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.24-18118 (E) 301024 301024
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 100th session, 26–30 August 2024
Opinion No. 31/2024 concerning Argelia Margarita Infante Nares and
Yoeimer Alexair Hurtado Infante (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the Commission on
Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42. 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 8 June 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Argelia Margarita Infante Nares and Yoeimer Alexair Hurtado Infante. The
Government replied to the communication on 6 September 2023. The State is a party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
General Assembly
Distr.: General
17 October 2024
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
2
GE.24-18118
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Argelia Margarita Infante Nares is a national of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
and a housewife.
5.
Yoeimer Alexair Hurtado Infante is Ms. Infante Nares’ son, a national of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and a sergeant major of the third class in the Bolivarian
National Guard. They live together in a house located in the area of Las Vueltas, Peña de
Mota, in the parish of Altagracia de Orituco, municipality of José Tadeo Monagas, Guárico
State.
(i)
Context
6.
The source states that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were arrested on
24 April 2022 at their residence by officers of the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping
Unit, on account of their alleged links to the criminal gang known as “Tren del Llano”.
7.
Their arrests were made in the context of “Operation Thunder”, the goal of which was
to uncover the whereabouts of collaborators with and accomplices of Tren del Llano. The
operation began on 20 April 2022, when approximately 800 officers from various security
forces arrived in Altagracia de Orituco. Hours before the operation began, the town
experienced a communications blackout that lasted several hours. On that day, dozens of
raids were carried out on the homes of local business owners and campesinos. In the first
week of the operation, more than 40 arrests were made.
8.
The source states that the officers arrived in civilian vehicles and forcibly entered
homes without a search warrant, destroyed and stole property, separated family members,
including children from their parents, made death threats and demanded that residents
provide the names of local criminals.
(ii)
Arrests and criminal proceedings
9.
According to the source, on 24 April 2022 at approximately 10.30 p.m., 18 officers of
the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit, masked and without identification,
surrounded the Infante family’s house. In the house at the time were Ms. Infante Nares and
her eldest son, Mr. Hurtado Infante, who, as a third sergeant major in the Bolivarian National
Guard, was in Altagracia de Orituco for two weeks of leave. Other family members, including
children, were also in the house.
10.
According to the source, seven officers broke down the door, entered the house and
threw Ms. Infante Nares and a member of her family to the floor. Then, two officers forced
her out of the house onto the patio, grabbing her arm and pulling her by the hair. While
Ms. Infante Nares was on the floor, the officers insulted her and demanded she tell them the
whereabouts of another member of her family who, according to the authorities, was in a
romantic relationship with a member of Tren del Llano. They then interrogated another
member of the family, who told them that the family member in question was currently
abroad.
11.
The source alleges that the officers demanded that one member of the family hand
over his mobile telephones and then searched Mr. Hurtado Infante’s bag. They also searched
the house for other items. An officer asked Mr. Hurtado Infante if he had ever been in trouble
with the courts, to which he replied that his legal trouble had been resolved and that he had
the release order to prove it. The source adds that, in reply, the officer exclaimed “look here,
I will eliminate you, if you are lying to me, I will tear you apart” and raised his rifle as if to
shoot. A member of Mr. Hurtado Infante’s family immediately stepped in front of him, but
one officer knocked him to the ground and another placed his boot on his head. After this,
the officers left the house with Mr. Hurtado Infante and threw him to the ground, kicked him
and sent him to look for clothes because he was in his underwear. That night, both Ms. Infante
Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were arrested, on the grounds, according to the officers, that
they both had police records.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
3
12.
According to the source, the officers robbed the Infante family. Among the items
stolen were Mr. Hurtado Infante’s motorcycle, civilian and military clothing, personal
documents such as his identity cards, driver’s licences and cards, mobile telephones and
money. The confiscation of these items was not recorded in the chain of custody. On 25 April
2022, Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were transferred to the headquarters of the
National Police in the city of San Juan de los Morros, capital of Guárico State. One of their
relatives went the headquarters but was told by officials that Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante were not there.
13.
The source argues that, for three days, this relative searched for Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante in other police headquarters but could not find them. Later, an officer
told the relative that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were indeed at the
headquarters of the Bolivarian National Police and that the family should bring them food
because they had not eaten in days.
14.
The source adds that, on 26 April 2022, a member of the family reported the incident
to Municipal Prosecutor’s Office No. 1 of Altagracia de Orituco, which refused to register
the complaint, claiming that the matter was not within its jurisdiction. The complaint was
ultimately registered by Prosecutor’s Office No. 21 in the city of San Juan de los Morros.
15.
In San Juan de los Morros, Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were in the
custody of Prosecutor’s Office No. 16. Officials at this office told a member of their family
that they were to be transferred to the city of Caracas, because all cases relating to the events
that had occurred in Altagracia de Orituco were being processed in Caracas.
16.
The source alleges that, on 2 May 2022, the officials of Prosecutor’s Office No. 16
informed this same relative that he had to pay $200 for Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado
Infante to be transferred to Caracas. The relative had to sell his few belongings and borrow
money to cover the cost of the transfer. Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were
detained for approximately 12 days at the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Police.
17.
On 4 May 2022, Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were transferred to
Caracas, brought before the courts with national jurisdiction over terrorism-related offences
and charged with the offences of criminal association, illicit arms trafficking and terrorism,
as defined in the Organic Act on Organized Crime and the Financing of Terrorism.
18.
According to the source, the officers claimed that Mr. Hurtado Infante was at home
with a group of seven others and that, upon entering his house, they searched the patio and
found six shotgun barrels, six shotgun buttstocks and a tube of ammunition. At the end of the
arraignment, the court ordered that he be placed in pretrial detention.
19.
According to the source, Ms. Infante Nares is being charged as part of a criminal case
involving six other women and a minor she does not know. The source adds that the lawyers
handling the case are public defenders, since the court did not agree to the appointment of
private defence counsel.
20.
The initial hearing was held on 4 August 2022. After negotiating with the Prosecutor’s
Office, and on the condition of pleading guilty, Ms. Infante Nares was charged only with the
offence of criminal association, to which she admitted in order to obtain an early release.
Consequently, Ms. Infante Nares was sentenced to 5 years in prison. In December 2022, the
public defender filed the documentation requested by the judge of Criminal Sentence Court
No. 8 of the Caracas Metropolitan Area in order to obtain her release from prison on a
conditionally suspended sentence.
21.
Despite this, on 28 December 2022, a member of the family reported that the
sentencing court had demanded $3,000 to process the release of Ms. Infante Nares from
prison before 24 December – a demand which the family member rejected. According to the
source, Mr. Hurtado Infante did not plead guilty to the charges brought against him and his
case was therefore brought before Trial Court of First Instance No. 1, which has exclusive
national jurisdiction over cases involving terrorism-related offences. The source adds that the
trial has been deferred six times.
22.
Ms. Infante Nares is deprived of her liberty at the centre for the control and protection
of detainees at the El Valle headquarters of the National Police Force, in the municipality of
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
4
GE.24-18118
Libertador in the Capital District. Mr. Hurtado Infante is deprived of his liberty at the
detention centre of the Bolivarian National Police commonly referred to as “Zone 7” in
Boleíta, Chacao municipality, Miranda State.
23.
The source states that the public defenders have not provided the family of Ms. Infante
Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante with copies of their case files. It adds that a relative had to
make copies of these files at a cost of $60.
(iii)
Legal analysis
24.
The source contends that the detention of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante
is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V of the categories identified by the Working
Group.
a.
Category I
25.
The source bases its arguments on article 9 of the Covenant, principle 2 of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
and article 44 of the Constitution.
26.
According to the source, during security operations, the State often alters police
records to justify arrests allegedly made in flagrante delicto, in order to legitimize its actions
and create a legal basis for these arrests. This pattern has been identified in multiple reports
issued by international organizations2 and has been seen in several cases involving arrests
made during Operation Thunder.
27.
As is evident from the facts, the arrests of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante
were not ordered by a judge or made in flagrante delicto, but rather were the result of an
abuse of power by officers of the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit, who, without
a search warrant, broke into the residence of the Infante family, arrested Ms. Infante Nares
and Mr. Hurtado Infante and subsequently detained them with the help of officers of the
Bolivarian National Police, who alleged that Mr. Hurtado Infante had been found at home
with a group of seven others and that they had found six shotgun barrels, six shotgun
buttstocks and a tube of ammunition. However, according to the source, in reality,
Mr. Hurtado Infante was resting on leave from his duties as third sergeant major in the
Bolivarian National Guard.
28.
The source recalls that the independent international fact-finding mission on the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that pretrial detention orders were issued as a routine,
rather than as an exceptional measure, and without providing sufficient or appropriate
justification. The mission also noted that it has reasonable grounds to believe that prosecutors
and judges play key roles in arbitrary detention by upholding arrest warrants, pretrial
detention orders and criminal charges based on facts and supporting evidence that do not
involve criminal acts or allow for the role of the defendant in the commission of the alleged
offence to be specifically determined. It adds that, in some cases, detentions or charges have
been sustained on the basis of illegally obtained, manipulated or fabricated evidence,
including evidence obtained through torture or coercion.3
29.
The source alleges that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were subjected to
enforced disappearance. According to the jurisprudence of the Working Group,
incommunicado detention amounts to prima facie enforced disappearance, which has been
universally condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and
a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of
arbitrary detention.4
30.
The source adds that the Working Group has also established that incommunicado
detention and enforced disappearance restrict the rights to have access to a lawyer of one’s
choosing, to be brought promptly before a judicial authority and to challenge the lawfulness
2 A/HRC/45/33, para. 115.
3 A/HRC/48/69, paras. 112 and 113.
4 Opinions No. 76/2017, para. 59, and No. 19/2019, para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
5
of the detention before a judge, which in turn implies a violation of article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
31.
The source argues that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were subjected to
enforced disappearance by officers of the Bolivarian National Police from the moment of
their arrest. At the very least, their family had no knowledge of their whereabouts for three
days, because officials claimed that they were not being held at the place where members of
the family came to look for them. As a result, they went without food for three days. Even
after Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante had been detained and brought before the
competent court, their relatives were unable to visit them for several weeks.
32.
The source adds that the detention of Ms. Infante Nares is arbitrary since, despite the
fact that she has been granted a plea bargain, the judge has not ordered her release, the
processing of which has been made subject to a bribe.
33.
According to the source, after negotiating with the Prosecutor’s Office, Ms. Infante
Nares admitted to one of several charges against her in order to obtain an early release. She
did this because of the pressure exerted on her by her own public defender, who warned her
that if she did not avail herself of this option, she would run the risk of being convicted of
several more offences at trial, since the arrests made during Operation Thunder were direct
orders from the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
34.
The five-year prison sentence handed down to Ms. Infante Nares entitles her to the
procedural concession of “conditional suspension of the enforcement of the sentence”. This
concession is automatically applied to persons who meet the conditions set out in articles 482
et seq. of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the sitting judge of Sentence
Enforcement Court No. 8 for the Caracas Metropolitan Area has not ordered her release
because the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Administration has not conducted a
psychosocial test to ensure that she meets the criteria for the lowest security risk classification.
This is an excuse stemming from corruption and the absence of the rule of law, as amounts
of up to $3,000 must be paid to the judicial authorities in order to undergo this psychosocial
test.
35.
According to the source, more than nine months have passed since Ms. Infante Nares
agreed to the plea bargain in exchange for a procedural concession, yet her release has not
been ordered. According to the source, this situation violates article 257 of the Constitution.
b.
Category III
36.
The source mentions that a recent anti-corruption operation undertaken by the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has revealed the existence of corruption schemes by
officials of the justice system, which has led to a lack of impartiality in criminal proceedings.
37.
The source argues that the detention of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante is
part of a pattern deployed by officials of the justice system in criminal proceedings. Even
though Ms. Infante Nares pleaded guilty to the only charge against her in order to obtain an
early release, she continues to be deprived of her liberty owing to the fact that the judge of
Sentence Enforcement Court No. 8 for the Caracas Metropolitan Area is demanding $3,000
from her relatives in order to process her release. The source also states that when Ms. Infante
Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were detained in San Juan de los Morros, the officials of
Prosecutor’s Office No. 16 demanded $200 from their relatives to pay for their transfer to
Caracas to be tried.
38.
The source argues that impartiality has been undermined by the co-opting of the
judiciary by other public powers. Evidence of this is the fact that Operation Thunder, in which
Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were arrested, was carried out on the basis of an
alleged presidential order. The source therefore claims that article 14 (1) of the Covenant has
been violated in the present case.
39.
The source recalls that article 14 (2) and (3) (c) of the Covenant provides that everyone
charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent and to be tried
without undue delay. It adds that, according to the jurisprudence of the Working Group, there
is a relationship between the right to be heard and the right to be presumed innocent, in that
both imply that accused persons have the right to present relevant evidence and testimony for
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
6
GE.24-18118
their defence and that evidence and witnesses alike should be examined by the parties to the
trial.
40.
In the present case, the organs of the justice system have not recognized the right to
the presumption of innocence, since from the moment the criminal proceedings against
Mr. Hurtado Infante began, he was deprived of liberty without having been found guilty,
being placed in pretrial detention. The purpose of this measure is to undermine his innocence
by subjecting him to prolonged confinement resulting from procedural delays, which is
evidenced by the fact that his trial has been deferred six times since the beginning of the trial
phase. The source mentions that this has prevented Mr. Hurtado Infante from submitting
evidence and giving testimony relevant to his defence.
41.
The source alleges that the pretrial detention of Mr. Hurtado Infante is also contrary
to general comment No. 35 (2014) of the Human Rights Committee, in which the Committee
states that extremely prolonged pretrial detention may also jeopardize the presumption of
innocence.
42.
The source refers to article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, which provides that, during the
trial, all persons charged with a criminal offence are entitled to minimum guarantees, in full
equality, in particular the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their
defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing.
43.
The independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela has noted the existence of a practice by judges of denying accused persons the
right to counsel of their choice at the initial appearance or subsequent investigation phase. It
has also noted that, even when defendants were able to secure representation of their choosing,
their ability to prepare an adequate defence was hindered in various ways.
44.
While it is true that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were assigned a public
defender, this is the case because the judge of the procedural court denied them the possibility
of appointing trusted counsel. This situation has undermined their ability to prepare an
adequate defence, since they are unable to communicate effectively with their counsel.
45.
The source concludes that, in the present case, there has been a violation of the due
process guarantees enshrined in article 14 (1), (2) and (3) (b) and (c) of the Covenant.
c.
Category V
46.
The independent international fact-finding mission to the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela has noted the commission by the security forces of arbitrary arrests and detentions
during security operations aimed at combating crime. Moreover, certain behaviours or
patterns by the security forces have been identified, such as a pattern of carrying out these
operations primarily in low-income urban neighbourhoods.5
47.
The source argues that the arrests of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante are
part of a pattern used by the security forces in security operations, which is rooted in
discrimination on the basis of social status and economic position resulting from poverty.
48.
The source adds that the Infante family were targeted by officers of the National
Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit during Operation Thunder because they live in a
low-income area with social ties to criminal activity, namely the Peña de Mota area of the
Altagracia de Orituco parish. It also indicates that this situation was used as a pretext by the
officers to link Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante with members of the Tren del
Llano gang and thus to arrest them so that they could later be charged with terrorism-related
offences.
49.
Another relevant factor indicative of discrimination was that, during the arrests, the
officers rummaged through their belongings and identified a release order issued by a
criminal court. This situation caused the officials to act violently against several members of
the family, accusing them of being confessed criminals despite the fact that the order was for
a release on the ground that the Prosecutor’s Office had found no incriminating evidence.
5 A/HRC/48/69, para. 6 (a).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
7
(b)
Response from the Government
50.
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 8 June 2023 and
requested it to submit a response by 7 August 2023. The Government requested, and was
granted, an extension of the deadline for providing its response. The Working Group received
the Government’s response on 6 September 2023, within the established deadline.
51.
The Government, in its response, states that the criminal proceedings against
Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante are related to their alleged collaboration with Tren
del Llano. The Government indicates that both persons were arrested on 26 April 2022 by
properly uniformed and duly identified officers of the Criminal Investigations Directorate of
the Bolivarian National Police Force, who were deployed as part of the security operation
“Operation Thunder 2022”, conducted in Guárico State with the aim of preventing criminal
activity by Tren del Llano.
52.
The arrests took place when the police officers identified two individuals (the Silva
Beroes sisters),6 whom they ordered to stop, but who attempted to flee from the officers,
which led to a chase that ended at the home of Ms. Infante Nares and her son, Mr. Hurtado
Infante.
53.
The Government claims that, while searching the home, the police, in the presence of
two witnesses, found a white bag made of synthetic material containing five double shotgun
barrels, 10 16-mm shotgun barrels, eight wooden shotgun grips, a pair of high-precision
binoculars, 40 pieces of 7.62 mm by 39 mm calibre ammunition and a smoke grenade. A
motorcycle was found at the rear of the house.
54.
The Government states that, hours later, Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante
turned up at the house, indicating that they lived there. In view of the discovery of items and
materials of criminal interest that might implicate them in the commission of offences, both
citizens were arrested in flagrante delicto by the police officers.
55.
The Government cites the relevant national legal provisions authorizing this type of
search and arrest and the search of the aforementioned house; in accordance with the
provisions of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, such action is permitted when it
concerns persons who are being pursued with a view to their arrest. The Government insists
that the persons being pursued for having ignored the police’s order to stop sought refuge in
the house.
56.
After their arrest, both Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were immediately
brought to the headquarters of the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit. They were
subsequently transferred to the National Forensic Medicine and Science Service for forensic
medical examinations, then to the profiling suite of the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic
Investigation Unit to establish their full identity and filiation details. The arrests were
registered in court record No. CNPB-005-041GUINV-SP-GD-000659-2022. The
Government has attached to its submission two records that establish that both persons
detained were in good health and had no injuries.
57.
The Government states that, when police records were consulted, it was found that
both persons had criminal records. Ms. Infante Nares had been arrested in December 2020
for arms trafficking, while Mr. Hurtado Infante had been arrested in December 2020 for arms
trafficking and again in November 2010 for premeditated murder.
58.
The Government insists that the arrests were made in flagrante delicto, in accordance
with article 44 of the Constitution and article 234 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
59.
The persons detained were notified by the National Police officers of the reasons for
their arrest and of their rights, as shown in the two annexes provided by the Government.
6 See opinion No. 54/2023.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
8
GE.24-18118
60.
Records of this notification are also attached, bearing the legible signatures of both
citizens, in compliance with the standards of the Human Rights Committee, which has
clarified that “oral notification of reasons for arrest satisfies the requirement” of notification.7
61.
The Government states that the proceedings in the present case were carried out by
the Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Bolivarian National Police Force, acting as a
criminal investigation body, and that both arrests were made by persons authorized to carry
out arrests by virtue of the powers conferred on them by law.
62.
The Government explains that, on 27 April 2022, both detained persons were brought
before State and Municipal Procedural Criminal Court of First Instance No. 3 in San Juan de
los Morros, Guárico State, for an arraignment hearing, as required by article 236 of the
Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. They were brought before a judge within 48 hours of
their arrest. The other two persons involved in the case (the Silva Beroes sisters)8 were also
present at this hearing.
63.
At the arraignment hearing, the defendants indicated that they did not have private
counsel, so the Court swore in a public defender to assist them. The Government rejects the
source’s claims in this regard, as there was no impediment to the appointment a private
defence lawyer at the hearing.
64.
The Government indicates that, at the hearing, the Court decided, in accordance with
articles 71 and 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to defer jurisdiction over the case to
the duty procedural court for the Caracas Metropolitan Area with national competence in
cases of terrorism-related offences because the case involved the alleged commission of
offences against public order, which are defined in the Act on Disarmament and Arms and
Munitions Control and the Act on Organized Crime and the Financing of Terrorism.
65.
The Government affirms that, during the aforementioned hearing, neither Ms. Infante
Nares, nor Mr. Hurtado Infante, nor their defence counsel reported the human rights
violations they claim to have occurred during their detention, which have now suddenly been
reported and described, for the first time, before the Working Group.
66.
Pursuant to article 373 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, Special Procedural
Court of First Instance No. 4, which has national jurisdiction over cases of terrorism-related
offences and in cases involving corruption and organized crime, conducted the ninth hearing,
following a transfer of jurisdiction, on 16 May 2022. At the hearing, both defendants again
stated that they did not have private counsel and were appointed counsel by the State in
accordance with the law. During the hearing, neither the defendants nor their counsel made
any complaints regarding the manner in which the criminal proceedings were being
conducted.
67.
The Government indicates that the court in the case accepted the initial classification
of the offences of terrorism, criminal association and illicit trafficking of arms and
ammunition brought by the Public Prosecution Service against Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante. The court dismissed the charge of conspiracy.
68.
The Government also indicates that the court in the case agreed to follow the ordinary
procedure and to hold Ms. Infante Nares in pretrial detention at the National Women’s
Correctional Institute and to hold Mr. Hurtado Infante in pretrial detention at the “Rodeo II”
pretrial detention centre in the Capital Region. It also ordered that they both undergo a full
medical evaluation in order to safeguard their right to health.
69.
The Government claims that, in deciding to order pretrial detention, the court carefully
considered whether the conditions for this custodial measure had been met, including whether
a punishable act that warrants deprivation of liberty had been committed, whether there was
substantiated evidence that the defendants had participated in the commission of a punishable
act and whether it could reasonably be presumed, based on 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.
7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 26.
8 See opinion No. 54/2023.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
9
70.
The Government emphasizes that Ms. Infante Nares decided, without any pressure
whatsoever, during the preliminary hearing, to plead guilty to the charges brought against
her, pursuant to article 375 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of this freely
made admission of guilt, the judge sentenced Ms. Infante Nares to 5 years’ imprisonment.
71.
Before Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 4, which has national
jurisdiction over cases of terrorism-related offences, Mr. Hurtado Infante, free from any
constraint or coercion, decided not to plead guilty; the Court therefore ordered that the
measure of pretrial detention be maintained and that an oral, public trial be held.
72.
The Government explains that, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Justice – the highest
court in the country – adopted decision No. 2004-0217 of 22 November 2004, in which it
was decided that terrorism-related cases should be heard only by specific procedural courts
in order to increase specialization. Therefore, in the present case, the fundamental principle
and essential requirement established in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant has been met.
73.
The Government states that Ms. Infante Nares is currently serving her sentence at the
centre for the control and protection of female detainees at the “El Valle” headquarters of the
Bolivarian National Police. Mr. Hurtado Infante remains detained by judicial decision at the
“Zona 7” centre for the control and protection of male detainees, a facility managed the
Bolivarian National Police located in Boleíta.
74.
During the criminal proceedings, Ms. Infante Nares pleaded guilty to the offences of
which she had been charged by the Public Prosecution Service. The Government informs the
Working Group that it rejects the claims made by the source in this regard, since the use of
the special procedure applicable to guilty pleas does not at any time imply that the person
concerned is to be immediately released on the basis of a conditional suspension of the
enforcement of the sentence. In order for a conditional suspension to be granted, the
requirements set out in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure must be met, including the
need to be determined to pose a minimal security risk following an assessment conducted by
an expert panel appointed by the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Administration.
Ms. Infante Nares is currently passing through the various stages of this process and has not
yet undergone the assessment necessary for her to regain her freedom.
75.
The Government states that at no point does the State or its institutions charge for any
of these procedures and wishes to make clear that the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison
Administration is responsible for the proper application of psychosocial testing, in
accordance with the law.
76.
The Government rejects the claim that the detained individuals were discriminated
against for any reason, since their detention was ordered on the basis of their alleged
commission of offences defined in and punishable by law, without regard to their personal
situations and in compliance with articles 1 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
77.
The Working Group transmitted the Government’s response to the source on
6 September 2023 and requested any final comments and observations, which were received
on 21 September 2023.
78.
In its additional comments, the source contests the claim that the persons apprehended
were arrested in flagrante delicto during the pursuit of Silva Beroes sisters (who are the
subject of opinion No. 54/2023), since in its response to the Working Group in the case
concerning the Silva Beroes sisters, the Government stated that the sisters were arrested on
27 April 2022, that is, one day after the date indicated in its response in the present case. The
Government also stated, in its response in the former case, that the arrest of the sisters took
place at their residence, not at the residence of the family of Ms. Infante and Mr. Hurtado
Infante. The source adds that the Government did not annex in its response the procedural
records to which it refers and in which the arrests in flagrante delicto were registered, despite
the fact that the burden of proof rests on the State.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
10
GE.24-18118
79.
The source states that the independent international fact-finding mission on the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has referred to these illegal searches and detentions, noting
that they occur regularly and do not comply with legal provisions.9 It recently referred to such
violations in the context of Operation Thunder 2022, noting that the relatives of those
detained reported that the authorities had carried out searches without warrants and arbitrary
detentions,10 during which the security forces planted fake incriminating evidence against the
detained persons in order to justify the claim that they had been caught in flagrante delicto.
80.
In its additional comments, the source presents a lengthy analysis of the overall
situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as an account of the illegitimate
acts committed in the framework of security operations aimed at combating crime. It also
describes acts of harassment and persecution against the family of Ms. Infante and
Mr. Hurtado Infante and attaches a copy of a complaint submitted in relation to these acts to
the Directorate for Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecution Service.
2.
Deliberations
81.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
82.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.11
83.
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. The Working Group notes that the source has provided a detailed and
coherent account of the circumstances of the detentions and the case, an assessment
strengthened by the fact that the current case is backed up by another case involving similar
actions, procedures and circumstances. 12 The Working Group takes note of its previous
opinions on similar situations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.13
84.
After a detailed assessment of the evidence presented and claims made by both the
source and the Government, in which it compared the circumstances, retraced the clear and
detailed sequence of events as described by both parties and examined the value of each piece
of evidence submitted, the Working Group has reached the following opinion.
(a)
Category I
85.
The Working Group has not been convinced that the detention of Ms. Infante Nares
and Mr. Hurtado Infante was lawful, as the account of the events contains elements that, in
the Working Group’s view, are not convincing. The Government states that the National
Police were pursuing other persons and that, in the course of that pursuit, they arrived at a
house, which they raided in the absence of its legitimate owners. The owners showed up at
the house several hours later and were arrested by the police, because the officers found
several weapons during the raid. For the Working Group, it is not acceptable that a home be
raided during the pursuit of third parties or that police officers remain in that home for several
hours and then arrest the legitimate inhabitants, since it is clear from the account given that
the police were not even aware whose home it was, among other inconsistencies.
86.
Moreover, while the Government states that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado
Infante were arrested on 26 April 2022, the source states that the date of arrest was 24 April
2022. The Working Group notes that, according to the arrest reports, the arrests took place
on the previous Saturday, which would be 23 April 2022 (as the reports are dated 28 April
2022). 14 These inconsistencies cast doubt on the reliability of the dates given by the
9 A/HRC/48/69, paras. 60 and 84.
10 A/HRC/54/57, para. 94.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 See opinion No. 54/2023.
13 See opinion No. 14/2024.
14 See https://ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/general/juzgaran-por-terrorismo-a-18-del-tren-del-llano/.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
11
Government and its account of the arrests. In contrast, the source’s account and statements
are consistent and accurate and contain specific reference points. On this basis, the Working
Group considers that the source’s indication of the date of the arrest is more credible than
that of the Government.
87.
The source therefore maintains that the detentions were arbitrary under category I,
because neither Ms. Infante Nares nor Mr. Hurtado Infante were shown arrest warrants issued
by a judge or arrested in flagrante delicto. On the contrary, these detentions were the result
of an abuse of power by officers of the National Anti-Extortion and Kidnapping Unit who,
without sufficient supporting documentation, raided the residence of the Infante family,
arrested Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante and subsequently detained them with the
support of National Police officers, alleging that they had found six shotgun barrels, six
shotgun buttstocks and a tube of ammunition, but without any documentation to support this
claim, as the Working Group has already deduced.
88.
The Government claims that the arrests were made after it was discovered, through
the consultation of police records, that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante had
criminal records. It insists that both arrests were made in flagrante delicto, in accordance with
its legislation.
89.
The Working Group recalls that, under international law, arrests and detentions
require legal authorization to be lawful. The Working Group has established that the
authorities must invoke the legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is
typically done through an apprehension or arrest warrant, or an equivalent document.15 The
reasons for arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the
general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual details to indicate the substance of
the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.16
90.
Detained persons have the right to be promptly informed of the charges against them.
This is inherent in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles 2
and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment. These provisions also require that the procedures for carrying
out legally authorized deprivation of liberty should be established by law and that States
parties should ensure compliance with them, including by specifying when an arrest warrant
is required. If these procedures are not respected, a detention is arbitrary and seriously
undermines the ability to conduct a proper legal defence.
91.
After examining the records provided by the Government, the Working Group has
deduced that they were issued after the fact, such that the detention of the aforementioned
citizens could not have been carried out in flagrante delicto or in compliance with the
requirements set out in articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 9 (1) of the Covenant, or with those contained in 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 (para. 33).17
On this factual basis, the Working Group is of the view that the detention of Ms. Infante
Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante lacks legal basis.
92.
The source argues that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante were subjected to
enforced disappearance by officers of the Bolivarian National Police from the moment of
their arrest. At the very least, their family had no knowledge of their whereabouts for three
days, because officials claimed that they were not being held at the place where members of
the family came looking for them (San Juan de los Morros, Guárico State). As a result, they
were unable to eat during that time. Even after Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante
had been detained and brought before the competent court, their relatives were unable to visit
them for several weeks.
93.
The Working Group notes with concern that, according to its jurisprudence,
incommunicado detention amounts to a prima facie enforced disappearance, which has been
15 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
16 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69.
17 Opinions No. 3/2018, para. 43, and No. 10/2018, para. 46.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
12
GE.24-18118
universally condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, a
grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary
detention.18 The Government has not contested these circumstances, stating only that all
activities and procedures were carried out in accordance with the law.
94.
The Working agrees with the source’s statement that incommunicado detention and
enforced disappearance restrict the rights of the person detained to have access to a lawyer
of his or her choosing and to be brought promptly before a judicial authority, which in turn
implies a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (3)
of the Covenant. The Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the Working
Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances for appropriate action.
95.
The Working Group stresses that article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that anyone
arrested be brought promptly before a judge, while article 9 (4) provides that the detained
person has the right to challenge the legality of his or her detention before a court. Judicial
oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty19 and is essential to
ensuring that detention has a legal basis. In this sense, 48 hours is normally sufficient to meet
the requirement of article 9 (3) of the Covenant to bring the detainee before a judge “without
delay”. Any delay longer than 48 hours must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified
under the specific circumstances.20
96.
The Working Group notes that neither Ms. Infante Nares nor Mr. Hurtado Infante was
promptly brought before a court and that they were unable to challenge the lawfulness of
their detention, as the first judicial authority declined jurisdiction in favour of a specialized
court. As a result, both persons had to wait for a new hearing, which took place on 16 May
2022. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group has not been convinced that the
detained persons were brought before a court within 48 hours of their arrest or that their right
to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court was respected.
97.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado
Infante were denied the effective right to bring an action before a court to challenge the
legality of their initial detention, contrary to articles 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant and principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. They were also
held outside the protection of the law for the first few days of their detention, in violation of
article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.21
98.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that multiple violations of article 9 of the
Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been committed,
rendering the detention of both individuals arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category III
99.
The Working Group adheres to the international human rights law principles
according to which every person has the right to respect for the fundamental elements of a
fair, independent and impartial trial in the course of proceedings instituted against him or her
and will therefore proceed to examine the facts on that basis.
100.
The source argues that, although it is true that Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado
Infante were assigned a public defender, this is the case because the judge of the procedural
court denied them the possibility of appointing trusted counsel. This situation has undermined
their ability to prepare an adequate defence, since they are unable to communicate effectively
with their counsel, in violation of the due process guarantees enshrined in articles 14 (1), (2)
and (3) (b) and (c) of the Covenant. However, the Government points out that when the
detained persons stated that they did not have lawyers, the Court swore in two public
18 Opinions No. 76/2017, para. 59, and No. 19/2019, para. 34.
19 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3.
20 Opinion No. 56/2019, para. 80.
21 Opinions No. 76/2017, para. 58, and No. 61/2020, para. 70; and A/HRC/29/26/Add.2, para. 108.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
13
defenders to assist them, in full compliance with the rules of due process and the right to a
defence.
101.
The source also claims that the public defender and the families did not receive copies
of the court files relating to the case. Although the Working Group notes that the law per se
does not require that copies of case files be provided, it strongly emphasizes that access to
relevant documents and evidence is required to ensure the realization of the rights enshrined
in article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. This is consistent with general comment No. 32 (2007)
of the Human Rights Committee, in which the Committee states that adequate means of
conducting the defence should include access to documents and other evidence, including all
materials that the prosecution plans to offer in court against the accused or that are
exculpatory. The Government, however, claims that, from the moment of their detention until
the present time, Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante have had full contact with their
defence lawyers, who have been able to represent properly them throughout the process.
102.
Having analysed the statements made by the source, the Working Group has not been
convinced that the lawyers did not have access to the case files, since it is clear that the
requests made of and agreements reached with the authorities are the result of an adequate,
timely and well-prepared defence.
103.
The Working Group is aware that both defendants reside in the area of Las Vueltas,
Peña de Mota, Altagracia de Orituco parish, in the municipality of José Tadeo Monagas,
Guárico State, where the police allege that the criminal activity was committed. However,
both defendants were transferred to Caracas, because all cases relating to Altagracia de
Orituco were being processed there.
104.
In its jurisprudence, the Working Group has repeatedly stated that, where national law
expressly assigns competence to the court of the jurisdiction where an offence was allegedly
committed, it is a violation of the right to be tried by the competent or duly appointed judge
for a person accused of an offence committed in one jurisdiction to be tried by a court in
another jurisdiction.22 However, the Government has explained that all crimes classified as
terrorism, once the judge has determined that this is the case, must be tried according to a
special procedure. In the present situation, the judge ceded jurisdiction to special judges
located elsewhere. Therefore, the Working Group is not convinced by the source’s claim in
this regard.
105.
According to the source, after negotiating with the Prosecutor’s Office, Ms. Infante
Nares admitted to one of several charges against her in order to obtain an early release. She
did this because of the pressure exerted by her own public defender, who warned her that, if
she did not avail herself of this option, she would run the risk of being convicted of several
more offences at trial, since the arrests made within the framework of Operation Thunder
were direct orders from the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The source
argues that the five-year prison sentence imposed on Ms. Infante Nares entitles her to the
procedural concession of “conditional suspension of the enforcement of the sentence”. This
concession is automatically applied to persons who meet the conditions set out in articles 482
et seq. of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.
106.
However, despite the fact that Ms. Infante Nares agreed to the concession procedure,
the sitting judge of Sentence Enforcement Court No. 8 for the Caracas Metropolitan Area has
not ordered her release because the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Administration has
not conducted a psychosocial test to ensure that she meets the criteria for the lowest security
risk classification. The source adds that this is an excuse stemming from corruption and the
absence of the rule of law, because amounts of up to $3,000 must be paid to the judicial
authorities in order to undergo this psychosocial test.
107.
According to the source, more than nine months have passed since Ms. Infante Nares
agreed to the plea bargain in exchange for a procedural concession, yet her release has not
been ordered. However, the Government explains that the use of the special procedure
applicable to guilty pleas does not at any time imply that the person concerned will be
22 Opinions No. 28/2014, para. 46, No. 30/2014, para. 51, No. 1/2015, paras. 31 and 34, No. 6/2019,
para. 135, No. 12/2019, para. 121, No. 43/2019, para. 77 and No. 58/2021, para. 85.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
14
GE.24-18118
immediately released on the basis of a conditional suspension of the enforcement of the
sentence. In order for a conditional suspension to be granted, the requirements set out in the
Organic Code of Criminal Procedure must be met, including the need to be determined to
pose a minimal security risk through an assessment carried out by an expert panel appointed
by the Ministry of People’s Power for Prison Administration. The Government insists that
the State and its institutions never charge a fee for this procedure.
108.
Mr. Hurtado Infante did not admit the charges brought against him; his case was
therefore before Trial Court of First Instance No. 1, which has exclusive national jurisdiction
to hear cases involving terrorism-related offences. The source informs the Working Group
that the trial has been deferred on six occasions and that Mr. Hurtado Infante remains in
detention.
109.
The Working Group recalls that, according to the Human Rights Committee in its
general comment No. 32 (2007), 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. Article 14 of the Covenant aims at ensuring the proper
administration of justice, and to this end guarantees a series of specific rights. These rights
have been violated in the cases of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante.
110.
The Working Group draws attention to the procedural fault arising from the fact that
Mr. Hurtado Infante’s arraignment hearing has been suspended six times. In the case of
Ms. Infante Nares, the Government has demonstrated that certain requirements must be met
in order for the concession of conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence to be
granted. According to the claims made by the source in its additional comments, the judicial
authorities charge for the performance of the procedures that would allow for her release.
111.
According to articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained
on a criminal charge is entitled to trial within a reasonable time and without undue delay. The
reasonableness of any delay in bringing a case to trial must be assessed in the circumstances
of each case, taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused and
the manner in which the matter was handled by the authorities.
112.
In view of the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that some of the information
provided by the source and not refuted by the Government indicates that the ability of
Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante to benefit from international human rights
standards relating to a fair trial without undue delay in accordance with article 14 of the
Covenant was seriously undermined. The Working Group is thus of the view that the
detention of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante is arbitrary under category III.
(c)
Category V
113.
The source has indicated that the arbitrary detention of Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante also falls under category V, since it is grounded in their poverty.
However, the Working Group has not been convinced that the arrests were made on the basis
of any kind of discrimination.
(d)
Concluding remarks
114.
The present case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in
recent years concerning arbitrary detention in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.23 In the
Working Group’s view, this is indicative of a systematic practice of depriving people of their
liberty while failing to respect their rights under international law. Widespread or systematic
imprisonment, in violation of the rules of international law, might constitute crimes against
humanity.24
115.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the
Government to address problems concerning arbitrary detention and, in the light of the
23 Opinions No. 73/2020, No. 57/2020, No. 44/2020, No. 20/2020, No. 81/2019, No. 80/2019,
No. 75/2019, No. 40/2019, No. 39/2019, No. 86/2018, No. 72/2018, No. 49/2018, No. 41/2018,
No. 32/2018, No. 87/2017, No. 84/2017, No. 52/2017 and No. 37/2017.
24 Opinion No. 47/2012, para. 22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
GE.24-18118
15
recurrent pattern of arbitrary detention identified by this international human rights
mechanism in recent years, the Government is urged to consider inviting the Working Group
to make an official country visit. Such visits are an opportunity for the Working Group to
engage in direct constructive dialogue with the Government and representatives of civil
society, with the aim of better understanding the situation of deprivation of liberty in the
country and the underlying reasons for arbitrary detention.
3.
Disposition
116.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Argelia Margarita Infante Nares and Yoeimer
Alexair Hurtado Infante, being in contravention of articles 6, 8, 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.
117.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante 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
Covenant.
118.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to immediately release Ms. Infante Nares and
Mr. Hurtado Infante and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other
reparations, in accordance with international law.
119.
The Working Group urges the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary
deprivation of liberty of Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante and to take appropriate
measures against those responsible for the violation of their rights.
120.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
121.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
122.
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 Ms. Infante
Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Ms. Infante Nares and Mr. Hurtado Infante 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.
123.
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.
124.
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
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/31
16
GE.24-18118
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.
125.
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.25
[Adopted on 30 August 2024]
25 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.