Opinion; Subjects: VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF), ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.17-10299 (E) 080817 110817
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its seventy-eighth session, 19-28 April 2017
Opinion No. 37/2017 concerning Braulio Jatar (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s
mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and
Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The mandate of the Working Group was most recently extended for a three-
year period in Council resolution 33/30 of 30 September 2016.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/33/66), on 7 November 2016 the
Working Group transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a
communication concerning Braulio Jatar. The Government replied to the communication on
6 January 2017. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
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 him or her) (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 Covenant (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);
(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 on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
General Assembly
Distr.: General
21 June 2017
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
2
GE.17-10299
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Braulio Jatar is a lawyer who holds dual Venezuelan and Chilean nationality. He is
58 years old and resides in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, specifically on Margarita
Island, in the State of Nueva Esparta. His main and most high-profile activity is as director
and editor of an online news portal called Reporte Confidencial. The source notes that
Reporte Confidencial, which was founded by Mr. Jatar in 2007, has become one of the
main media on Margarita Island and is known for its critical analysis of government
policies and independent investigations.
5.
In addition to being the founder, director and editor of Reporte Confidencial, Mr.
Jatar is a columnist for the newspaper Reporte de la Economía and the host of radio shows
on legal topics (“Radio Continente”, “Super K La Caribeña” and “Encuentro 88.7 FM”). He
combines these activities with his work as a lawyer for the firms Jatar Dotti Legal Office
and Jatar & Otero Legal Consultancy. He also worked at international law firms between
1991 and 1999 and was a columnist for notable Venezuelan newspapers, including Últimas
Noticias and El Diario de Caracas.
6.
Regarding his activity in Venezuelan politics, Mr. Jatar was chair of the Legal
Advisory Committee of the Senate Economic Commission in 1988 and adviser to the
parliamentary Comptroller’s Commission and Media Commission in 1990 and lobbied for
various laws.
7.
According to the source, Mr. Jatar was arbitrarily detained by police officers
attached to the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN) a few hours after Mr.
Jatar’s portal, Reporte Confidencial, broadcast coverage of a social protest against the
President. The event generated widespread public reaction and was widely disseminated in
the country.
8.
The source explains that on the night of Friday, 2 September 2016, the inhabitants of
Villa Rosa on Margarita Island led a peaceful protest against the President following a
televised event in which he had taken part. The protesters used kitchen implements, such as
pots and ladles, to make noise, a common method of protest in the country better known as
“cacerolazo”, and express their discontent with the national Government over the country’s
health and food crisis.
9.
A number of people used their mobile telephones to record the events of the protest,
following which the President broke protocol and allegedly spoke to various people taking
part in the peaceful demonstration. The videos were sent to Mr. Jatar through Reporte
Confidencial, who then posted them after verifying their provenance and authenticity.
10.
The source states that at 8.45 a.m. the following day, Saturday, 3 September 2016,
Mr. Jatar was apprehended by SEBIN officials in Porlamar, Nueva Esparta, specifically
between the Costa Azul housing development and La Arboleda, as he was driving to the
radio station to host his show, which he did every Saturday at 9 a.m. He had sent a voice
message saying that he was on his way, but he never arrived at his destination and there
was no other contact with him. At the time he was detained, the police officers did not
produce any court order justifying the measure or explain the grounds for his detention.
11.
The source adds that 12 hours went by without Mr. Jatar’s family knowing where he
was. Finally, sometime after 8 p.m. on 3 September 2016, seven SEBIN officers, hooded
and carrying rifles, arrived at Mr. Jatar’s house and raided it without a court order. At this
time, Mr. Jatar’s family were informed that he had been arrested by SEBIN officers that
morning and was being held at the Island’s police headquarters.
12.
The source alleges that the SEBIN officers raided Mr. Jatar’s house at night,
specifying that when the officers arrived, the only person in the house was a minor. On 4
September 2016, a member of Mr. Jatar’s family was able to visit him briefly at the SEBIN
premises and reported having observed an injury on Mr. Jatar’s arm received at the time of
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
GE.17-10299
3
his detention when he tried to prevent the officers from confiscating his mobile telephone.
The family member also reported that, following the arrest, Mr. Jatar suffered a
hypertensive crisis, for which he was seen by a doctor.
13.
Mr. Jatar was brought before a supervisory judge of the Margarita criminal court on
Monday, 5 September 2016. At the hearing, his defence counsel raised the fact that in the
file used to incriminate Mr. Jatar there was a SEBIN report in which he was accused of
being “a CIA agent” by virtue of his alleged involvement in the “organization of terrorist
activities” in connection with the Summit of Non-Aligned Countries to be held on
Margarita Island from 13 to 18 September 2016. His counsel challenged the public
prosecutor’s claim that a briefcase, allegedly containing “between 20,000 and 25,000
dollars for the purpose of funding three opposition groups”, had been found in Mr. Jatar’s
vehicle, a claim Mr. Jatar denies. The source notes that other individuals who oppose the
Government have recently been accused of the same offence.
14.
From 8 September 2016, Mr. Jatar was prohibited from seeing his lawyers and, at
approximately 7 p.m. on 10 September 2016, without prior notice being given to his
lawyers or relatives, Mr. Jatar was removed from his place of detention on Margarita Island
and sent to a location unknown at the time. On 11 September 2016, SEBIN officials on the
Island informed Mr. Jatar’s family that on the previous night, he had been transferred to the
26 de Julio pretrial detention centre located in San Juan de los Morros, in the State of
Guárico, more than 560 km away.
15.
Following the transfer to the prison in Guárico, neither Mr. Jatar’s family nor his
lawyers were able to establish contact with him, in person or by telephone, until some 48
hours later. During the first telephone contact with the family at 7 p.m. on 12 September
2016, his transfer to the abovementioned prison was confirmed.
16.
The source notes that, on 20 September 2016, Mr. Jatar’s defence counsel was
granted permission to visit him after a period of 264 hours during which he had been
without access to his lawyers. On 25 September 2016, again without prior judicial notice to
either the family or lawyers, Mr. Jatar was transferred to another distant prison, the Cumana
remand centre, in the state of Sucre, some 227 km away from his home and the court that
was hearing his case.
17.
The source alleges that Mr. Jatar experienced serious violations of his human rights,
specifically his rights to personal liberty, due process, freedom of expression and freedom
of association, and that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has, therefore, breached
international human rights treaties that it has acceded to or ratified, as well as the
Constitution and basic procedural rules provided for in domestic law. The provisions it has
breached include: articles 9, 11 (1), 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; articles 9 (1), 14 (2) and (3) (b) and (c), 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights; articles 7 (1) and (2), 8 (2) (b) and (d), 13 (1) and 16 of the
American Convention on Human Rights; article 11 of the Inter-American Convention on
Forced Disappearance of Persons; articles 4 and 26 of the American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man; articles 44 (1) and (2), 49 (2), 52 and 57 of the Constitution; and
articles 1, 8, 10, 127 and 119 (6) and (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
18.
The source concludes that Mr. Jatar’s arrest is arbitrary under categories II, III and V
of the Working Group’s classification.
Response from the Government
19.
On 3 September 2016, at approximately 9 a.m., a police task force made up of
officers from the SEBIN territorial base in Porlamar was assembled to verify information
provided by the counter-intelligence service according to which Braulio Jatar was suspected
of leading a financing network designed to undermine the State.
20.
The officers then headed to the suspect’s home but on the way spotted a grey Toyota
Corolla driven by the person of interest on José Francisco Esteban Gómez Avenue in
Porlamar. The officers pulled the vehicle over in front of the Royal Crown housing
development. In the presence of two witnesses, the officers inspected the vehicle and found,
under the rear seat, a silver briefcase from which they seized evidence of a potential crime,
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
4
GE.17-10299
including United States dollars and some Venezuelan currency. The officers demanded to
know the purpose and origin of the money. When Mr. Jatar was unable to justify or provide
the origin of the seized items, he was transferred, along with the witnesses, to the SEBIN
territorial base in Porlamar and the Public Prosecution Service issued the order to launch a
criminal investigation.
21.
It is clear from the above that Mr. Jatar was arrested in flagrante delicto on suspicion
of money-laundering on 3 September 2016.
22.
In the interest of proceeding with the investigation, the Fourteenth Office of the
Public Prosecution Service of Nueva Esparta made an extraordinary request for a search
warrant on grounds of extreme necessity and urgency under article 196 (1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
23.
The search warrant was granted by the second court of first instance responsible for
the criminal court circuit of Nueva Esparta and was executed by the SEBIN officers at Mr.
Jatar’s home, located in the Costa Azul housing development on El Cocal Street, “Los
Chichitos” residence, Porlamar, municipality of Mariño, Nueva Esparta.
24.
It should be noted in this case that the search was carried out in the presence of
relatives, friends and three witnesses and that evidence was seized, including a Samsung
mobile telephone, a white SIM card and a black 8-gigabyte Kingston micro SD card found
in the spare room located in the lower part of the building.
25.
The Constitution, in chapter III on civil rights, article 44 (1), clearly establishes that:
“No person may be arrested or detained without a judicial order, unless he or she is caught
in flagrante delicto. In such cases, the person shall be brought before a judicial authority
within no more than 48 hours from the moment of detention. He or she shall remain free
during the trial, except under the circumstances provided for by law and assessed by the
case judge.”
26.
The Criminal Procedure Code, in chapter II, article 234, on arrest in the event of
flagrante delicto, provides a more precise definition of detention in such cases. The SEBIN
statutes set forth its jurisdiction and powers.
27.
Mr. Jatar was arrested and brought before the public prosecutor in accordance with
the procedures laid down in the current legal framework governing SEBIN officials.
28.
On 5 September 2016, he was brought before the second court of first instance
responsible for the criminal court circuit of Nueva Esparta. On the basis of this hearing, the
preliminary charge brought by the Twenty-Fourth Office of the National Public Prosecution
Service and the Fourteenth Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Nueva Esparta,
namely the alleged commission of the offence of money-laundering, as provided for in
article 35 of the Organized Crime and Financing of Terrorism Act, was upheld.
29.
It should be noted that the court ordered that the case be tried in accordance with the
ordinary procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code. The SEBIN facilities in Porlamar
were selected as the place for Mr. Jatar’s detention.
30.
On 20 October 2016, the Public Prosecution Service formally indicted Mr. Jatar of
the offence with which he had been charged at the arraignment.
31.
Mr. Jatar’s preliminary hearing was postponed twice at the request of the defence
and once because the court designated to hear the case was closed; the case is currently in
the intermediate stage.
32.
In the context of Mr. Jatar’s transfer to the court in Nueva Esparta, the Twelfth
Office of the Public Prosecution Service of Nueva Esparta responsible for sentence
enforcement was designated to interview him on 23 November 2016 to ascertain his
detention conditions.
33.
In addition, on 24 November 2016, the Public Prosecution Service visited the
detention centre where Mr. Jatar was being held and noted that he had received visits from
relatives and his defence counsels on 4, 11, 18, 19 and 21 November 2016. Furthermore, he
was permitted one 5-minute telephone call with relatives every two weeks.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
GE.17-10299
5
34.
Regarding Mr. Jatar’s health, the State faithfully abides by the Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations. On 16 September
2016, Mr. Jatar was transferred to the 26 de Julio detention centre in San Juan de los
Morros, where a team from the Ombudsman’s Office conducted visits to monitor
observance of his human rights and inspect his detention conditions.
35.
On 25 September 2016, Mr. Jatar was transferred to the Cumana remand centre in
Sucre and was seen by a delegation from the Ombudsman’s Office on 26 September 2016.
During the interview, he said that: “I have had chronic hypertension for over 30 years.
Regarding my stay here, I am doing well, I have a clean bed and the meals have been very
tasty and served punctually.”
36.
The director of the remand centre was also interviewed and informed the team that:
“Mr. Jatar’s medication and treatment are administered in the centre’s medical service
under the authority of the doctor and nurses, and today he will have his review with the
social worker.”
37.
In addition, the Ombudsman was requested to, either personally or through an
appointee, review Mr. Jatar’s file to “monitor observance of his right to due process”.
38.
In the light of the exhaustive information and explanations it has provided, the State
requests that the present case be concluded and that the information herein be brought to the
attention of the Human Rights Council.
Additional comments from the source
39.
The source notes that it fully agrees with the Government’s reply that, under
Venezuelan law, the Public Prosecution Service, through its offices, is the body that holds
the power to “organize and lead criminal investigations” in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and that “takes criminal action on behalf of the State”. However, it is precisely
this power that was abused in the case of Mr. Jatar’s arbitrary detention, in which
connection the police officers unilaterally conducted a criminal investigation on and
monitored Mr. Jatar, and then, at their own initiative, carried out a search, stop and arrest,
without any prior oversight other than the discretionary power exercised by the officers
who led that particular police detachment.
40.
In other words, the police acted without the backing or prior instruction of the Public
Prosecution Service, as required under Venezuelan law, given that the Service — and not
the police — is the sole body with the power to organize and lead a criminal investigation.
In such an investigation, the Service is also the only body competent to request the
procedural court to authorize steps, such as the monitoring and observation of a person, the
examination of his or her activities and, of course, his or her interception and detention,
designed to ascertain the commission of criminal activity. None of that was done in this
case.
41.
Mr. Jatar and his defence counsel have argued in the trial before the domestic courts
that the accusation that he was in possession of foreign and national currency at the time of
his arrest is false. They have also raised this point publicly, stating that the accusation was
forged in the case file. Although this is a very serious allegation, it matches other
allegations in recent instances where cases of politically motivated arbitrary detention and
of arbitrary detention used as punishment for the legitimate exercise of human rights have
been publicly denounced.
42.
Mr. Jatar and his defence counsel have further argued that the claim that there were
witnesses to the arrest is also false. In this connection, they have also argued before the
competent court that none of the witnesses mentioned were in that location at the time of
the police operation or took part in any way in the conduct of the case in support of the
seizure of money or the interception and detention of Mr. Jatar.
43.
Even if United States dollars and Venezuelan bills had been confiscated from Mr.
Jatar, in no way is their possession a criminal offence.
44.
It is worth noting a new element which provides incontrovertible evidence that all
the actions by the police leading to Mr. Jatar’s detention were arbitrary in that they were
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
6
GE.17-10299
carried out without instruction from the Public Prosecution Service or prior arrest warrant.
This new element is the State’s own statement that it was only after Mr. Jatar was
investigated on the unilateral and discretionary decision of the police, then monitored,
stopped and eventually arrested and moved to police headquarters that the Public
Prosecution Service ordered the launch of a criminal investigation, in blatant violation of
due process. The order came after, rather than before, the entire illegal proceedings against
Mr. Jatar.
45.
Mr. Jatar was detained without a prior judicial order, in violation of article 44 (1) of
the Constitution, which provides that “personal liberty is inviolable; consequently, no one
may be arrested or detained except by judicial order.” This valuable constitutional rule,
which is in keeping with the provisions that safeguard the fundamental right to personal
liberty, is binding on all police forces in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In addition,
the rule entails two layers of oversight insofar as it ensures that before a person can be
deprived of their liberty, the competent public prosecutor must, on the basis of familiarity
with the investigation and the actions he or she has previously ordered, consider the
measure to be necessary and, accordingly, submit a reasoned request to the court. Then, the
competent procedural court must carefully review the request and reasoning and, after
ascertaining that there are sufficient grounds for detention and that no other, less serious
means of achieving the cited objective are available, must order the detention in a duly
reasoned judicial decision.
46.
Although there is an exception to this rule, i.e. when a person is caught in flagrante
delicto, it could not be clearer that this exception does not apply to Mr. Jatar’s case. There
cannot be flagrante delicto when the police decides, of its own accord, to unilaterally
initiate an investigation, collect and classify evidence, appoint a team to look for, stop and
eventually detain a person. All of these actions obviously require the intervention of a
public prosecutor and the competent procedural court, which is why criminal law lays down
procedural rules to protect the fundamental principle of due process.
47.
Thus, the police acted simultaneously as police, prosecutor and judge by usurping
public powers, ordering the launch of an investigation and, based on its own actions and
conclusions, unilaterally deciding to order the search for and observation of Mr. Jatar,
which ultimately led to his detention. The foregoing is clear from the police’s own record,
as cited by the State in its reply, which is, moreover, the linchpin of the entire criminal
proceedings against Mr. Jatar.
48.
If it had really been a case of flagrante delicto, Mr. Jatar’s detention could not have
been preceded by actions to monitor, stop and arrest him. This approach, which is exactly
what the State itself describes as having happened, is proof positive that the police officers
undertook to find and arrest Mr. Jatar in a planned and concerted manner; therefore, it
cannot possibly be claimed that Mr. Jatar was spontaneously and casually “surprised”
during the commission of an offence, in other words caught in flagrante delicto.
Accordingly, the detention of Mr. Jatar is arbitrary.
49.
After being arrested on 3 September 2016, Mr. Jatar was initially transferred to the
SEBIN headquarters in Porlamar, Margarita Island, Nueva Esparta. He remained detained
there until 10 September 2016, when he was arbitrarily transferred, without prior
notification of his defence counsel or relatives, to the 26 de Julio pretrial detention centre
located in San Juan de los Morros, Guárico, more than 560 km away from his home and the
court that was hearing his case. He remained in that prison until 25 September 2016, when
he was once again illegally transferred without notice being given to his lawyers or
relatives to the Cumana remand centre, Sucre, 227 km away from his home and the court
that was hearing his case. On 21 November 2016, Mr. Jatar was transferred to the San
Antonio remand centre on Margarita Island, supposedly for the purpose of making him
available to the court for the preliminary hearing, which had initially been scheduled for 23
November 2016 but could not be held because of Mr. Jatar’s health. On 23 November
2016, Mr. Jatar was once again transferred to the Cumana remand centre. In December
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
GE.17-10299
7
2016, Mr. Jatar was transferred back to the San Antonio remand centre, where he is being
held to this day.1
Discussion
50.
The Working Group thanks the source for submitting the communication and the
State for providing its replies regarding the detention of Mr. Jatar.
51.
The Working Group is mandated to investigate all cases of deprivation of liberty
imposed arbitrarily that are brought to its attention. In the discharge of its mandate, it refers
to the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with its
methods of work.
52.
As a matter of priority, in its actions, the Working Group adheres to the rules set out
in its methods of work and refers to consistent, recognized State practice for processing
individual communications. Thus, for the consideration of the present case, the Working
Group will analyse the facts described by the source in the communication, which have
been made known to the State concerned.
53.
Mr. Jatar is a 58-year-old Venezuelan and Chilean national and a resident of
Margarita Island, Nueva Esparta.
54.
Mr. Jatar’s main occupation is as a journalist, director and editor for an online news
portal called Reporte Confidencial, which was established in 2007 and has become one of
the main media in the area where he lives through its critical analysis of the Government’s
policies. He is also a columnist for the newspaper Reporte de la Economía and hosts radio
shows on legal topics (“Radio Continente”, “Super K La Caribeña” and “Encuentro 88.7
FM”). He has extensive experience in legal work, journalism and politics in his country.
55.
Mr. Jatar was arrested by police officers attached to the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (SEBIN) after the Reporte Confidencial broadcast videos of a social
protest against the health and food crisis.
56.
The Working Group noted that, on the morning of Saturday, 3 September 2016, Mr.
Jatar was arrested by SEBIN agents between the Costa Azul housing development and La
Arboleda as he was driving to work in order to host his usual 9 a.m. radio show.
57.
At the time Mr. Jatar was detained, the police officers did not produce a court order
justifying the measure against him or explain the reasons for it. The Working Group noted
that SEBIN had conducted a preliminary investigation regarding Mr. Jatar. The Working
Group did not receive any information to confirm that the SEBIN agents had any legal
grounds to inspect Mr. Jatar’s car and subsequently deprive him of his liberty and therefore
considers the detention as arbitrary under category I.
58.
The Working Group confirmed that on Monday, 5 September 2016, two days after
he was deprived of his liberty, Mr. Jatar was brought before a judge. At the hearing, the
authorities noted that Mr. Jatar had been pulled over in his vehicle for inspection and had
allegedly been caught in flagrante delicto with a briefcase containing thousands of dollars.
It is surprising that at the same time as the Government argues that Mr. Jatar was arrested in
flagrante delicto, it acknowledges to the Working Group that SEBIN had earlier initiated an
investigation regarding his alleged involvement in acts potentially related to national
security. The Working Group considers that detaining Mr. Jatar after he was supposedly
caught in flagrante delicto and later charging him with money-laundering was motivated by
his exercise of his freedom of expression, specifically through his work as a journalist for
the electronic portal Reporte Confidencial, which posts information and opinion pieces that
are critical of the Government. Therefore, it must be concluded that Mr. Jatar’s deprivation
of liberty stemmed from his exercise of rights and freedoms enshrined in article 19 of the
Covenant. Consequently, the Working Group considers that Mr. Jatar’s detention is
arbitrary under category II.
1 On 31 May 2017, the source informed the Working Group that Mr. Jatar was placed under house
arrest on 24 May 2017. However, a preventive custodial measure remains in place.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
8
GE.17-10299
59.
The Working Group has been convinced that the authorities of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela failed to guarantee Mr. Jatar the right to the lawyer of his choice
immediately following his arrest. Indeed, it observed that Mr. Jatar’s effective legal
representation was hindered by various actions attributable to the Government, the first
being the multiple transfers (at least six) of Mr. Jatar to and from different detention centres
without notifying his lawyers or relatives — which is contrary to normal practice — with a
view to preventing the lawyers from communicating with their client for an unjustifiable
length of time. It was not until 20 September 2016 that Mr. Jatar was granted access to his
lawyers. This is a breach of international norms on the impartiality of trials of sufficient
consequence as to make Mr. Jatar’s deprivation of liberty arbitrary. Moreover, it infringes
articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the
Covenant, thereby making the detention arbitrary under category III.
60.
In recent years, the Working Group has repeatedly ruled on the arbitrary detention of
individuals in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for having exercised their human
rights, such as the right to freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly and the
right to political participation.
61.
The Working Group has, in recent years, identified a practice whereby the
Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela regularly deprives political opponents
of their liberty, in violation of fundamental norms of international law, including the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.
62.
The occurrence of multiple arbitrary detentions on the part of the Government of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is reflected in the cases on which this Working Group
has ruled in recent years.2
Disposition
63.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Braulio Jatar, being in contravention of articles 9 and
10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I, II and III.
64.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Braulio Jatar without delay
and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
65.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Braulio Jatar immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
2 Opinion No. 27/2015 concerning Antonio José Ledezma Díaz; Opinion No. 26/2015 concerning
Gerardo Ernesto Carrero Delgado, Gerardo Rafael Resplandor Veracierta, Nixon Alfonzo Leal Toro,
Carlos Pérez and Renzo David Prieto Ramírez; Opinion No. 7/2015 concerning Rosmit Mantilla;
Opinion No. 1/2015 concerning Vincenzo Scarano Spisso; Opinion No. 51/2014 concerning Maikel
Giovanni Rondón Romero and 316 others; Opinion No. 26/2014 concerning Leopoldo López;
Opinion No. 29/2014 concerning Juan Carlos Nieto Quintero; Opinion No. 30/2014 concerning
Daniel Omar Ceballos Morales; Opinion No. 47/2013 concerning Antonio José Rivero González;
Opinion No. 56/2012 concerning César Daniel Camejo Blanco; Opinion No. 28/2012 concerning
Raúl Leonardo Linares; Opinion No. 62/2011 concerning Sabino Romero Izarra; Opinion No.
65/2011 concerning Hernán José Sifontes Tovar, Ernesto Enrique Rangel Aguilera and Juan Carlos
Carvallo Villegas; Opinion No. 27/2011 concerning Marcos Michel Siervo Sabarsky; Opinion No.
28/2011 concerning Miguel Eduardo Osío Zamora; Opinion No. 31/2010 concerning Santiago
Giraldo Florez, Luis Carlos Cossio, Cruz Elba Giraldo Florez, Isabel Giraldo Celedón, Secundino
Andrés Cadavid, Dimas Oreyanos Lizcano and Omar Alexander Rey Pérez; and Opinion No. 10/2009
concerning Eligio Cedeño.
A/HRC/WGAD/2017/37
GE.17-10299
9
Follow-up procedure
66.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group
requests the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in
follow-up to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Braulio Jatar has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Braulio Jatar;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Braulio
Jatar’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made
to harmonize the laws and practices of the Government with its international obligations in
line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
67.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example, through a visit by the
Working Group.
68.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above
information within six months of the date of the transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
69.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all
States to cooperate with the Working Group and requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.3
[Adopted on 28 April 2017]
3 See Human Rights Council resolution 24/7, paras. 3 and 7.