A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544 (E) 150523 150523

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its ninety-fifth session, 14–18 November 2022

Opinion No. 87/2022, concerning José Alberto Vásquez López

(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)

1.

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

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

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

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

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

three-year period in its resolution 51/8.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work, on 6 July 2022 the Working Group

transmitted a communication concerning José Alberto Vásquez López to the Government of

the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.1 The Government replied to the communication on 6

October 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,

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/2022/87

General Assembly

Distr.: General

13 March 2023

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

2

GE.23-03544

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

José Alberto Vásquez López, a 35-year-old national of the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela, is a folk musician known as “El Toto de la Llanura”. He also works as a cab

driver and is a native of Altagracia de Orituco parish (Guárico State).

5.

Mr. Vásquez López was arrested on 4 May 2022 by authorities at the La Bandera bus

terminal (municipality of Libertador de Caracas, Capital District) for alleged links to the

“Tren del Llano” criminal gang.

6.

Previously, on 20 April 2022, some 800 officers from the General Directorate against

Organized Crime and the Criminal Investigations Directorate, both of which are part of the

Bolivarian National Police, and from the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit,

which is part of the Bolivarian National Guard, arrived in Altagracia de Orituco. The purpose

of this deployment, called “Operation Thunder”, was to determine the whereabouts of the

members of the “Tren del Llano” gang. Dozens of warrantless raids had been carried out

against homes in the area. In the first week of the operation, more than 40 arrests were made.

Cases were reported of people who were victims of torture and ill-treatment.

7.

On 20 April 2022, officers from the Criminal Investigations Directorate and the

General Directorate against Organized Crime raided Mr. Vásquez López’s house twice,

without a warrant, asking after him. A member of his family was taken into custody for

questioning. She was beaten, threatened with death and released four hours later.

8.

The following day, the officers again raided Mr. Vásquez López’s house without a

warrant or identification. A member of his family who was of legal age was detained for nine

hours for interrogation. Family members were able to check the central police information

system and discovered that there was no arrest warrant for Mr. Vásquez López.

9.

Mr. Vásquez López was told by neighbours that the Special Action Forces were

looking for him. He decided to get away and walked to Miranda State, where he took a bus

to Caracas.

10.

However, the Bolivarian National Police arrested him at La Bandera terminal (Capital

District) on 4 May 2022, between 1.30 and 2 p.m. The authorities did not show an arrest

warrant as none had been issued. The reason for the arrest is an alleged link between Mr.

Vásquez López and the aforementioned criminal gang. According to the authorities, he is

allegedly responsible for the crimes of financing terrorism, criminal association and illicit

trafficking of arms and ammunition, under articles 52, 37 and 38 of the Act on Organized

Crime and the Financing of Terrorism.

11.

The national director of the Bolivarian National Police announced in a post on the

official Instagram account that the Police had arrested a “highly dangerous member of the

Tren de Llano gang, José Alberto León, el Toto de la llanura”, getting his name wrong and

using his stage name. Mr. Vásquez López’s relatives learned of his arrest through a social

media post by the Bolivarian National Police and starting then they searched for him

diligently, without success.

12.

Mr. Vásquez López was disappeared for five days, and then, on 9 May 2022, was

taken to the courthouse and brought before the court with jurisdiction in terrorism cases, only

to be disappeared again. The indictment was made by Prosecutor’s Office No. 71, Caracas.

The case was not registered with the Prosecutor’s Office, the processing and distribution unit

or the courts. The judge in the case did not allow him to appoint a trusted attorney but imposed

a public defender on him. The court ordered a preventive measure of deprivation of liberty.

13.

Mr. Vásquez López’s family members filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s

Office on 5 May 2022. The district public defender told them that Mr. Vásquez López had

already been brought before the court and gave them the file number, but not a copy of the

file. The family members were then able to contact Mr. Vásquez López’s public defender,

who told them what crimes he was being charged with. On 6 May 2022, the relatives went to

the human rights victim support office at the Public Prosecution Service and filed a verbal

complaint.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

3

14.

On 11 May 2022, the family was informed that the file had arrived at Prosecutor’s

Office No. 81, where the case was assigned. There the family met the prosecutor, who

arranged for them to visit Mr. Vásquez López on 13 May 2022. By then, his relatives had not

seen him or heard from him for more than ten days.

15.

On 13 May 2022, Mr. Vásquez López’s family went to see him at the Strategic

Intelligence Directorate, where they saw Mr. Vásquez López in handcuffs.

16.

Mr. Vásquez López was not being held at the Strategic Intelligence Directorate, but

in the basement of a villa on the outskirts of Caracas where he was tortured by unidentified

officials.

17.

During his detention, Mr. Vásquez López was beaten by the authorities. They crushed

his fingers and nose with pliers and placed a black bag of insecticide on his head. They also

tied him up.

18.

On 26 May 2022, the family again went to Prosecutor No. 81 to arrange a visit to Mr.

Vásquez López, but they did not receive an answer. At that time the family did not know

where Mr. Vásquez López was being held, at least since 13 May 2022.

19.

On 4 June 2022, Mr. Vásquez López’s family learned that he was to be transferred to

the premises of the Strategic Intelligence Directorate. However, he was not taken there but

placed in the Centre for the Control and Protection of Detainees of the Bolivarian National

Police, known as “Zone 7”, located in Miranda State, which is where he is currently being

held.

20.

On 22 June 2022, the family went to the Human Rights Office of the Public

Prosecution Service to make a formal complaint concerning the disappearance and torture of

Mr. Vásquez López. The investigation is ongoing and to date the Public Prosecution Service

has not taken any steps to investigate.

21.

According to the source, the detention of Mr. Vásquez López falls under the Working

Group’s categories I and III. With regard to category I, the source emphasizes that there is

no evidence that would justify pretrial detention and that he was subjected to enforced

disappearance.

22.

Under article 9 of the Covenant, ratified by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, no

one may be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such

procedure as are established by law. Likewise, in accordance with the Body of Principles for

the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, any person

detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided

by law promptly after his arrest.

23.

In addition, article 44 of the Constitution states that no person may be arrested or

detained except under a court order, unless caught in flagrante delicto. They shall be brought

before a judicial authority within forty-eight hours of the time of arrest. The person shall be

tried while at liberty, except on grounds established by law and evaluated by the court in each

case.

24.

The bounds to freedom are set by reference to the law; i.e., freedom is a right that can

be restricted only to the extent that the individual has committed an act previously defined as

an offence in a formal law.

25.

There were no grounds for detention in accordance with the domestic legal order,

since he was not caught in the act of committing a crime. That is clear from the post published

by the Bolivarian National Police itself on its official Instagram account stating that Mr.

Vásquez López was detained in a bus passenger terminal, which means that the necessary

conditions did not exist to support a reasonable claim that the authorities were reacting to a

crime of that kind. Nor was any arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority produced at the

time of his arrest, which constitutes arbitrary detention, according to the Working Group.2

Nor was there any substantiated evidence to justify the arrest and subsequent denial of full

liberty or alternative to deprivation of liberty.

2 Opinions No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 10/2015, para. 34.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

4

GE.23-03544

26.

Mr. Vásquez López is charged with the crimes of illicit trafficking of weapons of war,

financing of terrorism and criminal association solely on the basis that he had a connection

to the criminal gang because he once carried partners of the criminals in his taxi in Altagracia

de Orituco. This action does not imply that Mr. Vásquez López committed any of the alleged

crimes, merely that he was at work doing one of his jobs in the area. Reference was also made

to arrest for illicit trafficking of weapons of war; yet at the time of his arrest he was carrying

a bag of clothing. There is no evidence that Mr. Vasquez Lopez was detained in possession

of arms or ammunition.

27.

In this sense, the detention of Mr. Vásquez López was not justified by a clear, precise

and detailed account of the facts such as to substantiate his responsibility for or involvement

in any crime. Thus an arrest was made and pretrial detention ordered without sufficient

evidence to reasonably suspect the person of criminal conduct or to claim that the detention

was strictly necessary.

28.

Mr. Vásquez López’s subjection to enforced disappearance also constitutes a

continuing violation of several rights under the Covenant, such as the right to life, the right

not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and

the right to liberty and security of person.

29.

According to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from

Enforced Disappearance, this multidimensional human rights violation arises when there is a

conjunction of three factors: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) direct intervention by, or

acquiescence of, agents of the State; and (c) a refusal to acknowledge the detention or

concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the person.

30.

In the present case, all these factors coincide. Mr. Vásquez López was unlawfully

deprived of his liberty; the deprivation took place both by the intervention of State agents

and with their acquiescence. The source recalls the arresting officers’ failure to act, depriving

the victim’s relatives and lawyers of news from 4 to 13 May 2022. The source also mentions

the officials of the Prosecution Service, the public defenders and the officials who are holding

Mr. Vásquez López, for not letting them know where he is currently being held.

31.

In addition, Mr. Vásquez López was not held in the Strategic Intelligence Directorate,

where the first family visit had taken place on 13 May 2022, and after that visit his relatives

tried several times to see him again, in vain. He had been taken there on 13 May 2022 for the

sole purpose of talking to his relatives.

32.

Subsequently, on 26 May 2022, the family again went to Prosecutor’s Office 81 to

arrange a visit with Mr. Vásquez López, but received no response. Not until 4 June 2022 does

Mr. Vásquez López finally appear in “Zone 7” at a different detention centre from the one he

had been assigned to at the arraignment hearing.

33.

Thus, in addition to the violation of the right to personal liberty, Mr. Vásquez López’s

detention was also unlawful by virtue of the violation of his right to physical integrity and

recognition as a person before the law, which confirms the multidimensional nature of

enforced disappearance, since Mr. Vásquez López cannot continue exercising or enjoying

other rights, in this case, the right to be heard by a judge within a reasonable period of time

and the right to physical integrity.

34.

In relation to category III, the source notes: (a) the absence of judicial oversight

following detention; (b) violation of the right to be heard and the presumption of innocence;

and (c) failure to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and technical assistance.

35.

In this regard, under article 14 of the Covenant, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and

public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of

any criminal charge against them and that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the

right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

36.

In accordance with this legal framework, every person has the right to a hearing, with

due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent judge or court. Thus, the rules

outlined enshrine what is known as due process of law; that is, the absolute minimum required

to enable a person to defend their rights in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

5

37.

Thus, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article

44 (1) of the Constitution and article 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all persons

deprived of their liberty must be brought promptly and without delay before a judge, who

must rule on the legality of the detention. The accused has the right to be tried without undue

delay, the aim being to prevent people from remaining too long in uncertainty about their

fate.

38.

In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has established in its general comment

No. 35 (2014) that article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that anyone arrested or detained on

a criminal charge be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to

exercise judicial power (para. 32). In addition, the Working Group has previously stated that

defendants have the right to be brought before a judge for trial without delay, and to have the

legality of their detention reviewed.3

39.

The requirement applies even before formal charges have been asserted, so long as

the person is arrested or detained on suspicion of criminal activity. It is inherent to the proper

exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective

and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with.4

40.

Thus the Working Group has established that a person arrested and detained must be

brought before a judge within 48 hours of arrest, and any further delay must be absolutely

exceptional and justified in the particular circumstances of the case. 5 Likewise, the

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

independence to oversee the legality of the detention.6

41.

Under article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in cases of arrests made in

violation of the provisions of the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the laws and

international treaties, conventions or agreements signed and ratified by the Bolivarian

Republic of Venezuela will be deemed null and void and consequently the court must order

unconditional release.

42.

Notwithstanding the above, Mr. Vásquez López was not shown an arrest warrant and

was not caught in flagrante delicto such as to justify his arrest, nor was he brought before the

courts within a reasonable period of time, despite having been arrested in the capital.

43.

He was arrested on 4 May 2022 and was not brought before the courts until 9 May

2022, well beyond the 48-hour deadline to be brought before a judge, as provided in article

44 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, in view of the enforced disappearance of Mr. Vásquez

López and his presentation to the court after the 48-hour deadline, in violation of national

and international standards, the judge should have used her power of judicial oversight under

article 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to declare the proceedings null and void, and

to order his unconditional release.

44.

What is more, none of the conditions for pretrial detention had been met, since there

was no evidence to implicate Mr. Vásquez López in any criminal act. Yet Mr. Vásquez López

has remained in detention until now, was held in a place other than the one ordered by the

court, and was disappeared and tortured for several days before finally being placed in a

detention centre. There was therefore a clear violation of the right to effective judicial

protection and an absence of judicial supervision by the court after the detention of Mr.

Vásquez López.

45.

Mr. Vásquez López’s rights to be heard and to the presumption of innocence were

also violated. Both rights imply that accused persons have the right to offer evidence relevant

to their defence and to have that evidence and any witnesses examined by the parties at trial.

46.

According to article 14 (2) of the Covenant, anyone charged with a criminal offence

shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The

3 Opinion No. 78/2018, paras. 75 and 76.

4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.

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

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

6 Opinions No. 41/2020, para. 60; No. 33/2020, para. 75; No. 32/2020, para. 44; No. 45/2019, para. 52;

No. 44/2019, para. 53; No. 46/2018, para. 50; No. 35/2018, para. 37; and No. 75/2017, para. 48.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

6

GE.23-03544

presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the prosecution and ensures that guilt

is not presumed unless the charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.7

47.

In this case, Mr. Vásquez López was also accused through the police social media,

which alleged his involvement in a crime with no evidence and no trial to prove his guilt. In

similar cases, the Working Group has established that this is considered a clear violation of

article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the right to be presumed

innocent under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2)

of the Covenant, since public servants have a duty to refrain from making public statements

asserting the guilt of the accused.8

48.

Likewise, Mr. Vásquez López was held incommunicado for several days, which

prevented him from accessing a court after his arbitrary detention and from being brought

before the judicial authority. Consequently, the State can be considered to have violated his

rights to be heard and to the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees of due

process in respect of the detention of Mr. Vásquez López.

49.

Lastly, there was a failure to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and technical

assistance. The source recalls that articles 2 (3) (a) and 9 (4) of the Covenant establish the

right to appeal a decision susceptible of violating fundamental rights, and the duty of the

judicial authority to decide on the legality and admissibility of that decision. It is for this

reason that every State party is obliged to provide remedies that will effectively protect the

rights of detainees and in particular will prevent any impairment of individual liberty.

50.

The Working Group has established that holding persons in a manner that denies them

access to the outside world, and particularly to their family and lawyers, violates their right

to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. In

this regard, account must be taken of the importance of judicial supervision of detention as a

fundamental guarantee of personal liberty, which is essential in order for detention to have a

legal basis.9

51.

Mr. Vásquez López suffered a period of incommunicado detention during which he

was denied access to his lawyer and due legal assistance and, therefore, could not access a

court to determine the legality of his detention. Therefore, his right to an effective remedy

under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant

was violated in view of the incommunicado detention. Likewise, his right to technical

assistance by a lawyer of confidence, enshrined in article 14 (3) of the Covenant, was

violated.

52.

With respect to the technical assistance of a trusted lawyer, the courts with national

jurisdiction in terrorism cases limit access to a private lawyer with the intention of restricting

the accused’s right to a defence.

53.

These facts amply illustrate the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to respect

and guarantee due judicial oversight of Mr. Vásquez López’s arbitrary detention, in flagrant

violation of articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant and principles 11 and 37 of the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

Response from the Government

54.

On 6 July 2022, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the

Government. The Working Group requested the Government to provide detailed information

by 5 September 2022 on the case of Mr. Vásquez López. The Working Group also called on

the Government to ensure his physical and mental integrity.

55.

On 1 September 2022, the Government requested an extension of the deadline and

was given until 6 October 2022 to reply. It submitted its response on 6 October 2022.

56.

The Government notes that the proceedings against Mr. Vásquez López are related to

his alleged collaboration with the criminal group “Tren del Llano”, and that he is deprived of

7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.

8 Opinion No. 73/2020, paras. 55 and 56.

9 Opinion No. 76/2020, para. 54.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

7

his liberty by decision of the court, in the context of criminal proceedings against him as

allegedly liable for a crime of conspiracy, illicit trafficking in weapons of war and terrorism.

57.

According to the investigation conducted by the prosecution service, Mr. Vásquez

López allegedly provided logistical support to the group’s operations, alerting group

members to the authorities’ presence and transporting weapons and military equipment.

58.

Pretrial deprivation of liberty was sought by the prosecution service from First

Instance Supervisory Court No. 1, which is competent to deal with terrorism-related cases

and has national jurisdiction, in exercise of its powers under the Constitution and the Code

of Criminal Procedure, and which issued arrest warrant No. 040–2210 against Mr. Vásquez

López, in accordance with the provisions of article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

59.

In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the prosecution service has sole power to

bring criminal action on behalf of the State and may request custodial measures, including

pretrial deprivation of liberty, but it is the trial court that takes the decision to grant or deny

the requested measure.

60.

The Working Group errs in its interpretation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, since in

the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela there is a distinction between the authority that opens

the investigation (the prosecution service) and the authorities responsible for detention and

for ruling on pretrial detention (the courts). In no case does the prosecution service order or

take a decision on arrest. This power is reserved exclusively to the court.

61.

Mr. Vásquez López was arrested on 4 May 2022, at La Bandera bus station. A joint

unit of the Strategic Intelligence Directorate and the Directorate’s Special Operations Group

were carrying out identity checks and police searches of citizens boarding buses for Apure

State when Mr. Vásquez López was found to be the subject of an arrest warrant.

62.

At the time of the arrest, the officers of the Bolivarian National Police informed Mr.

Vásquez López of the reasons for his detention, in compliance with all his rights under the

Constitution, national law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant and

other applicable instruments.

63.

On arrival at the headquarters of the Strategic Intelligence Directorate of the

Bolivarian National Police, a statement of notification of the accused’s rights was drawn up,

and this was signed by Mr. Vásquez López and also bears his fingerprints.11 He was allowed

to make one phone call to communicate with family members or lawyers.12

64.

On 5 May 2022, Mr. Vásquez López was transferred to the National Medical and

Forensic Service for a health check, but there was no evidence that he had been subjected to

torture.

65.

On 6 May 2022, Mr. Vásquez López was brought before First Instance Supervisory

Court No. 1, with competence for terrorist-related offences, i.e. was brought before a judge

within 48 hours of arrest, in accordance with the Constitution, the Code of Criminal

Procedure and article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The court decided to defer the presentation

hearing until 9 May 2022, for reasons of force majeure.13

66.

The court considered carefully whether the conditions for this custodial measure had

been met and granted pretrial deprivation of liberty based on substantiated evidence,

including a reasonable presumption, on evaluation of the particular circumstances of the case,

that there was a risk of flight or of obstruction of the search for the truth in a specific

investigation; all in compliance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Mr. Vásquez López was

promptly notified of the charges against him, since, at the time of his arrest, he was informed

of the reasons for arrest, as required by article 9 (2) of the Covenant.

10 Arrest warrant No. 040–22, dated 4 May 2022, against citizen José Alberto Vásquez López.

11 The Government submits a copy of the certificate of notification of the defendant’s rights, dated 4

May 2022, signed and fingerprinted by Mr. Vásquez López.

12 The Government provides a copy of the police report dated 4 May 2022.

13 The Government provides a copy of the order of First Instance Supervisory Court No. 1 with

competence in terrorism-related cases and national jurisdiction, deferring the hearing.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

8

GE.23-03544

67.

On 25 May 2022, the prosecution service requested First Instance Supervisory Court

No. 1 with competence in terrorism-related cases to urgently call a special arraignment

hearing to allow Mr. Vásquez López to avail himself of the informant procedure. This

application was made at the request of the accused, who expressed his desire to cooperate

with the investigation. In this proceeding, Mr. Vásquez López, in the presence of his attorney

and without coercion, provided the court with important information.

68.

On 23 June 2022, the prosecution service formally filed with the court an indictment

against Mr. Vásquez López on charges of conspiracy, illicit arms trafficking and terrorism,

all of which offences are set forth and punished in the Act on Organized Crime and the

Financing of Terrorism (arts. 37, 38 and 53, respectively). The indictment is supported by

fifty pieces of evidence, including witness and expert statements, documentary evidence,

reports and his own statement.

69.

The source’s claims regarding the alleged lack of adequate grounds for the arrest are

not correct. Mr. Vásquez López himself has admitted in the course of the proceedings his

relationship with the “Tren del Llano” gang.14

70.

Under article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the 45-day period for the

prosecution service to formally bring an indictment in court begins to run once the detainee

or accused has been heard by the trial court. The prosecution service duly filed its indictment

within the deadline prescribed.

71.

On 29 July 2022, a preliminary hearing was held in First Instance Supervisory Court

No. 1 with competence in terrorism-related cases, in accordance with article 309 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. There, the court fully admitted the indictment submitted by the

prosecution service against Mr. Vásquez López and confirmed pretrial deprivation of liberty.

72.

At the presentation hearing, the special arraignment hearing and the preliminary

hearing, both Mr. Vásquez López and his defence lawyer were able to speak freely before

the judge. At no time did they allege disappearance, incommunicado detention, impairment

of the right to a defence or torture.

73.

The Government submits evidence (the arrest warrant and a transcript of the record

of the special arraignment hearing) confirming that human rights were respected during the

proceedings related to the arrest of Mr. Vásquez López.

74.

At present, Mr. Vásquez López is deprived of his liberty at the Centre for the Control

and Protection of Detainees, Boleíta headquarters, “Zone 7”, of the Bolivarian National

Police. His detention conditions have been found to be in compliance with the Constitution

and with national and international standards, including access to sanitary facilities. This

detention centre was inspected in 2022 by the staff of the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights. Communication with family members and lawyers has

also been guaranteed, as have visits at Mr. Vásquez López’s request, and medical attention.15

75.

The detention of Mr. Vásquez López cannot be considered arbitrary under category I

of the Working Group, since it was carried out in accordance with article 44 of the

Constitution and articles 236 ff. of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and with the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights;

76.

Nor can it be considered arbitrary under category III, since the criminal proceedings

were conducted in strict compliance with the guarantees of due process, fair trial and

impartiality, as set forth in articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.

77.

It has been shown, with tangible proof, that Mr. Vásquez López was brought before

the court within 48 hours of arrest and that that court ordered the deferral of the presentation

hearing for reasons of force majeure. The Government also asserts that Mr. Vásquez López

14 The Government provides an excerpt from the prosecution service’s indictment, dated 23 June 2022.

15 The Government submits a photo of the family members visiting Mr. Vasquez Lopez on 12 July

2022.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

9

was heard by a competent and impartial court without ever making the allegations submitted

by the source.

78.

The Government also states that Mr. Vásquez López’s right to the presumption of

innocence was respected, since the post published on the official social media account of the

Director of the Bolivarian National Police Corps was intended purely to inform the

population on a matter of public interest, a right set forth in article 19 (2) of the Covenant.

79.

Mr. Vásquez López’s decision to cooperate was not taken as a result of having been

subjected to torture, as borne out by the forensic doctor’s examination.

Further comments from the source

80.

On 7 October 2022, the Government’s response was transmitted to the source, which

responded by noting that the Government response did not mention the illegal searches and

arbitrary detentions carried out on 20 and 21 April 2022 in Altagracia de Orituco during

“Operation Trueno”. The source recalls that, on that occasion, officers of the Criminal

Investigations Directorate and the General Directorate Against Organized Crime twice

entered Mr. Vásquez López’s house without a warrant.

81.

At the time of these police actions, there was no arrest warrant against Mr. Vásquez

López to justify hunting for him and apprehending him since, according to the Government’s

response, the arrest warrant was issued on 4 May 2022.

82.

On 4 May 2022, when Mr. Vásquez López was boarding the bus, a person in civilian

clothes grabbed his arm and asked him if he was “Toto”. The Government states that Mr.

Vásquez López was arrested by a joint unit of the Strategic Intelligence Directorate and the

Special Operations Group. However, the person who arrested him identified himself as an

official from the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigation Unit, as stated in the police

record submitted by the Government, dated 4 May 2022 (see para. 63). The official did not

show him an arrest warrant.

83.

Subsequently, Mr. Vásquez López was put in a van with his head covered. He was

taken to a farm where he was tortured for days.

84.

Regarding arrest warrant No. 040–22, which the Government included in its response

(see para. 58), this was issued on the very day of his arrest. The source notes that it is common

practice for courts to issue arrest warrants on the day of arrest or after the arrest has been

made. This situation has been reported by the independent international fact-finding mission

on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and confirmed by the Office of the High

Commissioner in its report on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.16

85.

During the time Mr. Vásquez López was detained at the farm, when his relatives called

his phone to find out his whereabouts, the officers cut off the calls.

86.

On 5 May 2022, before the medical examination, the officials told Mr. Lopez Vasquez

that he could not tell the doctor what he had undergone. When she arrived, the doctor did not

carry out a physical examination, but only interviewed him in the presence of the torturers.

87.

In its response, the Government merely denies that the confessions were obtained

under torture. Yet it has not produced any information to support the veracity of these claims,

such as the findings of medical experts. In such cases, the burden of refutation rests with the

Government.

88.

Regarding the presentation hearing and the right to a defence, the Government asserts

that Mr. López Vásquez was brought before a judge on 6 May 2022, in compliance with the

48-hour deadline set by law for the detention to be considered legal. However, the court

decided to defer the presentation until 9 May 2022, for reasons of force majeure. Although

the Government has submitted the order, the only signature visible is that of the judge; neither

the secretary nor the public attorney appointed for the case are mentioned in this order.

Consequently the order is null and void and it is doubtful whether it is admissible.

16 See A/HRC/50/59.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

10

GE.23-03544

89.

Mr. Vásquez López was effectively brought before the court on 9 May 2022, not 6

May 2022. He was first taken to the headquarters of the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic

Investigation Unit, where his fingerprints were taken. He was then transferred to some offices

– allegedly a court – where he met the public defender for the first time. However, he was

never admitted to a courtroom, did not meet his judge or the prosecutor, and did not hear the

Government’s charges against him.

90.

The Government asserts that Mr. Vásquez López had the chance to speak at the

appropriate time during his apprehension or detention, but that he chose not to make a

statement, invoking his right under article 49 (5) of the Constitution and article 14 (3) (g) of

the Covenant. This never happened; he was never informed of this provision of the

Constitution, and indeed Mr. Vásquez López cannot tell whether he was in fact taken to court.

91.

Mr. Vásquez López did not choose his lawyer. On one occasion he mentioned to his

lawyer that he was being tortured, but the lawyer did not reply and did not alert the court. It

is for this reason that his family decided to intercede on his behalf and file a formal complaint

with the prosecution service.

92.

Regarding the special arraignment hearing provided for in article 40 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to enable Mr. Vásquez López to agree to the informant procedure and

admit the evidence, the source states that, having tortured him for not having answers to the

officials’ questions, the officials then inflicted severe physical and mental punishment that

led Mr. Vásquez López to make incriminating statements, even though he did not know the

answers, because he thought they were going to kill him.

93.

Regarding the evidence mentioned by the Government, the source emphasizes that

Mr. Vásquez López was repeatedly interrogated in the absence of a trusted lawyer and was

held incommunicado for nine days while being tortured in a secret torture centre. The burden

of proving that the information was given of his own free will rests on the Government, which

has not provided such proof in this case.

94.

Regarding the family visit on 13 May 2022, Mr. Vásquez López was taken to the

headquarters of the Strategic Intelligence Directorate, where he was able to meet his relatives

for 40 minutes.

95.

Later, one of his relatives went back to Prosecutor’s Office No. 81 to arrange a visit,

but was not given an answer. Family members did not know where Mr. Vásquez López was

held after 13 May 2022. The photo of 12 July 2022 does not show that he was effectively

guaranteed his right to family visits, at least during the first two months of his detention.

96.

On 5 May 2022, Mr. Vásquez López’s family reported his detention to the

Ombudsman’s Office. The district public defender told them that Mr. Vásquez López had

already been brought before the court, which was impossible on that date, given the

Government’s own claim that he was presented on 6 May 2022. They were also given the

file number, but were not given a copy of the file. They were able to contact the public

defender, who said that they were charging Mr. Vásquez López, but that there was still no

information on his whereabouts. Also on 6 May 2022, the family went to the human rights

victim support office at the Public Prosecution Service and filed a verbal complaint.

97.

On 22 June 2022, the relatives went to the Human Rights Office of the Public

Prosecution Service to formally report the disappearance and torture of Mr. Vásquez López.

He has only had one visit from the prosecutor handling the torture case. To date there has

been no response from the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Government does not comment on

the current status of the investigation. On 29 July 2022, at Mr. Vásquez López’s court

hearing, he told the judge and the responsible prosecutor from Prosecutor’s Office No. 81

about the torture he had suffered. This statement was recorded and is in the hands of the

competent authorities.

98.

Mr. Vásquez López is currently being held in a cell with 81 other people, in dire

conditions.

99.

The fact that he provided a cab service to two of the criminals’ partners is not enough

to link Mr. Vásquez López to the crimes he is charged with.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

11

Discussion

100.

The Working Group thanks the parties for the information provided for the resolution

of this case.

101.

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 law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood

to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.17 In the present case, the

Government replied to the Working Group within the period of time granted.

Category I

Lack of arrest warrant

102.

The source argues that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vásquez López is arbitrary

under category I, for having been executed without an arrest warrant and without judicial

oversight; which is compounded by his disappearance during the days following his arrest.

However, the Government has refuted this version of events, stating that an arrest warrant

was indeed issued, on 4 May 2022, as attached to its response. The Government states that

Mr. Vásquez López was brought before a court on 6 May 2022 and that his presentation

hearing was held on 9 May 2022.

103.

However, the source points out that the arrest warrant referred to by the Government

is dated the same day it was executed. It also states that the physical presentation before the

court on 6 May 2022 never took place, as allegedly demonstrated by the fact that the

corresponding record was not signed by Mr. Vásquez López, nor stamped with his

fingerprint, nor does it contain the signature of the defence counsel.

104.

According to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, persons may not be deprived of their liberty

except on such grounds as are established by law. Additionally, it is not enough that there is

a law authorizing the detention, since the authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply

it to the specific case by means of a prior court order 18 that must be shown to and

understandable by the subject of the detention.

105.

Having examined both versions of the facts, the Working Group considers that the

source has established a credible case of detention without legal basis, which was not refuted

by the Government. In this regard, the Government has provided a copy of the arrest warrant

issued on 4 May 2022. However, 4 May 2022 was the day of the arrest, which does not prove

that the warrant was issued prior to the deprivation of liberty. Added to this is the fact that

the Government has not presented an adequate explanation as to how the order was issued or

the grounds on which it was based.

106.

In the Government’s response, the Working Group has only been able to note that an

alleged witness reportedly stated, on 10 May 2022, that Mr. Vásquez López allegedly ran

errands for a criminal organization. However, this testimony was reportedly given a week

after the arrest, so it could not have been the basis for requesting a warrant.

107.

Additionally, the source has provided exhaustive information on the so-called

“Operation Thunder”, which was the context of the arrest of Mr. Vásquez López.

108.

In this regard, the source has indicated that the home of Mr. Vásquez López’s family

was raided – without a warrant – on 20 April 2022 and again the following day. It is also

claimed that the police were out in the community looking for Mr. Vásquez López in order

to arrest him. It is also reported that several persons with ties to Mr. Vásquez López were

detained for interrogation. None of these allegations have been rebutted by the Government.

In view of the foregoing, the Working Group is not convinced that the competent authorities

requested, substantiated and obtained an arrest warrant before proceeding with the

deprivation of liberty of Mr. Vásquez López.

17 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

18 Opinions No. 61/2020, para. 65; and No. 34/2020, para. 45.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

12

GE.23-03544

Lack of judicial oversight

109.

With regard to the source’s allegation that Mr. Vásquez López was not brought

promptly before a court and that the legality of the detention could not be challenged, the

Working Group notes that the Government provided a copy of the court’s order dated 6 May

2022, postponing the presentation hearing to 9 May 2022. The order does not bear the

signature of Mr. Vásquez López or that of his defence counsel. Likewise, the Government

states that there was a presentation hearing but has not attached a copy of the relevant record.

110.

Therefore, the Working Group has not been convinced by the Government that Mr.

Vásquez López was brought before a court during the first 48 hours of his detention, or that

his right to challenge the legality of his detention before a court has been guaranteed.

111.

Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that any person arrested shall be brought

promptly before a judge, while article 9 (4) states that the person must have the right to

challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court. Judicial oversight of detention is a

fundamental safeguard of personal liberty19 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a

legal basis. In this sense, 48 hours is normally sufficient to meet the requirement of article 9

(3) of the Covenant to bring the detainee before a judge “without delay”; any delay longer

than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified 20 under the specific

circumstances.21

112.

The Working Group concludes that Mr. Vásquez López was denied the effective right

to bring an action before a court to challenge the legality of his initial detention, contrary to

articles 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant and

principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of

Detention or Imprisonment. He was also placed outside the protection of the law during the

first days of his detention, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.22

113.

Consequently, the Working Group considers that the detention of Mr. Vásquez López

lacks a legal basis, which renders it arbitrary under category I.

Category III

Presumption of innocence

114.

The source claims that Mr. Vásquez López was denied the presumption of innocence

when the Director of the Bolivarian National Police referred to him by his stage name on an

official social media account and identified him as a dangerous member of a criminal gang.

The Government maintains that the sole purpose of the post was to guarantee the right of the

public to be informed on a matter of public interest, as set forth in article 19 (2) of the

Covenant.

115.

The post in question shows a photo of Mr. Vásquez López and accuses him of being

a dangerous member of a criminal organization. The Working Group therefore notes that the

Government has not refuted the source’s allegation of denial of the presumption of innocence

to Mr. Vásquez López.

116.

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of a fair trial and

thus non-derogable23 and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been

proved beyond reasonable doubt.24 In addition, public officials have a duty to refrain from

making public statements asserting the guilt of the accused.25 The Working Group considers

that the right to the presumption of innocence, enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the Covenant, was violated in this case.

19 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.

20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014).

21 Opinion No. 56/2019, para. 80.

22 Opinions No. 61/2020, para. 70; and No. 76/2017, para. 58; and A/HRC/29/26/Add.2, para. 108.

23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 6.

24 Ibid., para. 30.

25 Opinion No. 73/2020, paras. 55 and 56.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

13

Right of access to legal counsel

117.

According to the source, Mr. Vasquez Lopez was repeatedly interrogated in the

absence of a lawyer of confidence, while being tortured. The source also claims that Mr.

Vásquez López did not choose his counsel. On one occasion, Mr. Vásquez López told his

defence attorney that he was being tortured but received no response from him, nor did the

lawyer alert the court. The source also claims that the courts with national jurisdiction in

terrorism cases limit access to private counsel, with the intention of restricting the accused’s

right to a defence and any communication with the outside world.

118.

The Government claims that Mr. Vásquez López was assisted by a public defender by

his own choice, but provides no information to support its contention that Mr. Vásquez López

had access to a defence attorney from the time of his arrest.

119.

Detained persons should have access, from the moment of detention, to a lawyer of

their choice, as stipulated in 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.26 This was denied to Mr. Vásquez López, which affected his ability to

effectively exercise his right to challenge the legality of his detention, a right enshrined in

article 9 (4) of the Covenant.

120.

The Human Rights Committee has stated that legal aid should be provided at all stages

of criminal proceedings to ensure compliance with article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.27 This

has not been observed and therefore also constitutes a violation of principle 17.1 of the Body

of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

and 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.

Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

121.

According to the source, Mr. Vásquez López was subjected to torture during the days

following his arrest for the alleged purpose of extracting an incriminating confession against

himself and other defendants.

122.

The Government has denied these allegations, stating that Mr. Vásquez López

underwent a medical examination on 5 May 2022 and allegedly no traces of torture were

found. Additionally, the Government points out that Mr. Vásquez López has not filed any

complaint against torture. According to the Government, Mr. Vásquez López voluntarily

decided to cooperate with the investigation and confess in exchange for a short trial and a

reduced sentence.

123.

The Working Group recalls that article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant provides that, during

criminal proceedings, anyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right not to be

compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. In addition, article 7 of the Covenant

enshrines the right not to be subjected to torture, which is also prohibited by article 5 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Likewise, the Convention against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela is a party, obliges the State to criminalize, investigate and punish torture, and also

prohibits statements obtained as a result of torture from being invoked as evidence in any

proceedings. The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is

considered a guarantee of the right to personal security.28

124.

The Working Group considers that the Government’s response is not sufficient to

refute the source’s allegations. First, it should be noted that the date of the medical evaluation

referred to by the Government does not cover the entire period during which it is alleged that

Mr. Vásquez López was subjected to torture. Secondly, the Government has not provided a

copy of the results of the evaluation or any supporting element that would lend credibility to

its response or convince the Working Group that the examination was indeed carried out and

26 A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9.

27 Borisenko v. Hungary (CCPR/C/76/D/852/1999), para. 7.5.

28 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 34.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

14

GE.23-03544

that those were indeed the results it produced. Lastly, the Government has also failed to

provide details of the manner in which this examination was conducted, and in particular as

to the application of the criteria established by the Manual on the Effective Investigation and

Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

(Istanbul Protocol)

125.

On the other hand, the Government has responded by pointing out that the complaints

filed by the family of Mr. Vásquez López have led to the opening of investigations into the

alleged torture. However, the Government has not provided additional details on the

investigations that have been carried out or on the investigations planned or due or the

expected date of their completion. Therefore, the Working Group has not been convinced by

this response and considers that the source has credibly established that Mr. Vásquez López

was subjected to torture in the days following his detention, with the purpose of forcing him

to provide an incriminating confession.

126.

The Working Group is dismayed by the description of the treatment of Mr. Vásquez

López. The conduct described appears to violate the absolute prohibition of torture as a

peremptory norm of international law, as well as articles 5 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, 7 of the Covenant and 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture.

Furthermore, by being forced to confess, Mr. Vásquez López’s right to the presumption of

innocence under article 14 (2) of the Covenant was violated. His right not to be compelled to

incriminate himself under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant was also violated. Intentionally

inflicting pain, and applying threats and pressure, in order to obtain a confession violates

articles 2, 13, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture, makes the procedure inherently

unfair and renders the detention arbitrary. The Working Group will refer the present matter

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

punishment.

127.

The Working Group considers that the failure of a judge to intervene when torture is

alleged amounts to a violation of the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal

under article 14 (1) of the Covenant29 and the right to equality of arms.

128.

In view of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that the international standards

relating to the right to a fair trial, as set forth in articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, have been violated so seriously as to render

the deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.

Concluding remarks

129.

This case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in recent

years concerning arbitrary detention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 30 In the

Working Group’s view, this is indicative of a systematic practice of depriving people of their

liberty while failing to respect their rights under international law. Widespread or systematic

imprisonment, in violation of the norms of international law, may constitute crimes against

humanity.31

130.

The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the

Government to address problems concerning arbitrary detention and, in the light of the

recurrent pattern of arbitrary detention identified by this international human rights

mechanism in recent years, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is urged

to consider inviting the Working Group to make an official country visit. Such visits are an

opportunity for the Working Group to engage in direct constructive dialogue with the

Government and representatives of civil society, with the aim of better understanding the

29 Opinions No. 53/2018, para. 77, and No. 46/2017, para. 25; A/HRC/28/68/Add.3, para. 56; and

CAT/C/MEX/CO/7, paras. 20–21.

30 Opinions No. 73/2020, No. 57/2020, No. 44/2020, No. 20/2020, No. 18/2020, No. 81/2019, No.

80/2019, No. 75/2019, No. 40/2019, No. 39/2019, No. 13/2019, No. 86/2018, No. 72/2018, No.

49/2018, No. 41/2018, No. 32/2018, No. 24/2018, No. 87/2017, No. 84/2017, No. 52/2017, No.

37/2017 and No. 18/2017.

31 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

GE.23-03544

15

situation of deprivation of liberty in the country and the underlying reasons for arbitrary

detention.

Disposition

131.

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

The deprivation of liberty of José Alberto Vásquez López is arbitrary, as it

contravenes articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls

into categories I and III.

132.

The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Vásquez López without

delay and to bring it into conformity with the relevant international standards, including those

set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights.

133.

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

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Vásquez López immediately and to

grant him the effective right to obtain compensation and other types of reparation, in

accordance with international law.

134.

The Working Group urges the Government to carry out a thorough and independent

investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr.

Vásquez López and to take appropriate action against those responsible for the violation of

his rights. In the current context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the

threat it poses in places of detention, the Working Group requests the Government to take

urgent measures to secure the immediate release of Mr. Vásquez López.

135.

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

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment, for appropriate action.

136.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion by

all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

137.

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 the follow-up action taken

on the recommendations made in this opinion, in particular:

(a)

Whether Mr. Vásquez López has been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been granted to Mr. Vásquez

López;

(c)

Whether the violation of Mr. Vásquez López’s rights has been investigated

and, if so, the result of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with its

international obligations in line with the present opinion;

(e)

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

138.

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.

139.

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. This follow-up

procedure will enable the Working Group to keep the Human Rights Council informed of the

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/87

16

GE.23-03544

progress made in implementing its recommendations and, where appropriate, of any

shortcomings observed.

140.

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 into account its views

and, if necessary, to take appropriate measures to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the measures they have taken.32

[Adopted on 18 November 2022]

32 Human Rights Council Resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.