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.22-04458 (E) 230822 240822
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-second session, 15–19 November 2021
Opinion No. 49/2021 concerning Luis Humberto de la Sotta Quiroga,
Ruperto Molina Ramírez, Abraham Américo Suárez Ramos, Adrián
Leonardo de Gouveia de Sosa, Ricardo Efraín González Torres, Carlos
Gustavo Macsotay Rauseo and Elías José Noriega Manrique
(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)
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,1 on 12 March 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Luis Humberto de la Sotta Quiroga, Ruperto Molina Ramírez, Abraham Américo
Suárez Ramos, Adrián Leonardo de Gouveia de Sosa, Ricardo Efraín González Torres,
Carlos Gustavo Macsotay Rauseo and Elías José Noriega Manrique. The Government replied
to the communication on 10 June 2021. 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);
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
General Assembly
Distr.: General
25 March 2022
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
2
GE.22-04458
(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,
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.
The source sent the Working Group information on the cases of seven Venezuelan
citizens who are members of the armed forces of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Their
names and ranks are Captain Luis Humberto de la Sotta Quiroga, Lieutenant Colonel Ruperto
Molina Ramírez, Major Abraham Américo Suárez Ramos, Major Adrián Leonardo de
Gouveia de Sosa, Major Ricardo Efraín González Torres, Captain Carlos Gustavo Macsotay
Rauseo and Commander Elías José Noriega Manrique.
5.
The officers were arrested in late May 2018 at military bases in different parts of the
country and at the Ministry of People’s Power for Defence. These arrests were carried out in
connection with Operation Armageddon. The source has described the grounds for the
arrests, the manner in which they were conducted, facts related to each arrest and the
situations of the various detainees.
6.
The whereabouts of some of the arrested officers are currently unknown. They may
be at the headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Caracas
or at the Ramo Verde National Centre for Military Detainees in Los Teques, Miranda state.
Case of Captain Luis Humberto de la Sotta Quiroga
7.
According to the source, Captain de la Sotta Quiroga was arrested on 18 May 2018 at
Bahía de Turiamo navy station in Aragua state. Eight heavily armed men from the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence arrived at the naval base by helicopter, grabbed him
by the arms and forced him into the helicopter, which took him to Caracas. They did not
show him an arrest warrant or allow him to call his family or lawyers. His immediate superior
accompanied him to the headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence in Boleíta.
8.
Four days after his arrest, Captain de la Sotta Quiroga was brought before the courts
without his family being informed. A public defence lawyer was assigned to him. After the
hearing, he was held incommunicado, in solitary confinement, for 32 days, during which time
he was not allowed to make a single telephone call to family members or a public defence
lawyer and was not allowed to receive visits from them.
9.
The file containing the arrest warrant was opened on 20 May 2018, when the judge
overseeing Military Due Process Court No. 1 ordered Captain de la Sotta Quiroga to be
transferred to the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence. The warrant was
issued in connection with crimes against military decorum, treason, instigating a rebellion
and conspiracy to mutiny, all of which are covered by the Organic Code of Military Justice.
10.
During the first three days of questioning, Captain de la Sotta Quiroga was forced to
wear handcuffs, a blindfold and a hood and was suffocated with plastic bags, beaten, sprayed
with tear gas, denied access to food and not allowed to go to the bathroom. On 21 May 2018,
a report on him was drawn up by the police forensics unit of the Bureau for Scientific,
Criminal and Forensic Investigations and a forensic doctor examined him at the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence. According to the doctor, he was in good health but
showed clear signs of having been tortured.
11.
At his arraignment hearing, he was not permitted to receive assistance either from a
lawyer of his choice or a family member, and a public defence lawyer was assigned to him.
When he appeared, bloodied and wounded, before Military Due Process Court No. 1, he
stated that he had been tortured. Despite this, the judge decided to deprive him of his liberty,
stating that such matters did not fall within her remit but within that of the Public Prosecution
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
3
Service, which, according to the source, never initiated an investigation, thereby violating
article 265 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
12.
He was detained at the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleíta
while the preliminary hearing took place. He spent 32 days in isolation in a dark cell, sleeping
on the floor, relieving himself in plastic bags and eating off the floor. He was held
incommunicado. He then spent three months in a locked and overcrowded cell, receiving a
small amount of food through a window. He had no access to sunlight or to any books, family
photographs or religious images. He was not permitted to call his family or engage in any
physical or mental activity. An artificial light was left on day and night. He was not allowed
to go to the bathroom or wash himself except on Saturdays, prior to family visits that lasted
three hours. This situation continued until September 2018, at which point he was allowed to
use the bathroom every day.
13.
The public defence lawyer visited him once and advised him to plead guilty in order
to avoid a trial. However, Captain de la Sotta Quiroga refused and pleaded not guilty. The
public prosecutor’s office was unable to present any evidence against him.
14.
Six months after his arrest, the Court agreed to appoint a private lawyer to represent
him but this lawyer did not have access to the complete case file. Among the violations of
due process that took place, the source highlights the fact that the preliminary hearing was
held on 20 December 2019, seven months after the arraignment hearing, which violates the
Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which the preliminary hearing must be
held no fewer than 15 days and no more than 20 days after the arraignment hearing.
15.
As mentioned above, Captain de la Sotta Quiroga was locked in a windowless
basement in conditions that violated his human rights. Complaints were filed with the Public
Prosecution Service and the Ombudsman’s Office but no response was received. An
application for amparo was filed to request the curtailment of the pretrial detention imposed,
as 2 years and 9 months had passed without a trial being held and his state of health was very
fragile. The request was processed in October 2020, with all the necessary examinations
being performed by a forensic doctor. This information should be contained in the case file,
although the defence lawyers do not yet have access to the proceedings.
Case of Lieutenant Colonel Ruperto Molina Ramírez
16.
On 19 May 2018, Lieutenant Colonel Molina Ramírez was in a meeting with the base
commander when he was arrested by a group of agents from the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence. The agents told him to accompany them to his office and
room, where they seized his personal computer, mobile telephones and camera. He was
arrested without being informed of the reasons for his arrest, without being shown an arrest
warrant and without any explanation. He was then transferred to the facilities of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Caracas.
17.
The following day, at the request of National Military Prosecutor No. 9, Military Due
Process Court No. 1 issued an arrest warrant charging Lieutenant Colonel Molina Ramírez
with crimes against military decorum, treason, instigating a rebellion and conspiracy to
mutiny, all of which are offences under the Organic Code of Military Justice.
18.
For 44 days, he was held incommunicado, forced to wear handcuffs and a blindfold,
and subjected to torture and threats. He spent the first four days blindfolded and handcuffed
in an isolation cell measuring two metres squared with no light, ventilation or access to the
bathroom or washing facilities. His food was thrown on the floor. Day and night, he was
tortured by being mechanically asphyxiated, given electric shocks and hung from a rope until
he was badly injured. This continued until the day of his arraignment hearing. At the hearing,
he was informed of the charges against him and assigned a military public defender, who
presented the judge with a written complaint concerning the torture and violations to which
Lieutenant Colonel Molína Ramirez had been subjected since his arrest. However, the judge
stated that such matters did not fall within her area of competence. No access was granted to
the case file either before or after the hearing.
19.
Lieutenant Colonel Molína Ramirez was taken back to the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence and tortured for 40 more days while being held totally
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
4
GE.22-04458
incommunicado. He was tortured for five months so that he would incriminate himself,
although there was no evidence linking him to the offences with which he had been charged.
Lieutenant Colonel Molina Ramírez remains in custody and his trial has been suspended.
Case of Major Abraham Américo Suárez Ramos
20.
On 21 May 2018, Major Suárez Ramos was arrested at the Officers’ Training
Academy of the National Guard in Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas, by his immediate superior, who
entered his quarters while he was sleeping. He was not informed that he would be arrested or
shown an arrest warrant.
21.
Major Suárez Ramos was handcuffed and taken away in a jeep belonging to the
commando action group of the Bolivarian National Guard. He was then transferred to a
vehicle belonging to the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, in which there
were four armed men wearing hoods and uniforms. They placed a black sack over his head,
threatened him, accused him of treason and beat him during the journey without telling him
where he was being taken.
22.
Major Suárez Ramos was subsequently informed that he was being arrested in
connection with his involvement in the alleged coup d’état that took place after the 2018
elections, which constituted treason. The judge of Military Due Process Court No. 1 issued
an arrest warrant after the actual arrest had taken place. From the moment of Major Suárez
Ramos’ arrest, he was tortured, suspended from handcuffs fastened behind his back, beaten
with boards all over his body, particularly on the testicles, and suffocated with plastic bags.
The place was flooded with white light and loud music, which both unsettled him and
drowned out his screams. He was kept in handcuffs for eight days, causing injuries to his
wrists and swelling in his hands. He was forced to soil himself and was prevented from going
to the bathroom to wash. During the beatings, his face was always covered so that he would
not be able to identify his attackers.
23.
On the fifth day, he was allowed to make a one-minute supervised call to inform his
family that he was in detention and would be brought before a court. He did not receive any
visits or have access to a lawyer until after his appearance before the military courts on 28
May 2018. According to the source, he was taken to the arraignment hearing in dirty clothes,
bearing marks and injuries that had clearly been caused by torture. Major Suárez Ramos’
lawyer was not given access to the case file before the hearing. When the lawyer submitted
a written complaint concerning his client’s torture, the judge stated that such matters did not
fall within her area of competence, although she did accept the communication. At the
hearing, Major Suárez Ramos was charged with treason, instigating a military rebellion,
conspiracy to mutiny and crimes against military decorum, all of which are military offences
under the Organic Code of Military Justice.
24.
Major Suárez Ramos was held at the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence in Boleíta, Caracas, for 10 days before being transferred to Ramo Verde military
prison on the instructions of Military Due Process Court No. 1. He spent 8 months in the
prison and was then returned, without a court order, to Boleíta, where he spent a further 6
months in prison. Major Suárez Ramos spent 15 days in a military hospital following a
suicide attempt. He was then returned to Ramo Verde, where he remains to this date. The
source states that Major Suárez Ramos’ lawyer visited him in Ramo Verde and filed a report
stating that his detention was unlawful. However, this complaint was not acknowledged.
25.
According to the source, the public prosecutor’s office charged Major Suárez Ramos
without any evidence other than a report from the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence stating that he had been planning a coup d’état. Moreover, he was not brought
before the competent court within the statutory time limit after his arrest. He did not have an
adequate defence and was tortured in order to make him plead guilty. All the above
constitutes a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Currently, Major
Suárez Ramos remains in custody and his trial has been suspended.
Case of Major Adrián Leonardo de Gouveia de Sosa
26.
Major de Gouveia de Sosa was arrested on the regional highway on 20 May 2018 by
agents of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service and the Directorate General of Military
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
5
Counter-Intelligence. The agents did not show him an arrest warrant or explain why they
were arresting him. They took him out of his vehicle and forcibly transferred him to the
headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, where he was
tortured for five days before being brought before a court.
27.
The source notes that an arrest warrant, charging him with treason and rebellion, was
issued belatedly by Military Due Process Court No. 1. He is currently being detained at the
Ramo Verde National Centre for Military Detainees and his trial has been suspended.
Case of Major Ricardo Efraín González Torres
28.
Major González Torres, with the consent and in the presence of his superiors, was
arrested in his room at the Air Force General Command on 20 May 2018 by four officers of
the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence. The officers, who were armed,
violently searched his room, his vehicle and his office without finding any evidence of
criminal wrongdoing. He was taken in handcuffs to the headquarters of the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleíta without being shown an arrest warrant
and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest.
29.
Military Due Process Court No. 1 belatedly issued an arrest warrant charging him with
treason and rebellion. Major González Torres was held incommunicado and assisted by a
military public defender, who was not given access to the case file prior to the arraignment
hearing at the Military Criminal Court on 29 May 2018. At the hearing, he was notified of
the charges, but the judge refused to register his complaint of torture on the grounds that she
was not competent to receive it. Due process was violated because Major González Torres,
under threat of death, was coerced into signing an incriminating statement drafted by the
same agents of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence. He is currently
being held at the Ramo Verde National Centre for Military Detainees and his trial has been
suspended.
Cases of Captain Carlos Gustavo Macsotay Rauseo and Commander Elías José Noriega
Manrique
30.
Captain Macsotay Rauseo and Commander Noriega Manrique were arrested at the
office of strategic operational command of the Ministry of People’s Power for Defence on
17 May 2018. The arrests were carried out by agents of the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence, who entered the room at the end of a meeting between the two men and
their superior. They were transferred to the headquarters of the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleíta Sur. They were not shown an arrest warrant or
granted access to a lawyer and their families received no prior notification.
31.
On 22 May 2018, five days after their arrest, orders for their pretrial detention, issued
by the judge overseeing Military Due Process Court No. 1, were added to the case file. At
the arraignment hearing, they were charged with treason, instigating a rebellion, instigating
mutiny and crimes against military decorum, all of which are offences under the Organic
Code of Military Justice.
32.
At the hearing, the use of pretrial detention was denounced as inappropriate and
unlawful, but the judge nonetheless issued an order authorizing the application of this
measure. Complaints were submitted concerning acts of torture and cruel and inhuman
treatment, including mechanical asphyxiation, beatings, kicks, electric shocks and a five-
month period of confinement and isolation in a cell measuring two metres squared that was
kept locked all day, with no access to a bathroom. However, these complaints were ignored
by the judge and the military prosecutor. On 4 February 2019, Captain Macsotay Rauseo and
Commander Noriega Manrique were transferred to the Ramo Verde National Centre for
Military Detainees.
33.
In order to ensure that the aforementioned officers remained in detention, the public
prosecutor’s office presented as evidence the testimony of an officer who had been classed
as a deserter since 11 July 2018 by the Office of National Assistant Military Prosecutor No.
9 of the Navy. However, both the accused parties remain in detention and their trials have
been suspended.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
6
GE.22-04458
34.
The source argues that their deprivation of liberty violates the Constitution and
national law, since articles 43, 44, 45, 46 and 49 of the Constitution establish that the State
is responsible for protecting persons in detention and their right to be presumed innocent.
However, these rights are being violated by judicial bodies to serve their own interests. In
addition, arbitrary detention has taken place and the judicial proceedings have been marred
by irregularities, contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and
14 of the Covenant. Lastly, the source believes that these cases are bound up with the State’s
political interests.
Response from the Government
35.
On 12 March 2021, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the
Government. The Working Group requested the Government to provide detailed information
on the case of Messrs. de la Sotta Quiroga, Molina Ramírez, Suárez Ramos, de Gouveia de
Sosa, González Torres, Macsotay Rauseo and Noriega Manrique by 11 May 2021. The
Working Group also called upon the Government to ensure their physical and mental
integrity.
36.
On 10 May 2021, the Government requested an extension of this deadline and was
given until 11 June 2021 to reply. The Government submitted its response on 10 June 2021.
37.
The Government states that Messrs. de la Sotta Quiroga, Molina Ramírez, Suárez
Ramos, de Gouveia de Sosa, González Torres, Macsotay Rauseo and Noriega Manrique are
citizens of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and serving military personnel who have
been deprived of their liberty in connection with criminal proceedings related to their alleged
involvement in the commission of crimes against military decorum, treason and instigating a
rebellion, which are punishable under Venezuelan law. The offences were allegedly
committed as part of a military operation known as Operation Armageddon, the purpose of
which was to prevent the presidential elections from taking place on 20 May 2018 and to
assassinate the Constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
38.
The Government also informs the Working Group that, as the accused persons are
serving military personnel, the investigations were carried out by the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence in line with article 113 of the Organic Code of Criminal
Procedure and articles 3, 4 and 5 of the general regulations of the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence. The Government has reproduced these legal provisions word
for word in its response. The Government states that the Military Prosecutor’s Office sent
petitions for the arrests of the aforementioned officers, dated 19 May 2018, to Military Due
Process Court No. 1 in Caracas. The petitions concerned the alleged commission of the
aforementioned military offences, all of which are punishable under the Organic Code of
Military Justice.
39.
The Government reiterates that the warrants for the officers’ arrests were, in all cases,
requested by the Public Prosecution Service (i.e. the Military Prosecutor’s Office) as a
guarantee of lawfulness and in exercise of its entitlement to initiate criminal proceedings in
accordance with the law. The warrants against the officers who are the subject of this opinion
were granted by Military Due Process Courts No. 1 and No. 2 in Caracas, in accordance with
article 236 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. The officers are charged with crimes
against military decorum, treason, and instigating rebellion and mutiny, in accordance with
the Organic Code of Military Justice. All the arrest warrants were issued with an official
number and in full compliance with the law.
40.
The Government states that, in compliance with these warrants, Captain de la Sotta
Quiroga, Lieutenant Colonel Molina Ramírez, Lieutenant Commander Macsotay Rauseo and
Frigate Lieutenant Noriega Manrique were arrested on 21 May 2018. Furthermore, in
compliance with the above-mentioned warrants, Major de Gouveia de Sousa, Major Suárez
Ramos and Major González Torres were arrested on 23 May 2018, 27 May 2018 and 28 May
2018, respectively.
41.
The Government reiterates to the Working Group that, when the arrests took place,
all the above-mentioned officers were informed of the reasons for the arrest and their rights,
as stated in the records that they signed at the time.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
7
42.
The Government states that, on 22 May 2018, Navy Captain Luis Humberto de la
Sotta Quiroga, Lieutenant Colonel Ruperto Molina Ramírez, Lieutenant Commander Carlos
Gustavo Macsotay Rauseo and Frigate Lieutenant Elías José Noriega Manrique were brought
before Military Due Process Court No. 1 in Caracas for their oral arraignment hearing, as
provided for in article 236 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. At the hearing, they
were all represented by public military defenders, apart from Frigate Lieutenant Elías José
Noriega Manrique, who was represented by a private lawyer. In these proceedings, the Court
decided to authorize the measure of pretrial detention against the accused persons.
43.
Major Adrián Leonardo de Gouveia de Sousa, supported by a private lawyer of his
choice, was given an oral arraignment hearing before Military Due Process Court No. 1 in
Caracas on 24 May 2018. The Court also authorized the measure of pretrial detention against
him, in accordance with articles 236, 237 and 238 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
44.
On 27 May 2018, Major Abraham Américo Suárez Ramos was brought before
Military Due Process Court No. 1 in Caracas for an oral arraignment hearing, which he
attended with his lawyer. At the hearing, the pretrial detention order was authorized in
accordance with articles 236, 237 and 238 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
45.
Lastly, the Government states that, on 29 May 2018, Major Ricardo Efraín González
Torres, accompanied by a lawyer of his choice, attended an oral arraignment hearing before
Military Due Process Court No. 2 in Caracas. At the hearing, the Court authorized the
measure of pretrial detention, in accordance with articles 236, 237 and 238 of the Organic
Code of Criminal Procedure.
46.
The Government argues that the defendants were free to make whatever statements
they deemed necessary for their defence but none of them raised the claims that have been
submitted to the Working Group before the judge overseeing the case. Moreover, the
Government has provided a list of the ways in which the accused parties were able to freely
appoint and dismiss lawyers of their choice, whenever they wished, in order to exercise their
rights. This is supported by information showing the number of times that the defendants
changed or chose a lawyer.
47.
The Government states that, on 11 December 2018, the preliminary hearing was held
before the court seized of the case, at which the charges brought by the Military Prosecutor’s
Office against the seven accused persons at the oral arraignment hearing were fully admitted.
The Court authorized the measure of pretrial detention and ordered that they stand trial in
accordance with article 314 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
48.
On 14 December 2020, the Military Appeal Court declared admissible the appeal filed
by the defence lawyers on behalf of some of the accused and overturned the decision handed
down at the preliminary hearing. Consequently, it ordered that the proceedings be reviewed
at a new preliminary hearing, which was tentatively scheduled for 29 June 2021.
49.
The Government informs the Working Group that the accused parties are still being
detained at the facilities of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence and at
the Ramo Verde National Centre for Military Detainees in Los Teques in the state of Miranda.
Their detention conditions, including their access to sanitary facilities, are consistent with the
applicable international standards, as confirmed during visits by officials from the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights accredited in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, who held confidential interviews with the detainees.
50.
The Government has submitted a list of the occasions on which the detainees have
received medical treatment. It denies that they have been subjected to torture of any kind and
states that their detentions are lawful and do not fall under any of the categories of arbitrary
detention identified by the Working Group. The Government maintains that it has not acted
against them in a discriminatory manner and that their lawyers have had access to the case
files and have been able to pursue the remedies that they have deemed appropriate. The
Government states that the delay in processing the case is due to its complexity and the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.
51.
The Government notes that the source expects the Working Group to act as a
mechanism for reviewing the evidence supporting the decision to deprive the military officers
mentioned in its communication of their liberty and recalls that, as the Human Rights
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
8
GE.22-04458
Committee has already stated, it is incumbent upon the courts of the State party to review
facts and evidence in each case, or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be
shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest
error or denial of justice.2 For these reasons, the Government invites the Working Group to
dismiss the present case.
52.
In conclusion, the Government asserts that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
complies with its international obligations and cooperates with the Working Group and other
special procedures of the Human Rights Council within the framework of their respective
mandates and the Code of Conduct approved in the resolution.
Additional comments from the source
53.
In its rejoinder, the source points out that the State has not provided any evidence to
support the claims made in its submission. The source also states that the aforementioned
persons were arrested without a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for their
arrests. In addition, the dates of the arrests cited by the State are incorrect.
Discussion
54.
The Working Group thanks both parties for their cooperation.
55.
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.3 In the present
case, the Government replied to the Working Group within the period of time granted.
56.
Firstly, the Working Group would like to respectfully address the Government’s claim
that the source expects the Working Group to act as a mechanism for reviewing the evidence
supporting the decision to deprive the military officers mentioned in its communication of
their liberty. In connection with this claim, the Government cites a decision of the Human
Rights Committee4 and invites the Working Group to dismiss the case for these reasons.
57.
However, the Working Group, in accordance with its methods of work and Human
Rights Council resolution 42/22, is not prevented from considering individual
communications on cases of arbitrary detention in any State Member of the United Nations.
The Working Group recalls that it has consistently refrained from taking the place of the
national judicial authorities or acting as a kind of supranational tribunal when it is urged to
review the application of national law by the judiciary.5 It is outside of its mandate to reassess
the sufficiency of the evidence or to deal with errors of law allegedly committed by the
domestic court.6
58.
The Government is invited to consider the position of the Human Rights Council in
the light of the Working Group’s jurisprudence,7 which indicates that the Working Group is
indeed entitled to assess the general proceedings of the courts and the law itself to determine
whether they meet international standards.
Category I
59.
The Working Group has received information from the source that Messrs. de la Sotta
Quiroga, Molina Ramírez, Suárez Ramos, de Gouveia de Sosa, González Torres, Macsotay
Rauseo and Noriega Manrique, who are citizens of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and
serving members of the Venezuelan armed forces, were arrested during the second half of
May 2018, either at military bases in different parts of the country or at the Ministry of
2 R.A.D.B. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/103/D/1800/2008), para. 7.4.
3 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
4 R.A.D.B. v. Colombia, para. 7.4.
5 See opinion No. 40/2005, para. 22.
6 See, for example, opinions No. 5/2021, No. 60/2019, No. 58/2019, No. 49/2019, No. 16/2017 and No.
15/2017.
7 Opinions No. 30/2017, para. 26; No. 33/2015, para. 80; and No. 40/2005.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
9
People’s Power for Defence, by agents of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence, sometimes operating in conjunction with other agencies, such as the Bolivarian
Intelligence Service or the Bolivarian National Guard. The persons in question are currently
being held either at the headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence in Caracas or at the Ramo Verde National Centre for Military Detainees in Los
Teques.8
60.
The information makes it clear that force and violence were used to carry out the
arrests and includes descriptions of the distinctive uniforms worn by the agents of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, who, on each occasion, held the barrels
of their guns close to the arrested persons’ heads and threatened to kill them in order to ensure
their obedience.
61.
All the arrests took place without an arrest warrant and without any attempt being
made to explain the reasons for the arrest. The detainees were transferred to unknown and
unidentified locations, where they were held while being subjected to torture and cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment to obtain information regarding what the Government has
called Operation Armageddon. This operation has been defined as an attempted military coup
or a plot concocted by the detainees to disrupt the presidential elections of 20 May 2018 and
assassinate the President in order to prevent his re-election. The source informs the Working
Group that this fits into a pattern of conduct by the authorities, who invoke alleged coups
d’état in order to silence critical voices within the ranks of the military.
62.
In all cases, a backdated arrest warrant, signed after the arraignment hearing by the
judge overseeing Military Due Process Court No. 1, was added to the case files. The Military
Prosecutor’s Office charged the detainees and decided to place them in pretrial detention, a
decision which was later confirmed by the same judges, who systematically refused to receive
the detainees’ complaints of torture on the grounds that they were not competent to do so. In
view of the circumstances, the Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate action.
63.
The aforementioned circumstances have not been properly addressed by the
Government, which has limited itself to enclosing the detainees’ arrest warrants with its
reply. However, these warrants do not prove that the arrests were carried out in accordance
with article 9 (2) of the Covenant, which requires all arrested persons to be informed of the
reasons for their arrest and to be promptly informed of any charges against them. The
information provided to arrested persons must include not only the general legal basis of the
arrest but also enough factual specifics to indicate the nature of the wrongful act and the
substance of the complaint.9 Article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, which provides that arrested
persons must be promptly informed of the nature and cause of the charges against them,10
has also been violated in these cases. The Government cites a national legal provision to
justify the arrests of the seven military personnel who are the subject of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reminds the Government that mere assertions that national
legal procedures have been followed are not sufficient to refute the source’s allegations.11
Furthermore, the authorities must invoke the legal basis for the arrest and apply it to the
circumstances of the case by issuing a reasoned, substantiated arrest warrant.12
64.
While the Working Group takes note of the Government’s assurances that all laws
and procedures in force in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were upheld, it respectfully
insists that arrests must be conducted within the framework of international human rights
law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, to which the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela is a party.
8 The detainees will henceforth be referred to by their names without mention being made of their
military ranks.
9 Opinion No. 25/2018, para. 36; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para.
25.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 31.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 See opinions No. 79/2018, No. 35/2018, No. 93/2017, No. 75/2017, No. 66/2017 and No. 46/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
10
GE.22-04458
65.
On the basis of the source’s information, the Working Group has established that the
seven military officers have been detained for more than 3 years now under a pretrial
detention order. According to the Government, this is because an appeal filed by the accused
persons that had already been granted has not been resolved and because the conduct of the
trial has been hindered owing to its complexity and the number of people involved.
66.
The Working Group does not consider these explanations to be sufficient and points
out that deprivation of liberty is not only a question of legal definition, but also of fact. As
the Human Rights Committee has established in paragraph 18 of its general comment No. 35
(2014), such detention must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the
light of the circumstances and reassessed as it extends in time. It must not be punitive in
nature and should be based on the individual assessment of each individual.13 None of these
requirements has been met by the Government.
67.
Moreover, in the present case, the legal safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of
liberty set out in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the
Covenant have been violated. Under these articles, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law after his
or her arrest. Furthermore, as reiterated by the Working Group in its jurisprudence and
established by the Human Rights Committee, any delay must be absolutely exceptional and
justified by the circumstances.14
68.
The Working Group recalls that, according to the United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty
to Bring Proceedings Before a Court,15 the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention
before a court is a self-standing human right, the absence of which constitutes a human rights
violation.
69.
The State must guarantee the effective exercise of this fundamental safeguard of
personal liberty in all situations of deprivation of liberty, without delay or exception, since it
is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.16 This right, which is in fact a
peremptory norm of international law, applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty, including
not only to detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings but also to situations of
detention under administrative and other fields of law, including military detention, security
detention and detention under counter-terrorism measures.17 Moreover, it applies irrespective
of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in the legislation. Any form of
deprivation of liberty on any ground must be subject to effective oversight and control by the
judiciary.
70.
The Government failed to grant any of these guarantees to the seven military detainees
when their cases were being processed. By contrast, as the Government itself has established,
the public prosecutor’s office acted swiftly to order pretrial detention within the space of 48
hours.
71.
The Working Group stresses that, even if it were accepted that the public prosecutor’s
office issued or approved the various arrest warrants against the seven military personnel
who are the subject of the present opinion, this in itself would not allow for an instance of
arbitrary pretrial detention to be declared regular as, in accordance with the Working Group’s
established jurisprudence and practice, the public prosecutor’s office is not considered to be
an independent judicial authority and does not meet the criteria set out in article 9 of the
Covenant. Therefore, the detention was carried out in violation of article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.
72.
Furthermore, the Working Group is persuaded that the pretrial detention of the seven
military officers who are the subject of the present opinion constitutes a violation of the rule
of international law providing that pretrial detention should be a preventive measure of ultima
13 Opinion No. 42/2017, para. 36.
14 See opinions No. 66/2020, No. 60/2020, No. 49/2019, No. 30/2017 and No. 6/2017. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
15 See A/HRC/30/37, annex.
16 A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3.
17 Ibid., annex, para. 47 (a).
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
11
ratio, which means that it should be the exception rather than the rule and should be adopted
only as a last resort, only on an exceptional basis and only for a short duration, that is, for the
shortest possible time.18 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant establishes that release may be subject
to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should
occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.
73.
The Working Group notes that, in all cases, pretrial detention should be an exception
made in the interests of justice and the accused person should be released if there are
measures in place to guarantee that he or she will appear for trial and for execution of the
judgment. It is important to note that, when pretrial detention is unreasonably prolonged, as
in the case of the seven detained military officers, there is all the more reason for the accused
to be released pending trial.
74.
The source reports that the seven military detainees were taken directly to the
headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleíta, Caracas,
and were held incommunicado and disappeared for between four and nine days before
appearing at their first court hearing with a backdated arrest warrant. The Working Group
notes that this serious matter has been brought to the Government’s attention but that it has
not effectively or convincingly addressed or challenged it. The Working Group therefore
concludes that the detainees were subjected to de facto enforced disappearance following
their arrest, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, and stresses that enforced
disappearance is prohibited under international law and constitutes a particularly aggravated
form of arbitrary detention.19 The Working Group has therefore decided to refer the case to
the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
75.
A further claim made by the source, which the Government has not effectively
contested, is that, after the first court hearing, the detainees were held in inhuman conditions
for five months before being transferred to cells shared with other prisoners, where they were
allowed access to a bathroom but not to food. In addition to being held in poor sanitary
conditions and denied all access to medical care, family members, lawyers, outside space and
any kind of recreational activity, the detainees have been held incommunicado for at least 20
days over the course of the last few months and continue to be subjected to psychological
and physical torture.
76.
The source maintains that all the military detainees were subjected to various forms
of torture and ill-treatment on a continual basis. They were all beaten, hung by their wrists
for hours, given electric shocks to the genitals, suffocated with plastic bags, sprayed with tear
gas at close range and strangled with a rope. They were all prevented from going to the
bathroom, deprived of food and water for long periods of time, and forced to eat off the dirty
floor.
77.
The detainees were also subjected to white room torture, which included being held,
without adequate clothing, in areas where cold air was circulating, being exposed to loud
music or bright lights 24 hours per day, being held for days or weeks at a time in cells that
were too small to sit or lie down in and being forced to wear a blindfold for days. None of
the aforementioned citizens have received adequate medical care for their injuries. In view
of these circumstances, the Working Group has decided to refer this case to the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for
consideration and appropriate action.
78.
The Working Group is seriously concerned about the conditions of pretrial detention
endured by the seven military officers who are the subject of the present opinion and about
the judges’ refusal to receive their testimonies on the grounds that they were not legally
competent to rule on them. The Government has not been able to refute these allegations or
contest the claim that it failed to protect the aforementioned citizens against this ill-treatment
and to ensure that they had access to adequate medical treatment for their steadily declining
states of health. The Government has denied that the aforementioned citizens have been
18 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58; see also opinions No. 62/2019, paras. 27–29, and No. 5/2019, para. 26;
and A/HRC/37/6, paras. 118.31–118.33.
19 See opinions No. 13/2020, No. 11/2020, No. 6/2020 and No. 5/2020; and Human Rights Committee,
general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
12
GE.22-04458
subjected to torture or that they lacked the necessary medical care. However, it has not
submitted any actual evidence to support these claims.
79.
The Working Group stresses to the Government that torture is a serious violation of
human rights, the absolute prohibition of which is established in the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela became a party to in 1985 and ratified in 1991. The
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention in
2011 and has expressed its willingness to ratify it. However, the Working Group notes with
concern that the Government has made no mention of any investigation being initiated. The
Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.
80.
The detainees’ lack of access to medical care seriously contravenes the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules). The Working Group has therefore also decided to refer the present case to
the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health, for appropriate action.
81.
The Government has not presented any compelling evidence to rebut the source’s
allegations that the detainees were not arrested in flagrante delicto, were not all allowed to
engage private lawyers (in some cases, they were forced to accept a public defender) and
were not informed of the charges against them until they appeared at a preliminary hearing
on charges of treason, instigating a military rebellion, conspiracy to mutiny and crimes
against military decorum. Rather, the Government has claimed that they were arrested by
intelligence agents, on the orders of the Military Prosecutor’s Office, and were subsequently
brought before Military Due Process Courts No. 1 and No. 2 in Caracas with warrants that
were backdated, an accusation which the Government has not denied.
82.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the detention of the seven
military officers violated article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant and that there was no legal
basis for the Venezuelan authorities’ decision to order the detention, rendering it arbitrary
under category I of its methods of work.
Category III
83.
With regard to category III, which concerns observance of due process, the Working
Group notes that criminal proceedings were instituted against the seven individuals for
offences punishable by lengthy prison sentences. In the light of the source’s allegations, and
the Government’s failure to refute the accusations made, the Working Group will analyse
whether the fundamental components of a fair, independent and impartial trial have been
respected in the course of the judicial proceedings.
84.
As stated above, the Working Group is persuaded that, when the seven persons who
are the subject of this opinion were arrested, the authorities failed to respect their right to be
promptly informed of the reasons for the arrest, their right to be promptly notified of the
arrest warrants against them, their right to be brought promptly before a judge so that he or
she could verify the lawfulness of their detention and their right not to be subjected to pretrial
detention, which, to date, has lasted more than 3 years, with their trials having been
suspended, in contravention of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9 of the Covenant and principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
85.
The Working Group wishes to re-emphasize that, even if a person’s arrest has been
carried out in accordance with article 9 of the Covenant, this does not automatically mean
that continuing to deprive that person of his or her liberty, in the way that the seven detainees
have been deprived of theirs, would also be in compliance with this article. Therefore, the
authorities must ensure not only that the initial arrest is in compliance with article 9 of the
Covenant but also that any pretrial detention is in compliance with it. In the present case, the
detention of the aforementioned citizens has been excessively prolonged, despite the protests
of their lawyers. As a result, they have been deprived of their right to defend themselves
effectively and to challenge the charges against them, all of which, in the view of the Working
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
13
Group, constitutes a violation of their rights under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.20 Moreover,
the Working Group has urged all States to pay particular attention to the requirements of
necessity and proportionality of deprivation of liberty in the context of public health
emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.21
86.
Although the Government has claimed that the detainees have had access to lawyers,
the source refutes this and informs the Working Group that, on the contrary, the lawyers did
not have access to the case files until the hearing began, which made it impossible to prepare
an adequate defence. This situation remains unchanged at the time of writing, which
constitutes a flagrant violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, as it violates the accused
parties’ right to a defence and due process. It also violates principle 12, on equality before
the courts, of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and
Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before
a Court and guidelines 12 and 14 on access to case files. All the above prevents the defence
from checking on the progress of the proceedings or the replies to the various written requests
made with a view to defending the aforementioned citizens, which violates the guarantee of
equality of arms and the proper administration of justice set out in article 14 (1) of the
Covenant. In addition, the authorities have violated the principle of the presumption of
innocence, which is guaranteed by article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 (2) of the Covenant and is declared to be a peremptory norm in paragraph 8 of
the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 24 (1994).
87.
The Working Group points out that article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant guarantees the
right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be tried without undue delay. The
Working Group also draws attention to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, which guarantees that
everyone has the right to liberty and security of person, article 3 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, and article 7 (5) of the American Convention on Human Rights, which
establishes that all persons have the right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released
without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings and that their release may be subject
to guarantees to assure their appearance for trial. In the case of the seven detained military
officers, the Working Group is persuaded that the delay in their trial is excessive and that the
right to due process has therefore been violated. The authorities have also failed to meet the
standards for a fair hearing set out in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 (1) of the Covenant22 and have failed to uphold principle 12 and guidelines 12
and 14 on access to case files. For all these reasons, the Working Group is minded to refer
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, for
appropriate action.
88.
The Working Group concludes that the non-observance of the international norms
relating to the right to a fair and impartial trial established in articles 9, 10 and 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant is of such
gravity as to give the detention an arbitrary character under category III.
Category V
89.
Having reviewed the allegations, the Working Group is not persuaded that the various
actions described in the submission fall within category V as defined by the Working Group.
Therefore, the Working Group’s analysis will not cover this category.
Concluding remarks
90.
This case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in recent
years concerning arbitrary detention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 23 In the
20 Opinion No. 49/2019, para. 60.
21 Deliberation No. 11 (A/HRC/45/16, annex II).
22 Opinion No. 70/2019, para. 79; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para.
33.
23 Opinions No. 73/2020, No. 57/2020, No. 44/2020, No. 20/2020, No. 18/2020, No. 81/2019, No.
80/2019, No. 75/2019, No. 40/2019, No. 39/2019, No. 13/2019, No. 86/2018, No. 72/2018, No.
49/2018, No. 41/2018, No. 32/2018, No. 24/2018, No. 87/2017, No. 84/2017, No. 52/2017, No.
37/2017 and No. 18/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
14
GE.22-04458
Working Group’s view, this is indicative of a systematic practice of depriving people of their
liberty while failing to respect their rights under international law. Widespread or systematic
imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international
law may constitute crimes against humanity.24
91.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the
Government to address problems concerning arbitrary detention and, in the light of the
recurrent pattern of arbitrary detention identified by this international human rights
mechanism in recent years, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is urged
to consider inviting the Working Group to make an official country visit. Such visits are an
opportunity for the Working Group to engage in direct constructive dialogue with the
Government and representatives of civil society, with the aim of better understanding the
situation of deprivation of liberty in the country and the underlying reasons for arbitrary
detention.
Disposition
92.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Luis Humberto de la Sotta Quiroga, Ruperto
Molina Ramírez, Abraham Américo Suárez Ramos, Adrián Leonardo de Gouveia de
Sosa, Ricardo Efraín González Torres, Carlos Gustavo Macsotay Rauseo and Elías
José Noriega Manrique, being in contravention of articles 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 (1), (3) and (4) and 14 (1), (2),
(3) (a), (b) and (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
93.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the seven aforementioned
persons 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.
94.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. de la Sotta Quiroga, Molina
Ramírez, Suárez Ramos, de Gouveia de Sosa, González Torres, Macsotay Rauseo and
Noriega Manrique immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and
other reparations, in accordance with international law. 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 these seven persons.
95.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Messrs.
de la Sotta Quiroga, Molina Ramírez, Suárez Ramos, de Gouveia de Sosa, González Torres,
Macsotay Rauseo and Noriega Manrique and to take appropriate measures against those
responsible for the violation of their rights.
96.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; the
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health; and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, for appropriate action.
97.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
24 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/49
GE.22-04458
15
Follow-up procedure
98.
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 Messrs. de la Sotta Quiroga, Molina Ramírez, Suárez Ramos, de
Gouveia de Sosa, González Torres, Macsotay Rauseo and Noriega Manrique have been
released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the seven
aforementioned persons;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the seven
aforementioned persons’ 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 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with its
international obligations, in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
99.
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.
100.
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.
101.
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.25
[Adopted on 15 November 2021]
25 Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.