Opinion; Subjects: NICARAGUA, 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.22-28666 (E) 310323 310323
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. 58/2021 concerning José Santos Sánchez Rodríguez
(Nicaragua)
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, on 14 May 2021 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua a communication concerning José Santos
Sánchez Rodríguez.1 The Government has not replied to the 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,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
General Assembly
Distr.: General
15 December 2022
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
2
GE.22-28666
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
José Santos Sánchez Rodríguez is a national of Nicaragua, an electrician and painter
by trade, normally resident in Masaya.
5.
The source notes that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was involved in the 2018 protests and
barricades in Nicaragua. He was allegedly subjected to arbitrary detention for the first time
between February and June 2019 and was released pursuant to the Amnesty Act of June 2019.
He later resumed his activism, including raising funds and distributing food for victims of
the crackdown on protests and denouncing human rights violations, which led to harassment
on the part of the authorities and the paramilitary forces.
(a)
Police detention
6.
According to the submissions, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was deprived of his liberty in
the early hours of 12 November 2019 at his family home in the Monimbó neighbourhood. A
dozen riot police officers, armed and masked, broke down the doors at around 4.30 a.m. and
aggressively searched the home without showing a search or arrest warrant.
7.
The officers went straight to Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and took him to the only
bedroom in the house, where they held and intimidated him for more than 30 minutes. The
source claims that, meanwhile, the officers planted drugs in the bedroom so that they could
accuse him of drug trafficking. During this time, the other residents and relatives, including
a minor, were held at gunpoint. The source notes that the police did not explain to the relatives
what was happening. The head of the operation (the only officer with his face uncovered)
allegedly forced one of the relatives to sign a piece of paper without allowing the person to
read the document beforehand.
8.
The officers took Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez away without informing anyone of where
he was being taken or why he was being arrested; there was no official communication of his
whereabouts. He was transferred to the Legal Cooperation Directorate (“El Chipote”, or The
Bump) in Managua, where he was allegedly held and tortured until he was brought before a
judge on 16 November 2019.
9.
According to the source, the detention order indicates that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
was arrested in flagrante delicto on 13 November 2019 – a day later than when he alleges the
events took place – at 12.20 p.m. for the offences of organized crime and trafficking of
narcotics, psychotropic drugs and other substances. The emergency search report and the
seizure receipt, dated 13 November, state that a bag containing 1,117.7 g of cocaine, 465.4 g
of cannabis and two mobile telephones, was found on the floor next to the bed. These
documents were not signed by the detainee, but the request for validation of the investigatory
actions, dated 13 November, notes that the evidence links Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez to an
alleged organized crime group engaged in drug trafficking. According to the source, the
charges against Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez were not officially communicated to his relatives or
to his lawyers.
10.
The source notes that, since the start of the proceedings against him, Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez has been held at Jorge Navarro prison (“La Modelo”). Since 30 September 2020,
he has been in a punishment cell known as “El Infiernillo” (The Little Hell) located in the
maximum security wing (“La 300”).
11.
According to the source, on 18 November 2019, the Deputy Chief of the Legal
Cooperation Directorate of the National Police held a press conference at which he presented
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and his co-defendants, all wearing the distinctive blue prisoner
uniform, as members of a “terrorist crime group” who had allegedly carried out attacks using
industrial explosives and firearms in the Departments of Chinandega and León. The Deputy
Chief, in presenting alleged evidence, stated that the co-defendants had attempted to blow up
a bridge and demolish an electricity pylon.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
3
(b)
Judicial proceedings
12.
The source claims that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s constitutional rights and guarantees
were systematically violated at every stage of the proceedings, which were characterized by
irregularities and blatant partiality, as illustrated by the fact that he was brought before a
judge after the 48-hour period prescribed in international law. When the defence lawyers
raised this point at the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed it, stating that it was not the
judiciary’s responsibility.
13.
The case was transferred, without justification, to the Fifth District Criminal Court of
Managua even though the offence, arrest and preliminary judicial proceedings took place in
Masaya. Transfer of jurisdiction to the capital is usually reserved for cases of national
interest, which does not apply here, but it is the typical pattern in cases where individuals
seen as opponents of the regime are detained and tried.
14.
At the preliminary hearing on 16 November 2019, the judicial authorities ordered Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez’s placement in pretrial detention and raised the case to the level of
“complex proceeding”, which allows for up to a year of pretrial detention. When presenting
the charges before the judge at the preliminary hearing, the prosecution referred only to the
offence of trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic drugs and other controlled substances. The
Public Prosecution Service charged Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez with being a member of an
alleged drug trafficking ring. The other co-defendants were allegedly known activists who
played an active part in the 2018 protests and subsequent peaceful expressions of dissent.
15.
The judicial authorities admitted the prosecution’s evidence even though it was
submitted after the statutory 48-hour deadline. At the validation stage, the judicial authorities
validated the alleged evidence against Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and his co-defendants despite
due process having been violated during his arrest. Validation after the fact is authorized only
in exceptional “grave and urgent” circumstances, which is why the case was elevated to a
“complex proceeding”, a classification normally reserved for charges relating to terrorism or
international organized crime.
16.
Between November 2019 and July 2020, the defence submitted at least six requests
for an emergency medical examination, which were all denied by the competent authorities.
Despite obvious injuries and a worrying deterioration in his health, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
has never received appropriate medical care, and the judicial authorities have rejected all
applications for alternatives to pretrial detention.
17.
The public hearing, initially scheduled for the end of March 2020, was postponed to
12 May 2020 because one of the co-defendants, who was severely ill with coronavirus disease
(COVID-19), had to be transferred. At a hearing on 5 June 2020, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s
defence lawyers requested another postponement on health grounds. Although the requisite
certificates were submitted, the judge of the Second District Criminal Court terminated the
proceedings and gave the defendants less than a week to find new private counsel, failing
which they would be assigned a public defender. The practice of harassing the defence
lawyers of political prisoners, even going so far as to terminate proceedings, has been
denounced as a form of reprisals and a tactic by the judiciary to ensure that such prisoners
are represented by public defenders so as to hide irregularities in the proceedings. In Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez’s case, a new defence lawyer was appointed on 16 June 2020.
18.
The trial of Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and his co-defendants took place before the
Second District Criminal Court of Managua from 1 June to 13 July 2020. During the trial,
the judge rejected the witnesses and evidence put forward by the defence and dismissed the
statement by Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s legal adviser. In addition, the examination and cross-
examination of the witnesses by the Public Prosecution Service highlighted the contradictions
in the case and its lack of legal basis, as well as the partiality of the judge, who appeared to
raise objections and argue the case alongside the Public Prosecution Service.
19.
The source claims that the indictment and ruling were based on testimony by “Código
Uno”, a masked police officer who supposedly carried out the monitoring, surveillance,
checks and reporting in the case concerning the alleged unlawful activities. However, during
questioning, Código Uno was unable to provide any evidence of the alleged unlawful
activities. Código Uno’s testimony about the search and Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s arrest
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
4
GE.22-28666
repeated the wording of the indictment. He explicitly stated that he had not overseen or been
personally witness to any of the alleged activities and that he had received information from
“confidential informants”. When the defence requested more details about the confidential
informants, Código Uno was unable to respond and the judge interjected, ordering the witness
not to respond. When pressed, Código Uno was unable to provide any further details or basic
information, such as the number of people who lived with the defendant or his usual
occupation. Código Uno did not reply to any of the defence’s questions during the cross-
examination.
20.
The source claims that the other testimony against Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez concerning
the alleged unlawful activities was unfounded. The captain and lead detective in the case
were unable to prove that the drugs supposedly found in Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s house
actually belonged to him. The supervisor of the on-site investigation admitted to not having
been present for the search and therefore did not witness the discovery or testing of the drugs.
The chemical expert who tested the substances confirmed that they were cocaine and
cannabis but was unable to connect the defendant to their trafficking.
21.
On 31 July 2020, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment
and a fine equivalent to 1,000 days’ wages (62,390 córdobas) in accordance with article 359
of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for drug trafficking is 15 years’ imprisonment
and a fine equivalent to 800 days’ wages. The sentence was handed down despite the fact
that witness testimony was contradictory, the evidence was inadequate or planted and the
evidence presented by the defence, which created a reasonable doubt, was dismissed. On the
day of the ruling, the judge raised aggravating circumstances in respect of the three co-
defendants with no legal basis and without giving the defence prior notice so that it could
prepare. An appeal of the sentence was lodged on 16 August 2020 but has yet to be
adjudicated.
(c)
Conditions of detention
22.
The source claims that, since his arrest on 12 November 2019, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
has been held in cruel and inhuman conditions. Despite suffering serious health problems,
brought on by the torture to which he was subjected during his first detention and worsened
by the torture and ill-treatment inflicted on him since his arrest in November 2019, he has
systematically been denied urgent medical care.
23.
The source notes that the cells are overcrowded, often housing more than 20 people
despite having a capacity of 8, and have only a hole for a toilet and washing area. The inmates
are served food spoiled by cockroaches and rat excrement. The source also notes that Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez is continually subjected to intimidation and threats, including death
threats against him and his family, on the part of prison guards.
24.
At the preliminary hearing on 16 November 2019, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez reported
suffering from extremely severe and constant headaches, vision loss, chest pain that impaired
his breathing, swelling at the temples, loss of balance and loss of consciousness. Given the
deterioration of his health, and at the request of the defence lawyer, the judicial authorities
ordered La Modelo prison and the Institute of Forensic Medicine to perform a medical
examination on Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez.
25.
At the initial hearing on 16 December 2019, the defence informed the court that the
prison authorities had ignored the order. The court transmitted a second order to the
authorities that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez be examined as a matter of urgency. On 27 January
2020, the defence stated that the prison authorities had once again ignored the court order
and failed to provide medical care to the detainee. Accordingly, the court ordered the director
of the prison to authorize Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s examination by a doctor. On 29 January
2020, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s legal representatives submitted a letter to the Minister of the
Interior of Nicaragua, who directs and oversees the work of prison personnel, informing her
of the situation; the Ministry has not responded.
26.
On 12 February 2020, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s lawyers submitted an urgent request
for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The
measures requested included the application of an alternative to pretrial detention, the
protection of his right to health and physical and psychological integrity, his transfer to an
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
5
appropriate health-care facility for the necessary treatment, an investigation into the acts of
contempt of court committed by the director of the prison, and access to medical care.
27.
Despite the defence’s requests and at least three court orders for the provision of
medical care, the prison authorities systematically disregarded their obligation to transfer Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez for examination, thus putting his health and life in grave danger.
28.
On 30 September 2020, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and at least two other inmates of “La
Modelo” sewed their mouths shut in protest. They began a hunger strike along with 50 other
inmates of “La Modelo” and Matagalpa prisons to denounce the ill-treatment to which they
were being subjected and demand their release. In reprisal, he was transferred to one of the
punishment cells known as “El Infiernillo” located in “La 300” maximum security wing,
where he continues to be held in particularly inhuman conditions and subjected to both
physical and psychological torture.
29.
The source submits that on 15 October 2020, a representative of the Red Cross went
to the prison and, during an interview with Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez, asked whether he was on
a hunger strike and had sewn his mouth shut. The source notes that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
was forced to lie and reply to the questions in the negative because, prior to the visit, prison
personnel had threatened to kill him and plant drugs on his relatives if he spoke about the
hunger strike and sewn lips. Later that same day, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was reportedly
violently beaten by prison personnel causing him to lose consciousness. He was not given
medical attention.
30.
On 15 October 2020, the authorities of “La Modelo” began to pressure the relatives
of political prisoners into signing a document stating that their relatives were in “perfect
physical and psychological health”. When they refused to do so, they were warned that visits
and delivery of parcels (food and medicine) would be suspended.
31.
On 20 October 2020, after the President denied the reports of ill-treatment and torture
against persons deprived of their liberty, emphasizing that the prison’s doors were always
open to the families of inmates and inviting them to visit their detained relatives as proof that
the reports were lies, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s defence lawyers and relatives travelled to the
prison to request a visit to see the conditions of detention and ascertain his physical integrity
in accordance with articles 47 and 75 of Act No. 473. However, the prison authorities and
the Ministry of the Interior refused to meet with them. When they returned to “La Modelo”
the next day, they were unable to approach the facility because it was encircled by guards
and civilians who intimidated them and photographed and noted down licence plates, forcing
them to leave the area. The source notes that human rights organizations have not been
authorized by the Government to enter detention centres since 2017.
32.
According to the source, the Government responded to the COVID-19 public health
crisis by imposing greater restrictions on the civic space and persecuting individuals,
including health-care professionals, who disseminated information about the situation.
Regarding political prisoners, it was reported that insufficient prevention measures were
being taken in prisons, for instance to address the poor detention conditions, overcrowding
and the systematic denial of medical attention. In May 2020, the Government reportedly
granted release under the family reunification scheme to 4,515 prisoners to reduce
overcrowding but never indicated that the move was linked to efforts to prevent the virus
from spreading in detention centres. However, human rights organizations did not record the
release of any political prisoners under the scheme even though some, like Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez, were particularly vulnerable.
(d)
Context and background
33.
According to the source, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez took part in the protests in Nicaragua
from April 2018 and was active in erecting barricades around his neighbourhood. In this
context, the National Police and the police intelligence unit, with the support of the Sandinista
National Liberation Front, conducted intelligence operations to identify and locate
individuals involved in the various highway blockades. From that point, to avoid persecution,
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez had to go into hiding, and members of his family, including one
minor, were subjected to acts of intimidation.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
6
GE.22-28666
34.
On 18 February 2019, while Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was at a relative’s farm, a group
of more than 70 heavily armed National Police and paramilitary officers, in 14 trucks, raided
the property, holding all those present, including women and children, at gunpoint and
threatening them. Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez and four of his relatives, including a boy of 16,
were dragged behind the house, forced to the ground, handcuffed and beaten. Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s left shoulder was dislocated, his mouth, ears and nose were stuffed with earth
and an officer broke his ribs while women officers beat him on the arms, legs and feet with
rifles.
35.
At dawn, 10 armed police officers dragged Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez to another area of
the property, forced him to dig a ditch and told him they would bury him in it. An officer
loaded a weapon and pointed it at Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s chest and pulled the trigger,
which jammed. They then tied a rope to his right leg, bound his hands and feet and dragged
him across an empty lot. They continued to torture him, hitting him repeatedly on the head
with a weapon while interrogating him about who was paying him and financing his
activities. They subsequently took him to a laboratory, where they continued to interrogate
and beat him even when he could no longer stand. They later brought him to the Legal
Cooperation Directorate (“El Chipote”), where they had to drag him to a cell because he was
unable to walk. He was not given medical attention.
36.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was held at “El Chipote” from 18 February to 1 May 2019
without being formally charged or tried. On 1 May 2019, he was charged with the offence of
terrorism and imprisoned at “La Modelo”, where he was placed in a punishment cell under
continual intimidation and threat by the guards. He never received medical assistance. Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez was not taken to his hearing of 23 May 2019 and was released without
explanation on 10 July 2019 pursuant to the Amnesty Act.
37.
The source notes that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s physical and psychological trauma
resulting from his first detention is severe and long-lasting. The level of brutality, together
with the lack of medical attention for several months, gave rise to an inhuman and unhealthy
situation. His symptoms include debilitating chronic pain, constant nausea, vision loss,
breathing difficulties and swollen temples. A medical examination revealed rib fractures on
his left side, skull injuries, a herniated disc, vision trouble in the left eye and the need for
nasal surgery.
38.
After his release in June 2019, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez reported ongoing threats and
harassment by the police. Two units were continuously stationed at his house. Police officers
and civilians filmed, photographed and threatened him and his family, essentially forcing him
to remain imprisoned in his home in a constant state of anxiety and fear. He was dismissed
from his job as an electrician at a hospital, his academic record was expunged and his
professional certificate was revoked in reprisal for his involvement in the protests. After his
release pursuant to the Amnesty Act, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez continued to take part in the
peaceful protests and repeatedly reported intimidation by the police and paramilitary forces
up to two days before his arrest.
39.
On 5 September 2019, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez reported the torture and other human
rights violations to which he had been subjected during his first detention to a non-
governmental human rights organization and mentioned the names of some of those
responsible.
40.
At around 10.30 a.m. on 22 September 2019, masked riot police and civilians forced
their way into Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s house without a warrant. An officer put him in a
white truck and headed to Managua. In the truck, the officers accused him of building bombs
and asked where he had laid them and where he was hiding the weapons. They threatened to
take him to “El Chipote” to be tortured as they had during his first detention. He denied any
involvement in the alleged construction of bombs.
41.
During this detention, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was not taken to a police station or to
“El Chipote”. Rather, he was taken via Managua to the rim of the Masaya volcano, where the
officers continued interrogating him for 90 minutes, asking where the bombs were and who
was paying him, and threatened to throw him into the crater if he continued to make public
denunciations. They released him that night, with a warning against lodging a complaint
about the incident with a human rights organization or informing the media and against taking
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
7
part in civil disobedience as he had been seen doing. Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez nonetheless
reported the events to a non-governmental human rights organization and related the incident
at a press conference.
42.
A few days before his current deprivation of liberty, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
participated in an event at San Miguel Arcángel church in Masaya to show support to those
who remained imprisoned and express solidarity with the victims of the repression and their
families. On 14 November 2019, the church was the target of serious attacks by pro-
Government mobs. Against this backdrop, a group of activists who tried to take water and
medical supplies to those inside the church were arbitrarily detained and accused of arms
trafficking and other serious offences.
43.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention took place amid the persecution of individuals
who were perceived to oppose the Government or who had been released from prison. In the
days prior to his detention, some former prisoners reported an increase in intimidation and
detentions, with police officers explicitly threatening to “plant drugs on them” and rearrest
them if they did not stop protesting against the Government.
(e)
Claims of arbitrary detention
44.
The source submits that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group. It notes that he was detained, convicted and
tortured on account of his political views and civic activities and in reprisal for having
publicly revealed information on his two prior detentions, including the names of officers
involved in his torture.
45.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s arrest, detention and trial illustrate the persecution to which
individuals who took part in the marches and expressed their opposition to the Government
have been subjected. His case shows that former political prisoners who were detained at
some point between April 2018 and June 2019 and released pursuant to the Amnesty Act
were specifically targeted for repression and criminalization.
46.
Following his release in June 2019, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was the victim of constant
harassment and threats on the part of the police and pro-Government groups, to the point that
he could not leave the house out of fear for his life and safety. Despite the threats, he
continued to openly criticize the Government and denounce the abuse and violations
committed against him, his family and other dissidents. He was active in peaceful expressions
of resistance, such as meetings with other former opposition prisoners, acts of solidarity with
victims and “flash picketing”, one of the only forms of protest possible given that peaceful
marches had been essentially banned since September 2018.
47.
In September 2019, two months before his arrest, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez lodged a
complaint with a human rights organization describing his initial detention in February 2018,
the torture and ill-treatment to which he was subjected during his arrest and throughout his
deprivation of liberty, as well as the ongoing police harassment since his release. Two weeks
later, he was detained and threatened by police officers, who warned him against taking part
in any other protests and talking about what had happened. Despite the threats, Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez publicly denounced the incident and lodged a second complaint. Up to the day of
his third detention, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez continued to report the harassment and threats to
which he was being subjected by the police and paramilitary forces.
48.
In the source’s view, it is obvious that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was persecuted and
arbitrarily detained for exercising his fundamental right to freedom of expression, freedom
of opinion, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association enshrined in articles
12, 13, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 17, 18, 19, 21
and 22 of the Covenant.
49.
The source claims that his detention on 12 November 2019 violated article 33 of the
Constitution, articles 3, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 9, 14 and 17 of the Covenant.
50.
Article 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that detainees can
communicate with their relatives within three hours of being detained and must be informed
of the reasons for their detention. Article 256 stipulates that persons must be brought before
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
8
GE.22-28666
a judge within 48 hours of their detention. In Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s case, following his
arrest at home on 12 November 2019, he was taken to “El Chipote” without his relatives or
lawyers being formally notified. It was not until four days later, at the preliminary hearing of
16 November 2019, that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was brought before a judge and formally
charged with the offence of drug trafficking, alongside three other individuals, all known to
be opponents of the Government.
51.
The source claims that there were clear violations of constitutional rights, due process
guarantees, the right to an impartial and independent trial, the rights of the defence and the
principle of the presumption of innocence during the proceedings, in contravention of articles
10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 10 and 14 of the
Covenant.
52.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s right to the presumption of innocence was violated when he
was presented during a police press conference on 18 November 2019, dressed in a blue
uniform and described as a member of a terrorist group engaged in the construction and
planting of explosive devices. Those allegations were never a part of his and his co-
defendants’ trial.
53.
The judicial authorities committed serious violations of their duty of impartiality and
objectivity. The search, seizure and detention were carried out without the necessary
warrants, which should have rendered the evidence gathered during the arrest inadmissible
for failing to meet statutory requirements. Yet, the investigative actions were validated after
the fact on the basis of the claim that they had been conducted as a matter of urgency.
54.
The trial took place in Managua even though the alleged events and Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s arrest happened in Masaya. This constitutes a supplanting of the judge duly
appointed by law, in violation of article 34 (2) of the Constitution and article 22 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, the case was elevated to a “complex proceeding”,
which allows for longer procedural deadlines and up to 1 year of pretrial detention. The
“complex proceeding” classification is reserved for terrorism and organized crime cases.
Furthermore, the public hearing was marred by procedural irregularities, including constant
interventions by the judiciary and undue influence in the examination and cross-examination,
with the judge assigning herself prosecutorial functions, which in this case belonged to the
Public Prosecution Service.
55.
The Public Prosecution Service, despite significant contradictions among its
witnesses, the insufficient evidence, the unlawful admission of evidence and the breach of
the principle of objectivity, sought a conviction with the maximum sentence even though
there was no legal basis for this in the circumstances.
56.
Despite the absence of a legal basis or sufficient evidence, and the submission of
exculpatory evidence that raised a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s guilt, the
judge handed down an unfair and unfounded conviction and imposed the maximum sentence
for the offence, in violation of procedural rules on the reasoning of judgments.
57.
The source claims that the conditions of detention violate various human rights
obligations undertaken by Nicaragua, including those under articles 3, 5 and 25 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 10 of the Covenant, as summarized
in principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, which establishes that no person under any form of detention or
imprisonment should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. The source notes that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s transfer to a punishment cell in
the maximum security wing was arbitrary and was done in reprisal for his participation in the
hunger strike initiated by a number of inmates to denounce the human rights abuses and
violations committed against them and their families.
Response from the Government
58.
On 14 May 2021, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government and requested detailed information by 13 July 2021 clarifying the factual
and legal grounds justifying Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention and explaining how it was
compatible with the State’s international human rights obligations.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
9
59.
The Working Group also called on the Government to ensure Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s physical and mental integrity. In the context of the global pandemic, and in
accordance with the World Health Organization recommendations of 15 March 2020
concerning the response to COVID-19 in places of detention, the Working Group urged the
Government to prioritize the use of non-custodial measures at all stages of criminal
proceedings, including during the pretrial phase, the trial, sentencing and sentence
enforcement.
60.
The Working Group regrets that its request for information under paragraphs 15 and
16 of its methods of work has gone unanswered.
Discussion
61.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
62.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
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.2 In the present
case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made
by the source.
63.
The Working Group recalls that even where the detention is in line with national
legislation, regulations and practices, its mandate is to determine whether the detention is
compatible with the relevant provisions of international human rights law. It is therefore
necessary to assess the judicial procedures and national law to determine whether they meet
the standards protecting the right to personal liberty.
Category I
64.
The source claims that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention is arbitrary under category
I. The source notes that, when they searched his home, the police officers did not show an
arrest warrant or justify his detention; moreover, they held the rest of the family at gunpoint.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was not informed of the reasons for his detention, the judicial
remedies for contesting the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty or his right to a lawyer of
his choosing. This conduct by the Nicaraguan authorities constitutes a violation of article 9
(2) of the Covenant and principles 7 and 9 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. The source also argues that the conduct contravenes
article 33 (1) of the Constitution, which establishes that: “detention may only be carried out
by written order of the competent judge or of the authorities expressly empowered by law,
except in cases of flagrante delicto.”
65.
The Working Group is concerned that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was disappeared for
four days, since it is guaranteed that all persons arrested on a criminal charge shall be brought
promptly before a judge, within no more than 48 hours, in order to exercise their right to a
defence.3 It should be recalled that enforced disappearances violate a number of substantive
and procedural provisions of the Covenant and are deemed to constitute a particularly
aggravated form of arbitrary deprivation of liberty.4 Accordingly, the Working Group hereby
refers the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
66.
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, 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.5 The State must guarantee the effective exercise of this fundamental safeguard of
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 See opinions No. 6/2017, No. 30/2017, No. 49/2019, No. 60/2020 and No. 66/2020. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
5 A/HRC/30/37, para. 2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
10
GE.22-28666
personal liberty in all situations of deprivation of liberty, without delay or exception.6 This
right applies to all forms of deprivation of liberty, including detention in the context of
counter-terrorism measures.7 Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez has been continuously denied these
rights and safeguards.
67.
The source notes that, although the detention report indicates that Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez was arrested in flagrante delicto on 13 November 2019 at 12.20 p.m., a day later
than when he alleges the events took place, for offences relating to organized crime and
trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic drugs, the Government has not provided any
evidence to support the claim of flagrancy. It should be noted that the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights has ruled on several occasions that requirements for in flagrante arrest
cannot simply be assumed to be met but must be proven by the authorities, which they were
not in the present case.8
68.
The Working Group is persuaded that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s pretrial detention
constitutes a violation of the rule of international law providing that such detention should be
a preventive measure of last resort – the exception, not the rule.9 In other words, pretrial
detention must be an exceptional measure taken in the interest of justice, and accused persons
must be released when there are means of guaranteeing that they will appear for trial and
serve their sentence.
69.
The source notes that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez remains imprisoned at the Jorge
Navarro prison in a punishment cell known as “El Infiernillo”, located in “La 300” maximum
security wing, to which he was transferred in reprisal for taking part in a hunger strike to
secure his release and denounce the ill-treatment he is being subjected to in prison.
70.
The Working Group considers that the source has presented a credible prima facie
case that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was subjected to torture and ill-treatment. This conduct
violates the absolute prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm of international law, as well
as article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 of the Covenant and
articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The Working Group hereby refers this case to the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
71.
The violations of the safeguards of the right to personal liberty in Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s case lead the Working Group to find that the detention is arbitrary under
category I, as it lacks any legal basis.
Category II
72.
The Working Group stresses that everyone has the right to freedom of expression,
which includes the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether orally or in any
other form. The Working Group is of the view that freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression are indispensable prerequisites for the full development of the person and
constitute the cornerstone of free and democratic societies.10 Both freedoms are the basis for
the effective exercise of a wide range of human rights, such as the right to political
participation, enshrined in article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
25 of the Covenant.11
73.
The importance of freedom of opinion is such that no government may impair other
human rights on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived opinions, whether of a political,
scientific, historical, moral, religious or any other nature. Consequently, it is incompatible
with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant to criminalize the holding
6 Ibid., para. 3.
7 Ibid., annex, para. 47 (a).
8 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 38. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gutiérrez Soler v.
Colombia, judgment of 12 September 2005, Series C, No. 132; and García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v.
Peru, judgment of 25 November 2005, Series C, No. 137.
9 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58; opinions No. 5/2019, para. 26; No. 62/2019, paras. 27–29; and
A/HRC/37/6, paras. 118.31–118.33.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2.
11 Ibid., para. 4.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
11
of an opinion; equally, the harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person are not
permitted, including through arrest, pretrial detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons of
the opinions he or she may hold.12
74.
The Working Group is persuaded that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was detained and tried
following a long campaign of harassment and persecution – not only against him but also
against his family – for exercising his right to freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and
freedom of association and his right to participate in his country’s political life.
75.
Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was detained on account of his criticism of the Government
expressed from April 2018 onward and his identification as an opponent of the Government
by the National Police and the police intelligence unit, which conducted surveillance to
identify and locate persons who opposed the Government. Since then, Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez has had to flee persecution by public officials and go into hiding. He has also been
dismissed from his job, his academic records have been expunged and his professional
certificate was revoked in reprisal for participating in the protests and for being openly critical
of the Government.
76.
The Working Group considers that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention results from
his activities in the exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of expression, freedom of
opinion, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, which is contrary to
articles 19 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25
of the Covenant and is therefore arbitrary under category II.
Category III
77.
In the light of the finding concerning category II, the Working Group considers that
there are no grounds for Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention and trial. However, 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 components of a fair, independent and impartial trial
were respected.
78.
As stated above, the Working Group is persuaded that, during Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s detention, his right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest, to be promptly
served with an arrest warrant, to be brought promptly before a judge, to have access to a court
to verify the lawfulness of the detention, and to not be subjected to pretrial detention were
not respected, in contravention of article 9 of the Covenant.
Presumption of innocence
79.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the
Covenant recognize the right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to be presumed
innocent. This right imposes an obligation on all State institutions to treat persons accused of
a criminal offence as innocent until a judgment beyond any reasonable doubt has been handed
down.
80.
This right requires the authorities, including the executive branch, to refrain from
prejudging the outcome of a trial, which entails abstaining from making public statements
affirming the guilt of the accused.13 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stated
that “the right to be presumed innocent requires the State to refrain from informally
convicting a person or making public declarations regarding his or her guilt, thereby shaping
public opinion, so long as the person’s guilt has not been proven according to law. This right
can be violated by the judges in charge of the proceedings or indeed by other public
authorities, who therefore have a duty to exercise discretion and caution when making public
12 Ibid., para. 9.
13 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30; and Kozulina v. Belarus
(CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008), para. 9.8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
12
GE.22-28666
statements regarding criminal proceedings before the person has been tried and a verdict has
been reached.”14
81.
The Working Group has affirmed that public statements openly condemning an
accused person before a sentence has been passed violate the principle of presumption of
innocence and constitute undue interference that undermines the independence and
impartiality of the court.15 In other words, statements in which public officials identify a
detainee as responsible for an offence before the person has been tried, thus making the public
believe in the person’s guilt and influencing or prejudicing the competent judicial authorities’
weighing of the facts, violate the right to the presumption of innocence.16
82.
The Working Group received convincing information from the source, which the
Government has not refuted, that at a press conference on 18 November 2019, the Deputy
Chief of the Legal Cooperation Directorate of the National Police presented Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez and his co-defendants, dressed in the distinctive blue uniform worn by prisoners
in Nicaragua, as members of a “terrorist crime group” who allegedly committed attacks using
industrial explosives and firearms in the Departments of Chinandega and León. The Deputy
Chief stated that the co-defendants had attempted to blow up a bridge and demolish an
electricity pylon in the town of La Paz Centro. At the press conference, the police also
presented a group of 16 activists who had been arrested at San Miguel Arcángel church in
Masaya on 14 November 2019.17
83.
In the light of Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s presentation before the media dressed in a
prisoner’s uniform, the statements about his guilt made before the trial by the police and the
automatic imposition of pretrial detention, the Working Group considers that the right to be
presumed innocent and to be treated as such, in keeping with article 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, was violated.
Competent, impartial and independent tribunal
84.
According to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of any criminal charge
brought against him or her. The Working Group considers that the requirement of impartiality
demands that judges must not allow their judgment to be influenced by personal bias or
prejudice, nor harbour preconceptions about the particular case before them, nor act in ways
that promote one party’s interests over those of the other. The tribunal must also appear to be
a reasonable observer to be impartial.18
85.
In this context, the Working Group recalls its consistent jurisprudence according to
which, where national law expressly assigns competence to the court of the jurisdiction where
an offence was allegedly committed, it is a violation of the right to be tried by the competent
or duly appointed judge for an accused to be tried for criminal offences committed outside a
court’s jurisdiction.19
86.
Based on the information received, which the Government has not disputed, the
Working Group is persuaded that, under national law, it is the court located where an offence
was committed that is competent to adjudicate the case. In this regard, the Working Group
14 Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru, judgment of 21 October 2016, Series C, No. 319, para. 177. Also see Tibi
v. Ecuador, judgment of 7 September 2004, Series C, No. 114, para. 182; and J. v. Peru, judgment of
20 November 2014, Series C, No. 275, paras. 244–247. Similar language appears in the findings of
the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10
February 1995, para. 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, judgment of 10 October 2000, para. 42; Petkov v.
Bulgaria, para. 91; Peša v. Croatia, judgment of 8 April 2010, para. 149; Konstas v. Greece,
judgment of 24 May 2011, paras. 43 and 45; Algirdas Butkevičius v. Lithuania, judgment of 14 June
2022, para. 53; Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, judgment of 20 April 2021, para. 96; and Ismoilov and
Others v. Russia, judgment of 24 April 2008, para. 161.
15 See opinions No. 90/2017, No. 76/2018 and No. 89/2018.
16 See opinions No. 6/2019 and 12/2019.
17 Opinion No. 21/2020, para. 28.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 21.
19 Opinions No. 28/2014, para. 46; No. 30/2014, para. 51; No. 1/2015, paras. 31 and 34; No. 6/2019,
para. 135; No. 12/2019, para. 121; and No. 43/2019, para. 77.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
13
notes that a preliminary hearing, at which Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was formally charged with
the offence of weapons trafficking, was held on 18 November before the Fifth District
Criminal Court of Managua, even though he was arrested for that offence in Masaya. The
source stressed that the transfer of jurisdiction to the capital is reserved for cases of national
import, which does not apply in the present case.
87.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes that the case was treated as a complex
proceeding, a mechanism allowing for up to a year’s pretrial detention that is reserved for
charges relating to terrorism and international organized crime. Accordingly, the Working
Group underscores that the court that adjudicated the case against Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez
was not competent to do so, which violated his right to be tried by a duly appointed judge, in
contravention of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The facts presented by the source, and
unrefuted by the Government, constitute an example of a trend whereby, in the name of
counter-terrorism efforts, suspects are detained without due process. In the light of the
foregoing, the Working Group hereby refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism.
88.
As the Working Group has pointed out, holding persons incommunicado violates their
right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (3) and (4) of the
Covenant. Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and
is essential in order to ensure that detention has a legal basis. Given that Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez was unable to challenge his detention before a court, his right to an effective
remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the
Covenant has been violated.20
89.
The Working Group notes that the judgment, in which Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was
sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and a fine equivalent to 1,000 days’ wages, was handed
down on 31 July 2020 despite the fact that some witnesses had contradicted each other,
unlawfully obtained evidence had been admitted, the defence’s evidence that raised a
reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt had been dismissed and the judge had introduced,
on the day sentence was handed down, baseless aggravating circumstances against the three
co-defendants without giving the defence prior notice in order to prepare. Moreover, an
appeal was lodged, but a decision remains pending. 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.
90.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that, in the case of Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez, fair trial guarantees under articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant were seriously violated, rendering his
detention arbitrary under category III.
Category V
91.
The Working Group has been persuaded that, through his activities as a social activist
and human rights defender, Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez was identified as a supposed terrorist and
opponent of the regime, which in turn hindered the exercise of his human right to an adequate
defence and due process.
92.
The Working Group considers that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s detention took place in
a context of persecution and harassment against individuals identified as opponents of the
regime whom, according to the source, the police threatened to “plant drugs on” and re-detain
so that they would cease their activism. This amounts to discrimination on account of their
political views. Accordingly, the Working Group finds that the safeguard under article 7 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant was
violated, rendering the detention arbitrary under category V.
20 See opinions No. 45/2017, No. 46/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 11/2018 and No. 35/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
14
GE.22-28666
Final considerations
93.
According to the information received, which the Government has not refuted, Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez was detained and tortured on more than one previous occasion. The
preceding detention lasted from 18 February to 1 May 2019, during which time he remained
imprisoned without charge and was continually tortured. On that occasion, he was charged
with terrorism and imprisoned at La Modelo prison, where he was held in a punishment cell
and was subjected to constant intimidation and threats by the guards. He never received
medical attention. He was released without explanation on 10 June 2019 pursuant to the
Amnesty Act. The source indicates that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez’s physical and psychological
trauma is severe and long-lasting owing to the brutality of the acts to which he was subjected,
as well as the fact that he was held in inhuman and unhygienic conditions for months without
receiving medical care. At the time of his release, he experienced chronic, debilitating
headaches, constant nausea, vision loss, difficulty breathing, swelling at the temples, several
broken ribs, skull injuries, a herniated disc and vision trouble in his left eye and he required
nose surgery. In view of the circumstances, the Working Group hereby refers 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.
94.
Given the conditions of detention, the complete lack of medical attention – despite the
defence filing at least six requests for an urgent medical examination between November
2019 and July 2020 – and the allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment, the Working Group, under paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, hereby refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
95.
In addition, the Working Group is aware that Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez repeatedly
reported to various non-governmental human rights organizations the ongoing harassment,
threats and bullying on the part of the police and the presence of officials and police officers
who filmed, photographed and threatened him and his family, essentially forcing him to
remain a prisoner in his own home in a constant state of anxiety and fear. For this reason, the
Working Group has decided to bring the present case to the attention of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression.
96.
Lastly, in order to establish a direct, constructive dialogue with the authorities of the
three branches of government, representatives of civil society and detainees, with the aim of
gaining a better understanding of the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country, the
Working Group suggests that the Government may wish to consider inviting it to make a
country visit. The Working Group recalls that on 26 April 2006, Nicaragua extended an open
invitation to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and that the Working
Group’s most recent visit to Nicaragua was from 15 to 23 May 2006.21
Disposition
97.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of José Santos Sánchez Rodríguez, being in
contravention of articles 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
98.
The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez 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.
99.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez immediately and
21 See A/HRC/4/40/Add.3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2021/58
GE.22-28666
15
accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
100.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.
Sánchez Rodríguez and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of his rights.
101.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
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, the Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Working Group on Enforced
or Involuntary Disappearances, for appropriate action.
102.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
103.
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 Mr. Sánchez Rodríguez has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Sánchez
Rodríguez’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Nicaragua with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
104.
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.
105.
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.
106.
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.22
[Adopted on 16 November 2021]
22 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.