A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553 (E) 010621 020621

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its eighty-ninth session, 23–27 November 2020

Opinion No. 85/2020 concerning José Daniel Márquez, Kelvin

Alejandro Romero Martínez, José Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio Sorto

Cedillo, Orbín Nahúm Hernández, Arnold Javier Alemán, Ewer

Alexander Cedillo Cruz and Jeremías Martínez Díaz (Honduras)

1.

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

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 42/22.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 6 August 2020 the

Working Group transmitted to the Government of Honduras a communication concerning

José Daniel Márquez, Kelvin Alejandro Romero Martínez, José Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio

Sorto Cedillo, Orbín Nahúm Hernández, Arnold Javier Alemán, Ewer Alexander Cedillo

Cruz and Jeremías Martínez Díaz. The Government submitted a late response to the Working

Group’s communication. 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, disability,

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

General Assembly

Distr.: General

24 February 2021

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

2

GE.21-02553

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.

Kelvin Alejandro Romero Martínez is a national of Honduras born in 1989. He works

as an auto mechanic and resides in the village of Guapinol (municipality of Tocoa,

Department of Colón).

5.

José Daniel Márquez is a national of Honduras born in 1978. He works as a

construction foreman and resides in the village of Guapinol (municipality of Tocoa,

Department of Colón).

6.

Porfirio Sorto Cedillo is a national of Honduras born in 1971. He works as a

construction foreman and resides in the village of Guapinol (municipality of Tocoa,

Department of Colón).

7.

José Abelino Cedillo is a national of Honduras born in 1984. He works as a barber

and resides in the village of Guapinol (municipality of Tocoa, Department of Colón).

8.

Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz is a national of Honduras born in 1991. He works as an

auto mechanic and resides in the village of Guapinol (municipality of Tocoa, Department of

Colón).

9.

Orbín Nahúm Hernández is a national of Honduras born in 1989. He holds a

bachelor’s degree in social care and resides in Vado Ancho (San Pedro, municipality of

Tocoa, Department of Colón).

10.

Arnold Javier Alemán is a national of Honduras born in 1996. He is a farmer and

resides in the village of Las Mangas (municipality of Tocoa, Department of Colón).

11.

Jeremías Martínez Díaz is a national of Honduras born in 1956. He is a farmer and

resides in the village of La Concepción (municipality of Tocoa, Department of Colón).

12.

According to the source, these eight individuals (hereinafter “the eight defenders”)

established an association for the defence of human rights, known as the Comité Municipal

de Bienes Públicos y Comunes de Tocoa (Tocoa Municipal Committee for the Protection of

Public and Common Property). The source claims that the eight defenders were arbitrarily

detained and criminalized because of their work protecting a local water source from a mining

project that is allegedly operating illegally in Montaña de Botaderos Carlos Escaleras Mejía

National Park.

13.

According to the source, the Government has granted two mining concessions

allowing a company to operate in the aforementioned protected area, which has led to

resistance from the local community. Since 2015, community organizations have petitioned

the various government agencies responsible for granting mining concessions and protecting

the environment on numerous occasions. In 2016, they filed criminal complaints with the

Public Prosecution Service in respect of the decision to grant the concessions and the

environmental damage caused by the mining. However, their complaints were not

investigated. Since their complaints had not been taken up or investigated, and in view of the

fact that the waters of the Guapinol and San Pedro rivers were being polluted, on the night of

31 July/1 August 2018, in order to protect the water source, members of the local community

set up a camp near a piece of land belonging to the company, where they remained until they

were violently evicted by soldiers and police officers on 27 October 2018.

14.

On 6 September 2018, the Public Prosecution Service pressed charges against 18

persons living in the Guapinol camp, including the eight defenders, accusing them of

encroachment and damage to the detriment of the company, and encroachment in the form

of occupation of a public space to the detriment of the State. The source indicates that the

accused persons named in the application for prosecution included Arnold Javier Alemán and

a person named Jeremías Martínez (a namesake of Jeremías Martínez Díaz, as proven by the

defence lawyers during the initial hearing held on 5 December 2018). The case was referred

to the San Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction, which is

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

3

a court of special jurisdiction competent to try offences related to organized crime. The judge

presiding over the Court issued an arrest warrant and an eviction order in respect of the camp

and its occupants; no explanation was offered regarding the decision to file the application

for prosecution with a court of special jurisdiction or the grounds for the arrest warrant and

eviction order.

15.

According to the source, on 7 September 2018, members of the Comité de Defensa de

los Bienes Comunes y Públicos de Tocoa were present at the camp when an ex-soldier and

security specialist hired by the company, alongside 40 other company employees, including

armed guards, arrived at the site to install gates on the nearby access road, thus blocking

public access to the camp.

16.

The source indicates that, two hours later, when the above-mentioned individuals had

already begun to install the gates, a group of protesters (approximately 300 people) arrived

at the site shouting slogans. At that moment, a vehicle carrying more company employees

arrived; this provoked a reaction from the guards, who opened fire on the protesters, leaving

one of them with a punctured lung from a gunshot wound (complaint No. 1032-2018,

municipality of Tocoa, Department of Colón).

17.

The source claims that, in view of the situation, the protesters set upon the vehicle of

the ex-soldier security specialist and, since he was the leader of the group, detained him with

the intention of handing him over to the National Police so that he could be investigated in

connection with the injuries suffered by the wounded protester. However, neither the Public

Prosecution Service nor the criminal investigation police acted on their complaint.

18.

The source indicates that Jeremías Martínez Díaz was the beneficiary of protective

measures granted by the national mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders.

On 29 November 2018, the police officers who had been tasked with ensuring his safety,

acting under false pretences, brought him to the police station in Tocoa on the pretext that

they required him to check some documents. Upon arrival at the station, he was placed under

preventive arrest, without being informed of the reasons for his detention. He was

subsequently brought before the San Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National

Territorial Jurisdiction, where the judge ordered that he be detained at La Ceiba prison.

19.

The source states that, on 17 January 2019, the office of the Public Prosecution Service

in the municipality of Tocoa (Department of Colón) filed a second application for prosecution

with the San Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction, this

time in respect of 31 members of the Comité Municipal de Defensa de Bienes Comunes y

Públicos, including the eight defenders. They were charged with unwarranted deprivation of

liberty, aggravated arson and robbery. The charges also included the special offence of

unlawful association to the detriment of the internal security of the State (case file No. 22-

2019 JLCTNMP). The source indicates that this charge was included despite the fact that no

relevant evidence had been presented and that the statement of the facts set out in the

application for prosecution contained nothing linking the defenders to the offence.

20.

According to the information received, on 21 January 2019, the judge presiding over

the San Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal

Matters admitted the application for prosecution and issued an arrest warrant. The source

stresses that, since the defendants had been accused of unlawful association, by law, they had

to be placed in pretrial detention; this charge also justified the referral of their case to a court

of special jurisdiction competent to try cases involving organized crime.

21.

According to the source, José Daniel Márquez, Kelvin Alejandro Romero Martínez,

José Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, Orbín Nahúm Hernández, Arnold Javier

Alemán, Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz and Jeremías Martínez Díaz decided to participate in

the judicial process voluntarily and, on 22 August 2019, presented themselves before the San

Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters

– the court that had issued the warrant for their arrest. However, they were not received by

the Court. That same day, they made the five-hour bus trip to Tegucigalpa. The following

day, 23 August 2019, they presented themselves before the Tegucigalpa Court of First

Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters, where the judge also

refused to see them, instead instructing them to return on 26 August.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

4

GE.21-02553

22.

The plea hearing was held on 26 August 2019, after which the judge ordered that the

accused be placed in judicial detention. They were subsequently taken to Tamara national

prison. On 1 September 2019, after the initial hearing, the judge acquitted the accused of the

charges of unlawful association and aggravated robbery but formally indicted them for

unwarranted deprivation of liberty and aggravated arson and ruled that they be placed in

pretrial detention; however, she did not provide a statement of reasons for her decision or

explain which of the legal requirements for the application of such a measure had been met.

23.

According to the information received, Jeremías Martínez Díaz was placed in judicial

detention on 29 November 2018 and then in pretrial detention on 5 December 2018. Kelvin

Alejandro Romero Martínez, José Daniel Márquez, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino

Cedillo, Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz, Orbín Nahúm Hernández and Arnold Javier Alemán

have been deprived of their liberty since 26 August 2019 and been in pretrial detention since

1 September 2019.

24.

The source claims that the decision ordering the pretrial detention is arbitrary, since it

was based on insufficient and contradictory grounds and not on certified rational evidence

that would justify applying, and subsequently upholding, a precautionary measure of

deprivation of liberty, which, in this case, is clearly unnecessary and disproportionate, and

violates the environmental defenders’ rights to liberty, to be presumed innocent and to

freedom of association. The source indicates that the offences for which the accused have

been formally indicted do not feature in the list of offences requiring automatic imposition

of pretrial detention under article 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the

source also notes that the court failed to invoke any of the other legal grounds for imposing

pretrial detention provided for under article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify

its decision, namely: (a) risk of flight; (b) possible obstruction of the investigation; (c) well-

founded risk that the accused will return to his or her criminal organization; or (d) well-

founded risk that the accused will take reprisals.

25.

According to the source, the most incoherent argument used by the judge to justify

her decision to impose, and then uphold, pretrial detention is the alleged risk that the accused

will return to their “criminal organization” and use the means offered to them by it to hinder

the investigation. The accused are not members of a criminal organization. Indeed, the judge

herself definitively dismissed the charge of unlawful association.

26.

The source stresses that the accused are members of a community organization that

the State has recognized, through the Office of the National Commissioner for Human Rights,

the Ministry of Human Rights and the national mechanism for the protection of human rights

defenders, as an organization of human rights defenders; it cannot, therefore, be a criminal

organization.

27.

Moreover, the source claims that the fact that the judge definitively dismissed the

charge of unlawful association means that she must have been convinced that the accused are

not members of a criminal association, which renders contradictory her decision to uphold

their pretrial detention on the basis of an alleged risk that they will return to their criminal

organization.

28.

The source claims that the present case involves a violation of the rights protected by

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of which states that no one may be

subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention and article 11 of which establishes the right to be

presumed innocent. The source also claims a violation of the rights enshrined in the

Covenant, including the right to liberty and security of person, the right of anyone who is

arrested to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest, the right to

be presumed innocent and the right to freedom of association.

a.

Legal action taken and remedies invoked by the defence

29.

The source indicates that, on 4 September 2019, an appeal was filed against the formal

indictment orders issued after the initial hearing, requesting the Court of Appeal to dismiss

all outstanding charges and alleging that the Public Prosecution Service had failed to present

prima facie evidence that the accused had participated in the offences with which they had

been charged. This appeal has not yet been decided on.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

5

30.

The defence appealed an oral decision issued after a hearing to review the measure

imposed, held at its own request, whereby the judge dismissed its request for the pretrial

detention to be substituted with an alternative measure. This appeal is still pending, despite

the fact that the Court of Appeal is required by law to decide on such appeals within three

days.

31.

On 25 February 2020, the defence petitioned the Court of Appeal to decide on, as a

matter of urgency, the appeal filed on 7 November 2019 against the decision dismissing its

request for the pretrial detention to be substituted with an alternative measure. On 22 May

2020, the defence again requested the Court of Appeal to decide on this appeal as a matter of

urgency.

32.

The source also indicates that, on 10 December 2019, the defence filed a new request

for a review hearing with the Court of First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction in

Criminal Matters, but that the Court dismissed this request on the grounds that an appeal had

already been lodged against the decision of 6 November ruling out the possibility of applying

alternative measures and that its jurisdiction had therefore been suspended. The source

claims, however, that this type of appeal does not have the effect of suspending the

jurisdiction of the judge responsible for the case.

33.

In view of the decision by the Court of First Instance with National Territorial

Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters to refuse its request for a hearing, on 11 March 2020, the

defence requested a new hearing before the Court of Appeal with National Territorial

Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters to review the measure imposed. The request is still pending,

despite the fact that article 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a hearing

must be held within 48 hours of its submission. On 22 May 2020, the Court of Appeal was

urged to deal with the request as a matter of urgency.

34.

The source also explains that a number of applications for habeas corpus have been

filed. On 5 September 2019, an application for habeas corpus was filed with the

Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the pretrial detention.

In the application, it was argued that the court of national jurisdiction with which the Public

Prosecution Service had filed its application for prosecution was not competent to hear the

case ratione materiae. It was also argued that the Public Prosecution Service had pressed

criminal charges for the offence of unlawful association but that these charges were not

mentioned in the application for prosecution, and that, consequently, at the plea hearing, the

judge presiding over the court of first instance had applied article 184 to justify the imposition

of judicial detention, without having examined the appropriateness of precautionary

measures, since article 184 prohibits the application of alternative measures. It was also

argued that the judge issued a formal indictment and imposed pretrial detention without

having provided a statement of her reasons for doing so. The application was referred to the

Court of Appeal in Criminal Matters of the Department of Francisco Morazán, which

dismissed it.

35.

The source also reports that, on 5 September 2019, another application for habeas

corpus was filed with the Tegucigalpa Court of First Instance with National Territorial

Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in respect of the pretrial detention and the transfer of the

accused to a maximum-security prison. It was alleged that the pretrial detention had been

ordered without any justification and that the authorities of the National Prison Institute had

refused to comply with a court order to hold the accused in Olanchito prison, instead

transferring them to La Tolva maximum-security prison. The application was referred to the

Court of Appeal in Criminal Matters of the Department of Francisco Morazán, which

dismissed it.

36.

On 28 October 2019, an application for habeas corpus was filed with the

Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of Justice in respect of the transfer of the

accused to a maximum-security prison. The purpose of the application was to demand

compliance with two court decisions, one issued by the judge presiding over the Court of

First Instance with National Territorial Jurisdiction and the other by the criminal enforcement

judge, ordering the transfer of the accused to Olanchito prison. It was argued that, although

the authorities of the National Prison Institute claimed that the accused were being held in a

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

6

GE.21-02553

maximum-security prison for their own safety, they were in fact at risk in that facility because

violent incidents involving firearms had occurred there. The application was dismissed.

37.

On 7 November 2019, another application for habeas corpus was filed with the

Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, challenging the lawfulness of the

detention and the competence of the court hearing the case. This application is still pending.

38.

Lastly, on 19 March 2020, an application for habeas corpus was submitted to the

President of the Supreme Court of Justice, requesting that an alternative measure to pretrial

detention be applied in respect of the eight defenders on the grounds of the unlawfulness of

their detention, the fact that the court hearing the case was not competent to do so, the failure

of the Court of Appeal to comply with legally binding time limits and the high level of risk

present in detention facilities as a result of unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, which

have only been exacerbated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose

of the application was to safeguard the eight defenders’ rights to health, life and physical and

psychological integrity.

39.

The source indicates that this final application was filed as a matter of urgency, given

that several other appeals were still pending. On 24 February 2020, the Court of Appeal

received the appeal lodged in November 2019 against the court’s refusal to revoke the

precautionary measure of pretrial detention. A new request for a hearing to review the pretrial

detention was submitted on 11 March 2019. However, these appeals are still pending, despite

the fact that the applicable legal time limit has elapsed. The application for habeas corpus

was dismissed on 13 May 2020.

b.

Prison conditions in Honduras

40.

The source stresses that the criminalization and detention of the eight defenders is a

result of their work in a civic space that is under siege; their work in defence of the

environment places them in a specific group of at-risk persons.

41.

The source claims that this vulnerability is aggravated by the prison authorities’

inability to prevent and control the presence of weapons and acts of violence in prisons, which

led to the declaration of a state of emergency in the prison system in December 2019. This

state of emergency has tightened general conditions for prisoners and their families but has

not improved the security situation or reduced the level of violence.

42.

The source notes that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights has called on the Government to address the deteriorating situation in detention

facilities, reporting that, as at 30 September 2019, there were 21,591 adults deprived of their

liberty in Honduras, with 55 per cent of male and 61 per cent of female detainees being held

in pretrial detention in conditions marred by overcrowding, poor hygiene, poor quality and

limited access to potable water, lack of food, lack of access to health care and prolonged

detention in cells with no access to natural light or air, among other conditions described as

“inhumane” which may, in some cases, amount to torture.

43.

The source explains that the situation in prisons has rapidly deteriorated as a result of

the COVID-19 pandemic. In the national prison, which has more than 7,000 inmates and an

overcrowding rate of 283 per cent, at least 120 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed.

Olanchito prison, where the eight defenders are being held, houses 250 inmates and has

confirmed cases of COVID-19. While prevention and control measures are in place, they

have not been sufficient to prevent the spread of the virus. Pre-existing structural problems,

such as overcrowding and lack of access to potable water, make it difficult to prevent and

control infection. In view of the deteriorating situation, public statements have been made

calling for the adoption of measures to protect fundamental rights based on preventive

measures recommended by human rights mechanisms.

44.

On 16 April 2020, the national mechanism for the prevention of torture visited

Olanchito prison to ascertain what measures had been taken in the context of the COVID-19

pandemic. The conditions in the facility were found to be incompatible with a humane and

dignified life and to increase the risk of infection. In that connection, the mechanism

specifically recommended that an urgent review of the pretrial detention of the eight

defenders be conducted.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

7

45.

The source notes that the precarious situation in prisons has been exacerbated by the

COVID-19 pandemic and argues that there is an urgent need for Honduras to comply with

the recommendations of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to review all cases of pretrial detention in

order to determine whether such detention is strictly necessary in the light of the prevailing

public health emergency, with a view to reducing the prison population through early,

provisional or temporary release measures.

46.

According to the source, the continued detention of the eight defenders puts their lives

and health in real and imminent danger. Every request to have the defenders released has

been dismissed, which has caused them unnecessary suffering in view of the public health

emergency and could have serious consequences for their health and lives.

i.

Category I

47.

The source alleges that Jeremías Martínez Díaz was brought to a police station under

false pretences and subsequently arrested on the basis of a warrant issued in respect of a

different person. The defence shed light on this mistake during the initial hearing by

comparing the photographic register maintained by the National Registry Office against the

photographic albums used to identify the accused. This revealed that the appearance and

identity card number of the second Jeremías Martínez did not match those of Jeremías

Martínez Díaz, the environmental defender. Nonetheless, the judge formally indicted the

latter and ordered that he be placed in pretrial detention, despite the fact that no charges had

been brought against him.

48.

The source indicates that the eight defenders were never summoned to make a

statement before the Public Prosecution Service or before the Court; instead, warrants were

immediately issued for their arrest. They were placed in pretrial detention without the Public

Prosecution Service having proved that any of the requirements for the application of such a

measure had been met and without the judge having stated the reasons for her decision. This

measure was upheld on the basis of unfounded and incoherent arguments, such as: the

existence of a flight risk, despite the fact that the accused had voluntarily agreed to participate

in the judicial process; the possible obstruction of the investigation, despite the fact that the

investigation has already been completed; the risk that the accused might return to the

criminal organization to which they belonged, despite the fact that the same judge had

dismissed the charge of unlawful association; and the severity of the penalty and the offence,

despite the fact that the severity of the penalty does not constitute sufficient grounds for the

imposition of pretrial detention.

49.

The source indicates that the Government has not considered the possibility of

adopting other less detrimental measures, has not demonstrated the proportionality of the

measure imposed and has not periodically reviewed the measure every three months, as

required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ii.

Category II

50.

The source claims that the present case reflects a systematic violation of fundamental

rights. The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs has been violated, since the

management plan for Montaña de Botaderos National Park requires that inclusive public

information processes be conducted with the local communities to ensure that they agree to

and are involved in every stage of the project. Not only did this not happen, but the

communities directly affected by the company’s operations were discredited by State entities

and through media campaigns.

51.

The source also claims a violation of the right to seek, receive and impart information

and ideas, since access to information regarding the granting of the concession, the

environmental licence and the municipal operating permits has been refused repeatedly since

2015.

52.

In the absence of a response to their requests for information and their multiple

complaints, the defenders decided to exercise their other rights in order to demand that the

authorities intervene in the matter, which has direct consequences for their health. It is for

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

8

GE.21-02553

that reason that they began to hold peaceful public protests, which culminated in the setting

up of the camp for the defence of water and life.

53.

The source claims that, as a direct consequence of exercising their rights to association

and peaceful assembly, the eight defenders were violently repressed and criminalized, had

criminal charges brought against them for protesting by organizing sit-ins in public places

and setting up a camp, and accused of unlawful association because they were members of

the Comité Municipal de Bienes Públicos y Comunes de Tocoa.

iii.

Category III

54.

The source alleges that, in the present case, the procedural rights of the eight defenders

were clearly violated the moment the application for prosecution was filed with a court of

special jurisdiction established to hear cases involving organized crime, thus violating their

right to be tried by a natural judge. The judicial decision ordering the pretrial detention was

not accompanied by a reasoned explanation justifying the imposition of that measure. The

court has ignored the defence’s requests for a review of the statements provided by witnesses,

who gave one version of the facts before the court, then, in collusion with the prosecutors,

presented a different version of the facts in a subsequent hearing.

55.

The source claims that the Court of Appeal with National Territorial Jurisdiction has

acted in a discriminatory manner by failing to decide on the appeals submitted to it, despite

having received the relevant case files, in violation of the established legal requirements.

56.

The source notes that the events described above should be considered against a

background of discrimination based on socioeconomic status. The eight defenders have filed

various complaints with the Public Prosecution Service, the first of which was submitted in

2015; none of these complaints has been investigated. However, when the company

submitted a complaint, it took only one month for the Public Prosecution Service to submit

an application for prosecution, request the dismantlement of the camp and issue warrants for

the protesters’ arrest.

57.

According to the source, another element that demonstrates the contempt that the

authorities harbour for the local communities is the complaint submitted regarding the events

of 7 September 2018, which described how a protester had been shot and wounded,

provoking a reaction from the members of the communities present. This event was used as

the basis for the complaint filed by the company and the application for prosecution submitted

four months later; however, no investigation was launched in respect of the injured protester.

58.

In the light of the foregoing, the source considers that articles 7, 19 and 20 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the Covenant

have been violated.

Response from the Government

59.

On 6 August 2020, the Working Group transmitted to the Government the allegations

made by the source and requested that it provide detailed information, by 5 October 2020, on

the case of the eight defenders, clarifying the legal and factual basis for their detention, as

well as its compatibility with the international human rights obligations of Honduras. The

Working Group called on the Government to ensure the detainees’ physical and mental

integrity.

60.

On 6 October 2020, the Government requested an extension of the time limit for its

reply. This request could not be granted because it was submitted after the established

deadline. The Government submitted a late response on 13 October 2020. The Working

Group cannot consider the Government’s reply to have been received within the time limit.

Nonetheless, in accordance with paragraph 16 of its methods of work, the Working Group

adopted the present opinion on the basis of all the information it has obtained.

Discussion

61.

In the absence of a timely response from the Government, the Working Group has

decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of

work.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

9

62.

In determining whether the detention of the eight defenders is arbitrary, the Working

Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary

issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international

requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to

rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (see A/HRC/19/57, para. 68).

i.

Category I

63.

The Working Group notes that, according to the source, the detention of the eight

defenders is arbitrary because it has no legal basis, placing it in category I.

64.

The Working Group recalls that, according to the United Nations, the rule of law is a

principle of governance that “requires … measures to ensure adherence to the principles of

supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the

application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty,

avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency”. 1 States parties must

conform to this standard, since the rule of law is the cornerstone of due process, which is

essential for the protection of human rights. The violation of these principles is reflected in

the different categories of arbitrary detention identified by the Working Group.

65.

Moreover, the Working Group notes that the charge of unlawful association brought

against the eight defenders was dismissed by the judge at the initial hearing because of a lack

of evidence. A dismissal is understood to be a judicial decision by virtue of which a case is

suspended because of a lack of evidence justifying judicial intervention.

66.

The source states that, in order to defend the rights and aspirations of the Guapinol

community, the eight defenders and others formed the Comité Municipal de Bienes Públicos

y Comunes de Tocoa, an association for the defence of human rights. This association is

legally recognized by the State, which issued the relevant authorization through the

competent authorities – the Office of the National Commissioner for Human Rights, the

Ministry of Human Rights and the national mechanism for the protection of human rights

defenders.

67.

The Working Group notes that, despite the foregoing, the authorities continue to treat

the eight defenders as if they were charged with unlawful association and, on that basis, to

hold them in pretrial detention, despite lacking the justification, evidence and, therefore, the

legal grounds to do so, given that it has been acknowledged that the only association to which

the accused belong has been duly recognized by the Government. Nonetheless, the eight

defenders remain in detention, without any legal basis, in violation of article 9 of the

Covenant.2 Moreover, the situation of the eight defenders had not been examined individually

before the pretrial detention order was issued, which constitutes a violation of article 9 (3) of

the Covenant.

68.

Furthermore, there is no legal basis for continuing to hold Jeremías Martínez Díaz,

who, according to the source, is the namesake of another person called Jeremías Martínez, as

demonstrated by the defence lawyers during the initial hearing held on 5 December 2018.

This action violates one of the fundamental obligations of a State party, which is to ensure

that every individual under its jurisdiction is recognized as a person before the law.3 Although

it had been demonstrated that the appearance and identity card number of Jeremías Martínez

did not match those of Jeremías Martínez Díaz, the environmental defender deprived of his

liberty, the judge formally indicted the latter and ordered that he be placed in pretrial

detention, despite the fact that no charges had been brought against him at that time.

69.

In addition to the fact that there is no legal basis for his detention, according to the

source, Jeremías Martínez Díaz was the beneficiary of protective measures granted by the

national mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders. Nonetheless, on 29

1 S/2004/616, para. 6.

2 See opinion No. 8/2020, para. 53. See also opinions No. 9/2011, para. 38; No. 7/2011, paras. 15–17;

No. 3/2011, para. 20; No. 3/2010, para. 6; No. 21/2007, para. 19; and No. 5/2005, para. 19; and

decisions No. 45/1995, para. 6, and No. 61/1993, para. 6. See also general comment No. 35 (2014),

para. 22.

3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 6.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

10

GE.21-02553

November 2018, the police officers tasked with ensuring his safety, acting under false

pretences, brought him to a police station on the pretext that they required him to check some

documents; upon arrival, he was arrested, without being informed of the reason for his arrest.

He was subsequently transferred to the San Pedro Sula Court of First Instance with National

Territorial Jurisdiction, where the judge ordered that he be detained at La Ceiba prison in

Atlántida.

70.

The Working Group therefore concludes, in the light of the opinions that make up its

jurisprudence and in accordance with its working methods, and in keeping with the principles

and elements of the rule of law, that there were insufficient legal grounds for the detention

of the eight defenders. Moreover, the eight defenders continue to be held in pretrial detention

in a high-security prison, in which the security and sanitary conditions are incompatible with

article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the

right to life, liberty and security of person”. The Working Group was unable to identify any

grounds that might justify the pretrial detention of the eight defenders in a maximum-security

prison for convicted prisoners and therefore considers that there is no legal basis for it.

71.

The Working Group, which considers the detention of the eight defenders to be

arbitrary under category I, recalls article 9 of the Covenant, according to which “everyone

has the right to liberty and security of person”. These principles are violated by the current

situation of the detainees: Jeremías Martínez Díaz was placed in judicial detention on 29

November 2018 and in pretrial detention on 5 December 2018; Kelvin Alejandro Romero

Martínez, José Daniel Márquez, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino Cedillo, Ewer

Alexander Cedillo Cruz, Orbín Nahúm Hernández and Arnold Javier Alemán have been

deprived of their liberty since 26 August 2019 and have been in pretrial detention since 1

September 2019.

72.

The Working Group emphasizes that pretrial detention constitutes a grave limitation

of freedom of movement, which is a fundamental and universal human right. It should be

reiterated that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention must be exceptional and

release may be accompanied by measures intended only to ensure representation of the

defendant in judicial proceedings. This interpretation should be universally applied; the

Working Group therefore urges States parties to raise awareness of it among law enforcement

officials with a view to contributing to ending the excessive use of pretrial detention, which,

when unjustified and prolonged, constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It should be

noted that the Human Rights Committee has stated that “pretrial detention should not be

mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without regard to individual

circumstances”.4

73.

In the light of the above considerations, namely, that the charge of unlawful

association – the alleged basis for the pretrial detention – was dismissed and that an

individualized assessment of the grounds for detention was not carried out and the defendants

were placed in pretrial detention automatically, the Working Group finds that the detention

of the eight defenders is arbitrary and falls into category I, since it was not carried out in

accordance with the procedure established by law and it was not accompanied by the

guarantees normally afforded by a State governed by the rule of law.

ii.

Category II

74.

The source alleges that the detention of the eight defenders is arbitrary under category

II, since it results from the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms, including the right to

equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly

and association and freedom to participate in public affairs, all of which are protected by the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.

75.

The source claims that the real reasons for the detention of the eight defenders are

linked to the Government’s efforts to curtail the freedom to promote, protect and exercise the

right to participate in public affairs in the context of international human rights law, which is

protected by the Constitution. For the Working Group, it has been demonstrated that the

organization represented by the eight detainees not only claims to be an organization that

4 General comment No. 35, para. 38.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

11

works to defend and ensure the enjoyment of the human rights of Honduran citizens,

including their environmental rights, but has been recognized as such by the competent

Honduran authorities. There are therefore no legal grounds for labelling this organization as

“part of an organized criminal gang”. It follows that the members of this organization cannot

be described as forming part of an organized criminal group.

76.

This situation prompts the Working Group to reaffirm that the work of human rights

defenders is fundamental to the strengthening of democracy. The obstacles and restrictions

faced by environmental human rights defenders have been of particular interest to the

Working Group5 and the Human Rights Council. The latter recently adopted a resolution

recognizing the importance of environmental human rights defenders and their protection, in

which it expressed grave concern at their situation around the world, strongly condemned all

violations or abuses against environmental human rights defenders by State and non-State

actors and stressed that such acts may violate international law and undermine sustainable

development at the local, national, regional and international levels.6

77.

The Working Group recalls article 25 of the Covenant and the authoritative

interpretation of that article by the Human Rights Committee, according to which positive

measures must be taken to ensure the full, effective and equal enjoyment of participation

rights, inter alia, through inclusive, meaningful and non-discriminatory processes and

mechanisms.7

78.

The Working Group emphasizes that international human rights instruments and

mechanisms recognize the right of all persons to participate fully in and effectively influence

public decision-making processes that concern them. To ensure full, effective and equal

participation in political and public affairs, participation mechanisms and processes must

adhere to certain principles. Firstly, participation mechanisms should be established by law8

and all stakeholders should have access to information in a timely and transparent manner,

which requires State authorities to make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and

practical access to such information.9 Participation mechanisms and processes should be

adequately resourced, non-discriminatory, inclusive and designed in such a way that all

stakeholders, including the most marginalized groups, have the opportunity to express their

views. The Working Group reiterates that public participation rights include the right to be

consulted at every stage of the drafting of laws and the formulation of policies, the right to

express views and criticism and the right to submit proposals to improve the functioning and

inclusiveness of all State institutions.10

79.

In the present case, community organizations have petitioned the various government

agencies responsible for granting mining concessions and protecting the environment on

numerous occasions since 2015. In 2016, they filed criminal complaints with the Public

Prosecution Service but never received a response. This led to resistance from the local

communities, which they demonstrated by voicing their complaints and objections,

mobilizing in defence of the territory in question and sharing information about the situation

through various media. These activities were carried out peacefully and, as such, enjoyed

special protection under international human rights law.11 The exercise of these rights, which

are enshrined in the Covenant, was restricted for the eight defenders, who were prosecuted

for their actions. In the present case, the Working Group does not consider that an analysis

was conducted to determine whether the sole grounds on which articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2)

of the Covenant allow for the restriction of these rights, namely, to ensure respect for the

rights or reputations of others or to protect national security, public order, or public health or

5 Opinion No. 3/2020.

6 See Human Rights Council resolution 40/11.

7 A/HRC/27/29, para. 12, and general comment No. 25 (1996), paras. 12 and 26–27. See also

A/HRC/27/51, para. 61, and A/HRC/23/36, para. 24.

8 General comment No. 25, para. 5.

9 See general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 19.

10 See the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Declaration on the Right and

Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally

Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 8; see also A/HRC/13/23, paras. 31–33

and 52.

11 On the right to peaceful assembly, see general comment No. 37 (2020).

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

12

GE.21-02553

morals, actually applied. Moreover, it should be reiterated that a heightened standard of

protection and detention review applies in cases where freedom of expression and opinion

appear to have been restricted, particularly when such violations involve human rights

defenders.12

80.

The detention of the eight defenders is related to the exercise of rights protected by

the Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular the right to

freedom of opinion, expression and assembly, as described above, in violation of the

guarantees enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the

Covenant.

81.

In addition, the source claims that the right to seek, receive and impart information

and ideas of all kinds has been violated, insofar as, since 2015, the authorities have officially

and repeatedly refused access to information on the granting of the concession, the

environmental licence and the municipal operating permits to the mining company.

82.

Moreover, the source claims that the detention of the eight defenders, insofar as it

results from the repression described above, constitutes a violation of article 25 of the

Covenant. The source insists that the eight defenders were detained solely because of their

activities in defence of the right to water in the face of an allegedly illegal mining project

operating in Montaña de Botaderos Carlos Escaleras Mejía National Park and because of

their opposition to the Government’s decision to grant a mining concession in a protected

area, the conservation of which is essential for the preservation of a healthy environment for

the local community, which is also opposed to the aforementioned project.

83.

For the Working Group, it is important to point out that freedom of information

includes the right to have access to information held by public bodies; this is an integral part

of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, as recognized in General Assembly

resolution 59 of 14 December 1946 and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, which provides that the fundamental right to freedom of expression includes the right

“to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of

frontiers”. Freedom of information has also been enshrined as a corollary of freedom of

expression in other international instruments, notably the Covenant and the American

Convention on Human Rights.

84.

According to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups

and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others,

to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights, and to draw public

attention to the observance of human rights.13 The source has demonstrated that the eight

defenders were detained for exercising the rights enshrined in that Declaration by promoting

democratic participation and combating the violation of the environmental rights of their

community. The Working Group has determined that detaining individuals on the basis of

their activities as human rights defenders is a violation of their right to equality before the

law and to the equal protection of the law under article 7 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and article 26 of the Covenant.14 The Working Group notes that the principles

described above are long-standing fundamental principles in the area of the protection of

human rights and that their violation renders the detention of the eight human rights defenders

arbitrary under category II. The Working Group will refer this case to the Special Rapporteur

on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation

of human rights defenders.

iii

Category III

85.

In the light of its findings under category II, namely, that the detention resulted from

the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association, and

12 See opinions No. 88/2017; No. 57/2017, para. 46; No. 41/2017, para. 95; No. 62/2012, para. 39; No.

54/2012, para. 29; and No. 64/2011, para. 20.

13 Articles 1 and 6 (c). See also General Assembly resolution 74/146, para. 12.

14 Opinions No. 45/2019, No. 44/2019, No. 9/2019, No. 46/2018, No. 45/2018, No. 36/2018, No.

35/2018, No. 79/2017 and No. 75/2017.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

13

political participation, the Working Group considers that there are no grounds for a trial.

However, since a trial has taken place, and in view of the claims made by the source, the

Working Group will proceed to analyse whether, in the course of the judicial proceedings,

the fundamental components of a fair, independent and impartial trial were respected.

86.

The Working Group reaffirms that the right to due process and to a fair and impartial

trial is a fundamental basis of democracy and must be guaranteed to all persons in both civil

and criminal cases. Legal institutions and the rule of law are rooted in the effective protection

of all human rights and in free and easy access to the administration of justice, which must

be provided by all competent courts. Such courts must also be independent and impartial and

respect the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, non-discrimination and

equality before the law.

87.

According to the Human Rights Committee, which is competent to authoritatively

interpret the meaning and scope of application of article 14 of the Covenant, the right to a

fair trial means the right to a “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and

impartial tribunal established by law”.15 This right is applicable to all legal proceedings and

must be guaranteed and implemented in all States parties to the Covenant, regardless of their

legal traditions and their domestic law.

88.

This right is inextricably linked to the mandate of the Working Group and is

established in the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Code

of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials; the Body of Principles for the Protection of All

Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; the United Nations Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules); the Guidelines

on the Role of Prosecutors; and the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. It is also

concisely expressed in article 26 of the Covenant, which states that “all persons are equal

before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law”.

89.

The Working Group has established that detentions are arbitrary and fall into category

III when they are imposed in total or partial non-observance of the international norms

relating to the right to a fair trial, as established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and other relevant international instruments adopted by Members States of the United

Nations. This position is supported by the Working Group’s jurisprudence, according to

which any person arrested and detained must be brought before a judge within 48 hours of

arrest, and any further delay must be absolutely exceptional and warranted in the

circumstances.16 It is not sufficient to bring the detained person before a prosecution body,

since oversight of the detention must be carried out by a judicial authority with the necessary

independence to review its legality.17

90.

Moreover, the Working Group notes that, according to the allegations made by the

source, the eight defenders were brought before a court of special jurisdiction competent to

try cases involving organized crime, placed in pretrial detention and transferred to a

maximum-security prison, despite the fact that the charge of unlawful association brought

against them had been dismissed and that one of the detainees had been granted protection

by human rights mechanisms and had been detained only because of a case of mistaken

identity. It is worrying that the authorities of the National Prison Institute refused to comply

with a court order to hold the accused in Olanchito prison, in the Department of Yoro, instead

transferring them to La Tolva maximum-security prison, where the violent and unhygienic

conditions described above put their safety at risk.

91.

The Working Group emphasizes that, according to the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and the Covenant, the presumption of innocence and the right to be presumed

innocent until proved guilty according to law must be respected; however, these rights were

clearly violated in this case. Furthermore, the source has established, and the Government

15 General comment No. 32, para. 15, in reference to article 14 (1) of the Covenant.

16 Opinions No. 31/2020, para. 45; No. 76/2019, para. 38; No. 56/2019, para. 80; No. 36/2019, para. 36;

No. 26/2019, para. 89; and No. 20/2019, para. 66.

17 Opinions No. 31/2020, para. 45; No. 76/2019, para. 38; No. 56/2019, para. 80; No. 36/2019, para. 36;

No. 26/2019, para. 89; and No. 20/2019, para. 66.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

14

GE.21-02553

has not denied, that the eight defenders were placed in pretrial detention automatically, in

violation of the right to be presumed innocent and article 9 (3) of the Covenant, as interpreted

in general comment No. 35.18 Moreover, the Working Group notes that the duration of the

pretrial detention of the accused far exceeds the time limit prescribed by law and relevant

international provisions, and that the source insists that the judicial decision ordering the

detention was not accompanied by a statement of reasons justifying its imposition.

92.

Furthermore, the Working Group notes that the court failed to respond to the

numerous appeals and applications for habeas corpus filed, particularly when the health of

the accused was at risk as a result of unhygienic conditions and a lack of care. The eight

defenders were deprived of their right to an effective judicial remedy. The Working Group

notes that the remedy of habeas corpus, a mechanism established to protect the right to

personal liberty and ensure its application in accordance with the law, is a fundamental

human right protected by article 2 (3) of the Covenant and article 8 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

93.

In the light of these considerations, the Working Group concludes that the source has

presented a credible and clear case demonstrating a violation of fair trial guarantees in respect

of the eight defenders, including their right to equal treatment before the law, the guarantee

of non-discrimination and the independence of the courts, during the judicial proceedings

instituted against them. For all the above reasons, the Working Group considers the detention

of the eight defenders to be arbitrary under category III.

Disposition

94.

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

The deprivation of liberty of José Daniel Márquez, Kelvin Alejandro Romero

Martínez, José Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, Orbín Nahúm Hernández,

Arnold Javier Alemán, Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz and Jeremías Martínez Díaz,

being in contravention of articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, is arbitrary.

95.

The Working Group requests the Government of Honduras to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of the eight defenders 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 Covenant.

96.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the eight defenders immediately and accord

them an enforceable right to compensation and adequate reparation for the violation of their

rights, in accordance with international law.19

97.

In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in places

of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure

the immediate release of the eight defenders.

98.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the eight

defenders and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their

rights.

99.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to: (a) the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and

expression; (b) the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; (c) the

Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment; and (d) the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, for

appropriate action.

18 See opinion No. 1/2018.

19 Deliberation No. 10 (A/HRC/45/16, annex I), in which the Working Group identifies the

comprehensive reparations to which victims of arbitrary deprivation of liberty are entitled.

A/HRC/WGAD/2020/85

GE.21-02553

15

100.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

101.

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 José Daniel Márquez, Kelvin Alejandro Romero Martínez, José

Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, Orbín Nahúm Hernández, Arnold Javier Alemán,

Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz and Jeremías Martínez Díaz have been released;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to José Daniel

Márquez, Kelvin Alejandro Romero Martínez, José Abelino Cedillo, Porfirio Sorto Cedillo,

Orbín Nahúm Hernández, Arnold Javier Alemán, Ewer Alexander Cedillo Cruz and Jeremías

Martínez Díaz;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the eight

defenders’ 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 Honduras with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

102.

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.

103.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-

mentioned information within six months of the date of 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.

104.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has 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.20

[Adopted on 26 November 2020]

20 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.