Opinion; Subjects: VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF), 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.24-21349 (E) 130125 150125
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its one hundredth session, 26–30 August 2024
Opinion No. 27/2024 concerning Marco Antonio Garcés Carapaica
(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 2 December 2022, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Marco Antonio Garcés Carapaica. The Government replied to the communication
on 27 February 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/2024/27
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 December 2024
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
2
GE.24-21349
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Marco Antonio Garcés Carapaica is an engineering student and a Venezuelan national
who usually resides in the city of Maracay. At the time of his arrest, in September 2020, he
was 24 years old.
(i)
Arrest and criminal proceedings
5.
According to the source, on 9 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was in the city
of Maracaibo as he had come from Colombia and had to go to the city of Coro in the state of
Falcón. Members of his family wanted to pick him up but they did not have enough petrol to
travel there. At 11 a.m., Mr. Garcés Carapaica called them to say that he had hired a car with
other unknown persons and a man from North America for whom he was going to work as a
translator to earn the money that he needed to travel and that they were going to drop him off
in the city of Coro.
6.
On the same day, when passing through a checkpoint in Los Pedros, the car was
stopped for inspection by officers of the Bolivarian National Guard. When the officers
became aware of the presence of the foreign national, they arrested them. At the time of the
arrest, the officers did not show a warrant or any other decision issued by an authority.
7.
At 1 p.m., Mr. Garcés Carapaica called his mother shouting “Mum!” but that was the
only thing that he was heard to say. After that point, his family did not hear from him again.
8.
On 10 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s family learned that he had been
arrested along with other persons at the Los Pedros checkpoint in the city of Falcón. The
arrested persons included the driver of the car, a soldier and a citizen of the United States of
America. The driver’s wife was subsequently arrested as she was the owner of the vehicle.
9.
The authorities handed Mr. Garcés Carapaica over to the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence and, according to the source, also provided the supposed
evidence that was used to implicate him in an offence. They had seized three mobile phones,
two credit cards and a satellite phone belonging to the citizen of the United States. They then
presented the arrested persons as an organized gang in Falcón, even though they had not
known each other previously. They took them to Caracas but brought them back to Falcón
within a few hours.
10.
At a press conference held on 20 September 2020, the Attorney General of the
Republic said that Mr. Garcés Carapaica had been arrested along with other persons,
including a citizen of the United States who was carrying out espionage and destabilization
activities. He added that this citizen was being supported by a group of Venezuelan citizens
who intended to disrupt the national electricity service and the oil industry. He showed a rifle,
a bag containing United States dollars, an AT4 grenade launcher, a few containers of C-4
explosive material and even a cap bearing the initials DGCIM, which stands for Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence. He said that they were being detained for allegedly
having committed the offences of terrorism, criminal association, treason and illegal
possession of a firearm. The source reports that, up until that point, Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s
family members had not been informed of his whereabouts.
11.
According to the source, the President of the Republic also made statements about the
arrest of Mr. Garcés Carapaica, linking him to a citizen of the United States who was alleged
to be a spy.
12.
On 22 September 2020, a relative of Mr. Garcés Carapaica went to Caracas but
initially received no response from the authorities about his whereabouts. He even went to
the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence and El Helicoide detention centre
but the officials of these agencies did not provide him with any information. He subsequently
visited the “house of dreams” sector of the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence in Plaza Venezuela and was able to confirm that Mr. Garcés Carapaica
was being held there.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
3
13.
On the evening of 22 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was allowed to make
one phone call. He appeared to be under surveillance and seemed confused about the charges
against him and the things that had happened to him. He told his family members that, on
17 September, his initial appearance had taken place before the First Procedural Court of
First Instance, which has national jurisdiction over cases involving terrorism. Subsequently,
his family members were allowed to communicate with him only by telephone, every two
weeks, until 21 December 2020, when the authorities allowed one family member to visit
him. Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s family was therefore able to see him for the first time three
months after his arrest.
14.
From that first visit onward, Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s family members could see that
there were bruises on his body and marks on his wrists caused by handcuffs. The source
reports that Mr. Garcés Carapaica had no feeling in his thumbs for two or three months
because the handcuffs were not removed. He was also tied naked to a grille.
15.
According to the source, at night, while some people slept, others were beaten, doused
in cold water and exposed to the cold air. Mr. Garcés Carapaica was made to kneel and a gun
and plastic bags were put on his head. He was not allowed to go to the bathroom or sleep and
was not even given food. He was often moved about with adhesive tape over his eyes and
manila folders over his face so that he would not know where he was. He was also forced to
remain standing or kneeling. As Mr. Garcés Carapaica was the only bilingual person, he also
assisted the citizen of the United States and continued to act as his translator. According to
the source, during Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s stay at the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence, he contracted the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) but did not receive
any medical assistance or the corresponding vaccination.
16.
Following the issuance of a decree by the President of the Republic ordering the
relocation of all inmates, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was transferred to Rodeo 2 Prison on the
night of 25 May 2021. According to the source, he was transferred without his clothes
because the officers had stolen his belongings. The source claims that conditions at Rodeo 2
are suboptimal and unsanitary: there are no toilets and the inmates must defecate on the floor.
In this prison, everything has to be paid for by family members, including fans, food and
water. Owing to the poor prison conditions, Mr. Garcés Carapaica suffered from fever,
diarrhoea and stomach pains, and could not sleep.
17.
Mr. Garcés Carapaica also had infected mosquito bites and boils, for which he did not
receive medical attention. The source notes that four inmates died of tuberculosis in the
prison where Mr. Garcés Carapaica was held. These situations were reported but no response
was received.
18.
With regard to the legal proceedings, the source reports that the preliminary hearing
took place on 24 February 2021 before a court with jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases,
following two attempts to hold hearings that had been deferred. At the hearing, the judge
dismissed the pleas made and evidence filed by the defence lawyers and ruled to send the
case to trial.
19.
Following the preliminary hearing held on 24 February 2021, the trial began on
17 June 2021 before the Third Trial Court of First Instance with national jurisdiction to hear
cases involving terrorism in the criminal court circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area.
20.
The judge postponed the start of the trial 10 times because the Court had not issued a
transfer warrant. In view of this situation, the Court ordered that the case be restarted on
16 November 2021. According to the source, an official of the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence stated at the hearing that he did not know why he had detained
these people.
21.
The source reports that more than 29 trial hearings have been set but have been
suspended because the transfer warrants are not being issued properly, as there are more than
10 people detained in different prisons in connection with the same case. In addition, officials
of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence identified as participants in acts
of torture have refused to attend the hearings. Of these officials, 17 have yet to testify.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
4
GE.24-21349
(ii)
Legal analysis
22.
The source argues that Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s detention falls under categories I and
III of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
23.
The source points out that there is a lack of evidence. It recalls article 9 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “no one shall be
deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law”. It also establishes 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 and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”.
24.
Article 44 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela states that no
person may be arrested or detained except under a court order, unless caught in flagrante
delicto. In such cases, the person must be brought before a judicial authority within 48 hours
of the arrest. He or she must remain free during the trial, except under the circumstances
provided for by law and assessed by the judge hearing the case.
25.
Moreover, principle 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides that “a person detained on a criminal
charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after
his arrest. Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of
detention.”
26.
In this regard, the source argues that, in the present case, there were no grounds for
detention under domestic law, since Mr. Garcés Carapaica was not caught in the act of
committing an offence and there was no evidence that an arrest warrant issued by a judicial
authority was produced at the time of his arrest. Nor is there any evidence to justify the arrest
and the subsequent refusal to release him or impose an alternative measure to deprivation of
liberty. The fact that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was in a vehicle with a citizen of the United States
does not implicate him in an offence.
27.
The source recalls that, at the time of the arrest, the only objects seized by the
Bolivarian National Guard were three mobile phones, two credit cards and a satellite phone.
The accused persons were not in possession of any weapons or explosives. The source claims
that, owing to the political situation, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was linked to an alleged operation
of which he was unaware.
28.
In this respect, Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s detention was not justified by a clear, precise
and detailed account of the facts such as to substantiate his responsibility for or involvement
in any offence. Thus an arrest was made and pretrial detention ordered without sufficient
evidence for the person reasonably to be suspected of criminal conduct or for it to be claimed
that the detention was strictly necessary.
29.
The source states that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was subjected to enforced disappearance.
It notes that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance”
in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts
that represents a continuing violation of various rights recognized in the treaty, such as the
right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person.2
30.
According to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance, a multidimensional human rights violation arises when there is a
conjunction of three factors: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) direct intervention by, or
acquiescence of, agents of the State; and (c) a refusal to acknowledge the detention or
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the person.
31.
The source maintains that, in the present case, all these factors coincide. According to
the source, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and agents of the
State participated in the deprivation or acquiesced to it; it may be recalled that no action was
2 CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016, para. 3.1.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
5
taken by the officials of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence at the police
headquarters, where Mr. Garcés Carapaica was kept for 11 days without his family or lawyers
being informed. Therefore, in addition to the violation of the right to personal liberty owing
to unlawful detention, the source also considers that the detention was unlawful because there
was a violation of Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s right to physical integrity and recognition as a
person before the law resulting from the multidimensional nature of the enforced
disappearance, since he could not continue exercising or enjoying other rights,3 in this case,
the right to be heard by a judge within a reasonable period of time and the right to physical
integrity.
b.
Category III
32.
The source claims that there was a violation of the right to be heard and the right to
the presumption of innocence. It may be recalled that, under article 14 (1) of the Covenant,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal in the determination of any criminal charge brought against him or her. In accordance
with this legal framework, every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and
within a reasonable time, by a competent judge or court.
33.
According to article 14 (2) of the Covenant, everyone charged with a criminal offence
must have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The
presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes
on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed
until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the
benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in
accordance with this principle.4
34.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established in its jurisprudence that
pretrial detention is a precautionary and non-punitive measure, and therefore should not serve
as a form of advance punishment. This measure is intended to ensure that the person
concerned does not hinder the proceedings or escape justice. However, the detained person’s
liberty should not be restricted beyond the limits strictly necessary for this purpose.5
35.
The source recalls that the Human Rights Committee has stated that pretrial detention
must be applied only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of
time, and must be accompanied by adequate procedural and substantive safeguards
established by law. These safeguards include effective remedies for the vindication of the
rights of detainees, including initial and periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of the
detention, and to prevent conditions of detention incompatible with the Covenant.6
36.
In this regard, it may be argued that this detention was arbitrary under category III
since the right to be heard and the right to the presumption of innocence were not respected,
given that the State has not guaranteed a fair trial but has postponed the proceedings on
29 occasions. The continual deferrals are not the fault of the victims or their lawyers but
result from matters that can be resolved by the court, such as the transfers of detainees and
the presentation of testimonial evidence. In this regard, article 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure provides that if a source of evidence (witness) fails to appear, the judge may
suspend the trial only once, and that the witness may be obligated to appear by law
enforcement officers (enforcement of summons) if he or she fails to appear when summonsed
by the court. It also provides that, in the event that such a source of evidence (including any
witnesses) cannot be located, the judge may dispense with it, that is, continue with the trial
without evaluating it.
3 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, judgment of 22 September 2009
(Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C, No. 202, paras. 90 and 91.
4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
5 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bayarri v. Argentina, judgment of 30 October 2008
(Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C, No. 187, para. 110; and Suárez
Rosero v. Ecuador, judgment of 12 November 1997 (Merits), Series C, No. 35, para. 77.
6 Fijalkowska v. Poland, communication No. 1061/2002, para. 8.3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
6
GE.24-21349
37.
The source reports that, according to the Third Trial Court of First Instance with
national jurisdiction to hear cases involving terrorism in the criminal court circuit for the
Caracas metropolitan area, the 29 deferrals occurred because of the failure of the witnesses
to appear, among other reasons. The source concludes that, in this regard, the judge is failing
to apply article 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby seriously undermining the
detainee’s judicial guarantees, including the right to be heard.
38.
The source recalls that the indictment was admitted on 24 February 2021 and the case
was ordered to go to trial. It is clear that, at the time of writing, more than one year and nine
months have passed without the trial having ended, which shows that the judicial authorities
are acquiescent in the prolongation of these proceedings, during which the victim remains
deprived of his liberty.
39.
This situation undermines the presumption of innocence of Mr. Garcés Carapaica,
who is awaiting trial without being guaranteed the effective resources that would allow him
to remain at liberty during the proceedings. The source argues that pretrial detention is being
used as an advance penalty rather than as a precautionary measure, in violation of the
Covenant, since no admissible evidence justifying his imprisonment has been put forward
and his guilt has been presumed in that pretrial detention has been imposed without grounds
and without any consideration being given to requests for it to be revoked or for an alternative
measure to be used.
40.
According to the source, Mr. Garcés Carapaica has been unjustly detained and
prosecuted and, at the time of submission of this communication, has been deprived of his
liberty in deplorable conditions for more than two years. He has also been subjected to torture
and ill-treatment by agents of the State, which has harmed his bodily and mental integrity.
41.
The source points out that the Mr. Garcés Carapaica did not benefit from any judicial
oversight following his arrest. The source recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the
Covenant, read in conjunction with article 44 (1) of the Constitution of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, all persons deprived of their liberty must be brought promptly and
without delay before a judge, who must rule on the legality of the detention.
42.
In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has established that article 9 (3) of the
Covenant requires that any person arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought
promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. That
requirement applies in all cases without exception and does not depend on the choice or
ability of the detainee to assert it.7
43.
The requirement applies even before formal charges have been asserted, so long as
the person is arrested or detained on suspicion of criminal activity. The right is intended to
bring the detention of a person in a criminal investigation or prosecution under judicial
control. It is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an
authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with.8
44.
The source claims that, following Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s arrest, he was not brought
before a judge within a reasonable time. This is because he was arrested on 9 September 2020
but it was not until 17 September 2020 that his initial appearance took place before the First
Procedural Court of First Instance, which has national jurisdiction over cases involving
terrorism. The 48-hour period within which he should have brought before a judge, provided
for in article 44 (1) of the Constitution, was exceeded by some margin, depriving him of this
judicial safeguard.
45.
The source states that these facts illustrate the State’s failure to comply with its
obligation to respect and ensure due judicial oversight of Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s arbitrary
detention, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. This demonstrates the total or partial
non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial.
7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.
8 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
7
(b)
Response from the Government
46.
The Working Group, in accordance with its methods of work, transmitted the source’s
allegations to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on 2 December 2022
and requested it to submit a response by 31 January 2023. The Government requested an
extension of the time limit for its response, which was granted. The Working Group received
the Government’s response on 27 February 2023, within the established time limit.
47.
The Government informed the Working Group that Mr. Garcés Carapaica has been
deprived of his liberty in connection with a criminal trial before the Third Trial Court of First
Instance with national jurisdiction to hear cases involving terrorism in the criminal court
circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area.
48.
The Government claims that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was arrested for his alleged
involvement in the commission of the offences of treason, terrorism, illicit trafficking in
firearms and explosives, and criminal association.
49.
The Government states that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Garcés Carapaica
are related to his alleged involvement in espionage and sabotage activities aimed at
undermining the constitutional order of the country through violent attacks against legitimate
State institutions, especially those related to the military and core strategic industries such as
the national electricity service and the Venezuelan oil industry.
50.
The Government states that, according to the criminal investigation conducted by the
Public Prosecution Service and the subsidiary investigative bodies, Mr. Garcés Carapaica
allegedly formed part of a criminal organization made up of foreign nationals who, in
collaboration with Venezuelan nationals, both civilian and military, were planning to bring
people into Venezuelan territory through irregular routes to obtain strategic information on
the Amuay oil refinery in the state of Falcón and the Punto Fijo Naval Base in Operational
Defence Zone No. 12, as well as on the weapons storage facility of the Fourth Company and
Detachment No. 111 of the Bridge over Lake Maracaibo (military units in the states of Falcón
and Zulia, respectively).
51.
The Government reports that, on 10 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was
arrested by officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, who were
wearing the correct uniform and displaying the appropriate identification, when he was
traveling on the national highway in Falcón state in a grey Chery Arauca with licence plate
number AH642ZA. During a patrol, the vehicle in which Mr. Garcés Carapaica was traveling
with three other people was stopped. When Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s details were checked in
the system, he was found to be the subject of a criminal investigation by the Public
Prosecution Service for allegedly committing the offence of treason.
52.
During the inspection, several heavy firearms were found in the vehicle, as well as a
significant amount of cash in United States dollars. This led to Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s arrest,
which was carried out in flagrante delicto, in accordance with article 44 of the Constitution,
article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
53.
Throughout the arrest process, Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s human rights were respected
and he was not subjected to any physical or verbal abuse, as demonstrated by a document
certifying that he was not subjected to ill-treatment, dated 10 September 2020, which bears
his signature along with his fingerprints.
54.
The Government claims that the proceedings were conducted by the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence, acting as a criminal investigation body appointed
by the court hearing the case, in accordance with article 113 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and articles 3 (4) and (5) of the Directorate’s general regulations.
55.
On 13 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was brought before the First Procedural
Court of the court circuit for the state of Falcón for an initial oral hearing, as provided for in
article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and was assisted by a public defender. All due
process guarantees were met and the legitimate right to a defence was respected. Mr. Garcés
Carapaica clearly informed the judge hearing the case that he did not have a trusted lawyer
to assist him so a public defender was assigned to him.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
8
GE.24-21349
56.
At the hearing, the court hearing the case decided not to exercise jurisdiction and
referred the case to a court with nationwide jurisdiction to hear cases involving
terrorism-related offences, in accordance with article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
since the alleged offences are offences against public order, which are established in the
Criminal Code and the Act on Organized Crime and the Financing of Terrorism.
57.
On 16 September 2020, the preliminary oral hearing was held before the First
Procedural Court of First Instance, with national jurisdiction over cases involving
terrorism-related offences and competence to try offences related to corruption and organized
crime, and all due process guarantees were respected.
58.
On this occasion, the Public Prosecution Service brought preliminary charges for the
offences of treason, illicit trafficking of firearms and explosives, and criminal association. It
also requested that ordinary proceedings be instituted and that a pretrial detention order be
issued. At this hearing, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was informed in a timely manner, within the
legally established time frame, of the charges against him, as required by article 9 (2) of the
Covenant.
59.
At the same hearing, Mr. Garcés Carapaica personally addressed the Court to raise
matters that he considered to be relevant to his defence; his lawyer was present, he was not
subjected to coercion and he provided important information on, inter alia, his location,
contacts and collaborators and the roles and tasks that some of them fulfilled within the group.
60.
The Government has included a transcript of the defendant’s answers to the questions
asked by the representative of the Public Prosecution Service at the hearing. According to the
Government, the transcript does not indicate that Mr. Garcés Carapaica or his defence
expressed any complaint about the alleged violations of his right to personal integrity, the
alleged enforced disappearance, the lack of communication with family members and/or
lawyers, the conditions of his arrest and detention or the alleged violation of due process. The
Government states that this contradicts the claims made by the source before the Working
Group.
61.
At the initial hearing, the First Procedural Court of First Instance, with national
jurisdiction over cases involving terrorism-related offences and with competence to try
offences related to corruption and organized crime, admitted the preliminary charges brought
against Mr. Garcés Carapaica and ordered that he be remanded in custody at the headquarters
of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence. In order to grant this measure,
the court carefully considered whether the conditions for this custodial measure had been
met, including whether: (a) a punishable act that warrants deprivation of liberty had been
committed; (b) there was substantiated evidence that the defendant had participated in the
commission of a punishable act; and (c) it could reasonably be presumed, on the basis of an
evaluation of the particular circumstances of the case, that there was a risk of flight or of
obstruction of the search for the truth in a specific investigation.
62.
This measure is compatible with the provisions of article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
according to which pretrial detention may be ordered to ensure the appearance of the accused
for trial or at any other stage of the judicial proceedings.
63.
The Government states that, on 31 October 2020, the Public Prosecution Service
formally submitted an indictment to the First Procedural Court of First Instance, with national
jurisdiction over cases involving terrorism-related offences and with competence to try
offences related to corruption and organized crime, for the alleged commission of the
offences of terrorism, illicit arms trafficking, criminal association and treason. The
indictment was supported by various pieces of evidence, including documentary evidence,
reports and investigations carried out by legal experts. The Public Prosecution Service fully
complied with the requirements set out in the national legal order by submitting its indictment
in due time.
64.
At the close of the hearing, the Court admitted all the charges brought by the Public
Prosecution Service against Mr. Garcés Carapaica, as well as all the evidence presented by
the prosecution, and maintained the measure of pretrial detention in accordance with the Code
of Criminal Procedure. It also ordered that an oral, public trial be held.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
9
65.
On 28 May 2021, the Third Trial Court of First Instance, with national jurisdiction
over cases involving terrorism-related offences and competence to try offences related to
corruption and organized crime, scheduled the opening of the public oral proceedings for
17 June 2021, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. This took place on 6 July
2021, and the oral proceedings were interrupted by order of the Court on 27 September 2022.
66.
On 11 January 2023, officials of the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison
Administration attached to the Directorate General of Human Rights and International
Relations together with the Directorate General for Health interviewed Mr. Garcés Carapaica
to check and collect testimony regarding the treatment and safeguarding of his human rights
by management, custodial and administrative staff.
67.
In the interview, it was found that Mr. Garcés Carapaica has been treated with respect
as an individual, has access to outdoor spaces and sports activities, receives frequent visits
from his immediate family and has received the appropriate treatment when he has needed
medical attention.
68.
The Government states that, at the time of submission of its response, Mr. Garcés
Carapaica remains in custody, by court order, in the facilities of the “Hombre Nuevo Simón
Bolívar” Training Centre, awaiting the trial hearing set for 6 March 2023.
69.
The Government states that the conditions of detention were found to be in accordance
with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules), the Constitution and applicable national and international standards,
including rules 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 24, 25 and 27 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. In addition, the
facilities where Mr. Garcés Carapaica is being held have been visited by staff of the Office
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who have confirmed that the
rights of persons deprived of their liberty in this establishment are respected.
70.
During his time in detention, Mr. Garcés Carapaica received the complete set of
COVID-19 vaccinations, as did all persons deprived of liberty nationwide, thus guaranteeing
his right to health.
71.
In this regard, the Government denies and refutes the source’s allegations and states
that Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s detention is fully in accordance with the Constitution, the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant, among
other applicable instruments.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
72.
The Working Group transmitted the Government’s response to the source on
28 February 2023 and requested any final comments and observations, which were received
on 12 March 2023.
73.
In its additional comments, the source states that the account of the basis for the arrest
contained in the Government’s response is contradictory and illogical, in that the State does
not indicate whether Mr. Garcés Carapaica was arrested because of a prior investigation or
arrested in flagrante delicto for possessing weapons and foreign currency. Although the State
appears to incline towards the latter option, the response did not refer to any evidence
confirming the existence of a prior investigation.
74.
In addition, the account of the facts is false. Firstly, because Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s
arrest took place on 9 September 2020 and not on 10 September 2020, as the State tries to
claim. This was reported by his family members after they lost contact with him while he
was being transferred within the country. The same indictment specifies a different date of
arrest, that is, 11 September 2020. Secondly, the body that carried out the arrest was not the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, as the State claims. Mr. Garcés
Carapaica was arrested by members of the Bolivarian National Guard who were at a
checkpoint in Punto Fijo. In fact, a photo that appeared in the audiovisual media shows that
the objects were seized by the Bolivarian National Guard and not by the Directorate General
of Military Counter-Intelligence.
75.
In the present case, there were no grounds for arrest under domestic law, since
Mr. Garcés Carapaica was not caught in the act of committing an offence and there was no
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
10
GE.24-21349
evidence that an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority was produced at the time of his
arrest.
76.
After Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s arrest on 9 September 2020, his parents had no
knowledge of his whereabouts and the authorities refused to provide any information on his
location. In desperation, a family member visited a number of police headquarters in Caracas
to check whether Mr. Garcés Carapaica was there. On 22 September 2020, with the help of
a non-governmental organization, a family member visited the “house of dreams” sector of
the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Plaza Venezuela and was able to
confirm that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was there. On two occasions, his family members reported
the situation to the Director of Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecution Service and the
Human Rights Directorate of the Public Prosecution Service, but they did not conduct an
investigation and/or sanction the officials concerned.
77.
Lastly, the source reaffirms its initial allegations regarding the acts of torture to which
Mr. Garcés Carapaica was subjected and the failure to observe due process in the criminal
proceedings.
2.
Discussion
78.
The Working Group thanks the parties for their submissions.
79.
In determining whether Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, the
Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has presented reasonable evidence and 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.9 Mere assertions that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to
rebut the source’s allegations.
80.
In the present case, the Working Group takes note of the Government’s allegations
that the detention and other procedures relating to Mr. Garcés Carapaica were in accordance
with Venezuelan law. However, even if the detentions were carried out in conformity with
national laws, regulations and practices, the Working Group has the right and obligation to
assess the judicial proceedings and the law itself to determine whether the detentions are also
compatible with international human rights law.
81.
The Working Group notes that, along with other detainees, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was
released on 18 October 2023, with great publicity, as a political prisoner. According to the
information provided by the source, these persons were released following the signing of
agreements in Barbados by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the
Unitary Platform on 17 October 2023, and the granting of a series of licences by the United
States to allow Venezuelan gas, oil and mining operations to be carried out. The source adds
that, despite this, the criminal proceedings against Mr. Garcés Carapaica are still ongoing.
These circumstances require the Working Group to comply with paragraph 17 (a) of its
methods of work, in that it reserves the right to render an opinion, on a case-by-case basis,
whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of the
person concerned.
82.
In the present case, the Working Group is of the view that the allegations made by the
source are extremely serious and has therefore decided to render this opinion.
(a)
Category I
83.
The source affirms that Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s detention is arbitrary under category I
of the Working Group, since it lacks a legal basis within both the domestic and international
legal systems. The source states that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was arrested by agents of the
Bolivarian National Guard who were carrying out checks and noticed that several passengers
in the taxi taking them to the city of Maracay, where Mr. Garcés Carapaica usually resides,
9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
11
were foreign nationals. The agents acted without a warrant previously issued by a judicial
body and without there being a situation of flagrante delicto.
84.
The Government reports that, on 10 September 2020, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was
arrested by officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, who were
wearing the correct uniform and displaying the appropriate identification, when he was
traveling on the national highway in Falcón state in a grey Chery Arauca with licence plate
number AH642ZA. During a patrol, when the vehicle was stopped and its occupants
questioned, data held in the system indicated that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was the subject of a
criminal investigation by the Public Prosecution Service for allegedly committing the offence
of treason. When the vehicle was inspected, a number of heavy firearms and a significant
amount of cash in United States dollars were found. The Government adds that, on these
grounds, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was arrested in flagrante delicto, in accordance with article 44
of the Constitution, article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 9 (1) of the
Covenant.
85.
Given the discrepancies in the facts as reported by the source and the Government in
its response, and in accordance with the Working Group’s practice, it is up to the Working
Group to determine which version of the facts it considers most credible on the basis of the
information provided.
86.
On the one hand, the Working Group notes that the source has provided a detailed and
consistent account. The Government, however, despite having all the information at its
disposal, has not provided any further information confirming its version of the events, except
for its partial response to the allegations made by the source. At the very minimum, the
Government should have presented a certified copy of the proceedings, which, although it
would not exempt it from complying with the requirements for placing persons in detention,
would have made the facts clearer for the Working Group, even more so when the detainee
has been charged with the most serious acts of treason.
87.
Furthermore, the arrest cannot be said to have been conducted “in flagrante delicto”
as the Government has not provided the necessary documentation and evidence to support
this claim. The Government has admitted that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was arrested by
members of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence at a checkpoint on
10 September 2020 and that, instead of being brought before a judge, he was disappeared for
11 days, as explained below.
88.
The Working Group wishes to reiterate its grave concern about the fact that
Mr. Garcés Carapaica was held in pretrial detention for more than two years and recalls that
deprivation of liberty is not only a question of legal definition, but also of fact, and must be
justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances and
reassessed as it extends in time. It must not be punitive in nature and must be based on an
individual evaluation of each case. Article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that the justification
for pretrial detention must be analysed in a reasoned judicial decision in every case, which,
according to the documents examined, has not occurred in the case of Mr. Garcés Carapaica,
who was arrested, held incommunicado, disappeared, hindered and delayed at all stages of
the proceedings, and denied alternative measures of detention and access to a trusted lawyer.
89.
The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the rule and should be ordered for the
shortest possible time. In other words, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, liberty should be
the prime consideration and pretrial detention never more than an exception. Pretrial
detention must thus be based strictly on an individualized determination that it is reasonable
and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, tampering with evidence or the
recurrence of the offence.10 The Working Group has not received any plausible explanation
for the application of this measure and notes that the source has attached documentation
proving these claims.
90.
The Working Group recalls that, in accordance with the provisions of international
law, accused persons have the right to be presented with an arrest warrant or court order (or
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
12
GE.24-21349
equivalent document) 11 to ensure the exercise of effective control by a competent,
independent and impartial judicial authority, which is procedurally inherent in the right to
liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary detention under articles 3 and 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 9 (1) of the Covenant; general comment
No. 35 (2014) of the Human Rights Committee (para. 33); and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment.12
91.
The Working Group also considers that, in order to invoke a legal basis for deprivation
of liberty, the authorities should have informed Mr. Garcés Carapaica of the reasons for his
arrest at the time of his arrest and promptly notified him of the charges against him. In failing
to do so, they violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as
principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, rendering the arrests devoid of any legal basis.
92.
Furthermore, the source maintains – and the Government has not substantiated its
claim to the contrary – that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was subjected to enforced disappearance
and incommunicado detention for 11 days (from his arrest on 9 September 2020 until
22 September).
93.
The Working Group recalls that enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly
aggravated form of arbitrary detention, as it places the person outside the protection of the
law, in violation of article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.13 In view of this
circumstance, the Working Group refers the present case to the Working Group on Enforced
or Involuntary Disappearances.
94.
The Working Group recalls that legal safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of
liberty, as set out in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the
Covenant and general comment No. 35 (2014) of the Human Rights Committee, require that
anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge be brought promptly before a judge or other
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. As the Working Group has reiterated in
its jurisprudence, and the Human Rights Committee has specified, 48 hours is ordinarily
sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee “promptly” before a judge or other
officer authorized by law following his or her arrest; any longer delay must remain absolutely
exceptional and be justified by the circumstances.14
95.
The Working Group finds that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was not brought promptly before
a judicial authority, in flagrant violation of his rights under article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. Consequently, the authorities
have failed to establish the legal basis for his detention in accordance with the Covenant.
96.
In view of the gravity of all the facts presented, which have not been explained or
legally refuted by the Government, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Garcés Carapaica
was a victim of arbitrary detention under category I, as identified by the Working Group.
(b)
Category III
97.
With regard to category III and respect for due process, the Working Group notes that,
in the present case, the fundamental rules of due process have not been observed, since the
source indicates that Mr. Garcés Carapaica has been charged, without any basis whatsoever,
with the following offences: criminal association, defined in and punishable under article 37
of the Act on Organized Crime and the Financing of Terrorism; terrorism, defined in and
punishable under article 52 of the Act on Organized Crime and Financing of Terrorism; and
treason, defined in and punishable under article 128 of the Criminal Code.
98.
No firm case has been made against Mr. Garcés Carapaica regarding his involvement
in the activities mentioned above and with which he has been charged. The actions of the
11 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
12 Opinions No. 3/2018, para. 43, and No. 10/2018, para. 46.
13 Opinions No. 82/2018, para. 28, and No. 56/2019, para. 79.
14 See opinions No. 60/2020 and No. 66/2020. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment
No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
13
judicial authorities cast serious doubt on their respect for the principle of legality, which
requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision so that individuals can access and
understand the law, and regulate their conduct accordingly.15
99.
In the present case, the application of overly broad provisions relating to the
commission of terrorist acts mean that there is no legal basis to justify Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s
arrest and conviction, giving rise to a series of acts of torture and ill-treatment committed in
the name of combating terrorism. This situation seriously jeopardizes the legal security of
Venezuelan citizens, for which reason the Working Group decides to refer this case to the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism for the necessary measures to be taken.
100.
In addition, the source informs the Working Group that Mr. Garcés Carapaica was
subjected to torture, including being kept in handcuffs, causing him to lose the feeling in his
thumbs for two or three months because the handcuffs were not removed. He was also tied
naked to a grille. In the evenings, he was beaten, doused in cold water and left exposed to the
cold air. Mr. Garcés Carapaica was made to kneel and a gun and plastic bags were put on his
head. He was not allowed to go to the bathroom or sleep and was not even given food. He
was often moved about with adhesive tape over his eyes and manila folders over his face so
that he would not know where he was. He was also forced to remain standing or kneeling.
101.
The Working Group is persuaded that the torture and ill-treatment hindered
Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s ability to defend himself adequately, making this situation a violation
of due process. Although the Government attaches a document certifying that he was not
subjected to ill-treatment, the Working Group considers that the signing and sealing of a
document does not indicate that no ill-treatment took place.
102.
According to the source, during his stay at the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence, Mr. Garcés Carapaica contracted COVID-19 but did not receive any
medical assistance or the corresponding vaccination.
103.
The torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which Mr. Garcés
Carapaica was subjected, which were not investigated by the authorities, have been revealed
to the Working Group by the source. This conduct could constitute a violation of the absolute
prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm of international law, article 5 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 16 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, for which reason the Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
104.
In addition to the allegations made by the source in this case, which have not been
refuted by the Government, the Working Group notes the observations made by the
independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
according to which, on occasions, judges ordered detention in facilities of the Bolivarian
Intelligence Service or Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence despite the risk
of torture, even when detainees in the courtroom showed signs consistent with torture.16 The
foregoing reinforces the conclusion reached by the Working Group in the present case.
105.
The Working Group adheres to the international human rights law principles that
everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty and to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty. The right of the accused to be presumed innocent is one of the
cornerstones of the right to a fair trial. The presumption of innocence is enshrined in
article 14 (2) of the Covenant. In essence, the presumption of innocence means that a person
accused of a criminal offence must be treated as if he or she had not committed an offence
and be considered not to have done so until found guilty under a final verdict of an
independent and impartial court.
106.
This did not happen in Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s case since, according to the source,
various authorities made public statements regarding his guilt before the opening of public
15 Opinions No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101, and No. 37/2020, para. 60.
16 A/HRC/48/69, para. 112.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
14
GE.24-21349
oral proceedings. At a press conference, the Attorney General of the Republic stated that
Mr. Garcés Carapaica had been arrested together with other persons, including a United
States citizen who was carrying out espionage and destabilization activities. The Attorney
General proceeded to show weapons and money and stated that the persons concerned were
being held for allegedly committing the offences of terrorism, criminal association, treason
and illegal possession of firearms. However, the source reports that, up until that point,
Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s family members had not been informed of his whereabouts.
107.
Other claims were made in public by the President of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela. The Working Group considers that the comments made by the President and the
Attorney General of the Republic – particularly considering that they occurred before a trial
had started – reveal an absolute disregard for Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s right to be presumed
innocent.
108.
Mr. Garcés Carapaica was presented and portrayed by the government-controlled
media as a convicted criminal, in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the Covenant, which recognize the right to be presumed
innocent.17
109.
The Working Group recalls that, according to general comment No. 32 (2007) of the
Human Rights Committee, the right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair
trial is a key element of human rights protection and serves as a procedural means to
safeguard the rule of law. Furthermore, article 14 of the Covenant aims at ensuring the proper
administration of justice, and to this end guarantees a series of specific rights. All these rights
have been violated in the case of Mr. Garcés Carapaica.
110.
The Working Group stresses that one of the fundamental guarantees of due process is
the principle of legality. Charges that do not correspond to the facts fail to meet the
requirement of legal certainty and enable guilt by analogy, as has clearly occurred in the
present case.
111.
Among the procedural flaws that may be noted is the fact that the initial oral hearing
was reconvened 29 times, which interfered with the defence’s ability to prepare its case. On
17 June 2021, it was agreed that the trial would open before the Third Trial Court of First
Instance with national jurisdiction to hear cases involving terrorism in the criminal court
circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area. However, the opening of the trial took place on
6 July 2021 and the public oral proceedings were interrupted by order of the court on
27 September 2022.
112.
The Government stated that Mr. Garcés Carapaica remained in custody, by court
order, in the facilities of the “Hombre Nuevo Simón Bolívar” Training Centre, awaiting the
trial hearing set for 6 March 2023. However, Mr. Garcés Carapaica was released on
18 October 2023 in connection with negotiations between the Government and the Unitary
Platform.
113.
After examining all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s detention
and trial, the Working Group notes that standards relating to access to justice, due process
and the right to a fair and impartial trial have been violated, excessively delaying the conduct
of the trial and preventing Mr. Garcés Carapaica from demonstrating without delay the facts
relating to the illegality of his detention, as provided for in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
114.
The information provided by the source, which is not contested by the Government,
has revealed that the ability of Mr. Garcés Carapaica to enjoy the right to a fair hearing, in
accordance with international human rights rules, including article 14 of the Covenant, has
been seriously undermined. The Working Group concludes that the above-mentioned
violations of the right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give Mr. Garcés Carapaica’s
detention an arbitrary character under category III.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
GE.24-21349
15
3.
Disposition
115.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Marco Antonio Garcés Carapaica, being in
contravention of articles 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and of articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III.
116.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Garcés Carapaica
without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including
those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
117.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord him an enforceable right to compensation
and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
118.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Garcés
Carapaica and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
119.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights
and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment for appropriate action.
120.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
121.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Garcés
Carapaica;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Garcés
Carapaica’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with its
international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
122.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
123.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/27
16
GE.24-21349
124.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.18
[Adopted on 30 August 2024]
18 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.