid legal grounds by the Appeal

Court at the request of the Public Prosecution Service.

13.

On the day the supervising judge ordered Mr. Sabarsky’s house arrest, instead of

being driven home, he was taken to the premises of the Special Action Squad (Grupo BAE)

of CICPC, where he has remained until now.

14.

The transactions carried out by Mr. Sabarsky were perfectly legal when they were

performed, since a legal text expressly exempted transactions of that nature from

classification as illegal foreign exchange transactions. In this connection, the source refers

to article 9 of the Act on illegal foreign exchange transactions, which was published in the

Gaceta Oficial (Special Issue) No. 5867, on 28 December 2007 and which remained in

force until 17 May 2010. This Act stipulates:

“The Central Bank of Venezuela shall have exclusive competence to buy and sell

foreign currency of any amount through authorized foreign exchange dealers. Any

person who contravenes this provision commits an illegal foreign exchange

transaction and shall be fined twice the amount of the transactions, or its equivalent

in bolivares. Any person who, in one or more transactions in the same calendar year

and bypassing the Central Bank of Venezuela, buys, sells or in any way offers,

disposes of, transfers or receives foreign currency in an amount of between 10,000

and 20,000 United States dollars, or its equivalent in another currency, shall be fined

twice the amount of the transaction, or its equivalent in bolivares.

When, in the above circumstances, the transaction amounts to more than 20,000

United States dollars, or its equivalent in another currency, the penalty shall be

imprisonment from 2 to 6 years and a fine equivalent in bolivares to twice the

amount of the transaction.

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

4

GE.12-11311

This shall be without prejudice to the obligation to surrender or sell the foreign

currency to the Central Bank of Venezuela, in accordance with the applicable legal

rules.

Bond transactions shall be exempt from these provisions.”

15.

The transactions listed in the Public Prosecution Service’s charges against Mr.

Sabarsky, in his capacity as chairman of Venevalores, relate to bond transactions between

2009 and April 2010, a period when the above-mentioned legislation was fully in force.

The source explains that the Act was subsequently amended to become the text published in

the Gaceta Oficial (Special Issue) No. 5975, on 17 May 2010. This amendment stipulates:

“Article 9 shall be amended as follows:

Article 9

The Central Bank of Venezuela shall have exclusive competence to buy and sell

foreign currency of any amount in cash or in bonds with the aim of obtaining foreign

currency balances for itself or for its customers through the disposal thereof prior to

the maturity date. Any person who contravenes this Act commits an illegal foreign

exchange transaction and shall be fined twice the amount of the transaction, or its

equivalent in bolivares.

Any person who, in one or more transactions in the same calendar year, and

bypassing the Central Bank of Venezuela, buys, sells or in any way offers, disposes

of, transfers or receives foreign currency in an amount of between 10,000 and

20,000 United States dollars, or its equivalent in another currency, shall be fined

twice the amount of the operation, or its equivalent in bolivares.

When, in the above circumstances, the transaction amounts to more than 20,000

United States dollars, or its equivalent in another currency, the penalty shall be

imprisonment from 2 to 6 years and a fine equivalent in bolivares to twice the

amount of the transaction.

This shall be without prejudice to the obligation to surrender or sell the foreign

currency to the Central Bank of Venezuela, in accordance with the applicable legal

rules.”

16.

The source adds that Mr. Sabarsky’s detention is consistent with a plan allegedly

devised and executed by the government authorities and directed against brokerage firms,

and which is prompted by the political aim of tightening its control over foreign exchange

transactions and not by legal considerations.

17.

Mr. Sabarsky was arrested without a previous court order. An attempt was

subsequently made to validate his arrest by accusing him of committing acts which, when

they took place, were not legally classified as offences.

18.

The source points out that deprivation of liberty is exceptional and constitutes a

measure of last resort in criminal proceedings. For this reason, if the purposes of criminal

proceedings can be safeguarded by a less detrimental measure, the judge must order that

measure. In this connection, the source cites article 250 of the Venezuelan Code of

Criminal Procedure, which reads:

“Article 250. The supervising judge, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service,

may order the pretrial detention of the accused, provided that the existence of the

following has been proven:

1.

A punishable act warranting a custodial sentence in respect of which criminal

proceedings are not plainly time barred.

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

GE.12-11311

5

2.

Substantiated evidence that the accused has been the perpetrator of, or

participated in, the commission of a punishable act.

3.

A reasonable presumption, having regard to the specific circumstances of the

case, that the accused might abscond or obstruct efforts to establish the truth in

respect of a specific measure of investigation.

[…]

In exceptional cases requiring immediate action, provided that the conditions laid

down in this article are met, the supervising judge, at the request of the Public

Prosecution Service, shall authorize the suspect’s arrest by any suitable means.”

19.

In Mr. Sabarsky’s case there is nothing to show that there is any danger of his

absconding or perverting the course of justice. However, in breach of the principle that

pretrial detention must not be considered the general rule, but an exceptional measure, the

house arrest ordered by the supervisory judge for health reasons, was cancelled.

20.

The source adds that all the criminal judges and prosecutors who have participated

in these proceedings are provisional. In other words they can be appointed and removed at

will and they enjoy no security of tenure whatsoever. This situation violates the right to a

hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established in article 14, paragraph 1, of

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the Basic Principles on the

Independence of the Judiciary.

21.

A further serious breach of due process lies in the fact that, in the case at hand, the

principle of estoppel has not been respected. The Public Prosecution Service is still

investigating Mr. Sabarsky’s case, in other words the investigatory or preparatory phase is

continuing after formal charges have been laid.

22.

The source considers that Mr. Sabarsky’s detention is contrary to domestic and

international legislation and hence arbitrary. His arrest was not based on a prior court order.

In this connection, the source draws attention to the fact that under article 49 and article 44,

paragraph 1, of the Venezuelan Constitution, no person may be detained unless their

detention has been previously ordered by a competent and impartial court. Mr. Sabarsky’s

detention is therefore illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the basic principles set forth in

article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

23.

However, although the court declared that his arrest warrant was invalid, since it did

not comply with the requirements set out in article 44 of the Venezuelan Constitution,

instead of ordering the detainee’s release, it ordered his pretrial detention on the basis of

acts which did not constitute an offence when they were performed.

24.

The arbitrary nature of this person’s detention was aggravated by the retroactive

application of criminal law.

25.

The source explains that it is impossible to find any legal basis for Mr. Sabarsky’s

detention. He is being held in pretrial detention for acts which, when they were committed,

did not constitute an offence. The Act on illegal foreign exchange transactions is being

applied to him retroactively in clear breach of his right of due process and of the recognized

criminal law principle of nulla poena sine lege praevia.

26.

The source further refers to the fact that Mr. Sabarsky has been charged with the

offence of criminal association under the Act on organized crime. In this respect, it

considers that the offence as charged does not correspond to the acts for which he is

supposedly being prosecuted, inasmuch as the Act stipulates that the offence occurs when

an act or omission is committed by three or more persons associated for a period of time,

with the intention of committing the offences defined in the Act. In Mr. Sabarsky’s case,

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

6

GE.12-11311

the acts of which he stands accused were defined in another piece of legislation, namely the

Act on illegal foreign exchange transactions.

27.

The source contends that the following constitute breaches of due process: the

violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, the violation of the principle

of estoppel and failure to regard pretrial detention as an exceptional measure rather than a

general rule.

28.

The source concludes that Mr. Sabarsky’s detention is arbitrary in that it is contrary

to articles 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to article 9,

article 14, paragraphs 1 to 3 and article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights to which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been a party since 1977.

Government reply

29.

In the absence of a government reply and since the time limit laid down in the

revised methods of work (A/HRC/16/47, annex IV, para. 15) has expired, the Working

Group considers that it may adopt an opinion.

Considerations of the Working Group

30.

Mr. Marcos Michel Siervo Sabarsky, chairman of the brokerage firm Venevalores,

located in Caracas, was deprived of his liberty on 19 May 2010, without a prior court order,

by police officers of the Organized Crime Division of CICPC, which is attached to the

Ministry of People’s Power for the Interior and Justice. The arrest took place during a

search of the firm. After he had been held in custody without a court order, on 22 May 2010

Mr. Sabarsky appeared for questioning before a provisional judge of the sixteenth court of

first instance with investigative powers in the criminal court circuit of the Caracas

Metropolitan Area. At the hearing, the judge cancelled the warrant for Mr. Sabarsky’s

arrest because it did not meet legal requirements (art. 44 of the Constitution), but instead of

ordering his release, he remanded the accused in custody.

31.

The failure to inform Mr. Sabarsky of the reasons for his detention at the time of his

arrest or to inform him promptly of the charges against him constitute a violation of the

rights under article 9, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights and of the requirements that an arrest warrant must be issued prior to an arrest and

must be presented at the time of arrest and that the arrested person must be brought

promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.

32.

The judge before whom Mr. Sabarsky appeared considered that his detention

infringed article 44 of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution which stipulates, inter alia, that

“No one may be arrested or detained except by virtue of a court order, unless he is caught in

flagrante delicto.” The Government’s failure to reply makes it impossible to know whether

the judge did not consider that Mr. Sabarsky had been caught in flagrante delicto.

Nevertheless, the fact that he considered that article 44 had been flouted suggests that this

was not a case where the accused had been caught in flagrante delicto.

33.

Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, which stipulates that “no one shall be

deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as

are established by law”, was thus ignored. Since it was not until the third day of his

detention, 22 May 2010, that Mr. Sabarsky was brought before a judge, the right of anyone

arrested on a criminal charge to be “brought promptly before a judge or other person

authorized to exercise judicial power” was violated at the same time. This right is also

established in article 9 of the Covenant to which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a

party.

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

GE.12-11311

7

34.

Mr. Sabarsky has spent over a year in pretrial detention and he has still not been

released. Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant states that “it shall not be the general rule

that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to

guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should

occasion arise, for execution of the judgement”. There is no record of any previous

behaviour to suggest that Mr. Sabarsky is likely to abscond or pervert the course of justice,

dangers which, under Venezuelan legislation, might justify an exception to the right to

pretrial release in accordance with article 250, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In addition, his lengthy pretrial detention, lasting for more than a year, infringes

the principle and fundamental right of the presumption of innocence, established in article

11, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 9, paragraph 3

of the Covenant.

35.

The source contends that “all the criminal judges and prosecutors who have

participated in proceedings are provisional. In other words they can be appointed and

removed at will and they enjoy no security of tenure whatsoever. This situation violates the

right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established in article 14,

paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the Basic

Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.” The Working Group expressed a similar

view in its report on its mission to Peru in 1998 (E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2). In that report the

Working Group considered that the situation of “provisional” judges and prosecutors was

“serious” and it concurred with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and

lawyers that “the trial of persons ... by judges without security of tenure constitutes prima

facie

a

violation

of

the

right

to

be

tried

by

an

independent

tribunal”

(E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.1, para. 106).

36.

The Working Group draws attention to the fact that the Basic Principles on the

Independence of the Judiciary, which the General Assembly endorsed in resolutions 40/32

and 40/146, requires that “judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed

tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such

exists”. In this connection, the Working Group’s above-mentioned report recommended

that the Government should “re-establish tenure for judges and prosecutors, without

discrimination for political or other reasons” and it added that “the powers of the National

Council of the Judiciary should be restored immediately” (E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2, para.

175).

37.

With reference to the criminal nature of the acts ascribed to Mr. Sabarsky, the

Working Group notes that until 17 May 2010, in other words until two days before his

arrest, the buying and selling of foreign currency in an amount of less than 20,000 United

States dollars, or its equivalent in other currencies, without the authorization of the Central

Bank, was punishable only by a fine, or in the case of larger amounts by 2 to 6 years’

imprisonment. Since 17 May 2010, the date of publication of the Act prohibiting various

foreign exchange transactions, other previously lawful activities have become punishable.

All the acts of which Mr. Sabarsky is accused took place before 17 May 2010.

38.

The Government has not adduced any evidence showing that Mr. Sabarsky’s

transactions before 17 May 2010, which form the subject of the charges, exceeded the

amount of 20,000 dollars or their equivalent in other currencies, or that he engaged in

foreign currency transactions between 17 and 19 May 2010. In these circumstances, the

principle of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege has been infringed. This is a

cardinal principle of modern criminal law and is enshrined in both the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (art. 11, para. 1) and the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (art. 15).

A/HRC/WGAD/2011/27

8

GE.12-11311

Opinion of the Working Group

39.

In light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

(a)

The deprivation of liberty of Marcos Michel Siervo Sabarsky is arbitrary, in

that it falls into Category III as set forth in the methods of work of the Working Group,

inasmuch as it violates the human rights established in articles 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2, paragraph 3 and articles 9, 10, 14, 15

and 26 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights;

(b)

In accordance with the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the

relevant authorities of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to order the immediate release

of the accused, who may be asked to provide guarantees that he will appear for trial, or at

any other stage of judicial proceedings, and, should the occasion arise, for execution of the

judgement.

[Adopted on 30 August 2011]