Opinion; Subjects: ANGOLA, 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.23-23903 (E) 121223 131223
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-eighth session, 13–17 November 2023
Opinion No. 63/2023 concerning Carlos Manuel de São Vicente
(Angola)
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, 1 on 30 May 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Angola a communication concerning Carlos Manuel de
São Vicente. The Government submitted a late response on 8 September 2023. 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/2023/63
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 December 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
2
GE.23-23903
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Carlos Manuel de São Vicente is a dual citizen of Angola and Portugal, born on
16 March 1960. He is an entrepreneur and an economist by training and is married to a former
member of parliament and vice-minister in the Administration of President of Angola,
José Eduardo dos Santos, and daughter of former President of Angola, Agostinho Neto. He
usually resides in Luanda.
(i)
Background
5.
According to the source, Mr. São Vicente became successful in the early 2000s, when
a State company where he was employed, Sonangol, perfected its risk management system
in the oil fields at his initiative, thanks to the creation of another company set up for that
purpose, AAA Seguros. That company was reportedly granted the position of “leader” of
co-insurance of Angolan oil activities under the terms of decrees No. 6/01 of 2 March 2001
and No. 39/01 of 22 June 2001.
6.
In return for his decisive contribution, Mr. São Vicente was granted the possibility of
gradually acquiring shares in AAA Seguros, originally majority owned by Sonangol.
According to the source, these insurance and reinsurance activities were beneficial for the
State and highly profitable for Mr. São Vicente, who invested his wealth in the economy of
Angola, in particular by equipping the country with a hotel network. According to the source,
at the time of his arrest, Mr. São Vicente had become the most important Angolan investor
in the country.
7.
Reportedly, on 18 September 2018, Mr. São Vicente gave instructions to a Swiss
bank, where he held both personal accounts and business accounts opened in the names of
his companies, for two internal fund transfers. Being aware of its client’s intention to
withdraw his funds from the bank’s management, the bank alerted the Swiss authorities to
suspicions of money-laundering. On 4 December 2018, the Swiss authorities opened an
investigation for money-laundering into Mr. São Vicente and froze his assets and those of
his family.
8.
In January 2020, while his assets were still frozen by the Swiss authorities, the
“Luanda leaks” documents revealed significant embezzlement committed by the former
leader of the Sonangol company. According to the source, despite the lack of any link with
Mr. São Vicente, these revelations had an impact on his case and on 11 March 2020, the
Swiss public prosecutor sent Angola a request for mutual legal assistance, relating
particularly to the relationship between Sonangol and AAA Seguros.
9.
Reportedly, the Angolan authorities responded to the Swiss authorities’ request on
7 August 2020, stating that a full investigation had been carried out, that the procedure
awarding the position of co-insurance leader was regular, and that other AAA Seguros
shareholders had stated that there was no claim against the company or its Board of Directors.
The prosecutor’s office further stated that Mr. São Vicente had demonstrated responsible
citizenship and diligent and zealous management of an activity essential to the oil industry
and therefore to national security. The prosecutor’s office reportedly concluded that there
was no indication in Angola of any corruption, money-laundering, economic participation in
a business or any other crime committed by Mr. São Vicente in connection with the facts
appearing in the request for judicial assistance.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
10.
According to the source, as at 27 August 2020, the amount of Mr. São Vicente’s assets
were widely exposed by media outlets, in a heated political and social context and the serious
economic and financial crisis faced by Angola since 2014, allegedly linked to the fall in oil
prices and the corruption of its leaders.
11.
The source explains that in 2017, the President of Angola, João Lourenço, embarked
on a campaign against corruption, which reportedly targeted the family of his predecessor.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
3
Apparently, this campaign was criticized as a politically motivated instrumentalization of the
justice system and a way to settle scores with old rivals.
12.
The source further explains that the economic crisis in Angola has worsened following
the health crisis linked to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which itself
revealed the extreme poverty in the country and led to social upheaval and human rights
violations by the authorities. The source observes that in this context of political, economic
and social instability, mention of the alleged embezzlement of $900 million was bound to
cause popular outrage against the ruling class and placed the Government under a high degree
of pressure, especially in view of the then-impending presidential election.
13.
The source explains that in this highly politicized and socially unstable context,
despite having exonerated Mr. São Vicente a month earlier, the public prosecutor decided to
open an investigation into him for embezzlement and corruption. On 8 September 2020, the
prosecutor reportedly ordered the sequestration of buildings belonging to AAA Seguros and
hotels built and operated by Mr. São Vicente in Angola. According to the source, the order
did not include any facts to justify such measures. Reportedly, the authorities also seized the
shares of a company held by one of Mr. São Vicente’s companies, although such assets were
not included in the sequestration order. The source also contends that Mr. São Vicente
received no notification of any of the sequestration orders. The public prosecutor reportedly
issued press releases informing the public of its actions, which were relayed by national
media.
14.
It is reported that Mr. São Vicente appeared for the first time before the public
prosecutor on 15 September 2020 and for the second time on 22 September 2020. Allegedly,
he was denied access to the minutes of his hearing on both occasions. The source notes that,
following that hearing, the same two judges who had assured the Swiss authorities two
months previously of Mr. São Vicente’s innocence ordered he be placed in detention. The
media was reportedly made aware of the detention order more than half an hour before
Mr. São Vicente was notified of it.
15.
According to the source, after the Angolan media had revealed the content of the
response sent by the Government to the Swiss authorities in August 2020, the prosecutor’s
office attempted to explain its turnaround by stating that when the Swiss authorities had sent
the request for judicial assistance, there was not enough evidence and the Swiss authorities
had not provided information on the amounts at stake. The source contends that such
information, in addition to a number of other details, was expressly included in the request
for judicial assistance and that therefore the Angolan authorities had been in possession of
all information relevant to the Swiss proceedings for several months.
16.
The source considers that the arrest of Mr. São Vicente was meant to deflect popular
discontent. Reportedly, the detention order of 22 September 2020 merely enumerates a
number of allegations without establishing any facts linking Mr. São Vicente to his alleged
crimes. The authorities reportedly argued that his power, influence, finances and regular
travel abroad demonstrated a risk of absconding that justified his detention. According to the
source, Mr. São Vicente’s health was not taken into consideration, even though he is
vulnerable to a serious COVID-19 infection because of his type 2 diabetes and hypertension,
and no alternative to detention was considered because of the social instability that threatened
the Government.
17.
From 22 September 2020 to date, Mr. São Vicente was reportedly detained in Viana
prison in particularly dire conditions. The source reports that Viana is chronically
overcrowded and pretrial detainees are detained together with convicted individuals.
Allegedly, Mr. São Vicente does not receive adequate food and lacks access to running and
drinkable water. As a result, his relatives attempt to supply him with food and clean water
daily. Reportedly, after the media exposed his wealth and depicted him as guilty of significant
embezzlement, thereby fuelling public hostility, Mr. São Vicente became the target of other
detainees. The source notes that Mr. São Vicente’s mental and physical health are
deteriorating, as he cannot access proper medical care and treatment. The source expresses
concern that in the context of COVID-19, these ailments may render Mr. São Vicente more
vulnerable and expose him to a risk of death.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
4
GE.23-23903
18.
On 28 September 2020, the public prosecutor reportedly sent a supplementary
response to the request for judicial assistance sent by the Swiss authorities, informing the
latter of the criminal proceedings brought against Mr. São Vicente and thereby contradicting
the initial report sent by the Angolan authorities in August 2020.
19.
On 12 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva, ruling on the
lifting of the freezing of the assets of AAA International Ltd., underlined the need to specify
the offence alleged against Mr. São Vicente to justify prosecuting him for money-laundering
in Switzerland and stated that the response of the Angolan authorities did not indicate any
such offence. The source observes that the Swiss authorities were particularly sceptical as to
the existence of any offence committed by Mr. São Vicente.
20.
The source further reports that on 6 October 2020, two officers of the office of the
public prosecutor in charge of the case visited Mr. São Vicente in detention, outside any
procedural framework. Reportedly, neither Mr. São Vicente nor his lawyer had been notified
of the visit and the agents threatened to convict Mr. São Vicente if he did not hand over his
assets to the Government, which they said needed money.
21.
According to the source, the detention of Mr. São Vicente was first reviewed by a
judge on 7 October 2020, when the Supreme Court rejected his request for habeas corpus, in
which he alleged that his detention was not legal and that his health was in danger. The Court
reportedly considered that Mr. São Vicente’s health, although likely to render his detention
illegal, did not fall within the scope of article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which
governs the habeas corpus procedure. In addition, the Supreme Court reportedly omitted to
answer the main grounds raised by Mr. São Vicente to demonstrate the illegality of his
detention.
22.
On 15 October 2020, the Provincial Court of Luanda reportedly rejected Mr. São
Vicente’s appeal against the detention order of 22 September 2020, despite not having
examined the existence of any factual element likely to implicate him in the alleged acts and
merely adopting the reasons enumerated in the detention order. While admitting the existence
of deplorable sanitary detention conditions and the increased risk of contracting diseases in
the prison of Viana and recalling the right to health enshrined in the Constitution, the Court
concluded that in view of the principle of equality and the fact that all detainees were subject
to the same conditions, there was no violation of Mr. São Vicente’s rights.
23.
On 20 January 2021, despite having found no element likely to justify indicting
Mr. São Vicente, the public prosecutor extended his pretrial detention for two additional
months. During his appearance before the public prosecutor, on 29 January 2021, the latter
reportedly asked Mr. São Vicente if it was “fair” that he had made such large profits from his
activities in the oil sector. The source notes that Mr. São Vicente was denied access to the
minutes of his hearing.
24.
The source contends that Mr. São Vicente’s detention is based on political and moral
considerations. It is submitted that Mr. São Vicente has served as a scapegoat for difficulties
in the country linked to the time, the regime and the system, and entirely unrelated to the
charges against him, in a context in which public opinion was focused on issues of corruption
and was stirred up against Mr. São Vicente.
25.
On 24 March 2022, the District Court of Luanda reportedly sentenced Mr. São Vicente
to nine years in prison for embezzlement, tax fraud and money-laundering, as well as a fine
of $4.5 billion and the loss of all assets seized in the context of the judicial proceedings in
favour of the State. On 25 July 2022, the Luanda Appeals Court increased the sentence to
10 years and on 22 September 2022, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment.
Mr. São Vicente reportedly filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court, which is currently
pending.
26.
The source notes that under domestic law, a Supreme Court judgment is not final if
an appeal is pending before the Constitutional Court. The source explains that given the
circumstances of the present case, its complexity, the appeal pending before the
Constitutional Court and the inability of Mr. São Vicente to attend some hearings due to his
hospitalization, his pretrial detention should have been limited to 24 months and 4 days and
should have ended on 26 September 2022 at the latest. The source therefore contends that,
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
5
pending a final judgment, Mr. São Vicente is being detained in pretrial detention beyond the
maximum duration established by law.
(iii)
Legal analysis
27.
At the outset, the source notes that article 9 (1) of the Covenant, article 6 of the African
Charter on Human and People’s Rights, and article 36 of the Constitution of Angola prohibit
arbitrary detention. In accordance with article 13 of the Constitution, international
instruments ratified by the State are directly applicable in domestic law and are therefore
binding on domestic judges.
28.
The source argues that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is arbitrary under categories
I, III and V.
a.
Category I
29.
The source argues that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is arbitrary insofar as it
resulted from an invalid title, lacking any factual evidence, and his detention was neither
necessary nor reasonable.
30.
The source recalls that under article 9 (2) of the Covenant, anyone arrested must be
notified of the reasons for the arrest at the time of the arrest and promptly notified of the
charges against them. It notes that the term “reasons” includes the general legal basis for the
arrest, but also facts sufficient to give an indication of the merits of the complaint, and that a
detention is arbitrary where the arrest warrant does not mention any factual element likely to
implicate the person concerned in the acts in question. The source adds that according to the
European Court of Human Rights, “having a reasonable suspicion presupposes the existence
of facts or information capable of persuading an objective observer that the individual in
question may have committed the offence”2 and therefore, the absence of elements linking
the person concerned to the alleged facts deprives the detention of a legal basis.
31.
According to the source, the order dated 22 September 2020 ordering the detention of
Mr. São Vicente does not mention any concrete element likely to link him to the facts with
which he is charged. Reportedly, it mentions that the defendant carried out a scheme of illegal
appropriation of AAA Seguros shares, income and profits produced by the insurance and
reinsurance system in the oil sector in Angola, as a result of the co-insurance monopoly in
the sector through AAA Seguros. According to the order, most of the assets of AAA Seguros
now belong to other companies of the same group owned or controlled by Mr. de São Vicente,
namely AAA Investors, AAA Serviços Financeiros, AAA Activos, AAA Angola Invest
Limited and AAA International Limited, achieved through a fraudulent process and to the
detriment of the Angolan State. The order also alleges that there are strong indications that
the transfer of the shares in favour of AAA Seguros held by Mr. de São Vicente, was made
illegally, as there is no evidence in the records that the Board of Directors of Sonangol agreed
to the transfer of shares.
32.
The source notes that the changes in the shareholding of AAA Seguros were made
public through the official gazette and that Sonangol accepted these changes at shareholder
meetings. Reportedly, Sonangol was informed in real time of the composition of the
shareholding of AAA Seguros and has always indicated, including through its most recent
director, that it has no claim or grievance against AAA Seguros or its directors, including
Mr. São Vicente. The source argues that the lack of precision characterizing the detention
order reflects the extreme fragility of the case brought against Mr. São Vicente. The source
adds that the order reverses the burden of proof insofar as it states that there is no evidence
in the records that Sonangol agreed to the transfer of shares, which is not only contrary to the
right to be presumed innocent but also testifies to the absence of any material element in
support of the accusations against Mr. São Vicente. The source also recalls that in its
2 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom,
Applications No. 12244/8, No. 12245/86 and No. 12383/86, Judgment, 30 August 1990, para. 32. See
also Brogan and others v. United Kingdom, Applications No. 11209/84, No. 11234/84, No. 11266/84
and No. 11386/85, Judgment, 29 November 1988.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
6
GE.23-23903
judgment, the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva emphasized that the response of the
Angolan authorities did not suggest that any offence had been committed by Mr. São Vicente.
33.
The source notes that despite the lack of factual elements to support the charges
against Mr. São Vicente, the Provincial Court of Luanda and the Supreme Court confirmed
the detention order of 22 September 2020. For the reasons set out above, the source argues
that Mr. São Vicente is detained on the basis of an invalid detention order.
34.
It is further submitted that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is contrary to article 9 (3)
of the Covenant, as it is not necessary or reasonable.
35.
Allegedly, at the time that Mr. São Vicente was placed in detention, the authorities
had been duly informed that Mr. São Vicente’s passport had expired and most of his assets
had been frozen, depriving him of any financial support. In addition, his notoriety, which was
heightened by the press campaign to which he was subjected after September 2020, would
not have allowed him to move around in anonymity. The source emphasizes that, as stated
by the Working Group, such factors make the flight risk unlikely. It further notes that Mr. São
Vicente has never attempted or even thought about leaving the country or interfering with
the investigation and has systematically cooperated with the authorities and provided the
necessary documents and answers. The source therefore submits that there was no indication
of any risk of absconding or interference with the investigation.
36.
In addition, the source argues that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is unreasonable
as it exposes him to a risk of death. It notes that Mr. São Vicente is over 60 years old and has
diabetes 2 and high blood pressure, requiring regular cardiology and urology monitoring,
which the Viana prison cannot provide. The source emphasizes that in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic, made worse by the overcrowding in the prison and the dire detention
conditions, Mr. São Vicente is vulnerable to serious infections. Despite the spread of
COVID-19 cases in prisons and Mr. São Vicente’s fragile health, the Supreme Court
considered his habeas corpus request on the basis of his health inadmissible and the
Provincial Court of Luanda concluded that there was no violation of Mr. São Vicente’s right
to health because all detainees were subject to the same conditions.
37.
The source further notes that Mr. São Vicente’s house is under permanent supervision
and it would have therefore been entirely conceivable to consider alternative measures to
detention, such as house arrest.
38.
The source concludes that the lack of any material proof implicating Mr. São Vicente
and the unnecessary and unreasonable nature of his detention render his detention arbitrary
under category I.
b.
Category III
39.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente was detained for political reasons and
deprived of his rights guaranteed by articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant.
40.
The source recalls that the right to be heard before an independent and impartial
tribunal, guaranteed by article 14 (1) of the Covenant, is absolute and requires that the judicial
authority be able to rule independently and without political interference. It notes that
different United Nations organs, including the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, have
regularly expressed concern regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the
Angolan judiciary.
41.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente’s right to an independent and impartial
tribunal was violated, given the political nature of the proceedings against him. It notes that
Mr. São Vicente was detained on 22 September 2020, following the freezing of his assets on
8 September, despite the authorities having stated one month prior that Mr. São Vicente had
behaved in a responsible, diligent and zealous manner and that nothing justified prosecuting
him. The source contends that the public prosecutor was put under pressure by a press
campaign that had exposed the procedure against Mr. São Vicente in Switzerland and the
socially and politically tense context in which the President of Angola himself was accused
of corruption. According to the source, the public prosecutor made an example out of Mr. São
Vicente to divert legitimate popular anger and frustration towards him in the wake of the
upcoming 2022 presidential elections.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
7
42.
The source emphasizes that Mr. São Vicente is married to the daughter of former
President Neto. According to the source, Mr. São Vicente’s wife was also a minister in the
Government of former President dos Santos, whose entourage was particularly targeted by
the anti-corruption campaign of his successor.
43.
The source submits that the freezing of Mr. São Vicente’s assets was aimed at
replenishing the State budget, as illustrated by the visit of two officers from the public
prosecutor’s office to Mr. São Vicente on 6 October 2020, during which they threatened that
he would be found guilty if he did not surrender his assets to the State, which they said needed
money.
44.
The source also contends that the judges themselves lacked independence and
impartiality. The source argues that the judges of the Provincial Court of Luanda and the
Supreme Court failed to consider any alternatives to detention, merely affirming the
prosecutor’s detention order. The source observes that the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention has previously described the habeas corpus procedure before the Supreme Court
of Angola as cumbersome and ineffective. Reportedly, despite the 2010 constitutional
reform, judges of the Supreme Court are still nominated by the President without any
parliamentary control. According to the source, it is thus unsurprising that the Supreme Court
rejected Mr. São Vicente’s application, simply arguing that it fell outside the scope of the
habeas corpus procedure.
45.
The source concludes that the lack of independence of both the public prosecutor and
the judges of the Provincial Court of Luanda and of the Supreme Court deprived Mr. São
Vicente of the rights enshrined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
46.
The source recalls the requirements that detainees be treated with dignity and be
separated from convicted individuals under article 10 of the Covenant and rules 1 and 11 of
the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules). The source notes the concept of an “unreasonable risk of serious damage”
to one’s health developed by the European Court of Human Rights, and its finding that the
lack of appropriate medical care and more generally, the detention of a sick individual in
inadequate conditions, may constitute treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention of
Human Rights).3 The source also recalls that detention conditions that affect a detainee’s
health, safety or well-being, place the individual in less favourable conditions than the
prosecution, in violation of articles 10 and 14 of the Covenant. The source adds that the
principle of equality of arms is a corollary to the right to a fair trial.
47.
The source emphasizes the overcrowding and dire conditions of detention in Angola,
particularly regarding access to food, sanitary facilities and medical care and the failure to
separate detainees and minors from convicted individuals. Specifically, it is submitted that
Mr. São Vicente is detained in particularly challenging conditions, without access to running
or potable water, insufficient food and inadequate clothing. Despite his medical record
showing particularized dietary needs due to his illnesses, he is not provided with such a diet
and is deprived of the necessary regular cardiology and urology monitoring. The source
observes that because of his detention conditions, Mr. São Vicente’s mental health has
deteriorated and he has suffered from suicidal ideation, as observed by a doctor two months
after he was detained. The source argues that such detention conditions violate his dignity,
threaten his health and well-being, and put him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the public
prosecutor, who carries out proceedings with no judicial control.
48.
According to the source, Mr. São Vicente is not separated from convicted individuals
despite the lack of a final judgment against him. He is also transported to the health clinic in
handcuffs, which creates further humiliation. The source adds that the visit to Mr. São
Vicente by two officers from the public prosecutor’s office on 6 October 2020, without his
3 For example, European Court of Human Rights, Price v. United Kingdom, Application No. 33394/96,
Judgment of 10 July 2001, para. 30; Ilhan v. Türkiye, Application No. 22277/93, Judgment, 27 June
2000, para. 87; and Gennadiy Naumenko v. Ukraine, Application No. 42023/98, Judgment
10 February 2004, para. 112.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
8
GE.23-23903
lawyers being present and in a vulnerable detention setting, increased the imbalance of the
procedure against Mr. São Vicente.
49.
The source recalls that article 9 (3) of the Covenant aims to place detention under the
control of a judicial authority and therefore applies at all times, without exception. Such
control must be exercised by an independent authority within the meaning of article 9 (3),
which excludes prosecutors, and detainees must be presented before a judge within 48 hours,
save in exceptional and justified circumstances.
50.
In the case at hand, Mr. São Vicente was reportedly detained based on an order issued
by the public prosecutor on 22 September 2020. On 20 January 2021, the prosecutor extended
Mr. São Vicente’s detention for another two months, based on the complexity of the case, its
international nature and the risk of Mr. São Vicente absconding. According to the source, at
no time was Mr. São Vicente’s detention subject to the control of a judicial authority, as
required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
51.
Further, the source contends that the national criminal procedure violates article 9 (3)
of the Covenant in so far as article 40 (1) and (2) of Law no. 24/2015 of 18 September 2015,
concerning security measures in criminal procedures, allows for the pretrial detention of
individuals for up to six months without any judicial control.
52.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente’s appeals before the Provincial Court of
Luanda and the Supreme Court do not satisfy the requirement of an automatic judicial control
under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In addition, the source submits that both courts failed to
effectively control the detention order against Mr. São Vicente and the latter filed two appeals
before the Constitutional Court, which have yet to be examined. Mr. São Vicente also filed
habeas corpus applications on 23 December 2020, 10 February 2021 and 6 April 2023.
Reportedly, despite the legal period to decide on such a request being five days, there has not
yet been a decision on the merits.
53.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente was deprived of his right to benefit from
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with
counsel of his own choosing, as guaranteed by article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
54.
The source recalls the importance of the right to legal assistance, which is fundamental
to the right to a fair trial. Restrictions to the right to legal assistance should not prejudice the
right itself, be unlawful or unreasonable and access to a lawyer must be provided promptly
and throughout the detention, including immediately after arrest.
55.
Allegedly, Mr. São Vicente faces difficulties communicating with his lawyers and
was denied visits from them on at least three occasions: on 22 September 2020 when he was
first arrested, then on 30 October and on 2 November 2020, on the sole basis that a visit from
the prison director was under way. The source adds that the visit of the two officers from the
public prosecutor’s office to Mr. São Vicente in detention on 6 October 2020 occurred despite
his lawyers not being present and not having been notified of the visit.
56.
Further, the source emphasizes that the right to adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of one’s defence is an important element of the right to a fair trial and an
application of the principle of equality of arms, and includes the right to access documents,
evidence and all materials that the prosecution plans to offer in court against the accused or
that are exculpatory.
57.
Allegedly, since the beginning of the proceedings, neither Mr. São Vicente nor his
lawyers have had access to any element of the prosecution file. Mr. São Vicente reportedly
learned of the course of the investigation, including the hearing of Sonangol’s previous
manager, through the media.
58.
The source argues that the failure of the authorities to provide Mr. São Vicente with
a lawyer and with access to his file significantly undermined the fairness of the trial and has
further contributed to the arbitrary nature of his detention.
59.
The source submits that the right of Mr. São Vicente to be presumed innocent was
violated, contrary to article 14 (2) of the Covenant and to the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. It recalls that it is
the duty of all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, for instance
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
9
by abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and that the
media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence. The source
notes that an aggressive media campaign may harm the fairness of the trial and broadcasting
a suspect’s pictures on television may, in certain circumstances, run contrary to the
presumption of innocence. Similarly, the source emphasizes the finding by the Working
Group of a breach of the presumption of innocence, where the authorities used an individual’s
detention as a piece of political propaganda to convince public opinion that it constituted a
step forward in the fight against terrorism.
60.
The source submits that Mr. São Vicente was the target of media and political
harassment and was set up as a symbol of corruption, in violation of his right to be presumed
innocent. After a newspaper revealed the procedure against him on 27 August 2020, Mr. São
Vicente reportedly made the headlines multiple times. The source contends that the public
prosecutor fuelled the media campaign by releasing detailed press releases at each stage of
the proceedings. The source notes that the prosecutor informed the media of Mr. São
Vicente’s imminent placement in pretrial detention before the latter was informed of it. On
24 November 2020, a television channel reportedly presented Mr. São Vicente as a member
of a gang who had endeavoured to drain the State treasury through diverse criminal
manoeuvres. Further, despite Mr. São Vicente not having yet been judged, the authorities
allegedly retrieved the keys to buildings of which his ownership had been frozen, with the
aim of carrying out visits with State representatives interested in using the buildings, thereby
violating his right to be presumed innocent.
61.
The source argues that on appeal, the defence alleged several violations of the right
of Mr. São Vicente to a fair trial. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court
both confirmed the conviction and the Court of Appeal even increased Mr. São Vicente’s
sentence. The source stresses that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 22 September 2022 for
the most part transcribes excerpts from the judgment of the Court of Appeal and makes
generic considerations of a theoretical nature without substantiating its conclusions.
62.
In particular, the source contends that once formal accusations were issued against
Mr. São Vicente, his lawyers were only given access to the file against him one day before
the deadline for submitting a request for a preliminary hearing. Further, the higher courts
allegedly failed to decide on the allegation that Mr. São Vicente was unable to examine and
comment on evidence that the prosecution sent to the trial court after the production of
evidence at the trial was completed.
63.
In addition, the Court of Appeal allegedly granted the appeal, despite the prosecutor
not having submitted its conclusions, as required under domestic law. Further, during the trial
before the District Court of Luanda, one of the judges reportedly fell ill and could not
participate in the hearing. The presiding judge failed to adjourn the session and the missing
judge issued a dissenting decision contending, inter alia, that she had not been continuously
present at the trial hearing.
64.
Further, the defence stated that the main lawyer appointed by Mr. São Vicente was
prevented by the trial court from representing him at the first hearing, on the basis that he
could be called as a witness in the case. Although that lawyer was never heard as a witness
in the case, the Supreme Court reportedly failed to assess the trial court’s decision to prevent
Mr. São Vicente from being represented by a lawyer of his choice.
65.
The source further submits that the trial court refused to hear two important defence
witnesses and that the Supreme Court failed to address that issue in its judgment.
66.
The source also notes that the factual matter on which a judgment must rely is limited
to the indictment prior to trial and the organized list of questions after the production of
evidence at the trial. Reportedly, the trial court considered new facts, outside the indictment
and the list of questions, and relied on testimonies of witnesses that were based on hearsay
and information transmitted by third parties, and that contained personal opinions rather than
facts. For instance, one witness reportedly relied on a letter he had signed but that he admitted
had been drafted by a third person and contained facts of which he was not aware. The trial
court also reportedly substantially relied on an audit report that was not signed and whose
author remained anonymous, in violation of domestic law.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
10
GE.23-23903
67.
The source alleges that, despite the defence having submitted evidence contradicting
the findings of the trial court judgment, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court
confirmed the lower court’s findings, thereby ignoring the lack of factual support to justify
Mr. São Vicente’s conviction. Further, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court allegedly
confirmed the trial court’s judgment, despite both objective and subjective elements of the
crimes of which Mr. São Vicente was accused not having been proven. In addition, it ignored
the fact that Mr. São Vicente was convicted based on facts that related to a period more than
15 years previously and were subject to a 15-year statute of limitation under domestic law,
and other facts subject to amnesty law No. 11/16 of 12 August 2016 and another amnesty
approved in law No. 35/22 of 23 December 2022.
68.
The source also notes that, while domestic law requires the liquidation of a
defendant’s assets resulting from facts for which the defendant was convicted, the judgment
against Mr. São Vicente ordered the confiscation of his assets, including bank accounts and
buildings, as well as that of family members, leaving him and his family without fair means
of subsistence.
c.
Category V
69.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente is detained based on his economic status and
the symbolic position he embodies because of his wealth. Allegedly, he is being prosecuted
on charges of corruption and influence-peddling, implicating other Sonangol managers.
While such managers should have been prosecuted or at least investigated under national
criminal law, the source notes that the President of Sonangol was only heard as a witness
after being assured that he would not be prosecuted. The source considers that, in the light of
the particular context in Angola, such differential treatment can only be explained by Mr. São
Vicente’s social situation and wealth.
70.
The source notes that any differential treatment based on race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, is
discriminatory. It adds that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of
Human Rights, discrimination occurs when individuals in comparable situations are treated
differently despite the lack of any objective or reasonable justification.4 The source thus
argues that Mr. São Vicente’s detention is discriminatory and violates article 26 of the
Covenant, rendering it arbitrary under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
71.
On 30 May 2023, the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Angola a
communication concerning Mr. São Vicente under its regular communications procedure.
The Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 31 July 2023, detailed
information about the situation of Mr. São Vicente and to clarify the legal provisions
justifying his continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of Angola
under international human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by
the State. The Working Group also called upon the Government of Angola to ensure Mr. São
Vicente’s physical and mental integrity.
72.
On 1 June 2023, the Government of Angola requested an extension in accordance with
the Working Group’s methods of work, which was granted with a new deadline of 31 August
2023. On 8 September 2023, the Government submitted its reply. The Working Group cannot
accept the Government response as though it were submitted on time.
2.
Discussion
73.
In the absence of a timely response from the Government, the Working Group has
decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of
work.
4 See, in particular, European Court of Human Rights, Willis v. United Kingdom, Application
No. 36042/97, Judgment, 11 June 2002, para. 48; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, Application
No. 15250/02, Judgment, 13 December 2005, para. 63.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
11
74.
To determine whether Mr. São Vicente’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has presented 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.5 In the current case, the Government
has not responded to the allegations of the source.
75.
The source has argued that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is arbitrary and falls under
categories I, III and V. The Working Group shall proceed to examine the submissions under
each category in turn.
(a)
Category I
76.
The source submits that the detention of Mr. São Vicente is arbitrary under Category
I, based upon article 9 of the Covenant, because Mr. São Vicente was not adequately
informed of the reasons for his arrest. In its late response, the Government argues that due
process was adhered to.
77.
The Working Group notes that under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is to be
deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are
established by law. Article 9 (2) stipulates that anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at
the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges
against him. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that the authorities must
invoke the legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case in question.6 That is
typically done through an arrest warrant or order, or an equivalent document.7 Those rights
are reinforced by article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
78.
In the present case, the Working Group notes that the authorities did obtain an arrest
warrant for Mr. São Vicente, dated 22 September 2020, as the source acknowledges in its
submissions summarized above. Although the source argues that the arrest order lacked
sufficient information linking Mr. São Vicente to the offence, it did indicate the reason for
the arrest and how he was allegedly linked to wrongdoing, namely through the allegation that
“the defendant carried out a scheme of illegal appropriation of AAA [Seguros] shares, income
and profits produced by the insurance and reinsurance system in the oil sector in Angola”.
Consequently, the source’s claim that he was not provided with sufficient notice of the
reasons for being arrested is dismissed.
79.
In addition, the source argues that Mr. São Vicente’s detention order lacked sufficient
factual elements to support the charges against him. However, it is not the Working Group’s
role to assess Mr. São Vicente’s responsibility under domestic law for the crimes with which
he is charged.
80.
The source submits that Mr. São Vicente’s pretrial detention was unjustified. It argues
that, with his assets being seized and owing to the extensive public attention his case received,
he was unlikely to present a flight risk. It adds that alternatives to detention at Viana prison,
such as house arrest, were not properly considered. In its late response, the Government states
that pretrial detention was considered necessary because of Mr. São Vicente’s status as “a
well-known, influential person, with financial power, … [who] travels regularly abroad,
factors which combined could facilitate [his] contact with evidence, both at home and abroad,
yet to be brought to the file”.
81.
The Working Group recalls that under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention
should be an exception, be as short as possible and be based on an individualized
determination that it is reasonable and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances,
for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.
Courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention, such as bail, electronic
bracelets or other conditions, would render detention unnecessary in the particular case.8 In
5 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
6 In cases of flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will not typically be available.
7 For example, opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
8 Opinion No. 75/2021, para. 49; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),
para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
12
GE.23-23903
and of itself, the conjecture that an individual would have the capacity to escape its
jurisdiction does not typically suffice for a State to find an exception to article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.9
82.
At the outset, the Working Group emphasizes that there is no indication that Mr. São
Vicente presented any risk of violent offending against the public or witnesses. Moreover,
noting the source’s detailed claims, including that Mr. São Vicente’s assets had been frozen
and his passport had expired, and noting that the Government’s response was late and does
not address the source’s argument that alternatives to detention were not considered, the
Working Group considers that the source has demonstrated a violation of article 9 (3) and
principles 38 and 39 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment in relation to the imposition of pretrial detention on
Mr. São Vicente.
83.
According to the source, after Mr. São Vicente was arrested on 22 September 2020,
his detention was first reviewed by a judge on 7 October 2020, when the Supreme Court
rejected his habeas corpus petition.
84.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that: “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise
judicial power”. The Working Group recalls the Human Rights Committee’s view that
detention longer than 48 hours in the custody of law enforcement officials without judicial
control must be exceptional and justified, especially when it increases the risk of
ill-treatment.10
85.
In the present case, the source submits that approximately two weeks passed before
Mr. São Vicente was first brought before a judge to have his detention reviewed, on 7 October
2020. The Government does not directly address this argument in its late response. Given
that two weeks significantly exceeds the usual 48-hour period and no explanation has been
provided by the Government, the Working Group concludes that this constituted a violation
under article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
86.
The source also argues in its reply to the Government that Mr. São Vicente was
improperly held in pretrial detention for almost a year longer than the two-year maximum
period of pretrial detention (from 22 September 2020 to 2 August 2023). However, the
Working Group notes that by 22 September 2022, Mr. São Vicente had been convicted. In
the absence of a sufficient substantiation of this argument by the source, the Working Group
cannot find that this argument demonstrates a violation of his rights.
87.
In light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the detention of Mr. São
Vicente involved multiple violations of his human rights, which rendered it arbitrary under
category I.
(b)
Category III
88.
According to the source, Mr. São Vicente has been deprived of several rights,
including the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, the right to have his detention
and conviction reviewed by a judge, the right to be treated humanely and with dignity while
in detention, the right to legal defence and the right to be presumed innocent. In its late
response, the Government submitted that his rights had not been violated, as he was given
the opportunity to learn about the accusations against him and challenge them.
89.
The source submits that given the political nature of the proceedings against Mr. São
Vicente, his right to an independent and impartial tribunal was violated. The source submits
that the political atmosphere in Angola, alongside the high level of media interest in his
activities, had strongly encouraged the Government to seek charges in order to quell public
anger. The source notes that the judges of the Supreme Court of Angola are nominated by
the President without parliamentary control and thus that the decision to reject the habeas
corpus request of Mr. São Vicente is unsurprising, given the potential for a lack of
independence and impartiality. Further, the source asserts that the meeting of Mr. São Vicente
9 Opinion No. 80/2021, para. 49.
.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
13
with two officers of the law, while in detention and without his lawyers present, was an
attempt to secure Mr. São Vicente’s wealth for use by the Government, further indicating the
lack of impartiality of the prosecution in this case. Conversely, the Government submits that
Mr. São Vicente was afforded his fair trial rights, including hearings before courts at three
different levels.
90.
Article 14 (1) of the Covenant provides that everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. In its
general comment No. 32 (2007), the Human Rights Committee notes that: “The requirement
of independence refers, in particular, to the procedure and qualifications for the appointment
of judges”. The Working Group wishes to recall that the guarantees of independence and
impartiality enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant require that States guarantee the
independence of the judiciary, including by protecting judges from any form of potential
influence in their decision-making. Those rights are reinforced by article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
91.
The Working Group notes that the source’s complaints are detailed and do raise
concerns about Mr. São Vicente being tried before an impartial and independent tribunal in
this specific instance. Angolan Law No. 69/21 states that the courts of Angola will receive
10 per cent of the value of assets seized by the State in the fight against corruption. That
creates a potential financial interest for judges in the course of proceedings, which would be
particularly acute in the present case, as it involved a large sum of allegedly ill-gotten
money.11 The Human Rights Committee has pointed out that not only must judicial officers
exercise their functions without personal bias, prejudice or preconceptions about the
particular case before them (“subjective impartiality”), but the tribunal must offer sufficient
guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt of impartiality (“objective impartiality”).12 In the
light of the Government’s late response, which does not sufficiently address the claims by
the source, the Working Group considers that the existence of a law providing proceeds to
the Angolan courts could create a doubt about the court’s impartiality in the present case.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that Mr. São Vicente was deprived of his right
in the present circumstances in contravention of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
92.
In relation to the meeting between Mr. São Vicente and two officers of the law,
reportedly made with the intention of convincing Mr. São Vicente to hand over his wealth to
the State, the Working Group notes that these were not judges but were prosecuting
authorities and so does not consider this demonstrates any violation.
93.
The source claims that the right of Mr. São Vicente to be presumed innocent was
violated, contrary to article 14 (2) of the Covenant. According to the source, Mr. São Vicente
was the target of media and political harassment fuelled by the public prosecutor and State
authorities. The source submits that the public prosecutor fuelled the media campaign by
releasing detailed press statements at each stage of the proceedings and by informing them
of Mr. São Vicente’s placement in pretrial detention before he was informed about it himself.
The source further alleges that, despite Mr. São Vicente not having yet been judged, the
authorities retrieved keys to his seized property with the aim of carrying out visits with State
representatives interested in it, thereby violating his right to be presumed innocent.
94.
Article 14 (2) of the Covenant provides that: “Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
The Working Group recalls the comment of the Human Rights Committee on the
presumption of innocence, which reiterates the duty of all public authorities to refrain from
prejudicing the outcome of a trial, including by abstaining from influencing the media
coverage.13 Those rights are reinforced by articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
95.
The Working Group notes that in its late reply, the Government did not address any
of the source’s submissions concerning the instances that prejudiced Mr. São Vicente’s
11 On the independence of judges from having a direct interest which favours one party over the other,
see opinion No. 76/2018, para. 55.
12 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 21.
13 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
14
GE.23-23903
presumption of innocence, other than to say that the authorities routinely published
judgments and that the proceedings in his case adhered to the relevant domestic laws and
human rights. Notably, the Government made no response to the allegations of the
prosecution’s involvement in supporting the media campaign against Mr. São Vicente, nor
about the allegation that the media was informed about his pretrial detention before he was.
On the basis of the information before it, the Working Group considers that Mr. São Vicente’s
right to be presumed innocent was violated in contravention of article 14 (2).
96.
The source argues that Mr. São Vicente’s detention conditions are in violation of his
right to dignified treatment under article 10 (1) of the Covenant and his right to be treated as
a person without a conviction pursuant to article 10 (2) of the Covenant. The source further
submits that these violations directly impair his right to equality of arms under article 14 of
the Covenant. Specifically, it asserts that the particularly dire conditions in the Viana prison
have negatively impacted Mr. São Vicente’s health, which has put him at significant
disadvantage vis-à-vis the public prosecutor.
97.
The Working Group has previously established that conditions of detention that are
so inadequate as to seriously weaken a pretrial detainee are in contravention of the equality
of arms principle and fair trial rights under article 14, even where procedural guarantees are
otherwise observed.14 It has also observed that persons over 60 years of age and persons with
underlying health conditions should be treated with care and States should refrain from
holding them in detention facilities where the risk to their physical and mental integrity is
excessive.15
98.
The Working Group expresses its very serious concern over the state of Mr. São
Vicente’s mental and physical health. It further expresses its concern over the fact that
Mr. São Vicente was placed in detention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, without
adequate medical facilities and when he was already in delicate health. Regarding the
facility’s conditions, the issue was raised before the Provincial Court of Luanda on
15 October 2020, which held that there was no violation based on the principle of equality as
all detainees are in detained in the same conditions. However, the Working Group recalls that
differential measures may be necessary to protect sick persons while in detention and should
not therefore be deemed to be discriminatory.16 In the light of the fact that Mr. São Vicente
asserted during his proceedings that the lack of adequate provision for his health was
undermining his ability to defend himself and given the lack of a detailed response from the
Government to the specific complaints raised by the source, the Working Group considers
that he was placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecution. The source has accordingly
established a violation of article 14. The Working Group further recalls that according to
article 10 (1) of the Covenant and rules 1, 24, 27 and 118 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, all
persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for their
inherent dignity, including by being allowed to enjoy the same standards of health care that
are available in the community. In addition, rules 22, 24 and 25 of the Nelson Mandela Rules
provide for the right to access adequate food and drinking water and health care.
99.
The source further submits there has been a violation of Mr. São Vicente’s right to
benefit from adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing, as guaranteed by article 14 (3) (b). The
source asserts that the preparation of Mr. São Vicente’s defence has been impaired by
obstacles, such as the fact that his first lawyer of choice was not allowed to represent him,
his legal counsel was only given two hours for the examination of his file, he was denied
visits from his lawyers on at least three occasions and he was visited by officers from the
public prosecutor’s office without his lawyers present.
100.
Regarding Mr. São Vicente’s right to adequate preparation of his defence under article
14 (3) (b), the Working Group notes that it enshrines essential fair trial guarantees and the
application of the principle of equality of arms.17 The Working Group further recalls that
14 E/CN.4/2005/6, paras. 69–70.
15 A/HRC/45/16, annex II, para. 15.
16 See principle 5 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 32.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
GE.23-23903
15
detained persons must have access to all materials related to their detention and any
restrictions to this right shall be supported by a finding that it was necessary and
proportionate, and that less restrictive measures would not have achieved the same result.18
Those rights are reinforced by article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
101.
The Working Group notes the Government’s response that Mr. São Vicente was
represented at all times, albeit not always by the lawyer of his first choice. As noted above,
the visit to him by prosecuting authorities has not been demonstrated to violate his right to
representation. However, it considers that the Government’s information regarding access to
the file against him was insufficient. Given the complexity of the case and the need for
Mr. São Vicente’s defence to properly consult the evidence against him, the Working Group
concludes that the source has demonstrated a violation in this respect, which undermined his
right to adequate time and facilities to present his defence under article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant.
102.
Based on the reasons set out above, the Working Group finds that Mr. São Vicente’s
conditions of detention are contrary to his rights under article 14 of the Covenant. Noting all
of the above, the Working Group finds that the violations of Mr. São Vicente’s right under
are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling under
category III.
(c)
Category V
103.
The Working Group notes the source’s argument that Mr. São Vicente suffered
discrimination due to his socioeconomic status, namely his wealth. However, given the nature
of the specific facts at issue, the Working Group does not consider that it has been sufficiently
demonstrated that any discrimination under Category V occurred in the present case.
3.
Disposition
104.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Carlos Manuel de São Vicente, being in contravention
of articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and 9,
10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within
categories I and III.
105.
The Working Group requests the Government of Angola to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. São Vicente 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.
106.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. São Vicente immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
107.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. São
Vicente and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
108.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
109.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. São Vicente has been released and, if so, on what date;
18 Opinion No. 83/2021, para. 84.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/63
16
GE.23-23903
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. São
Vicente;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. São
Vicente rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Angola with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
110.
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.
111.
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 of any failure to take action.
112.
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.19
[Adopted on 14 November 2023]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.