A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69

GE.24-01385 (E) 120324 120324 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. 69/2023, concerning Adrián Alexander Arana, Ángel Sebastián Martínez Arana, Richard de Jesús Martínez Arana, Bryan Kessler Alemán, Carlos Antonio López Cano, Denis Antonio García Jirón, Fanor Alejandro Ramos, Francisco Xavier Pineda Guatemala, Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta, Jairo Lenin Centeno Ríos, Kaled Antonio Toruño Maradiaga, Luis Carlos Valle Tinoco, Manuel de Jesús Sobalvarro Bravo, Mauricio Javier Valencia Mendoza, Jhon Christopher Cerna Zúñiga, Nilson José Membreño, Osmar Ramón Vindell López, Richard Alexander Saavedra Cedeño, Víctor Manuel Díaz Pérez, Yader Antonio Polanco Cisneros, Michael David Caballero Ayala, Edgard Antonio Ayala Valle and Michael Rodrigo Samorio Anderson (Nicaragua) 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a three-year period in its resolution 51/8. 2. In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 6 January 2023 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua a communication concerning Adrián Alexander Arana, Ángel Sebastián Martínez Arana, Richard de Jesús Martínez Arana, Bryan Kessler Alemán, Carlos Antonio López Cano, Denis Antonio García Jirón, Fanor Alejandro Ramos, Francisco Xavier Pineda Guatemala, Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta, Jairo Lenin Centeno Ríos, Kaled Antonio Toruño Maradiaga, Luis Carlos Valle Tinoco, Manuel de Jesús Sobalvarro Bravo, Mauricio Javier Valencia Mendoza, Jhon Christopher Cerna Zúñiga, Nilson José Membreño, Osmar Ramón Vindell López, Richard Alexander Saavedra Cedeño, Víctor Manuel Díaz Pérez, Yader Antonio Polanco Cisneros, Michael David Caballero Ayala, Edgard Antonio Ayala Valle and Michael Rodrigo Samorio Anderson. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1 A/HRC/36/38. United Nations A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 General Assembly Distr.: General 9 February 2024 English Original: Spanish A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 2 GE.24-01385 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. Submissions (a) Communication from the source i. Context 4. Adrián Alexander Arana is a national of Nicaragua. He was born on 2 April 2002 and was 17 years of age at the time of his arrest. Mr. Arana was arrested along with his two brothers, Ángel Sebastián Martínez Arana and Richard de Jesús Martínez Arana, both of whom are adults and nationals of Nicaragua. 5. Bryan Kessler Alemán is a national of Nicaragua. He was born on 16 September 1991 and is a motorcycle taxi driver. 6. Carlos Antonio López Cano is a national of Nicaragua, born on 20 January 1992, and a tricycle taxi driver. 7. Denis Antonio García Jirón is a national of Nicaragua, born on 24 December 1988, and a veterinarian. 8. Fanor Alejandro Ramos is a national of Nicaragua, born on 27 January 1972, and a small business owner. He was previously an officer in the special brigade and a commanding officer in the tactics and weapons department of the police. 9. Francisco Xavier Pineda Guatemala is a national of Nicaragua, born on 12 March 1985, and a labourer. 10. Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta is a national of Nicaragua, born on 12 April 1984, and a bricklayer. 11. Jairo Lenin Centeno Ríos is a national of Nicaragua, born on 27 June 1988, and a mechanic. 12. Kaled Antonio Toruño Maradiaga is a national of Nicaragua, born on 1 April 1979, and a vendor of newspapers and ice cream. 13. Luis Carlos Valle Tinoco is a national of Nicaragua, born on 21 July 1987, and a small business owner. 14. Manuel de Jesús Sobalvarro Bravo is a national of Nicaragua, born 12 April 1962, and a retired military officer, lawyer and notary. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 3 15. Mauricio Javier Valencia Mendoza is a national of Nicaragua, born on 23 September 1979, and a shoemaker and craftsman. 16. Jhon Christopher Cerna Zúñiga is a national of Nicaragua, born on 23 July 1995, and an engineering student. 17. Nilson José Membreño is a national of Nicaragua, born on 14 September 1991, and a farmer. 18. Osmar Ramón Vindell López is a national of Nicaragua, born on 11 September 1984, and a veterinarian. 19. Richard Alexander Saavedra Cedeño is a national of Nicaragua, born on 11 January 1987. 20. Victor Manuel Diaz Perez is a national of Nicaragua, born on 28 February 1993, and a welder. 21. Yader Antonio Polanco Cisneros is a national of Nicaragua, born on 27 July 1975, and a small business owner. 22. Michael David Caballero Ayala is a national of Nicaragua, born on 22 April 1991, and a designer. 23. Edgard Antonio Ayala Valle is a national of Nicaragua, born on 29 September 1987, and a policeman. 24. Michael Rodrigo Samorio Anderson is a national of Nicaragua, born on 23 May 1979, and a small business owner. ii. Detentions and arrests a. Mr. Arana and his two brothers 25. The source states that Mr. Arana and his two brothers were arrested at their home at 4 p.m. on 19 March 2020 by Managua police officers, after which they were taken to a police station. The officers did not produce a warrant and did not inform them of the reasons for the arrest. 26. Mr. Arana and his two brothers were subjected to automatic pretrial detention, on the basis of Acts No. 952 and No. 745, from the preliminary hearing on 21 March 2020 until 11 January 2021, when the judgment was handed down. 27. The source states that Mr. Arana was subjected to criminal proceedings and convicted on 11 January 2021 for allegedly having committed the offence of aggravated robbery with violence, for which he was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. He filed an appeal, on which the Managua Court of Appeal ruled on 18 March 2021, upholding the original judgment. 28. During the trial, the defence put forward evidence indicating that it would have been impossible for Mr. Arana to have participated in the act with which he was charged as his arm had been in a plaster cast on the date when the offence was committed. A medical certificate issued by the Roberto Calderón Gutiérrez Hospital on 22 July 2020 was put forward as documentary evidence that, between 6 and 21 March 2020, Mr. Arana’s left hand and forearm had been in a plaster cast. 29. The defence presented the testimony of a woman who stated that, on the day of the alleged offence, 8 March 2020, the three brothers had been at home and therefore could not have been at the place where the acts occurred. However, none of the evidence for the defence was considered by the judge. b. Mr. Kessler Alemán 30. Mr. Kessler Alemán was arrested at 8 a.m. on 14 August 2020 in Managua by agents of the Departmental Police of Managua while he was practising sport at a gym. At the time of his arrest, the agents did not inform him of the reasons for the arrest and did not produce a warrant, nor was the arrest made in flagrante delicto. Mr. Kessler Alemán had previously A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 4 GE.24-01385 been followed by police officers. The authorities stated that an anonymous complaint had prompted the police deployment and that, prior to their arrival at the place of arrest, the same police officers had carried out an illegal search of Mr. Kessler Alemán’s home. 31. According to the source, the raid at the gym was not authorized in court in a manner compliant with the law. The request to authorize the raid was made on 25 August 2020, beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of the raid established by article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 32. In the course of this police operation, Mr. Kessler Alemán was allegedly found to be in possession of marijuana. Following the arrest, Mr. Kessler Alemán was transferred to the sixth district of the police department of the municipality of Managua and was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 16 August until 23 November 2020, when the judgment was handed down. At the end of the trial, on 26 November 2020, he was convicted and sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine of 350 day-fine units. 33. The source argues that the authorities did not respect the right to equality of arms in the criminal proceedings as they admitted evidence put forward by the public prosecutor’s office that was unlawful. c. Mr. López Cano 34. Mr. López Cano was arrested at his home at 8 a.m. on 22 May 2019 by police from the department of León. He was not arrested in flagrante delicto, was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and was not presented with a warrant. He was brought before a judge on 26 May 2019, i.e., four days after his arrest, in violation of the legal time limit of 48 hours. 35. Mr. López Cano was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 27 May until 20 August 2019, when the judgment was handed down. 36. It is argued that the prison system authorities violated Mr. López Cano’s right to a defence by not allowing him to have a private meeting with his defence lawyer to prepare for the following hearings: (a) the preliminary hearing held on 27 May 2019, at which he was not assisted by an lawyer; (b) the initial hearing held on 10 June 2019; (c) the pretrial hearing held on 10 July 2019; and (d) the oral hearings held on 9 July, 18 July and 26 July 2019. d. Mr. García Jirón 37. Mr. García Jirón is an opponent of the Government who assisted young people who were injured at the Agricultural University of Nicaragua. He also participated in sit-ins at the same campus, along with other students of the university, as a form of protest, in May 2018. He began to be subjected to persecution on 26 May 2018. After his car was burned, he went into exile in Costa Rica but he returned in October 2019, when he was arrested. 38. Mr. García Jirón was arrested at 10 a.m. on 13 October 2019 by officers of the Directorate of Special Police Operations when he was travelling home in a vehicle on the Masaya highway from the town of Nindirí. He was presented to the media as guilty, in violation of his right to be presumed innocent. 39. At the time of his arrest, the police did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest and did not produce a warrant, nor was the arrest made in flagrante delicto. Mr. García Jirón was brought before a judicial authority at 1.31 p.m. on 17 October 2019, i.e., beyond the legal time limit of 48 hours. 40. Mr. García Jirón was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 21 October 2019 until 14 May 2020, when the judgment was handed down. 41. The source argues that his right to be tried by the lawful court was violated since his case should have been heard by the competent courts in the municipality of Nindirí, where the offence allegedly took place, in accordance with article 22 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he was tried by the Managua courts. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 5 42. After the criminal trial, at which he was charged with manufacturing, trafficking, possession and use of restricted weapons or explosive devices, Mr. García Jirón was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on 14 May 2020. e. Mr. Ramos 43. Mr. Ramos expressed his disagreement with the Government’s policies by participating in the protests in 2018. He refused to cooperate when police officers attempted to recruit him as a member of the clean-up brigades, which consisted of officers of the National Police and vigilante groups deployed to dismantle roadblocks and barricades in Nicaragua in July 2018. Following this refusal, from September 2019 onward, he and his family were watched by police officers and other undercover agents stationed outside their home and in places to which they travelled. 44. Mr. Ramos was arrested at 7 a.m. on 19 December 2019 at a property in the department of Managua. At the time of his arrest, he was not informed of the reasons for the arrest and was not shown a warrant. 45. On 21 December 2021, the authorities violated Mr. Ramos’ right to the presumption of innocence by presenting him to the media, dressed in a blue prisoner’s uniform, at a press conference organized by a general acting as the Chief of the Legal Cooperation Directorate. 46. Mr. Ramos was brought before a judicial authority 72 hours after his arrest. In addition, he was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 3 December 2019 until 30 October 2020, when the judgment was handed down. 47. The preliminary hearing before the Seventh District Criminal Court of Managua was held at 11.09 a.m. on 23 December 2019, at which time Mr. Ramos learned of the charge brought against him by the representative of the Public Prosecution Service. On 30 October 2020, Mr. Ramos was convicted of storing narcotics, psychotropic drugs and other controlled substances by the Third District Criminal Court of Managua and was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine. 48. Following his arrest, Mr. Ramos’ right to a defence was hindered as he was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer throughout the entire time that he was deprived of his liberty in the facilities of the Legal Cooperation Directorate, i.e., from 19 to 23 December

2019. During this time, neither his family nor his lawyer were told where he was being held, which constitutes a form of incommunicado detention. In the courtrooms, contact and private communication between the defendant and his defence lawyer were not permitted as they were always being monitored by officials, the consultation time was restricted and prison officers were present. 49. It is stated that the judge overseeing the case acted in a biased manner as claims that had no foundation were treated as being proven, on the basis of a simple listing of the evidence put forward by the Public Prosecution Service. f. Mr. Pineda Guatemala 50. Mr. Pineda Guatemala was arrested at 7 a.m. on 23 January 2019 at the seventh district police station in Managua, where he had gone because his wife had been arrested during an illegal search of their home. At the time of his arrest, the police did not produce an arrest warrant. He was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, obtained by the police in an illegal search, on the basis of an alleged anonymous call. 51. Mr. Pineda Guatemala was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 1 February until 23 May 2019, when the judgment against him was handed down. 52. On 20 May 2019, Mr. Pineda Guatemala was coerced by the police authorities into pleading guilty before the judge to the acts for which his wife had been arrested. His lawyer, whom he had not been able to meet prior to the hearing, recommended that he plead guilty to these acts. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 6 GE.24-01385 g. Mr. Mendoza Beteta 53. During the protests in 2018, Mr. Mendoza Beteta was detained and prosecuted for having participated in them and was charged with the offence of aggravated robbery. He obtained his freedom under a family cohabitation order on 30 December 2019. Since then, he has been subjected to acts of harassment and persecution for criticizing the Government and participating in protests. He was arrested on two occasions. On the first occasion, on 11 May 2018, he was arrested by the police and convicted, in irregular proceedings, of aggravated robbery of a police officer. According to resolution 37/2021 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, under which Mr. Mendoza Beteta was granted precautionary measures, this police officer confessed that he had been coerced into framing him. The second occasion was on 1 February 2020, when he was held for 48 hours and then released. The members of his family were under constant police surveillance at their home and in the places to which Mr. Mendoza Beteta travelled. 54. At 11.30 a.m. on 29 August 2020, Mr. Mendoza Beteta was arrested in a shopping centre in Managua. Police officers forced him to leave the shop. The moment of his arrest, during which he was beaten, was recorded. The video allegedly shows a police officer informing him that he was being arrested on the basis of a complaint and because a warrant for his arrest for robbery had been issued. 55. However, according to the indictment filed with the Ninth District Criminal Court on 1 August 2020 by the Assistant Public Prosecutor of Managua, Mr. Mendoza Beteta was charged with drug trafficking. The indictment states that, at 11.30 a.m. on 29 August 2020, the defendant was walking in the Linda Vista neighbourhood, illegally carrying a bag of marijuana, when he was stopped by police officers. 56. Mr. Mendoza Beteta was not informed of the real reasons for his arrest, was not shown a warrant, and was not arrested in flagrante delicto. On the contrary, offences were fabricated so that charges could be brought against him. The source supports this claim by pointing out that, during Mr. Mendoza Beteta’s arrest, he was informed that it was being conducted in compliance with an alleged warrant for robbery, which did not exist. The authorities informed his family and his lawyer that he had been arrested for disturbing the peace. Forty-eight hours after his arrest, the case was referred to the public prosecutor’s office and the charges were changed to drug trafficking. 57. Mr. Mendoza Beteta was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 1 July until 5 August 2020, when the judgment was handed down. 58. Mr. Mendoza Beteta was not allowed access to his lawyer after his arrest, but only after 48 hours had passed. Furthermore, the lawyer was not informed of the reasons for the arrest and was not permitted to obtain a copy of the indictment until after the preliminary hearing. The lawyer of his choice was not permitted to represent his client at the hearing, which his family members were also unable to attend. During the trial, Mr. Mendoza Beteta’s ability to exercise his right to a defence was hindered because he was not allowed any private contact or communication with his lawyer in the courtroom. When they were permitted to communicate, for five-minute periods only, it was always under the supervision of prison guards and police officers, who prevented the detainee from discussing the treatment that he had received with his defence since, if he did so, he was punished with blows and ill-treatment. 59. It is reported that, at the trial, Mr. Mendoza Beteta’s defence was not permitted to present the testimonial and documentary evidence for the defence attesting to the fact that the charges had been fabricated. 60. On 29 October 2020, the Criminal Chamber of the Thirteenth District Criminal Court of Managua issued its judgment, sentencing the defendant to 10 years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine for the offence of trafficking in narcotics, psychotropic substances and other controlled substances. This judgment was upheld by the Managua Court of Appeal and is pending a ruling by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 7 h. Mr. Centeno Ríos 61. Mr. Centeno Ríos was arrested by officers of the León police force at his home, at 6 a.m. on 17 October 2020, in a raid for which there was no warrant. 62. At the time of his arrest, he was not informed of the reasons for the arrest and was not shown a warrant. Although the record indicates that the arrest was carried out in flagrante delicto, the truth is that the police department had been engaged in a surveillance operation since July 2018, as stated in the indictment of the Public Prosecution Service. As they did not have a search warrant issued by a judge, the police officers apparently entered his home illegally, Accordingly, the arrest could not have been made in flagrante delicto. It is argued that any evidence that might have been collected during this search is unlawful, and therefore cannot be admitted or assessed by the criminal court. 63. At the preliminary hearing on 19 October 2020, the defence claimed that the arrest and the police operation in which drugs had allegedly been found in Mr. Centeno Ríos’ home had been staged, and that he was a political prisoner who had been beaten by the police at the time of his arrest. 64. Mr. Centeno Ríos was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 19 October 2020 until 20 January 2021, when the judgment was handed down. 65. According to the source, the judge acted in a biased manner in this case, to the detriment of the right to equality of arms, because the evidence put forward by Mr. Centeno Ríos’ defence, such as the statements of two witnesses and the defendant himself, was not considered. On the contrary, only the fabricated evidence presented by the Public Prosecution Service, including the evidence obtained in the illegal search, was taken into account. In addition, Mr. Centeno Ríos’ right to a defence was violated as he was not permitted to meet privately with his lawyer. Mr. Centeno Ríos was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and payment of a fine for possession of narcotics, psychotropic substances and other controlled substances. i. Mr. Toruño Maradiaga 66. Mr. Toruño Maradiaga participated in the protests of 2018, for which he was imprisoned and charged with the offences of obstructing public services, causing bodily harm and terrorism. He was a beneficiary of the Amnesty Act and, after his release, was harassed and threatened by the police. 67. At 5 p.m. on 17 October 2020, when he was selling ice lollies one block away from his home, he was arrested by police officers, members of the riot squad and civilians. Without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or being shown a warrant, he was taken to his home, which was searched without court authorization. 68. He was not informed of his right to legal counsel. He was taken to another house, which was also illegally searched. He was subsequently taken to Nagarote police station, where he was questioned several times about the location of some pots of blue and white paint. 69. At 6 p.m. on the same day, Mr. Toruño Maradiaga was transferred to Managua. The next day, the authorities photographed him in front of oval, cylindrical packages and bags containing weapons. He was charged before the Managua courts with drug-related offences and with carrying prohibited weapons. 70. Mr. Toruño Maradiaga was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 20 October 2020 until 17 March 2021. 71. It is argued that Mr. Toruño Maradiaga’s right to be tried by the lawful court was violated because he was tried by a court in Managua and not by a court in the place where the offence was allegedly committed, i.e., the municipality of Nagarote. Additionally, Mr. Toruño Maradiaga’s right to a defence was violated because, when the preliminary hearing was held on 20 October 2020, his private lawyer was prevented from entering the courtroom and a public defender was appointed, so the judge hindered his right to be represented by a lawyer of his choice. Mr. Toruño Maradiaga was also denied contact and private communication with his defence, as this always took place under the supervision of A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 8 GE.24-01385 prison guards and police officers and the consultations were limited to five minutes, during which time he was not allowed to talk about the treatment that he had received on pain of being beaten and ill-treated again. 72. The source claims that the judge acted in a biased manner, in favour of the prosecution and to the detriment of Mr. Toruño Maradiaga’s right to due process, by failing to consider all the evidence for the defence and instead admitting all the evidence for the prosecution, including unlawful evidence, such as the evidence of a witness who never appeared at the trial. In addition, in order to aggravate the sentence, the judge included claims not contained in the indictment. 73. The Fifth District Criminal Court of Managua sentenced Mr. Toruño Maradiaga to 20 years’ imprisonment and several fines for drug trafficking, illegal possession of restricted weapons and the manufacture or possession of explosives. j. Mr. Valle Tinoco 74. Mr. Valle Tinoco was arrested at 11.40 a.m. on 3 July 2018, in a raid on his home, by police officers and hooded civilians, who travelled in eight patrol cars. The police officers took money and mobile telephones from the property and, at the time, did not give the reasons for the arrest or produce a warrant. Mr. Valle Tinoco was not brought before a judicial authority within the 48-hour period established by law, but five days after his arrest. 75. Mr. Valle Tinoco was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 8 July 2018 until 20 June 2019, when the judgment was handed down. 76. The trial was held at the Ninth District Criminal Court of Managua, which sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery and 1 year’s imprisonment for the offence of illegal possession of weapons. The judgment was upheld by the court of appeal on 9 March 2021. k. Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo 77. At around noon on Saturday, 16 November 2019, Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo was travelling to the market by bus when a police patrol stopped the vehicle, got on it, and made Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo get off. He was transferred to a facility of the Legal Cooperation Directorate known as “El Nuevo Chipote” before being brought before a judicial authority on Wednesday, 21 November 2019. 78. At the time of his arrest, he was not shown a warrant or informed of his right to counsel. Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo was being followed by an undercover agent, so his arrest was not made in flagrante delicto, despite being recorded as such in the arrest record of 17 November. 79. Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 20 November 2019 until 19 August 2020, when the judgment was handed down. 80. During the initial hearing on 10 December 2019, which was held at the Seventh District Criminal Court of Managua, the defence stated that Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo had suffered continuing torture in order to force him to incriminate political leaders of the opposition. The torture consisted of public officials placing a gun to his temple while threatening him and pressuring him to implicate political leaders in criminal activities, on pain of having his family subjected to acts of violence. The judge heard this information but did not comment on it. 81. Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for arms trafficking and 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for possession of weapons. The Public Prosecution Service appealed against the judgment and, on 4 November 2020, the second instance court

– the Second Criminal Chamber of the Managua Court of Appeal – increased the sentences to 6 and 8 years’ imprisonment. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 9 l. Mr. Valencia Mendoza 82. Mr. Valencia Mendoza was arrested at the home of a relative at 1.40 p.m. on 2 July 2019 by officers of the Directorate of Special Police Operations, the Legal Cooperation Directorate and other police officers. They did not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant and did not inform him of the reasons for the arrest. In the case file, the authorities claimed that Mr. Valencia Mendoza was arrested in flagrante delicto and in public, which is not the case, since a property was searched without a warrant on the basis of a complaint made by a lieutenant who, because of alleged suspicious behaviour, was at the scene of the incident, as stated in the indictment of the Public Prosecution Service. The case file also shows that undercover collaborators were keeping Mr. Valencia Mendoza under surveillance and provided information to the Public Prosecution Service prior to his arrest. 83. Mr. Valencia Mendoza was deprived of his liberty at 1.40 p.m. on 2 July 2019, while the unlawful act in which the authorities are seeking to implicate him was allegedly committed at 4.40 p.m., that is, two hours after he was arrested. Therefore, he was not arrested in flagrante delicto. 84. Mr. Valencia Mendoza was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 4 July 2019 until 14 January 2020, when the judgment was handed down. He was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine for possession of restricted firearms. 85. It is claimed that the court could not issue a judgment without first ruling on a request for review. In accordance with national law, judges cannot issue a judgment without first having ruled on a claimed right, in this case, the request for review filed in a timely manner and in accordance with the law in order to guarantee Mr. Valencia Mendoza’s procedural and constitutional rights. m. Mr. Cerna Zúñiga 86. After being pursued by uniformed and paramilitary agents, Mr. Cerna Zúñiga was arrested at about 12.30 p.m. on 28 February 2020 in the room of the university residence where he lived at the Central American University. Without producing a search warrant or an arrest warrant, and without his having been caught in flagrante delicto, they entered his room in the residence, removed him from it and planted drugs. They then claimed that he had been arrested in public, in flagrante delicto, for having “acted suspiciously”. 87. Mr. Cerna Zúñiga was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 1 March 2020 until 15 May 2020, when he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine, upheld on appeal under a judgment issued on 20 October 2020. n. Mr. Membreño 88. Mr. Membreño was arrested in Chinandega, at about 10.30 a.m. on 28 November 2018, by agents of the Legal Cooperation Directorate operating in coordination with the departmental police. He was allegedly arrested in flagrante delicto for possession of restricted weapons and improper use of military and police uniform. He was detained for four days without being brought before a judicial authority, exceeding the period of 48 hours established by law. 89. Mr. Membreño was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 3 December 2018 until 7 August 2019, when the judgment was handed down. 90. The authorities held a press conference at which Mr. Membreño and other defendants were presented to the media as members of a criminal gang engaged in international drug trafficking. Their right to be presumed innocent was therefore violated as they were presented a priori as being guilty. 91. According to the source, the competent court should have been the court in Chinandega, the place in which the illegal act with which he was charged supposedly occurred. However, it is claimed that, in violation of the provisions relating to lawful courts, he was prosecuted and sentenced by courts in Managua. The first instance judgment was A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 10 GE.24-01385 issued by the Seventh District Criminal Court on 7 August 2019, sentencing Mr. Membreño to a total of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic narcotics, the manufacture, possession and use of weapons, and the improper use of army and police emblems and uniforms. o. Mr. Vindell López 92. Mr. Vindell López was arrested at his home at 11 a.m. on 3 March 2021 by police officers and riot police from Nagarote. There was no warrant to search the house and Mr. Vindell Lopez was not shown an arrest warrant at the time. He was not arrested in flagrante delicto as the drugs were planted on him. 93. Mr. Membreño was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 6 March 2021 until the judgment was handed down. 94. It is argued that Mr. Vindell López’s right to a defence was violated because he was not permitted to have private meetings with his defence council during which confidentiality was guaranteed. p. Mr. Saavedra Cedeño 95. Mr. Saavedra Cedeño was arrested at 5 p.m. on 26 August 2019 by agents of the fourth district police station in Managua without being shown a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for the arrest. 96. It is claimed that he was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the initial hearing on 30 August 2019 until 31 March 2020, when the judgment was handed down. q. Mr. Díaz Pérez 97. Mr. Díaz Pérez was arrested at 9 a.m. on 4 October 2018 at the fifth district police station in Managua, where he had been tricked into appearing of his own accord because a member of his family had allegedly been arrested. 98. Mr. Díaz Pérez was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 16 October 2018 until 27 February 2019, when the judgment was handed down. 99. In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Díaz Pérez’s right to due process was violated because the court gave weight to unlawful evidence in order to incriminate him for an offence that he had not committed. The judge accepted the fact that the detainee was at police headquarters without his defence lawyer. The judge also admitted a statement made by Mr. Díaz Pérez under torture, without respecting his rights or constitutional guarantees. In this statement, he allegedly said that he recognized a place opposite his home where a weapon was found. r. Mr. Polanco Cisneros 100. On 25 September 2018, police entered Mr. Polanco Cisneros’s apartment and arrested him, despite the fact that he had previously, and voluntarily, appeared at an initial preliminary hearing without having committed any offence. 101. Mr. Polanco Cisneros was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 16 August 2018 until 16 January 2019. 102. It is argued that his right not to be tried twice for the same offence was violated because, on 9 November 2018, the judge presiding over the First District Criminal Court of Matagalpa had found him not guilty of the offence of murder and ordered his release. However, he was never released, and the following day the same judge overturned her ruling, reopened the case and recused herself from hearing the proceedings. On 21 December 2018, the second trial was conducted by the Second District Criminal Court of Matagalpa, which sentenced him to 22 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 11 s. Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle 103. Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle were arrested at their respective homes at 5 a.m. on 18 November 2018 by officers in riot police uniform, civilians and officers in plain clothes. Neither of them was informed of the reasons for the arrest or shown a warrant. Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle were not brought before a judicial authority until the period of 48 hours had been exceeded, three days after their arrest. Both were presented to the media as the perpetrators of offences, in violation of their right to be presumed innocent. 104. It was not until 21 November 2018 that their respective families were informed that Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle were being held in the second district police station in Managua for their alleged involvement in the murder and bodily injury of two persons. 105. Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle were subjected to automatic pretrial detention from the preliminary hearing on 21 November 2018 until 14 March 2019, when their judgments were handed down. 106. It is claimed that the right of Mr. Caballero Ayala and Mr. Ayala Valle to equality of arms was violated as the court gave weight to evidence submitted by the public prosecutor’s office that should have been excluded owing to its illegal nature. For example, an item of evidence was admitted in the trial without procedural formalities being respected, specifically the evidence of an expert that was brought to the attention of the court by means of a witness’s statement despite the fact that article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that only forensic doctors of the Institute of Forensic Medicine are authorized to give such evidence. Illegal evidence obtained by the police, including from the unlawful searches of the homes and the initial arbitrary detentions, was also admitted. The right to an adequate defence was violated since the defence lawyer’s work was hindered during the judicial proceedings. t. Mr. Samorio Anderson 107. Mr. Samorio Anderson was arrested at Israel Lewites Market at 4 p.m. on 21 February 2020 by police officers and officers of the Directorate of Special Police Operations. At the time of the arrest, he was neither informed of the reasons for the arrest nor shown a warrant, despite the fact that, on 16 February 2020, the chief of police of the fourth district had issued a warrant for his arrest for his alleged involvement in robbery and bodily harm causing injury. He was not arrested in flagrante delicto. 108. It is claimed that Mr. Samorio Anderson was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty as he was automatically placed in pretrial detention, despite the fact that this measure was not applicable to the offence of robbery with intimidation and bodily harm with which he was charged. He was subjected to automatic pretrial detention from 5 March to 3 August 2020, when he was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment. This judgement was upheld on 20 October 2020 by Managua Court of Appeal. Legal analysis 109. The source states that all the aforementioned individuals have had their rights violated under articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant, except for Mr. Valle Tinoco and Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo, for whom the source claims a violation of all these articles aside from article 14 of the Covenant. 110. In addition, the source states that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Mendoza Beteta’s rights under articles 18, 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18, 19 and 25 of the Covenant were violated. With regard to Mr. García Jirón, the source argues that his rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 25 of the Covenant were violated. (b) Response from the Government 111. On 6 January 2023, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 7 March 2023, detailed information on the situation of the A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 12 GE.24-01385 23 individuals, clarifying the legal and factual grounds for their detentions and explaining how they are compatible with the obligations of Nicaragua under international human rights law and, in particular, the treaties ratified by the State. 112. The Working Group regrets that the Government has not submitted a response or requested an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of work. 2. Discussion 113. In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work. 114. 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 human rights law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.2 In the present case, the Working Group notes that the information provided by the source for some of the alleged cases is limited and lacks sufficient precision to constitute a prima facie case. However, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source. 115. The source has argued that the detention of the aforementioned persons is arbitrary and falls within categories I (in all cases), II (in the cases of Messrs. García Jirón, Ramos and Mendoza Beteta) and III (in the cases of Messrs. López Cano, García Jirón, Ramos, Pineda Guatemala, Mendoza Beteta, Centeno Ríos, Toruño Maradiaga, Sobalvarro Bravo, Membreño, Vindell López, Díaz Pérez, Caballero Ayala and Ayala Valle). The Working Group will consider them in turn. (a) Category I 116. The source has argued that the detention of the above-mentioned 23 persons is arbitrary and falls mainly within category I. 117. The Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that pretrial detention should be the exception and not the rule, and that it should be ordered for as short a time as possible.3 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant establishes that it should not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial should be detained, but their release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial or at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. It follows that, in the interests of justice, liberty should be recognized as a principle, and detention as an exception. 118. In the present case, the 23 persons were mandatorily placed in pretrial detention, which, contrary to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, is applied automatically for certain offences. Mandatory automatic pretrial detention has been considered a violation of human rights in several opinions issued by the Working Group, including in connection with Nicaragua,4 and was declared to be a violation of the obligations of Nicaragua under the Covenant. 119. The Working Group finds no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case. The mandatory detention of the 23 individuals – without a case-by-case assessment demonstrating that they constituted a flight risk or a risk of serious reoffending, tampering with the evidence or manipulating the witnesses – violates articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 120. The source has maintained that the Arana brothers and Messrs. Kessler Alemán, López Cano, García Jirón, Ramos, Pineda Guatemala, Mendoza Beteta, Centeno Ríos, Toruño Maradiaga, Valle Tinoco, Sobalvarro Bravo, Valencia Mendoza, Cerna Zúñiga, Vindell López, Saavedra Cedeño, Caballero Ayala, Ayala Valle and Samorio Anderson were 2 See A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. 3 Opinion No. 8/2020, para. 54; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58. 4 See opinion No. 21/2020. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 13 arrested on different dates, without arrest warrants, and without being told the reasons for their arrest. 121. With regard to Mr. Membreño and Mr. Polanco Cisneros, the source does not question the claim that they were arrested in flagrante delicto. With respect to Mr. Díaz Pérez, it is stated that he was arrested at the police station, where he went voluntarily. 122. The Working Group recalls that a detention is considered arbitrary under category I if it lacks legal basis. In order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must invoke this legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.5 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or equivalent document.6 In addition, any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by, or be subject to the effective control of, a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and mandate should provide the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence, in accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group considers that the above conditions were denied to the Arana brothers and to Messrs. Kessler Alemán, López Cano, García Jirón, Ramos, Pineda Guatemala, Mendoza Beteta, Centeno Ríos, Toruño Maradiaga, Valle Tinoco, Sobalvarro Bravo, Valencia Mendoza, Cerna Zúñiga, Vindell López, Saavedra Cedeño, Caballero Ayala, Ayala Valle and Samorio Anderson, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 123. The Working Group recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that anyone who is arrested is not only informed of the reasons for the arrest but also promptly informed of any charges against him or her. The right to be promptly informed of charges concerns notice of criminal charges and, as the Human Rights Committee has noted, that right applies in connection with ordinary criminal prosecutions and also in connection with military prosecutions or other special regimes directed at criminal punishment.7 124. In the absence of any explanations from the Government, and noting the source’s claim that the reasons for the detention were not explained to the above-mentioned 20 persons, the Working Group concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant. 125. According to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement to bring a detainee “promptly” before a judge after arrest and any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.8 In the present case, Mr. Valle Tinoco and Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo were brought before a judicial authority five days after their respective arrests; Mr. López Cano, Mr. Membreño and Mr. García Jirón were brought before a judicial authority four days after their arrests; and Messrs. Caballero Ayala, Ayala Valle and Ramos were brought before a judicial authority three days after their arrests, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 126. The Working Group finds that, in arresting the above-mentioned persons and holding them in pretrial detention, the Government violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant and principles 11, 37 and 38 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 127. Noting all the above, the Working Group considers the detention of the 23 persons to be arbitrary under category I. 5 Opinion No. 9/2019, para. 29. 6 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 27. In cases of arrests made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available. 7 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 29. 8 Ibid., para. 33. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 14 GE.24-01385 (b) Category II 128. The source alleges that Messrs. García Jirón, Ramos and Mendoza Beteta were arrested for their opposition to the Government while actively participating in anti-government protests in 2018. 129. The Working Group emphasizes that, under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether orally or in any other form. The exercise of this right may be subject only to such restrictions as are expressly provided for by law and necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputations of others, or to protect national security, public order, or public health or morals. The Working Group is of the view that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person and constitute the cornerstone of every free and democratic society. They are the basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights, such as the right to political participation, as set forth in article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 of the Covenant. 130. In the present case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the allegation that the three individuals were detained because they had campaigned for democratic change and because they are critics of the Government. Therefore, the Working Group cannot but conclude that their detention resulted from the exercise of their freedom of opinion and expression, as well as their critical attitude and stance towards the Government. 131. Consequently, the Working Group considers that the detention of the three persons is contrary to articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 25 of the Covenant, and falls within category II. (c) Category III 132. The source alleges that Messrs. López Cano, Ramos, Pineda Guatemala, Mendoza Beteta, Centeno Ríos, Toruño Maradiaga, Vindell López and Díaz Pérez did not have private meetings with their lawyers, either before the hearings or at any other time. 133. The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, and that such access must be provided without delay.9 134. Respect for lawyer-client confidentiality is an important part of the right of defence. The right of a defendant to have private discussions with his or her lawyer, without surveillance, constitutes one of the fundamental aspects of a fair trial. If a lawyer is unable to speak with his or her client and obtain confidential instructions, the purpose of legal assistance is largely defeated. In this respect, the Human Rights Committee has stressed that counsel should be able to meet their clients in private and to communicate with the accused in conditions that fully respect the confidentiality of their communications and, furthermore, that lawyers should be able to advise persons charged with a criminal offence without restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any quarter.10 135. As the source’s allegation was not challenged by the Government, the Working Group considers that the failure to provide sufficient and private access to their lawyers violates their right to effective legal representation and to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, rule 61 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and principle 18 (3) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 9 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; and A/HRC/45/16, para. 51. 10 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 15 136. The source claims that Messrs. García Jirón, Membreño, Caballero Ayala and Ayala Valle were presented to the media as if they were guilty before being convicted by a court, thereby influencing public opinion and prejudging the case against them. 137. Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the Covenant recognize the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent. This right imposes a number of obligations on all State institutions to treat persons accused of an offence as innocent until convicted. In the view of the Working Group, this right carries an obligation for all authorities, including the executive branch, to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, which means refraining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused.11 138. The Working Group has determined that statements publicly condemning the accused person before a sentence has been passed violate the principle of presumption of innocence and constitute undue interference that undermines the independence and impartiality of the court.12 The public statements of officials violate the right to presumption of innocence if such statements declare persons guilty of an offence for which they have not yet been tried, thereby attempting to convince the public to believe them guilty and prejudging the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. 139. In the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Working Group is of the view that the right to be presumed innocent, as recognized in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant, was violated when the four persons were presented to the media as guilty. 140. The Working Group expresses its gravest concern about the allegations of torture of Mr. Sobalvarro Bravo, which the Government has not refuted and which appear to constitute violations of articles 5 and 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. In the Working Group’s view, not only is torture a grave violation of human rights per se, but it also undermines the ability of persons to defend themselves and hinders their exercise of the right to a fair trial, especially in the light of the right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant and the right not to be compelled to confess guilt under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 141. In the absence of comments from the Government on the violations of these essential guarantees of due process, the Working Group concludes that, in the cases of Messrs. López Cano, García Jirón, Ramos, Pineda Guatemala, Mendoza Beteta, Centeno Ríos, Toruño Maradiaga, Sobalvarro Bravo, Membreño, Vindell López, Díaz Pérez, Caballero Ayala and Ayala Valle, the failure to comply with international standards relating to the right to a fair trial was of such gravity as to render the deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III. (d) Other allegations 142. The source further claims that Mr. Pineda Guatemala and Mr. Diaz Perez allegedly admitted their guilt under duress; that Mr. Centeno Ríos was bitten at the time of his arrest; that illegally obtained evidence was not excluded and evidence for the defence was not properly considered, in violation of the principle of equality of arms in the cases of Messrs. Arana, Kessler Alemán, Ramos, Mendoza Beteta, Toruño Maradiaga, Caballero Ayala and Ayala Valle; that Mr. Valencia Mendoza’s procedural rights were not respected; that the principle of the prohibition of double jeopardy was violated in the case of Mr. Polanco Cisneros; and that Mr. Membreño and Mr. García Jirón were not tried by a competent court. 143. The Working Group considers that the above allegations lack sufficient precision to constitute prima facie cases. In addition, it has determined that the detention of the aforementioned individuals was arbitrary under category I in all cases, and under categories II and III in several of the cases. In view of the importance and implications of these findings, which involve violations of the fundamental provisions of the Covenant and lead the Working Group to request the immediate release of these individuals (see the decision set out below), 11 Ibid., para. 30; and Kozulina v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008), para. 9.8. 12 See opinions No. 90/2017 and No. 76/2018. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 16 GE.24-01385 the Working Group considers it justified to dispense with the separate consideration of the remaining allegations. (e) Concluding remarks 144. In order to allow the Working Group to establish a direct dialogue with all State authorities, representatives of civil society and detained persons, with a view to gaining a better understanding of the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country, the Working Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a visit to Nicaragua, as requested in its notes verbales of 24 April and 21 November 2018. The Working Group recalls that on 26 April 2006 the Government of Nicaragua extended an open invitation to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and that its most recent visit to Nicaragua was from 15 to 23 May 2006.13 3. Disposition 145. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Adrián Alexander Arana, Ángel Sebastián Martínez Arana, Richard de Jesús Martínez Arana, Bryan Kessler Alemán, Carlos Antonio López Cano, Denis Antonio García Jirón, Fanor Alejandro Ramos, Francisco Xavier Pineda Guatemala, Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta, Jairo Lenin Centeno Ríos, Kaled Antonio Toruño Maradiaga, Luis Carlos Valle Tinoco, Manuel de Jesús Sobalvarro Bravo, Mauricio Javier Valencia Mendoza, Jhon Christopher Cerna Zúñiga, Nilson José Membreño, Osmar Ramón Vindell López, Richard Alexander Saavedra Cedeño, Víctor Manuel Díaz Pérez, Yader Antonio Polanco Cisneros, Michael David Caballero Ayala, Edgard Antonio Ayala Valle and Michael Rodrigo Samorio Anderson, being in contravention of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant, is arbitrary and falls within category I. The deprivation of liberty of Denis Antonio García Jirón, Fanor Alejandro Ramos and Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta is also in contravention of articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 25 of the Covenant and falls within category II. The deprivation of liberty of Carlos Antonio López Cano, Fanor Alejandro Ramos, Francisco Xavier Pineda Guatemala, Gustavo Adolfo Mendoza Beteta, Jairo Lenin Centeno Ríos, Kaled Antonio Toruño Maradiaga, Osmar Ramón Vindell López and Víctor Manuel Díaz Pérez is also in contravention of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant and falls within category III. The deprivation of liberty of Denis Antonio García Jirón, Nilson José Membreño, Michael David Caballero Ayala and Edgard Antonio Ayala Valle is in contravention of article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant and falls within category III. The deprivation of liberty of Manuel de Jesús Sobalvarro Bravo is in contravention of articles 5 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 10 and 14 of the Covenant and falls within category III. 146. The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the 23 individuals 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. 147. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release all 23 individuals immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. 13 A/HRC/4/40/Add.3. A/HRC/WGAD/2023/69 GE.24-01385 17 148. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the 23 men and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights. 149. The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion through all available means and as widely as possible. 4. Follow-up procedure 150. 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 the 23 individuals have been released and, if so, on what date; (b) Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to them; (c) Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of their rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation; (d) Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to harmonize the laws and practices of Nicaragua with its international obligations in line with the present opinion; (e) Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion. 151. 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. 152. 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. 153. 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.14 [Adopted on 15 November 2023] 14 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.