A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

GE.14-19644 (E) 220115 260115



Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its seventieth session, 25–29 August 2014

No. 26/2014 (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)

Communication addressed to the Government on 27 February 2014

Concerning: Leopoldo López Mendoza

The Government replied to the communication on 28 April 2014.

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

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the former

Commission on Human Rights by its resolution 1991/42. The mandate of the Working

Group was then clarified and extended by the Commission by its resolution 1997/50. The

Human Rights Council assumed the mandate by its decision 2006/102 and extended it for a

three-year period by its resolution 15/18 of 30 September 2010. The mandate was extended

for a further three years by resolution 24/7 of 26 September 2013. Acting in accordance

with its methods of work (A/HRC/16/47, annex), the Working Group transmitted the

above-mentioned communication to the Government.

2.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as 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 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, established 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);

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

General Assembly

Distr.: General

3 November 2014

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

2

GE.14-19644

(d)

When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or

remedy (category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of 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; or

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

human rights (category V).

Submissions

Communication from the source

3.

Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza, the national coordinator of the political party

Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), was arrested in Caracas on 18 February 2014 pursuant to

a detention order that is said to have been issued unlawfully.

4.

According to the information received, a popular assembly was held in Chacaíto,

Caracas, on 2 February 2014 to discuss possible institutional solutions to the crisis facing

the country. It was agreed at the meeting to join Venezuelan students in a national protest

scheduled for Youth Day, 12 February 2014, in Plaza Venezuela. The students issued a call

for a peaceful, non-violent demonstration, which was backed by various sectors of society

and political movements. On 12 February, thousands of Venezuelans gathered in Plaza

Venezuela. Similar demonstrations took place in the country’s other major cities. It is

reported that during these demonstrations calls were made for the release of the young

people arrested in the preceding days in the States of Táchira, Mérida and Nueva Esparta.

5.

Mr. López Mendoza reportedly spoke at the start of the event, affirming the non-

violent nature of the street protest, which he said was taking place in accordance with the

Constitution. It was planned that the march should converge on the headquarters of the

Public Prosecution Service in Parque Carabobo, where the Attorney-General’s Office is

located. The aim was to demand the release of all those arrested in the preceding days for

participating in peaceful protests. According to the source, the march proceeded to the

Attorney-General’s Office peacefully and without violence. At the end of the

demonstration, the students dispersed without incident.

6.

However, once the demonstration was over, members of the police and armed

militia groups close to the Government, known as colectivos (collectives), carried out a

number of attacks. The façade of the Public Prosecution Service headquarters was

damaged, and several students in the vicinity were assaulted. These events resulted in the

death in Vargas Hospital of Bassil Alejandro Dacosta Frías, a 23-year-old university

student. A member of the collectives, Juan Montoya, also died from gunshot wounds. Three

people were injured.

7.

The source states that more than 70 people were arrested that day. The Attorney-

General confirmed the names of the dead and injured and immediately blamed political

figures. The government authorities held Mr. López Mendoza responsible for the violence.

According to the source, numerous photographs and videos taken spontaneously by

volunteers on their mobile phones show that it was not the demonstrators that provoked the

violence and that law enforcement officers failed to take prompt preventive action. In

statements made after the incidents, the President of the National Assembly said that he

held Mr. López Mendoza and María Corina Machado, a member of the Assembly, liable for

the violence, calling them murderers. The Minister for Foreign Affairs allegedly took to the

social network Twitter to accuse Mr. López Mendoza of instigating the killings. These and

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

GE.14-19644

3

other statements by authorities and officials were reportedly made before the Attorney-

General’s Office had initiated any investigations.

8.

Mr. López Mendoza, Ms. Machado and the Mayor of the Metropolitan District of

Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, held a press conference to express their concern over the

incidents. They stated that the unusual lack of law enforcement officers on the protest route

and their failure to respond to the acts of violence could have been part of a plan

orchestrated with the consent of the government authorities.

9.

The temporary judge in charge of the Sixteenth Caracas Procedural Court, Ralenys

Tovar Guillén, granted a request from the Public Prosecution Service to arrest Mr. López

Mendoza and ordered the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service to detain him

immediately. By Order No. 007-14, the judge ordered his arrest on multiple charges,

including criminal association, incitement to commit an offence, public intimidation, arson

of a public building, damage to public property, causing serious injury, homicide and

terrorism. These offences, combined, are punishable by more than the maximum penalty

allowed under Venezuelan law, namely 30 years’ imprisonment.

10.

In the early hours of 16 February 2014, while conducting a search, officials from

various State security forces, including the National Guard (military) and the General

Directorate of Military Counter-intelligence, unlawfully entered Mr. López Mendoza’s

home, his parents’ home and the premises of his political party. The officers did not have a

search warrant and showed only a copy of the arrest warrant. More than 20 heavily armed

uniformed officers in four vehicles drove to the home of Mr. López Mendoza’s parents,

where his father, mother and wife were present. They blocked road access to the property in

two places, preventing neighbours from approaching. Lawyers were denied entry.

11.

On 18 February 2014, a rally was staged in Plaza Brión, in the municipality of

Chacao, Caracas. It is reported that a large number of law enforcement officers, mainly

members of the riot squad of the Bolivarian National Police, barred access to the Plaza. Mr.

López Mendoza made an appearance and gave a brief address to the crowd, before making

his way to the National Guard security cordon with his wife. Mr. López Mendoza was then

arrested by several military officials, who led him to an armoured car and took him to the

Francisco de Miranda military airbase, known as “La Carlota”. From there, he was

transferred by helicopter to the Fuerte Tiuna military base.

12.

Mr. López Mendoza appeared before temporary judge Ms. Tovar Guillén, president

of the Sixteenth Caracas Procedural Court. She ordered that he be remanded to the Centro

de Procesados Militares military prison, known as “Ramo Verde prison”, a detention centre

for active and retired service personnel.

13.

The source states that Mr. López Mendoza is being held in inhumane conditions in a

military detention centre, in a cold and poorly lit cell. As the facility is in a mountainous

area, temperatures are low, and Mr. López Mendoza has not been provided with appropriate

clothing or blankets. The bathroom is in a deplorable state, with no door to ensure privacy.

The corridor leading to the cell bears the traces of a fire — sooty deposits, blackened walls

and burnt light fittings — but no sign of any repairs having been carried out.

14.

The Twenty-sixth Caracas Procedural Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the

Sixteenth Procedural Court. Four new documents or sections were added to Mr. López

Mendoza’s case file containing information that undermines his right to an effective

defence. His lawyers unsuccessfully requested a stay of proceedings.

15.

The hearing finally took place at 10.30 p.m. on 19 February 2014. The judge ratified

the custodial measure and accepted the initial classification of offences made by the Public

Prosecution Service.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

4

GE.14-19644

16.

The source contends that Mr. López Mendoza’s current detention comes against a

backdrop of harassment and persecution dating back 10 years. He has been subjected to

more than 20 punitive proceedings and multiple investigations launched by various public

bodies. These include the arbitrary application of administrative procedures depriving him

of his political rights, which has prevented him from holding a public service position for

over six years, as well as the filing of numerous complaints and criminal proceedings.

17.

On 5 January 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that

the political sanctions imposed on Mr. López Mendoza violated the American Convention

on Human Rights and filed a claim against the State with the Inter-American Court of

Human Rights.

18.

On 1 September 2011, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights delivered a

judgement,1 in which it concluded that “the State is responsible for a violation of the right

to be elected …, in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure rights set forth in Article

1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights”. In its judgement, the Court found a

violation of Mr. López Mendoza’s political rights and irregularities in the proceedings

instituted against him, and ordered that his political rights be restored. Although the

judgement is binding on the State under the Convention itself and the State’s domestic legal

order, on 17 October 2011, by its ruling No. SSC 1547/2011, the Supreme Court declared it

unenforceable.

19.

On 15 February 2013, the Public Prosecution Service summoned Mr. López

Mendoza to appear on 28 February, when he was charged with influence peddling and

large-scale misappropriation.

20.

On 10 February 2014, Mr. López Mendoza was prevented from boarding a domestic

flight, even though no court order or other form of written order had been issued to that

effect.

21.

According to the source, Mr. López Mendoza’s detention violates his right to

personal liberty as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela is a party. Specifically, his detention constitutes a violation of article 3 of the

Declaration and article 9 of the Covenant. Mr. López Mendoza has been a victim of

systematic, premeditated and publicly announced acts of persecution by various authorities

solely for exercising his political rights in a lawful manner. He has been subjected to,

among other things, criminal proceedings, threats made over a period of months and

detention in prison. Mr. López Mendoza has been stigmatized, and peaceful protest has

been criminalized.

22.

The source adds that Mr. López Mendoza’s right to presumption of innocence has

also been violated. That right has been infringed every time that various authorities,

particularly those within the executive and the security forces, have accused Mr. López

Mendoza personally and directly of being responsible for acts that he did not commit. He

has been threatened with imprisonment on several occasions in the absence of a preliminary

investigation.

23.

The source recalls that it is the judiciary’s duty and responsibility to determine a

person’s guilt, not the executive’s to do so by means of political statements. Its findings

must be the result of fair and impartial judicial proceedings conducted with all the

safeguards to which defendants are entitled.

1 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, López Mendoza v. Venezuela, Judgement of 1 September

2011 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C, No. 233.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

GE.14-19644

5

24.

According to the source, article 14 of the Covenant has also been violated because of

Mr. López Mendoza’s unequal treatment, given that he has been detained by military

personnel, transferred to military bases and held in a military prison.

25.

The foregoing discloses the arbitrary nature of Mr. López Mendoza’s detention. The

source contends that there are no legal grounds whatsoever for criminalizing the conduct of

Mr. López Mendoza, who was freely exercising his rights. He has been accused of offences

that he did not commit solely on the basis of his role as the leader of the political opposition

in an attempt to divert attention away from the search for those who were really responsible

for the acts of violence causing death and injury. The arrest warrant for Mr. López

Mendoza — which was issued by a judge who was appointed on a temporary basis and thus

susceptible to political pressure — was based on his alleged responsibility for the events in

question, a charge which, like many others in this case, is of dubious substance.

26.

The source adds that Mr. López Mendoza’s detention resulted from the legitimate

exercise of the right of all to freedom of opinion and expression, thought, assembly and

association, peaceful protest and demonstration, as well as the right of everyone to

participate in the political affairs of their country. All of these rights are enshrined in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights and the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The right to hold and

express opinions, the right to demonstrate, the freedoms of association and assembly and

the right to protest freely and peacefully are all protected under the above-mentioned

international instruments.

27.

The source further states that Mr. López Mendoza is a victim of a political vendetta

that relies on judicial mechanisms, criminalizes protest and seeks to implicate him in

offences that he clearly did not commit. He has been subjected to arbitrary and

unauthorized searches of his home, his parents’ home and the premises of his political

party.

28.

Mr. López Mendoza’s continued detention must also be considered arbitrary, since

the imposition of pretrial detention is not justified given that it has not been demonstrated

that there is a risk of the defendant fleeing the country or hindering the criminal

investigation, as required under Venezuelan law. The fact that Mr. López Mendoza turned

himself in voluntarily is, in the source’s view, evidence of that.

29.

The source concludes that the international human rights systems have a duty to

protect individuals, not only by providing redress for violations suffered but also by

responding to serious situations that cause grave, irreparable harm. One of the purposes of

the above-mentioned international instruments is to prevent human rights violations.

Response from the Government

30.

The Government responded to the communication from the Working Group on 28

April 2014.

31.

The Government asserts that Mr. Leopoldo López Mendoza and Ms. María Corina

Machado called for a demonstration on 12 February 2014, which they called La Salida (The

Way Out), with the aim of mobilizing the most radical opposition groups and overthrowing

President Nicolás Maduro Moros. A number of violent incidents ensued, and certain

regional bodies were targeted in attacks involving physical assaults on individuals and

damage to public and private property. The Government draws particular attention to the

systematic destruction of educational and health facilities, and damage to the environmental

heritage.

32.

The Government reports that the Public Prosecution Service applied to the Sixteenth

Caracas Procedural Court for Mr. López Mendoza’s detention on the following charges:

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

6

GE.14-19644

incitement to arson, under article 343 of the Criminal Code, and damage to property, under

article 474 thereof, read in conjunction with article 83 of the Code; incitement to public

disorder, under article 285 of the Code; criminal association, under article 37 of the

Organized Crime and Financing of Terrorism Act, together with the aggravating

circumstances provided for under articles 27 and 29, paragraphs 3 and 7, of the Act.

33.

The Government contends that Mr. López Mendoza called for violence and called

on people to refuse to recognize the legitimately constituted Government. He personally

instigated hatred and violence among the population, creating a tense, hostile situation,

which resulted in a group of people attacking the headquarters of the Public Prosecution

Service and setting fire to property belonging to the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic

Investigation Unit. The Government states that the case against Mr. López Mendoza is

under investigation.

34.

The Government asserts that there have been no cases whatsoever of arbitrary

detention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. No one has been arrested for

participating peacefully in demonstrations. Those who have been arrested were involved in

violent acts that violated the rights to personal integrity, freedom of movement, public and

private property and a healthy environment.

35.

According to a report by the Ombudsman’s Office that is attached to the

Government’s reply, Mr. López Mendoza and Ms. Machado “were the visible face of the

calls for a demonstration on 12 February 2014, during which their supporters were urged to

disregard democratic channels”. 2 On 2 February 2014 Mr. López Mendoza “called on

people to take to the streets en masse across the country on 12 February in order to put

pressure on the legitimately constituted Government to resign”.3

36.

The Government states that President Nicolás Maduro Moros was elected

democratically by a majority of Venezuelans in elections that were monitored by national

political actors and observed by international missions. Nevertheless, Mr. López Mendoza

urged people not to recognize the legitimately constituted Government and called for the

resignation of the President of the Republic or his removal from office, an eventuality that

is not provided for in the Constitution. To this end, he personally instigated hatred and

violence, creating a tense, hostile situation that sparked a wave of violence across the

country.

Comments from the source

37.

The source submitted comments and observations on the Government’s reply on 24

May 2014. The source states that the Government, in its reply, provides no information

whatsoever that contradicts the allegations made, thereby demonstrating the truthfulness of

those claims. Mr. López Mendoza has vigorously opposed the present Government, mainly

through political criticism and dissent. That is the cause and the motive for the political

persecution to which he has been subjected.

38.

According to the source, the information provided by the Government relates to

matters other than those at issue in the present case. The Government confirms the

information provided by the source, according to which Mr. López Mendoza is facing trial

on charges of arson, damage to property, incitement to public disorder and criminal

association. However, these charges do not reflect the reasons adduced for his being held in

detention.

2 Ombudsman’s Office, Febrero: Un Golpe a la Paz. I Parte, del 12 al 26 de febrero 2014, Caracas,

February 2014, p. 14.

3 Ibid., p. 56.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

GE.14-19644

7

39.

The Government seeks to criminalize Mr. López Mendoza’s opinions and political

expression. In the proceedings instituted by the State no attempt is made to offer an

explanation as to how, where or when Mr. López Mendoza might have influenced the

commission of an offence through his alleged statements.

40.

The source states that it is clear from the Public Prosecution Service’s presentation

of the facts in the indictment that Mr. López Mendoza operates by expressing his legitimate

political ideas and thoughts through different social media outlets and in public speeches.

Two relevant issues emerge from Mr. López Mendoza’s statements: criticism of the current

Government and calls for public protest. In order for a democratic society to exist, citizens

must have the right to express their opinions freely, to disagree, to discuss ideas and to

exchange views. The grounds on which Mr. López Mendoza was charged are not in

accordance with international standards on freedom of expression.

41.

The source adds that the Public Prosecution Service has never specified the

circumstances or the factual details of the alleged offence of “persuasion and incitement”

with which Mr. López Mendoza is charged. It has failed to establish which speeches gave

rise to the events or which statements may have violated domestic legislation. With regard

to the offence of “incitement to public disorder”, no information is given about the

legitimate authority that was undermined or the law that Mr. López Mendoza called on

people to disregard. With respect to the offence of “criminal association”, no information is

provided about the organized crime group in question or about the time, manner and place

of Mr. López Mendoza’s alleged involvement in such a group.

42.

The lack of a reasoned, clear and accurate statement of the alleged facts and the

absence of a description of the circumstances of the alleged acts adversely affect Mr. López

Mendoza’s right to a defence and due process. The right to a defence is undermined in the

absence of a clear, accurate and detailed presentation of the facts. Mr. López Mendoza’s

detention in the absence of specific evidence establishing that an offence has been

committed constitutes a violation of his right to presumption of innocence.

43.

The source states that in the present instance those responsible for putting together

the case file are far from impartial. For instance, the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic

Investigation Unit is attached to the Ministry of People’s Power for Internal Relations,

Justice and Peace, which reports directly to the President of the Republic. Furthermore, in

the indictment the Public Prosecution Service stated that it was itself a victim in the case.

The investigation is therefore flawed because of a lack of transparency, objectivity and

impartiality. The Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigation Unit, which is directly

accountable to the executive branch, has also declared itself to be a victim and therefore has

an obvious interest in the case. However, the Unit provided the Public Prosecution Service

with 80 of the 120 items of evidence incorporated into the prosecution file. For its part, the

Public Prosecution Service has produced evidence submitted by its own officials. In

addition, it has on two occasions refused to carry out investigations requested by the

defence. Furthermore, the source states that the linguists appointed by the Public

Prosecution Service are connected to the ruling party.

44.

The source reports that the temporary judge in charge of the case, Ralenys Tovar

Guillén, has been replaced by another temporary judge, Adriana López and that, as a result,

the scheduled hearings have been postponed indefinitely.

45.

In conclusion, the source states that Mr. López Mendoza is being held in isolation,

that he has no contact with other inmates and that his right to privacy of communications is

being violated. His correspondence with his defence counsel is being intercepted and read;

even his participation in religious activities is subject to restrictions.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

8

GE.14-19644

Discussion

46.

The Working Group considers that it is indisputable that thousands of Venezuelans

gathered in various squares in Caracas on 12 February 2014. Similar rallies also took place

in the country’s other major cities. During these demonstrations, calls were made for the

release of the young people who had been arrested in the preceding days.

47.

The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recognizes the right of

everyone to demonstrate. The demonstration in Caracas was scheduled to converge on the

premises of the Public Prosecution Service, the authority called upon to release the

detainees. The march proceeded to the headquarters of the Public Prosecution Service

peacefully and without violence. However, when the demonstration was over, armed

groups attacked the protesters, causing the death of two persons and injuring three others.

The source claims that the attacks were carried out by militia groups, whereas the

Government maintains that they were the work of violent demonstrators.

48.

The Government has sought to blame Mr. López Mendoza and Ms. Machado for the

events that occurred, including the deaths, the acts of arson and the damage to public and

private property. Mr. López Mendoza and Ms. Machado have refuted the accusations and

have, for their part, raised concerns about the lack of police officers deployed to monitor

the demonstration.

49.

At the request of the Public Prosecution Service, the temporary judge in charge of

the Sixteenth Caracas Procedural Court ordered Mr. López Mendoza’s detention on charges

relating to several of the offences referred to by the source.

50.

Mr. López Mendoza attended a new demonstration held on 18 February 2014 and

turned himself in to the police and military forces. He was taken to a military base and later

presented before the competent judge. New charges were subsequently brought against him,

thus creating a further obstacle to his defence. The Court denied a request from his lawyers

to postpone the hearing so that they could study the new charges. The temporary judge

confirmed the pretrial detention order at the hearing.

51.

The Working Group notes that, prior to these events, Mr. López Mendoza had faced

reprisals and had been subjected to more than 20 punitive proceedings that led to his being

prohibited from exercising political functions under administrative procedures, as noted

earlier in this Opinion. This ban on his participation in the political affairs of the country

was the subject of a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which the

Supreme Court declared unenforceable.

52.

In its reply, the Government does not refute any of the facts presented, nor does it

deny the allegations made. The Government does not indicate how Mr. López Mendoza’s

words might have led to the acts of arson and the damage to property with which he is

charged. It does not specify which parts of his statements may have caused those serious

acts or incited their commission. Furthermore, when the Government refers to the offence

of unlawful association, it does not make clear which illegal group it is referring to.

53.

Mr. López Mendoza’s right to presumption of innocence has been adversely

affected, as has his right to a proper defence, as a result of the vagueness of the charges

brought against him and the censorship of his correspondence with his lawyers.

54.

The Working Group takes the view that participating in a march for political reasons

or exercising one’s right to freedom of expression during a march, such as the one that took

place on 12 February 2014, does not constitute an offence that justifies the detention of a

speaker or a participant. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a cause and effect

relationship between the organization of a political demonstration, the speech made in the

course of that demonstration and the deaths, injuries and material damage that occurred on

the fringes of the demonstration, which had, moreover, already ended.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

GE.14-19644

9

55.

Mr. López Mendoza’s detention in a military facility would appear to be based on

discrimination on the grounds of his choices and political opinions. The Working Group

agrees with the views of the Human Rights Committee regarding the obligation of States to

provide protection: “To guarantee the effective protection of detained persons, provisions

should be made for detainees to be held in places officially recognized as places of

detention and for their names and places of detention, as well as for the names of persons

responsible for their detention, to be kept in registers readily available and accessible to

those concerned, including relatives and friends.”4

56.

The Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela states that citizen security

organs are civilian in nature (art. 332); consequently, the involvement of the Armed Forces

in the arrest of civilians does not appear justifiable. In the opinion of the Working Group,

the above-mentioned constitutional provision is in line with comments by the Inter-

American Commission on Human Rights in its Report on Citizen Security and Human

Rights. The Commission has made the following recommendation for countries in the

region: “In the domestic legal system, draw a clear distinction between national defence as

the function of the armed forces, and citizen security as a function of the police. Make it

very clear that because of the nature of the situations they must deal with, the instruction

and specialized training they receive, and the region’s unfortunate history of military

intervention into internal security affairs, the police have sole responsibility for the

functions associated with prevention, deterrence and lawful suppression of violence, under

the oversight of the legitimate authorities of a democratic government”.5

57.

In another report — which the Working Group also endorses — the Commission has

stated that “States need to guarantee that penitentiaries are run and guarded by qualified,

civilian staff, with civil servant status. That is to say, those functions must be entrusted to

an independent security body independent of the military and police forces, and educated

and trained in penitentiary issues. Those professionals must have been trained in

programmes, schools, or penitentiary academies established specifically for that purpose

and pertaining to the institutional structure of the authority responsible for administering

the penitentiary system.”6

58.

The Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. López Mendoza

is arbitrary under category II of the Working Group’s methods of work, given that Mr.

López Mendoza was arrested with a view to restricting the exercise of his political rights;

that he has been held in military facilities; and that he has been prevented from exercising

his rights to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, assembly and association, and his

political rights, enshrined in articles 18 to 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights and in articles 9, 10 and 18 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

59.

The Working Group further considers that Mr. López Mendoza’s detention on 18

February 2014 adversely affects his rights to presumption of innocence, to a fair, impartial

trial and to due process, given that his arrest was carried out in the absence of a warrant

from a judicial authority; that his detention has been extended for a period of more than 6

months; that he has been held in solitary confinement; that he has been denied pretrial

release — on bail if necessary; and that obstacles have been put in the way of his defence

lawyers, including the censorship of their communications with their client. The foregoing

4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 on prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 11.

5 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights

(OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc.57, 31 December 2009), specific recommendation No. 10.

6 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of

Liberty in the Americas, (OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc.64, 31 December 2011), para. 193.

A/HRC/WGAD/2014/26

10

GE.14-19644

constitutes a grave violation of the provisions concerning the right to a fair, impartial trial

set forth in articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.

Disposition

60.

In the light of the above, the Working Group is of the opinion that the detention of

Mr. López Mendoza constitutes arbitrary detention under categories II and III of its

methods of work. Accordingly, it recommends that the Government of the Bolivarian

Republic of Venezuela release Mr. López Mendoza forthwith and that it provide him with

full redress, including moral and material compensation, as well as measures of satisfaction,

such as a public statement of apology.

[Adopted on 26 August 2014]