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.22-27239 (E) 150623 150623
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-fourth session, 29 August–2
September 2022
Opinion No. 58/2022 concerning Cristiana María Chamorro Barrios
and others (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,1 on 11 February 2022, the Working Group
transmitted a communication to the Government of Nicaragua concerning Cristiana María
Chamorro Barrios, Marcos Antonio Fletes Casco, Walter Antonio Gómez Silva and Pedro
Salvador Vásquez Cortedano. The Government replied to the communication on 16 February
2022. 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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
General Assembly
Distr.: General
1 December 2022
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
2
GE.22-27239
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.
Cristiana María Chamorro Barrios, a journalist born on 5 February 1954, was the
president of the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation as well as a candidate in the
November 2021 presidential elections in Nicaragua. Marcos Antonio Fletes Casco, born on
29 April 1979, was chief accountant at the Foundation. Walter Antonio Gómez Silva, born
on 31 October 1966, is a manager and accountant and was head of finance at the Foundation.
Pedro Salvador Vásquez Cortedano, born on 19 May 1962, was a chauffeur for the
Foundation and Ms. Chamorro.
5.
According to the submission, in January 2021, Ms. Chamorro’s candidacy for
President of Nicaragua was approved by 43 per cent. At that point, the attacks against Ms.
Chamorro and the foundation she led were already frequent in the media. After the results of
the survey were made public, the hostile rhetoric and reprisals against her worsened.
6.
On 20 May 2021, Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes and Mr. Gómez were summoned to the
Ministry of the Interior to answer for alleged inconsistencies in the Foundation’s financial
reports. Immediately following that interview, they received summonses to appear before the
Public Prosecution Service on 21 May for the purposes of an investigation into alleged money
laundering.
7.
On 21 May 2021, Ms. Chamorro and Mr. Gómez appeared before the Public
Prosecution Service. Mr. Gómez was under investigation for money laundering and exercised
his right to remain silent.
8.
On 26 May 2021, the Public Prosecution Service issued a communiqué stating that it
had received a complaint of money laundering against the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro
Foundation. The communiqué referred to the summons of 21 May, stating that Mr. Fletes
and Mr. Gómez, who had been summoned as suspects, had obeyed the summons and that
their constitutional rights had been respected.
9.
On 27 May 2021, the Public Prosecution Service issued a second communiqué stating
that Mr. Gómez had been summoned again and that he had refused to reply to the questions.
The communiqué also mentioned that Ms. Chamorro had also been summoned as a suspect
in a money laundering case and that she had refused to make a statement. On that day, Mr.
Fletes transmitted a letter to the prosecutor, informing him that he would refrain from making
a statement. The prosecutor refused to admit the letter and insisted that Mr. Fletes appear in
person.
10.
According to the submission, the Public Prosecution Service stated in a communiqué
dated 1 June 2021 that it had requested, as a precautionary measure, that the four former
Foundation employees be banned from leaving the country. Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes and
Mr. Gómez were also banned from attending specific meetings, going to specific places and
communicating with specific individuals. It had also requested that Ms. Chamorro be banned
from holding public office. On 14 June, Mr. Vásquez was summoned to appear before the
Public Prosecution Service. The Service stated in a communiqué that Mr. Vásquez had
obeyed the summons, had replied to the questions and had signed the interview record.
11.
Mr. Fletes and Mr. Gómez were arrested on 28 May 2021, the day after their second
summons. Ms. Chamorro was arrested on 2 June, mere hours after having visited the Alianza
Ciudadanos por la Libertad and registering as candidate for President. Within 24 hours, the
Public Prosecution Service brought criminal charges against her and requested a travel ban
and house arrest. Mr. Vásquez was arrested on 15 June 2021, a day after appearing before
the Public Prosecution Service, and was subsequently disappeared.
12.
Ms. Chamorro’s home was raided by the police. During the operation, acts of violence
were observed being committed outside the home against concerned relatives and
independent journalists covering the events.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
3
13.
The violent manner of Mr. Fletes’ arrest by armed civilians acting in coordination
with the police caused him to fall to the ground. He was then loaded into a dark blue van and
taken away.
14.
The source reports that Mr. Gómez’s house was raided by the Special Operations
Directorate of the police. His family, including a minor, were at the scene. When the police
officers tried to climb over the gates of the house, a relative opened the door for them. The
police forced those present into the house and proceeded to detain Mr. Gómez and search the
house for three hours. This took place outside the hours established in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, according to which searches must take place between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
15.
The source notes that the fact that charges had been laid against Ms. Chamorro only
became known through the communiqué of the Public Prosecution Service of 1 June 2021.
Moreover, the indictment was not uploaded to the judiciary’s online case file database.
16.
The database contains an official communication from the case judge, dated 3 June
2021, granting the request for validation of the search, the detention of Ms. Chamorro and
the seizure of her property. The judge granted the request to examine, with the support of a
computer expert, all the information stored in the various devices seized, including
telephones and computers, and the information contained in documents in general.
17.
Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez were not charged by the Public Prosecution
Service during the first three months of their detention. Several months later, the facts of the
indictment remained unknown and there was no evidence that the judge had comprehensively
and objectively assessed those facts.
18.
According to the submission, the detainees, with the exception of Ms. Chamorro, did
not immediately appear at special hearings for the protection of constitutional guarantees, as
the investigation period had been extended to 90 days in keeping with contested Act No.
1060 amending and supplementing Act No. 406 on the Code of Criminal Procedure.
19.
In the case of Mr. Fletes and Mr. Gómez, on 29 May 2021, the judge admitted the
request for a 90-day extension of the investigation period. At the hearing for the protection
of constitutional guarantees held on 22 June, the period of time for which Mr. Vásquez could
be held for the purposes of the investigation was extended to 90 days.
20.
In Ms. Chamorro’s case, a closed preliminary hearing was held on 3 June 2021, at
which the judge denied entrance to Ms. Chamorro’s lawyer, instead imposing a public
defender. The record of the hearing was not available in the online case file database;
therefore, it was not known whether the investigation period was extended under Act No.
1060. The defence was unable to obtain a copy of the file.
21.
On 11 June 2021, the investigating judge notified the defence of the postponement of
the initial hearing. More than 60 days elapsed without the defence knowing when the hearing
might be held, in breach of article 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes
a maximum period of 10 days.
22.
Mr. Vásquez obeyed the summons by the Public Prosecution Service to make a
statement on 14 June 2021, at 8.30 a.m. On that day, Mr. Vásquez finished work at 7 p.m.
and arrived home at 10 p.m. He reportedly left on foot at 10.30 p.m. and did not return. He
did not appear for work on the next day. On 16 June, his family telephoned him repeatedly
without receiving an answer.
23.
According to the source, Mr. Vásquez’s family searched in vain for him at the Institute
of Forensic Medicine, at the morgue, in hospitals and at relatives’ homes on 17 June. They
visited various police stations, where they were told that there was no information about him.
The family filed a missing persons report on 18 June. However, an officer informed them
that the report would not be registered and instructed them to go to the Legal Cooperation
Directorate. A police officer at the Directorate admitted that Mr. Vásquez was being held
there.
24.
The source notes that public defenders were initially imposed on the four detainees.
Later, and only at the insistence of their families, the authorities accepted that they be
represented by their private lawyers.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
4
GE.22-27239
25.
In Ms. Chamorro’s case, a request to designate a private technical defender was filed
on 3 June 2021. On 7 June, the lawyer appointed by the family filed a request for the right to
communicate freely and privately with her client and to be notified of any procedural actions.
26.
On 8 June 2021, after six days in incommunicado detention, Ms. Chamorro was
allowed to speak with her lawyer for 35 minutes, an insufficient amount of time to prepare
her defence. On 9 June, the lawyer requested a second interview and permission to photocopy
the file. On the same day, the judge ruled that the right to a defence had already been granted.
Since then, the lawyer has not been able to see Ms. Chamorro, despite repeated requests in
letters dated 17, 21, 28 and 30 June and 13, 15, 21 and 30 July. The request was renewed in
a letter submitted on 3 August. Despite these efforts, the only opportunities that the lawyer
has had to see her client were at the hearings held on 23 August and 2 September 2021;
however, there was no possibility of providing counsel, no prior access to the file and
insufficient time to organize the defence.
27.
In the case of Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez, even though legal standing
had been formally granted, the men were not permitted to meet with their lawyers
immediately after their detention or at the hearings for the protection of constitutional
guarantees, which were held behind in private, without notifying their families. On 5 June
2021, Mr. Fletes’ defence lawyer filed a request to meet with his client, but it went
unanswered. On June 30, Mr. Vasquez’s lawyer requested an unrestricted private interview
with his client but did not obtain a timely response. In the case of Mr. Gómez, on 3 June, the
defence filed a request that he be allowed a visit from his family and legal assistance; the
latter was granted but not former. The lawyer met with Mr. Gómez on 9 June, for 30 minutes.
28.
The source alleges that the defence lawyers have not had effective access to the files
and relevant documentation, despite repeated requests. The information was not entered in
the judiciary’s online case file database in a timely, full or sufficient manner.
29.
According to the submission, the President referred to his political adversaries in the
electoral contest, including Ms. Chamorro, as “criminals” who wanted to “overthrow the
Government”. The Vice-President, for her part, stated that the arrest of the main opposition
leaders was part of “the justice that the Nicaraguan people have been calling for, whereby
criminals, terrorists and people who have denigrated Nicaragua all over the world are
considered to be the lowest of the low”. The source notes that, in a judicial system that has
been a key instrument of repression since April 2018, such statements encourage judges to
find individuals guilty. They also expose detainees to assaults by prison guards.
30.
On 24 August 2021, three months after the detentions, at a hearing to both expand the
indictment against Ms. Chamorro and serve as the preliminary and indictment hearings for
Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez (wrongly held at the Legal Cooperation Directorate
instead of a court), the Public Prosecution Service submitted an amended indictment in which
the complaint, originally directed against Ms. Chamorro, was expanded to include the three
men. In the expanded indictment, the four detainees were charged with alleged money
laundering, misappropriation and unlawful withholding of funds, breach of the duty of loyalty
and criminal misstatement.
31.
On 2 September 2021, the initial hearing was held at the Legal Cooperation
Directorate instead of a court. At the hearing, the judge ordered the case brought to trial,
admitted the evidence submitted by the Public Prosecution Service and informed the defence
that it had to present written information on the evidence. The detainees were taken to both
hearings in handcuffs, with the instruction to keep their heads bowed.
32.
The statutory trial period ended on 2 and 3 December 2021. Motions for an exception
to the termination of criminal proceedings were filed on 6 and 16 December, as the deadline
for holding a trial under the complex proceedings regime where the defendants were deprived
of their liberty had expired. Yet, the custodial measures were maintained.
33.
In a communiqué of 31 January 2022, the Public Prosecution Service stated that public
trials would be held, as of 1 February 2022, for the defendants being held at the Legal
Cooperation Directorate and those under house arrest. It added that the accused were to be
tried for violating the Constitution, Act No. 1055 and the Criminal Code. The communiqué
further read that: “These same criminals and delinquents are repeat offenders and have
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
5
undermined the rights of the Nicaraguan people and society, thus compromising peace and
security. They are the same individuals who fomented and led the terrorist attacks during the
2018 failed coup.”
34.
The criminal proceedings continue without a trial date, although, according to the
communiqué, the trial of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez should be
imminent.
35.
The source notes that Ms. Chamorro is being held under house arrest, without the
possibility of communicating with the outside world, apart from two relatives who are
allowed to visit her for one hour a day, and with police officers continuously stationed outside
her home. She is kept confined indoors, not allowed to go out into the garden or have any
other form of communication with the outside world. For the first 30 days, two relatives were
allowed to visit her for an unlimited amount of time; since then, they have been allowed to
visit for only one hour a day. Since her detention, Ms. Chamorro has been unable to pursue
her life plans and is unable to communicate by telephone or through social networks.
36.
The source alleges that Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez are detained at the
Legal Cooperation Directorate, where they are being held in solitary confinement, prohibited
from communicating with other detainees and unable to communicate freely and privately
with their defence lawyers. They have been subjected to constant interrogation in the absence
of their lawyers. During these interrogations, they are subjected to psychological torture: the
investigators refer to events in the private lives of the detainees’ relatives, making it clear
that they are being watched, which causes fear and anguish. Mr. Gómez is interrogated three
times a day, while Mr. Fletes and Mr. Vásquez are interrogated once a day in the absence of
their defence lawyers. They are taken to interrogation rooms in handcuffs, with their hands
behind their backs and their heads down to prevent them from identifying any officers. They
are beaten if they try to raise their heads and are held tightly to keep them in that position.
They are kept in handcuffs with their hands behind their backs during the interrogations,
which are conducted by two investigators.
37.
According to the source, they have been denied private medical care, the right to
practise their religion and access to food suited to their health requirements. They have been
allowed only five visits since they were detained. The first, which lasted 30 minutes, was on
31 August 2021, that is, 90 days after they were deprived of their liberty.
38.
In recognition of the serious risk to which the four detainees are exposed, the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights issued precautionary measures. On 4 November
2021, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, being of the view that they are in a
situation of extreme risk, granted provisional measures.
39.
The source notes that the food and beverages brought by relatives have not been
allowed into the detention centre regularly. Initially, the authorities allowed food to be
brought in; subsequently only snacks and liquids and, eventually, only water. The authorities
argue that the centre is already providing meals, even though it is public knowledge that the
food at the Legal Cooperation Directorate is neither adequate nor sufficient. The refusal to
accept food is a form of political retaliation.
40.
The source notes that the rapid, excessive weight loss of Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and
Mr. Vásquez, who suffers from hypertension, is of concern. In addition, Mr. Fletes’ state of
health is of particular concern, as he has diabetes and requires a special diet that is not being
provided at the detention centre.
41.
The source notes that Ms. Chamorro has hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, high
cholesterol and pre-diabetes, for which she requires continual medication. On 13 July 2021,
Ms. Chamorro’s lawyer made an urgent request to the judge for medical tests to be
authorized. The lawyer submitted a medical opinion and a test referral form issued by the
Metropolitan Hospital in support of the request and asked the judge to send an official letter
to the authorities. These requests were reiterated on 14, 15, 21, 27 and 29 July.
42.
At the beginning of September 2021, the judge granted the defence’s request for Ms.
Chamorro to undergo a medical evaluation due to multiple health problems. The results of
the tests that were performed are not known. The defence learned that, on 12 November, staff
of the Legal Cooperation Directorate ran a series of tests on Ms. Chamorro at her home. Ms.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
6
GE.22-27239
Chamorro reportedly has metabolic imbalances that, if not adequately treated, put her health
and life at risk.
43.
On 30 November 2021, the defence submitted an urgent request to the judge for a
copy of the results of the medical tests. However, no action has been taken on the request.
The sporadic medical monitoring of Ms. Chamorro’s health is limited to basic tests, such as
taking her blood pressure. She has not been provided with the specialized medical care her
conditions require. The various medication she needs is being provided by her family.
a.
Category I
44.
According to the source, the police did not show an arrest warrant or explain the
reasons for the arrest at the time of the deprivation of liberty. None of the four individuals
were informed of the reasons for their detention, the legal avenues to challenge the legality
of their deprivation of liberty or their right to a lawyer of their choosing. In addition, some
of the arrests involved armed civilians or members of parapolice forces, acting in
coordination with the police.
45.
The source alleges that this conduct 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; it also contravenes article 33 (1) of the Constitution of
Nicaragua.
46.
None of the four individuals were brought before a judge promptly or within 48 hours
of arrest as established in the Constitution. In the case of Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr.
Vásquez, the authorities argued for the application of the contested amendment to the Code
of Criminal Procedural contained in Act No. 1060 at the hearing for the protection of
constitutional guarantees, at which the period of detention for the purposes of the
investigation was extended to 90 days.
47.
The source alleges that, by proceeding in this manner, the police acted without judicial
oversight, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principle 16 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
The absence of such oversight gives rise to a violation of the right of detainees to be brought
promptly before a judicial authority and to challenge before a judge the legality of their
detention.
48.
The source notes that the four detainees are being investigated for the alleged offences
of breach of the duty of loyalty and money laundering under the Criminal Code and Act No.
977. At the hearings for the protection of constitutional guarantees, the period of detention
was extended to 90 days on the basis of Act No. 1060. This implies that a custodial measure
was imposed without an individualized assessment of its necessity and proportionality.
49.
The source alleges that imposing mandatory pretrial detention without a case-by-case
examination of its necessity contravenes article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Even when a person
is detained in conformity with national legislation, the detention must also be consistent with
the relevant provisions of international law.
b.
Category II
50.
The source claims that Nicaragua has detained the four individuals for alleged
offences under, among other legislation, Act No. 977, which establishes a new definition of
terrorism and a new offence, the financing of terrorism. The fact that the Act was adopted
amid a political crisis raises concerns that it could be used against individuals and
organizations having expressed dissenting views, including through control of their finances.
In its oral update of June 2021, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights recalled that it had already warned that this Act could be used as a tool to
persecute opponents.2
2 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2021/06/47th-session-human-rights-council-oral-update-
situation-human-rights-nicaragua?LangID=E&NewsID=27193.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
7
51.
The source notes that, through the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation, the four
detainees had encouraged independent journalism, providing resources and technical and
financial support to several projects. The Foundation’s activities included following up on
attacks on freedom of expression, publishing periodic reports and preparing and submitting
reports for the universal periodic review and the Human Rights Committee. In addition, Ms.
Chamorro publicly criticized the Government’s actions and registered as a candidate in the
presidential election.
52.
The source therefore alleges that in the present case, the authorities violated the right
to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. In
the case of Ms. Chamorro, the source notes that the Nicaraguan authorities also violated the
right to political participation enshrined in article 25.
53.
Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the right of every citizen to take
part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have
access to public service. This right is the essence of democratic government, therefore any
conditions imposed on its exercise must be based on objective and reasonable criteria. In this
vein, the Human Rights Committee has pointed out that the freedoms of expression, assembly
and association are essential conditions for the effective exercise of the right to vote.3
54.
The source notes that the four individuals’ detention relates to the exercise of their
right to defend freedom of expression in hostile conditions and to their criticism towards the
Government in power.
c.
Category III
55.
The source notes that Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez have not been allowed
family visits. With the exception of Mr. Gómez, who was able to meet with his lawyer on
one occasion, no meetings with defence lawyers have been allowed. Given the pattern of
previous detentions, it is feared that Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez may be in
solitary confinement.
56.
Incommunicado detention violates the right to challenge the legality of the detention
before a court, as provided for in article 9 (4) of the Covenant. When such treatment is
continuous, it contravenes the right to have contact with the outside world under rules 43 (3)
and 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela Rules) and principles 15, 19 and 20 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
57.
The source notes that, due to patterns observed in previous cases and the fact that
individuals are held incommunicado at the Legal Cooperation Directorate, the fear is that the
authorities may seek to force the individuals concerned to make a statement through
treatment contrary to human dignity, including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
58.
The source states that Ms. Chamorro was prescribed urgent medical tests that were
not authorized in a timely manner. Mr. Fletes suffered an extremely violent fall at the time
of his arrest, for which it is not known whether he received treatment. Additionally, he has
chronic conditions that require medical attention that is not being provided to him. Mr.
Vásquez is in a similar situation, and a referral for a medical evaluation has been requested.
59.
The source alleges that these conditions of detention contravene principles 6 and 33
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and article 7 of the Covenant, as well as articles 2, 11 and 12 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The
treatment of detainees and their conditions of detention must comply with relevant
international provisions in order to guarantee the right of every person to a fair and impartial
trial. The source argues that persons subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
during their detention and prosecution do not have the necessary means and tools to prepare
their defence, making it impossible to conduct a fair trial and respect due process.
3 General comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 4, 20 and 28.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
8
GE.22-27239
60.
The source claims that none of the four detainees were informed in a timely manner
by the authorities of the reasons for their arrest, were promptly informed of the charges
against them or were able to contact lawyers of their choosing from the outset of their
deprivation of liberty. The source alleges that this constitutes a violation of article 101 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. They were also denied the opportunity to communicate with
their lawyers in private and have immediate access to the case file.
61.
The four detainees were unable to properly prepare their defence, in violation of
articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant. Additionally, the source notes that principle 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, whereby all persons deprived of their
liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choosing, at any time during their
detention, including immediately after the moment of apprehension, was breached when the
detainees were imposed public defenders at the hearing for the protection of constitutional
guarantees.
62.
The Nicaraguan authorities detained the aforementioned individuals and, in at least
three of the cases, ordered automatic judicial detention under Act No. 1060, which empowers
the Public Prosecution Service to request an extension of the investigation period and order
judicial detention when it considers that, for investigative purposes, more time is required to
uncover additional information or sufficient evidence to support and formulate the
indictment. The authorities proceeded on the basis of ambiguous criminal concepts and
without sufficient evidence.
63.
The source alleges that these detentions amount to pre-emptive penalties that violate
the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 11 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant, principle 36 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
and article 34 (1) of the Constitution.
64.
The source emphasizes that the individuals concerned are being stigmatized in public
statements by high-level Executive officials and articles published in pro-Government media,
in violation of their right to the presumption of innocence. In keeping with this right, State
institutions are required to treat accused persons as innocent until such time as they are
convicted and to refrain from making public statements affirming their guilt. Any acts
contrary to these provisions are incompatible with article 11 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.
d.
Category V
65.
The source alleges that the detention of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and
Mr. Vásquez fits into a pattern of persecution of members of political opposition parties,
human rights defenders and individuals who criticize the actions of the authorities. A
systematic practice of persecuting individuals on the basis of their political opinions and
depriving them of their liberty has been observed since 2018. The use of incommunicado
detention, the harassment of family members and the irregularities that have occurred since
the arrests demonstrate that the authorities are doing everything in their power to make an
example of the detainees and send a clear message to their opponents and independent
journalists. For these reasons, the four aforementioned individuals are considered to have
been detained for discriminatory reasons related to their political opinions and their defence
of human rights and independent journalism. Additionally, in the case of Ms. Chamorro, the
source claims that her detention is related to her status as a candidate in the general elections
scheduled for November 2021.
66.
The source concludes by alleging that this conduct on the part of the Government is
contrary to articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and articles 1 and 7 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and that the detentions are therefore arbitrary under category V.
Response from the Government
67.
On 11 February 2022, the Working Group transmitted to the Government the
information contained in the submission sent by the source, requesting it to provide, by 12
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
9
April 2022, detailed information on the case clarifying the legal and factual basis for the
detentions, as well as their compatibility with the State’s international human rights
obligations. The Government replied on 16 February 2022.
68.
In its reply, the Government of Nicaragua informs the Working Group that Ms.
Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez are being prosecuted for money
laundering and other offences, in accordance with criminal law, the rules of due process, the
principle of legality and their human rights.
69.
The Government notes that the aforementioned persons’ intent is to manipulate the
international mechanisms for the protection of human rights with the purpose of evading
justice and that their criminal acts remain unpunished.
70.
The Government regrets what it perceives to be a defamation campaign being led
against Nicaragua and its legally constituted Government, noting that the information
received by the Working Group bears no relation with the facts and was presented by the
source, with no indication of the source’s identity or how the information was gathered. In
its view, this demonstrates bias and the fact that an opinion has been formed on the matter.
71.
The Government notes that it does not accept interference in the sovereign actions of
Nicaragua, especially when it comes to the application of national laws by the competent
authorities.
72.
The Government reaffirms that, in keeping with international standards, it fully
complies with the constitutional principles that guide good living in society, and that the
Nicaraguan people, worthy and proud of its history, will not be manipulated into denying the
truth about the application and implementation of human rights in Nicaragua.
Discussion
73.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
74.
First, in view of the Government’s assertions in its response, the Working Group notes
that its mandate was established to handle cases of persons claiming to be victims of arbitrary
arrest and detention throughout the world. This entails that its purpose includes the resolution
of disputes initiated by alleged victims of possible arbitrary detention. This has been the
motivation of the Human Rights Council in requesting the full cooperation of States with the
Working Group.4 Accordingly, the Working Group finds the claims of the Government of
Nicaragua incompatible with the actions of the Working Group.5
75.
In fulfilling its mandate, the Working Group refers to the international standards set
forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international instruments,
in particular the Covenant, to which Nicaragua is a party.6 In this context, 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. It is outside of the mandate of the Working Group
to reassess the sufficiency of the evidence or to deal with errors of law allegedly committed
by the domestic courts.7
76.
The Working Group reaffirms that States have an obligation to respect, protect and
uphold all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including liberty of person, and that any
national law allowing deprivation of liberty should be made and implemented in conformity
with the relevant international standards.
77.
Consequently, even if the detention does conform to national law, regulations and
practices, the Working Group is mandated to assess the judicial proceedings and the law itself
to determine whether they are compatible with the relevant provisions of international human
4 Commission on Human Rights, resolutions 1991/42, 1992/28, 1995/59, 1998/41, 2001/40 and
2004/39; Human Rights Council, resolutions 6/4, 10/9, 15/18, 24/7, 33/30 and 42/22.
5 A/HRC/36/38, para. 15; opinion No. 70/2018, paras. 32 and 33.
6 A/HRC/36/38, para. 7.
7 See opinion No. 40/2005.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
10
GE.22-27239
rights law. Therefore, the Working Group has an imperative mandate to pronounce itself on
these cases.
78.
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.8 Mere assertions
by the Government that applicable laws have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.
79.
The Government has chosen to reply that the persons concerned are being prosecuted
for money laundering and other offences, in keeping with national criminal law, the rules of
due process and the principle of legality and in unconditional observance of human rights.
The Working Group notes the Government’s claims that all national laws and procedures
were respected in the proceedings in this case. However, in line with its mandate, the
Working Group must assess whether these laws and procedures are compatible with the
standards of international law that protect against arbitrary detention.9
Category I
80.
The Working Group received convincing information that Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes,
Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez were arrested between 28 May and 15 June 2021, at different
times and places and in varying circumstances. Ms. Chamorro was arrested on 2 June at her
home in Managua by a hundred police officers. Mr. Fletes and Mr. Gómez were arrested on
28 May by officers of the National Police. Mr. Fletes’ arrest involved civilians acting in
coordination with the police. Mr. Vásquez was arrested on 15 June, after having been
summoned to the prosecutor’s office, where he made a statement.
81.
The four individuals are being prosecuted for alleged money laundering,
misappropriation and unlawful withholding of funds, breach of the duty of loyalty and
criminal misstatement.10 Ms. Chamorro is a political figure in Nicaragua, who registered her
candidacy for President. The other three detainees are employees of a foundation that worked
tirelessly in the defence of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression in Nicaragua.
82.
The Working Group is convinced that the four individuals were arrested by officers
of the National Police or by State security forces accompanied by armed civilians, without
being shown an arrest warrant and despite the fact that none of them were in flagrante delicto,
such that their liberty was restricted without legal basis.11 In the case of Ms. Chamorro, the
arrest warrant was produced, according to the source, after the fact, once she had been
deprived of her liberty. Ms. Chamorro’s arrest involved up to a hundred officers, who came
to her home. The arrest of the other three individuals involved armed civilians who were not
part of the police, without any explanation as to the reasons for their participation in these
activities.
83.
The detainees were not informed of the reasons for their arrest, of the judicial avenues
to challenge it12 or of their right to a lawyer of their choosing.13 The arrests were carried out
using violence, threats and ill-treatment, in front of their families and with no regard for the
minors present. During all the arrests, unauthorized searches were carried out without any
legal basis, outside statutory hours and using threats and violence. Furthermore, the source
stressed that none of the four individuals were arrested during the commission of an offence.
8 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
9 Opinion No. 74/2021, para. 75.
10 In March 2022, the four detainees were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 8 to 13
years.
11 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 38.
12 See 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, principle 7 on the right to be
informed.
13 Ibid., principle 9 on assistance by legal counsel and access to legal aid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
11
The Working Group recalls that flagrancy should not be presumed but must be accredited by
the authorities, which has not happened in these cases.14
84.
The Working Group is convinced that the rights protected under articles 3, 5, 8, 9 and
11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant, principle
36 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment and article 34 (1) of the Constitution were violated at the time of
the arrests.
85.
In addition, the source notes that the Nicaraguan authorities ordered automatic pretrial
detention under Act No. 1060, which empowers the Public Prosecution Service to request an
extension of the period during which a case can be investigated and judicial detention can be
ordered when it is considered that, for investigative purposes, more time is required to
uncover additional information or sufficient evidence to support the indictment.
86.
The Working Group recalls that, in its Opinion No. 1/2018, it examined at length the
matter of automatic pretrial detention and concluded that it violates article 9 (3) of the
Covenant, which stipulates that detention pending trial should be the exception rather than
the rule and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable, necessary
and proportional.15
87.
In addition, mandatory pretrial detention implies that a person is punished prior to
conviction, in violation of the presumption of innocence enshrined in article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant, principle 36 (1) of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and article 34 (1) of the Constitution. The Working Group reiterates that even
when automatic pretrial detention is provided for by law, it must be in conformity with
international law and is therefore not beyond scrutiny.16
88.
The homes of the four individuals were searched at the time of arrest, or subsequently,
without a warrant or record of seized items. This supports the conclusion that the authorities
did not follow the necessary procedures to ensure that the arrests had a legal basis.17
89.
Furthermore, the source notes that Mr. Vásquez was arrested on 15 June 2021 and that
his family was not given any information on his whereabouts, prompting them to search for
him in various places, including the morgue, hospitals and police stations, until 18 June, when
they reported him missing. Only then were his relatives informed that the complaint would
not be accepted, as Mr. Vásquez was being detained at the Legal Cooperation Directorate.
90.
Ms. Chamorro was kept under house arrest and was held incommunicado for six days
until her lawyer was able to gain access to her. In the case of Mr. Fletes and Mr. Gómez, they
were detained at the Legal Cooperation Directorate, where Mr. Vásquez was also eventually
located.
91.
According to the source, the four detainees are in solitary confinement, without the
possibility of communicating freely and privately with counsel. They are subjected to
constant interrogation without their lawyers present and are victims of psychological torture
in the form of threats against their families. They are taken to the interrogation rooms with
their hands cuffed behind their backs and their heads down. They are kept in handcuffs with
their hands behind their backs during the interrogations, which are conducted by two
investigators.
14 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, judgment of 3 June
2021 (merits, reparations and costs), Series C, No. 424, para. 108; and Fernández Prieto and
Tumbeiro v. Argentina, judgment of 1 September 2020 (merits and reparations), Series C, No. 411,
paras. 88–101; see also opinions No. 35/2021 and 43/2021.
15 See opinions No. 57/2014, No. 24/2015, No. 16/2018 and No. 53/2018; See also A/HRC/19/57, paras.
48–58; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
16 See A/HRC/30/37, annex (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),
para 47 (b) (guideline 1).
17 Opinion No. 83/2019, para. 51.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
12
GE.22-27239
92.
The Working Group reiterates that subjecting detainees to incommunicado detention
places them outside the protection of the law,18 which is a prima facie form of arbitrary
detention and constitutes a violation of articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights19 and principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Prolonged incommunicado detention is
contrary to international human rights law, as it violates the right to challenge the legality of
detention before a judge. Moreover, the use of incommunicado detention is incompatible
with the prohibition of torture under international law.20
93.
Additionally, the accused were not brought promptly before a judicial authority, in
violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Working Group emphasizes that the
prosecutorial body cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3).
Consequently, the authorities have not established a legal basis for the detention.
94.
The Working Group transmits the case to the Special Rapporteur on violence against
women and girls, its causes and consequences, 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 Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the
Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons and the Working
Group on discrimination against women and girls.
95.
The Working Group finds that the circumstances described above constitute a serious
violation of the fundamental norms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the Covenant and render the detention arbitrary under category I.
Category II
96.
The source notes that the four detainees, as members of the Violeta Barrios de
Chamorro Foundation, supported freedom of expression through independent journalism.
Among other activities, the Foundation recorded attacks on freedom of expression and
contributed to the preparation and presentation of reports on Nicaragua to the United Nations.
In addition, Ms. Chamorro publicly criticized the actions of the Government and registered
as a candidate for President. The other three detainees engaged in peaceful protests, criticism
and activism to denounce the situation in Nicaragua.
97.
Their legal security worsened after Ms. Chamorro registered to run for President.
Within 24 hours, the Public Prosecution Service laid criminal charges against her for money
laundering and requested a travel ban and house arrest.
98.
The freedoms of opinion, expression and assembly, including peaceful protest, are the
cornerstone of any free and democratic society. These freedoms are the basis for the effective
exercise of a wide range of human rights, such as the rights to freedom of assembly and
association and to political participation, as set forth in articles 20 and 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant. The four
individuals in this case were imprisoned and prosecuted precisely for engaging in the defence
of the freedoms of expression, association and assembly and for assisting and supporting
organizations seeking a different kind of democracy in Nicaragua. In the case of Ms.
Chamorro, these actions were taken with the purpose of preventing her participation as a
candidate for political office. The other three detainees, in addition to being activists, formed
her core campaign team.
99.
The Working Group has established that deprivation of liberty is arbitrary when the
authorities have detained a person to prevent him or her from participating in public life, for
example by initiating criminal proceedings that render it impossible for a person to hold or
seek a position of political or elected office.21
18 A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, paras. 29–32; and E/CN.4/1996/38, para. 55.
19 Opinions No. 46/2017, para. 22; No. 93/2017, para. 48; and No. 10/2018, para. 48.
20 A/73/207, para. 26, and general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 56.
21 Opinions No. 24/2015, para. 44; No. 30/2015, paras. 39, 44 and 47; No. 33/2015, paras. 83–85; No.
36/2017, para. 108; and No. 61/2018, para. 59; See also A/HRC/36/37, para. 48 (d).
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
13
100.
The Working Group is deeply concerned about the reports it has received of the
persistent harassment, intimidation, threats and arrests to which the detainees have been
subjected. The Working Group also reiterates that it applies a heightened standard of review
in cases in which freedom of expression and opinion is restricted or in which social activists
or human rights defenders are involved, as in the present case.
101.
The Human Rights Committee pointed out, in its general comment No. 25 (1996), that
citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through debate
and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This
participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association. The
Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association.
102.
Consequently, the Working Group finds that the circumstances render detention
arbitrary under category II.
Category III
103.
In the light of its findings in relation to category II, namely that the detention resulted
from the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to political
participation, the Working Group considers the pretrial detention of the detainees and the
proceedings against them to be unjustified. Nevertheless, since criminal proceedings were
launched, and in view of the claims made by the source and the response from the
Government, the Working Group will proceed to analyse whether, during the course of the
judicial proceedings, the fundamental elements of a fair, independent and impartial trial were
respected.
104.
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. In this respect, the Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 32
(2007), indicated that the presumption of innocence is fundamental to the protection of
human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that
no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and
ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt.22 The Working Group has determined that
public statements openly condemning accused persons 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.23
105.
The source has established, and the Government has denied, that the President referred
to his political adversaries in the electoral contest, including Ms. Chamorro, as criminals who
wanted to overthrow the Government. The Vice-President stated that the arrest of the main
opposition leaders was part of “the justice that the Nicaraguan people have been asking for,
whereby criminals, terrorists and people who have denigrated Nicaragua all over the world
are considered to be the lowest of the low”. Articles stigmatizing the aforementioned
individuals have circulated in public media. The above constitutes a violation of the principle
of presumption of innocence.
106.
The preliminary hearing was held with significant, unjustified delay in a place not
legally designated for such proceedings. Initially, the defendants were not authorized to
receive legal assistance from a lawyer of their choosing, having been imposed a public
defender. They were not informed, promptly and in detail, of the nature of and reasons for
the charges against them. The offences with which they had initially been charged were
changed without them being notified. Taken together, these circumstances mean that the four
defendants did not benefit from due process guarantees and were prevented from exercising
their defence and challenging the legality of their detention, as provided for in articles 3 and
9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
22 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
23 See opinions No. 90/2017, No. 76/2018 and No. 89/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
14
GE.22-27239
107.
In addition, the initial hearing was held behind closed doors, without lawyers present,
at the Legal Cooperation Directorate instead of the Managua courts, as was required.
Furthermore, the defendants were forced to attend the initial hearing in handcuffs and with
their heads bowed, in violation of the presumption of innocence. At this hearing, the judge
elevated the case to a public trial, maintained the provisional qualification of the offence
proposed by the Public Prosecution Service and admitted all the evidence.
108.
The Working Group is concern about the conditions in which the four individuals are
being held and about the denial of medical assistance. Article 10 of the Covenant provides
that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person. Denial of medical care constitutes a violation of
rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
109.
Violations of the right to health in the context of confinement and deprivation of
liberty interfere with fair trial guarantees, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and torture
and the enjoyment of the right to life. Violations of the right to health are both causes and
consequences of confinement and deprivation of liberty, as they prevent a person from
adequately preparing their defence.24
110.
The defendants’ access to a fair trial was hindered. They did not have proper legal
assistance and were not provided with adequate time and means to mount a defence, which
is an inalienable right that must be respected in order for detention not to be deemed arbitrary.
Among other issues, the defendants were prevented from communicating privately and
confidentially with their lawyers,25 were given limited time to prepare their defence26 and
were denied access to the file containing all the documents, evidence and other elements that
the prosecution intended to present to the court.27 The defendants were denied all of these
guarantees, which constitutes a violation of the right to a defence and a fair trial enshrined in
articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the
Covenant.
111.
The Working Group notes that in the case under consideration the fundamental rules
have not been observed, as demonstrated not only by the violation of the obligation to grant
the legal remedies guaranteed by law, but also by the excessive amount of time the defendants
have been held in pretrial detention or under house arrest.
112.
Ms. Chamorro is under house arrest. In her case, the time allowed for visits is
controlled, amounting to forced isolation. The other measures to which she has been
subjected, including the alienation of her property, entail significant restrictions on her
personal freedom. House arrest is equivalent to deprivation of liberty, as the person is in a
closed facility and is not authorized to leave the place at will.28 House arrest is a form of
deprivation of liberty without the person’s consent.29
113.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that serious violations of
the four individuals’ fair trial guarantees under articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant were committed, rendering their
detention arbitrary under category III.
Category V
114.
The Working Group is of the view that the four detained persons can be considered
as human rights defenders given their history of continuous work or public engagement in
defence of freedom of expression. The right to hold and express opinions, including opinions
that are not in accordance with official government policy, is protected by article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant. Thus, given the
discrimination against human rights defenders who have publicly expressed political
24 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.
26 Ibid., para. 32.
27 Ibid., para. 33.
28 E/CN.4/1993/24, para. 20.
29 See 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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
GE.22-27239
15
positions and opinions, it is evident that the four individuals, who are members of political
groups opposed to the Government, were detained to prevent them from expressing their
opinions, carrying out their work and participating in public life, in violation of articles 19,
20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 25 of the
Covenant. The detention is therefore considered arbitrary under category V.
Disposition
115.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Cristiana María Chamorro Barrios, Marcos
Antonio Fletes Casco, Walter Antonio Gómez Silva and Pedro Salvador Vásquez
Cortedano, being in contravention of articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 25
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I, II, III and V.
116.
The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez 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.
117.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and
Mr. Vásquez immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law.
118.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Ms.
Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez and to take appropriate measures against
those responsible for the violation of their rights.
119.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to: the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; 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 violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences;
the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; and the Working Group on
discrimination against women and girls, for appropriate action.
120.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
Follow-up procedure
121.
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 Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez have been
released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Chamorro,
Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Fletes, Mr. Gómez and Mr. Vásquez 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;
A/HRC/WGAD/2022/58
16
GE.22-27239
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
122.
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.
123.
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.
124.
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.30
[Adopted on 1 September 2022]
30 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.