Opinion; Subjects: NICARAGUA, 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.25-01677 (E) 030325 040325
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 101st session, 11–15 November 2024
Opinion No. 48/2024 concerning Jaime Enrique Navarrete Blandón
(Nicaragua)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 27 February 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua a communication concerning Jaime Enrique
Navarrete Blandón. The Government has not replied to the communication. 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).
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 February 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
2
GE.25-01677
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Jaime Enrique Navarrete Blandón is a national of Nicaragua, born on 31 July 1983.
(i)
Context
5.
According to the source, prior to the detention that is the subject of the present
communication, Mr. Navarrete Blandón was detained between 15 June 2018 and
10 June 2019, in retaliation for his participation in the April 2018 anti-Government protests
in Nicaragua. During his imprisonment, he was subjected to repeated beatings that resulted
in broken ribs. He was also subjected to electric shocks, doused in gasoline and threatened
with being set on fire, burned with cigarettes on his back and had acid sprayed on his genitals
and other parts of his body. He was interrogated in the early morning for several days
regarding allegations that he was being paid by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United
States of America to destabilize Nicaragua. He was also pressured to reveal the names of
other individuals allegedly funded by the agency, as well as the identities of those allegedly
financing the protests. Police officers inserted part of the barrel of an AK-47 assault rifle into
his anus.
6.
According to the source, on 12 October 2018, the Third District Criminal Trial Court
of Managua sentenced Mr. Navarrete Blandón to 22 years in prison for aggravated murder
and an additional 9 months for the unlawful carrying of a firearm or ammunition. However,
on 10 June 2019, he was released under Amnesty Act No. 996, a government measure that
granted amnesty to numerous political prisoners. In this process, Mr. Navarrete Blandón was
both a beneficiary and a victim of the amnesty.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
The source states that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s arbitrary detention began on
24 July 2019 – 44 days after his initial release – when he left his home to photograph a white
vehicle. He had previously reported to independent media, on 23 July 2019, that officers in
the vehicle had harassed him and threatened to imprison him again.2 About a block away
from his house, two police officers on motorcycles intercepted him, chased him and
neutralized him with a severe beating, breaking his ribs and nose. He was then searched, and
although nothing was found on his person, he was taken to the premises of the Legal
Cooperation Directorate (in a facility known as “El Chipote”), where he was beaten and
interrogated regarding allegations that he was being financed to destabilize the country.
8.
On 25 July 2019, the police raided Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s home without a warrant,
allegedly because they had been tipped off by an anonymous caller who told them that there
were weapons in the home. According to the source, although Mr. Navarrete Blandón did not
own a gun, the police planted one in his bedroom to incriminate him.
9.
According to the source, a witness presented by the prosecution saw the police leaving
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s bedroom carrying a weapon but did not observe the start of the
search, the search itself or the exact moment when the weapon was allegedly discovered,
which was later alleged by the defence as grounds for reasonable doubt but was not taken
into account by the judicial authorities.
10.
On 26 July 2019, the Public Prosecution Service charged Mr. Navarrete Blandón with
the offences of owning or possessing narcotics and psychotropic and other controlled
substances and illegally carrying or possessing a firearm to the detriment of public health and
safety. According to the indictment, on 24 July 2019 Mr. Navarrete Blandón was arrested for
engaging in “suspicious behaviour” and, upon being searched, was found to be in possession
of two small bags of powder – later determined by the Legal Cooperation Directorate to be
cocaine – weighing 27.3 grams. It was further stated in the indictment that, on 25 July,
2 The source refers to Canal 12 Nicaragua, “Excarcelado denuncia constante asedio policial”
(Ex-Convict Complains of Constant Police Harassment), available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZQy1uj28i4.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
3
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s home was raided and a firearm was found inside, following a tip-off
from an anonymous caller indicating that there were weapons in the home. The source
stresses that these claims were false and that the evidence was planted to incriminate
Mr. Navarrete Blandón in order to punish him for his political opposition to the Government,
just like his politically-motivated imprisonment in 2018.
11.
On 28 July 2019, at around 9.50 a.m. (86 hours after the arrest), a preliminary hearing
was held before the Tenth District Criminal Court of Managua, which ordered that
Mr. Navarrete Blandón be placed in pretrial detention, dismissing an application for the
annulment of the proceedings filed by Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s lawyer pointing out the
fundamental procedural faults arising from the illegality of the detention, as Mr. Navarrete
Blandón had not been brought before a judge within the constitutional time limit of 48 hours
after his arrest, in accordance with article 33 of the Constitution. The case was processed as
criminal case No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN.
12.
The initial hearing was held on 9 August 2019. On 4, 12 and 20 September 2019, a
public trial was held before the Seventh District Criminal Trial Court of Managua, which
ended in Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s conviction. During one of the hearings, a guard pushed
Mr. Navarrete Blandón down a flight of stairs at the Managua Courthouse, causing him to
fall from the second floor and suffer fractured ribs. He was denied medical treatment.
13.
During the trial, the judge did not take due account of the arguments and evidence
presented to demonstrate that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was being arbitrarily incriminated in
retaliation for his political opinions, including the fact that the police had been watching him
outside his home in the weeks preceding his arrest and had threatened to put him back in
prison.
14.
On 2 October 2019, the judge issued sentence No. 195/2019, sentencing Mr. Navarrete
Blandón to 3 years and 6 months in prison and the payment of a fine equivalent to 150 days’
wages. An appeal was filed against this sentence with the Court of Appeals of Managua and
an appeal on points of law was filed with the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of
Justice, on the grounds, inter alia, that the sentence was not properly substantiated and that
the evidence had not been assessed in a rational and unbiased manner. Both appeals were
rejected and thus ineffective, rendering sentence No. 195/2019 final.
15.
According to the source, Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s prison sentence had been due to
end on 28 January 2023. However, he has remained imprisoned for political reasons, despite
the fact that his relatives have already paid the fine imposed.
16.
The source alleges that, in an unprecedented act and without any apparent request
from the Public Prosecution Service, on 12 August 2022, the Sixth District Criminal Court
for Sentence Enforcement and Prison Supervision of Managua issued an official letter to the
Fourth District Criminal Court for Sentence Enforcement and Prison Supervision of
Managua, forwarding the case under examination (case No. 013720-RM4-2019-PN) and
raising the possibility of initiating a sentence unification process under article 408 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and article 36 of Act No. 745. The Sixth District Criminal Court
had determined the existence of another case (No. 009724-ORM4-2018-PN) under way
before the Fourth District Criminal Court – referring to the 2018 criminal proceedings that
had been annulled by the amnesty of 10 June 2019. The letter was addressed to the Fourth
District Criminal Court, as the court with jurisdiction to enforce the sentence in case
No. 009724-ORM4-2018-PN.
17.
On 21 November 2022, the Fourth District Criminal Court for Sentence Enforcement
and Prison Supervision of Managua issued an order for the joinder of cases
No. 009724-ORM4-2018-PN and No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN and the beginning of the
process of the unification of the sentences handed down in each case, respectively, 22 years
and 9 months in prison for murder and illegal possession of firearms, and 3 years and
6 months in prison for ownership or possession of narcotics, psychotropic and other
controlled substances and illegal possession of firearms or ammunition.
18.
In the order of 21 November 2022, it was noted that a hearing would not be held in
relation to the unification of the sentences because of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic. A period of six days from notification of the order was set for the parties to submit
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
4
GE.25-01677
statements in relation to the “referred case”, which did not appear in the online judicial case
system; it was also stated that, with or without a response from the parties, the sentence would
be issued. Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s lawyer was notified of the order on 9 December 2023;
however, this lawyer, although representing Mr. Navarrete Blandón in the case, had fled the
country in August 2022 after receiving threats. For this reason, a relative of Mr. Navarrete
Blandón had requested a change of defence on 5 December 2022; this change was authorized
by the judicial authority only on 26 January 2023, leaving no time to challenge the order for
the unification of cases of 21 November 2022 and making it impossible to keep abreast of
the outcome of the unification process, since the authorities refused to disclose the documents
filed by the Public Prosecution Service in that regard.
19.
The source adds that the judicial authorities did not notify Mr. Navarrete Blandón of,
or publicly issue, a unified sentence, nor does the online judicial case system show that a
unified sentence has been issued. No new procedural updates on the case have appeared since
February 2023. It is therefore impossible to know whether the authorities ultimately unified
the sentences in law, although it can be presumed that they did so in practice, since
Mr. Navarrete Blandón was not released on 28 January 2023 upon completion of the sentence
handed down in case No. 195/2019 and was informed by prison guards that he would not be
released as a result of the unification process.
20.
The source states that between December 2022 and February 2023, Mr. Navarrete
Blandón’s lawyer filed multiple appeals for the annulment of the sentence handed down in
case No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN, but no response has been obtained. In June 2023,
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s lawyer passed away and since then Mr. Navarrete Blandón has had
no legal representation for the following reasons: (a) the almost total lack of human rights
defenders in Nicaragua owing to their forced exile; (b) the fact that other lawyers in
Nicaragua refrain from working on this type of case for fear of reprisals; and (c) the fact that
the Government has denied a member of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s family living abroad
access to the country since March 2023, preventing him from taking procedural steps and
looking for potential lawyers.
21.
In a public speech on 9 February 2023, the President of Nicaragua declared that
Mr. Navarrete Blandón was on a list of 228 people, all political prisoners, to be released and
exiled to the United States of America that same day for being mercenaries and coup plotters
working for the United States. Ultimately, only 222 persons were released, not including
Mr. Navarrete Blandón, presumably because he had not been accepted into the United States,
which turned its back on him even though he had allegedly been financed and used by its
Government to destabilize Nicaragua.3
22.
The source indicates that, since 31 July 2019, Mr. Navarrete Blandón has been held
in the Jorge Navarro Prison Complex (known as “La Modelo”), in solitary confinement in a
cramped, overheated and poorly ventilated maximum-security cell. He has received no
medical care for injuries resulting from past beatings or for ongoing health conditions such
as fevers, diarrhoea, flu, respiratory problems and hypertension. His health condition is
alarming and could lead to his death.
(iii)
Legal analysis
a.
Category I
23.
The source claims that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s arrest was unlawful because it was
not made in accordance with an arrest warrant or in flagrante delicto. The police claim that
they arrested Mr. Navarrete Blandón because he became “visibly nervous” and “tried to turn
back” when he saw their patrol and because they found “bags of cocaine” on him when they
searched him (i.e., they arrested him in flagrante delicto). However, the source argues that
being “visibly nervous” and trying to “turn back” are not objective criteria for making an
3 The source refers to El País, “Daniel Ortega habla de la liberación de más de 200 presos políticos en
Nicaragua” (Daniel Ortega Says His Will Release More Than 200 Political Prisoners in Nicaragua),
available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNREcDBlDFQ (minutes 33:10 to 34:12).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
5
arrest in flagrante delicto, but rather constitute a purely subjective conjecture and assessment,
and that the arrest should therefore not have been made.
24.
The source states that article 231 of the Nicaraguan Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that arrest without a warrant (in flagrante delicto) is permissible:
When the perpetrator of the offence is caught while committing it, is pursued fleeing
from the scene of the crime or is caught at or near the scene while in possession of
weapons, instruments or other items providing grounds to believe that he or she is the
perpetrator.
In the present case, neither the police nor the prosecutorial or judicial authorities have
explained why the warrantless arrest based on Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s “visibly nervous”
behaviour met any of the criteria for arrest in flagrante delicto. Moreover, the law does not
explicitly specify the circumstances that allow for the presumption of a person’s participation
in a flagrant crime.
25.
The source adds that the search that took place during the arrest was also unlawful,
since article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the National Police may
carry out a personal search “when there are sufficient grounds to presume that someone is
illegally carrying a weapon or is hiding among his or her clothes belongings or objects related
to the crime or has them attached to his or her body”.
26.
The source argues that the vague wording of articles 231 and 236 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure allows for arbitrary interpretation, violating the principles of specificity
and legality by failing to define clear criteria for the offences described.4
27.
According to the source, the arrest was also unlawful because Mr. Navarrete Blandón
was not presented before the judicial authorities for judicial oversight within 48 hours of the
moment of arrest in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee,5 but
rather was presented 86 hours after the arrest. The authorities did not justify the untimeliness
of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s presentation before the judicial authorities, despite the fact that
the defence raised this point during the preliminary hearing. Consequently, the right of
prompt judicial oversight established in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 9 (3) of the Covenant was violated.
28.
The source also claims that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is unlawful because,
since 28 January 2023, he has served his sentence of 3 years and 6 months in prison in full
and has paid the 150 day-fines ordered in sentence No. 195/2019 of case
No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN. Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s lawyer filed appeals pointing out the
illegality and illegitimacy of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s continued detention and requesting
the judicial and prison authorities to release him immediately in view of the completion of
his sentence, but no response has been provided to date.
29.
The source claims that, on 21 November 2022, the Fourth District Criminal Court for
Sentence Enforcement and Prison Supervision of Managua issued an order for the joinder of
cases No. 009724-ORM4-2018-PN and No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN and the initiation of
the process of unifying the sentences handed down in each case. This step was taken despite
the fact that the first case had been amnestied on 10 June 2019 under the Amnesty Act
(No. 996), which annulled the proceedings and any resulting conviction or penalty, giving
rise to the effects of res judicata.
30.
The source also claims that prison guards informed Mr. Navarrete Blandón that he
had not yet been released because the sentences handed down against him in the two cases
had been unified; however, Mr. Navarrete Blandón was not notified of the issuance of any
unified sentence and there is no record in the system of any such sentence. The source further
claims that the joinder of the cases and the very act of initiating the procedure to unify the
sentences in those cases violated the principle of non bis in idem recognized in article 14 (7)
of the Covenant.
4 Opinion No. 85/2021, paras. 74 and 75.
5 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
6
GE.25-01677
31.
The principle of legality, too, was breached in connection with this violation, since
the judge decided not to hold an oral hearing in relation to the unification process, alleging
the pandemic as a motive – although the relevant order is dated 21 November 2022, when
the pandemic was under control – which prevented Mr. Navarrete Blandón from defending
himself in accordance with due process. This breach was aggravated by the fact that
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s former lawyer was notified of the order on 9 December 2022, but
the lawyer appointed by Mr. Navarrete Blandón on 5 December 2022 was not, leaving
Mr. Navarrete Blandón without a defence.
b.
Category II
32.
According to the source, Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention has undermined his rights
to freedom of thought and belief and freedom of opinion and expression.
33.
The source recalls that the Human Rights Committee has indicated that it is
incompatible with such freedoms to criminalize the holding of an opinion, including opinions
of a political nature.6
34.
The source alleges that, in view of the foregoing, Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention
is arbitrary because it is based on his ideology and his political opposition to the Government.
He was imprisoned for that same reason between 15 June 2018 and 10 June 2019, and it was
for the same reason that, when he was released under the Amnesty Act on 10 June 2019, the
police began to harass and surveil him every day outside his home, threatening to re-arrest
him, which he even reported in the media on 23 July 2019, in exercise of his freedom of
expression, a day before the start of his current detention.
35.
The source contends that Mr. Navarrete Blandón is a political prisoner and that his
continued detention is part of a broader, systematic State policy of repressing political
dissent. The Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua7 has described this practice as
constituting crimes against humanity and imprisonment and persecution for political
reasons.8 The Group of Experts on Human Rights in Nicaragua noted that, following the
adoption of the Amnesty Act, many released political opponents were subsequently
arbitrarily reincarcerated, as in the case of Mr. Navarrete Blandón.9
36.
The source argues that the fact that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was accused and convicted
of ordinary offences does not detract from the discriminatory nature of his detention, which
results from his ideological opposition to the Government. The evidence against him,
including the alleged bag of narcotic drugs and the seized weapon, was fabricated by the
police and the Public Prosecution Service as political punishment following his release under
the amnesty. The Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua has pointed out that, in the
context of systematic attacks on the opposition, false evidence has been presented, including
manipulated witness statements and documents.
37.
Moreover, according to the source, the public speech made by the President of
Nicaragua on 9 February 2023 demonstrates that both the sentence unification process and
the political motivation of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention and trial were based on facts
and evidence fabricated by the authorities with the intention of keeping him imprisoned for
allegedly plotting a coup and being a mercenary sent by the United States Central Intelligence
Agency to destabilize the Government of Nicaragua. In this regard, it should be recalled that
police officers questioned him about the identities of persons allegedly financing him to
destabilize the country and accused him of being an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.
38.
As a political reprisal against his ideology and political expression, Mr. Navarrete
Blandón has been subjected to severe prison conditions since his arrest. He has been held at
all times in individual maximum-security cells, without being allowed to communicate with
other prisoners, without medical attention and with little and sometimes no access to a yard
6 General Comment No. 34 (2011), para. 9.
7 See the conference room paper containing the detailed conclusions of the Group of Human Rights
Experts on Nicaragua, available on the web page of the mandate, at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-
bodies/hrc/ghre-nicaragua/index, paras. 1040–1052, 1097–1002 and 1120–1128.
8 Ibid., paras. 1052 and 1128.
9 Ibid., para. 1124.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
7
or sunshine. He has also suffered torture in prison, including beatings that fractured his ribs
and nose. In the maximum-security cells of the Jorge Navarro Prison Complex, he was beaten
on various occasions in 2021 and 2022 and was denied medical attention.
c.
Category III
39.
According to the source, Mr. Navarrete Blandón was the victim of biased proceedings
that violated the minimum guarantees of a fair trial.
40.
The source claims that all judicial authorities that have exercised jurisdiction in
relation to the detention of Mr. Navarrete Blandón have lacked independence and
impartiality, in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
41.
The source argues that this lack of impartiality has been apparent since the beginning
of the trial, when judicial decisions were issued solely on the basis of the arguments presented
by the Public Prosecution Service and the courts rejected or ignored any argument or
evidence that would demonstrate the illegality of the detention and Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s
innocence. For instance, at the preliminary hearing, the Tenth District Criminal Court of
Managua upheld the indictment and ordered Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s pretrial detention
despite the fact that the defence had alleged the illegality of his arrest and pointed out the
political motivation for his imprisonment. The Seventh District Criminal Trial Court of
Managua convicted Mr. Navarrete Blandón but neglected to provide in the judgment any
analysis of evidence and arguments giving rise to reasonable doubt of his guilt.
42.
In sentence No. 195/2019, arguments demonstrating that the arrest and indictment
were the result of political persecution were not taken into consideration. The fact that the
police used violence in their arrest of Mr. Navarrete Blandón was not mentioned, nor was the
evidence showing that he was not arrested alone, as he was with a friend, or in the place
indicated by the police and the Public Prosecution Service, but rather near his home, and no
reference was made to the fact that a police officer pushed him down the stairs of the
courthouse, breaking his ribs.
43.
According to the source, the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Division of the
Supreme Court of Justice, in their decisions on appeal and points of law, respectively, did not
consider the arguments put forward by the defence. Instead, they upheld sentence
No. 195/2019 despite the fact that it lacked proper legal and factual justification for its
conclusions.
44.
The judicial penitentiary authorities opened the procedure for the joinder of cases
No. 009724-ORM4-2018-PN and No. 013720-ORM4-2019-PN and the unification of the
sentences in each case, in the knowledge that the first case had been amnestied and that the
criminal proceedings in the case and any resulting conviction or penalty had thus been
annulled.
45.
The Fourth District Criminal Court for Sentence Enforcement and Prison Supervision
of Managua, which formally ordered the joinder of the cases and the initiation of the sentence
unification process, merely cited article 36 of Act No. 746 and article 408 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure without explaining the reasons why such a process should be initiated if
the first case had been amnestied. Moreover, it did not follow the due process for the
unification of sentences established in article 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Act
No. 746, as it did not allow for the exercise of the right to defence or respect the principle of
equality before the law. No public hearing was convened to allow Mr. Navarrete Blandón to
exercise his right to be heard. No judgment was issued to justify the unification of sentences,
at least not as far as the source can deduce; if such a judgment was issued, the principle of
publicity and the right to a defence have been violated, since no one was notified of it.
Moreover, it has never been clarified whether this is the legal reason why Mr. Navarrete
Blandón continues to be deprived of his liberty.
46.
According to the source, the above-mentioned judicial omissions, the violation of the
obligation to provide reasons for judicial decisions under article 14 of the Covenant and the
bias in favour of the prosecution were intentional steps designed to criminalize Mr. Navarrete
Blandón for his opposition to the Government. These omissions were not the isolated acts of
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
8
GE.25-01677
individual judicial authorities acting in accordance with the principle of judicial
independence and impartiality, but rather were decisions made in the context of the lack of
separation of powers in Nicaragua, which has been reported by international bodies since
2018.10
47.
The source argues that, as previously indicated, the fact that his former lawyer – who
had been in exile since August 2022 – was notified of the order on 21 November 2022, which
joined the 2018 and 2019 cases and initiated the sentence unification process, while his new
lawyer, appointed on 5 December 2022, was not, effectively denied him the possibility of
organizing an expert defence in accordance with the principle of equality of arms.
48.
The right to a defence was also undermined by the fact that, because of the pandemic,
no public hearing was held in relation to the sentence unification process, since, at such a
hearing, Mr. Navarrete Blandón would have had the possibility to defend himself or to
request the judge to recognize the appointment of his new lawyer so that he could exercise
his right to an expert defence during the proceedings. Moreover, by late 2022, the pandemic
was under control.
49.
The source adds that a violation of the right to a defence has resulted from the
continuing lack of public information about the case, since this has prevented the
ascertainment of whether the judicial penitentiary authorities have issued a decision on the
unification of sentences and thus made it impossible to challenge any such decision.11
50.
In accordance with article 14 (7) of the Covenant, no one shall be liable to be tried or
punished again for an offence for which he or she has already been finally convicted or
acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Amnesties give
rise to the effects of res judicata and annual criminal proceedings, convictions and penalties.
51.
The fact that the judicial penitentiary authorities initiated a sentence unification
process despite knowing that one of the sentences had been amnestied under Act No. 996 is
a clear violation of the principle of non bis in idem.
d.
Category V
52.
The source alleges that the detention of Mr. Navarrete Blandón and the serious
violations of his human rights in prison are the result of de facto, generalized and systematic
discrimination against political opponents of the Government. The Group of Human Rights
Experts on Nicaragua has clearly demonstrated that detention of the kind imposed on
Mr. Navarrete Blandón, both in 2018 and currently, and hundreds of others in Nicaragua, has
been deliberately carried out with the intent to discriminate on the basis of the victims’
identity or perceived identity as political opponents.12
53.
The source states that this serious procedural violation highlights the arbitrary political
nature of the detention, which is intended to prolong Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s imprisonment
unjustly as a form of political punishment for the opinions he has expressed since 2018 and
for his political ideology.
(b)
Response from the Government
54.
On 27 February 2024, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government in accordance with its methods of work. The Working Group requested
the Government to provide, by 29 April 2024, detailed information on the situation of
Mr. Navarrete Blandón, clarifying the legal and factual grounds for his detention and
explaining how it is compatible with the obligations of Nicaragua under international human
rights law and, in particular, the treaties ratified by the State.
10 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Personas privadas de libertad en Nicaragua”
(Persons Deprived of Liberty in Nicaragua), report No. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 287, 5 October 2020,
para. 212, and CCPR/C/NIC/CO/4, paras. 2 and 27.
11 Opinion No. 52/2022, para. 98.
12 See the conference room paper containing the detailed conclusions of the Group of Human Rights
Experts on Nicaragua, available on the web page of the mandate, at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-
bodies/hrc/ghre-nicaragua/index, para. 1222.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
9
55.
The Working Group regrets that the Government has not submitted a response or
requested an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of
work.13
2.
Discussion
56.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
57.
In determining whether Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is arbitrary, the Working
Group takes account of the principles established in its jurisprudence on evidentiary issues.
If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international human rights law
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.14 In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the allegations made by the source.
58.
The source has argued that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is arbitrary and falls
under categories I, II, III and V.
(a)
Category I
59.
The source alleges that the detention of Mr. Navarrete Blandón is arbitrary because it
lacks any legal basis, falling within category I.
60.
The Working Group recalls that, under international law, the rule of law is a principle
of governance that requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of
law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law,
separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of
arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.15 States parties must conform to this
standard, since the rule of law is the cornerstone of due process, which is essential for the
protection of human rights. The violation of these principles is reflected in the different
categories of arbitrary detention identified by the Working Group.
61.
According to the source, the detention of Mr. Navarrete Blandón is arbitrary as he was
arrested on 24 July 2019 without being shown an arrest warrant or being informed of the
charges against him. The Working Group notes that the detention began 44 days after his
initial release from prison pursuant to the Amnesty Act.
62.
On 24 July 2019, Mr. Navarrete Blandón left his home to photograph a vehicle from
which the police had been harassing him, at which point he was violently detained, leaving
him with several broken ribs and a broken nose. Although he was searched and nothing
incriminatory was found on his person, he was taken to the premises of the Legal Cooperation
Directorate (in the facility known as “El Chipote”), where he was beaten again and
interrogated in an effort to have him reveal the identities of persons allegedly financing him
to destabilize the country.
63.
On the basis of the information received from the source, and in the absence of any
response from the Government, the Working Group is convinced that Mr. Navarrete
Blandón’s rights were violated when he was detained without any legal basis and without
being shown an arrest warrant, despite the fact that he was not in flagrante delicto.16 The
Working Group recalls that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled on several
occasions that requirements for an arrest in flagrante delicto cannot simply be assumed to
have been met but must be proved by the authorities, which they were not in this case.17
13 A/HRC/36/38.
14 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
15 S/2004/616, para. 6.
16 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 38.
17 Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of 3 June 2021, para. 108 and
Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina, judgment of 1 September 2020, paras. 88–101;
opinions No. 35/2021 and No. 43/2021.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
10
GE.25-01677
64.
In addition, the source informs the Working Group that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s
home was raided the day after his arrest, on 25 July 2019, without a warrant or prior
notification and in the absence of witnesses.18
65.
The Working Group notes that items seized during the search were not subsequently
used at any stage of the proceedings. The fact that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s residence was
searched without a warrant and that the items taken were not used as evidence at trial supports
the Working Group’s conclusion that the authorities did not follow the procedures necessary
to ensure that the detention had a legal basis.
66.
On 26 July 2019, the Public Prosecution Service charged Mr. Navarrete Blandón with
the offences of owning or possessing narcotics and psychotropic and other controlled
substances and illegally carrying or possessing a firearm to the detriment of public health and
the safety of Nicaraguan society. The indictment noted that, on 24 July 2019, Mr. Navarrete
Blandón was arrested for engaging in “suspicious behaviour” and that, upon being searched,
he was found to have on his person two small bags of powder – later determined by the Legal
Cooperation Directorate to be cocaine – weighing 27.3 grams. It was also noted in the
indictment that, on 25 July, during the search of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s residence, a firearm
was found. The source claims that this evidence was planted by the police in order to
incriminate Mr. Navarrete Blandón.
67.
The Working Group recalls that, under international law, the authorities must invoke
the legal basis for an arrest and apply it to the circumstances of the case, from which it follows
that the accused person is entitled to be presented with an arrest warrant or court order (or
equivalent document)19 in order to ensure the exercise of effective oversight by a competent,
independent and impartial judicial authority, which is procedurally inherent in the right to
liberty and security and the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under articles 3 and
9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 (1) of the Covenant and
principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 20 In the absence of any information from the
Government, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was detained
without any legal basis, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to be informed at the time of one’s
arrest of the reasons for the arrest and also of the judicial avenue to challenge the lawfulness
of the deprivation of liberty, in accordance with article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principle 7
of the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the
Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, was also
violated.
68.
The Working Group notes the source’s claim that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was brought
before a judge for a preliminary hearing on 28 July 2019, at around 9.50 a.m., i.e. 86 hours
after his arrest on 24 July. It also notes that the authorities failed to justify the untimeliness
of Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s presentation before the judicial authority for due oversight,
despite the fact that his defence raised the issue at the preliminary hearing.
69.
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 and the Covenant,
require that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge be brought promptly before a
judge so that a decision on his or her situation may be taken. As the Working Group has
reiterated in its jurisprudence, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to meet such a requirement,
and any additional delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified in the
circumstances.21
70.
Moreover, the Working Group recognizes the fact that these actions have been
instigated and perpetrated by the Public Prosecution Service and stresses that the prosecution
18 Opinion No. 83/2019, para. 51.
19 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 27. In cases of arrests made in flagrante delicto, it is not generally
possible to obtain a warrant.
20 Opinion No. 3/2018, para. 43, and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014),
para. 33.
21 Opinion No. 66/2020, and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
11
service cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the
Covenant. Consequently, the authorities have failed to establish the legal basis for the
detention in accordance with the Covenant.
71.
The Working Group has made clear that, in accordance with its established
jurisprudence and practice, the Public Prosecution Service is not considered an independent
judicial authority and does not meet the criteria of article 9 of the Covenant.22 It is recalled
that the national legal system should provide for a separation between the authority
conducting the investigation and the authorities responsible for detention and for ruling on
questions related to pretrial detention. This separation is a necessary requirement to prevent
conditions of detention from being used to impair the effective exercise of the right to defend
oneself, favour self-incrimination or allow pretrial detention to amount to a form of advance
punishment.
72.
The Working Group is convinced that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was not brought
promptly before a judicial authority, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. When such
treatment is continuous, it contravenes the rights set out in rules 43 (3) and 58 of the
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson
Mandela Rules) and principles 15, 19 and 20 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
73.
The Working Group also notes the source’s claim that, during the preliminary hearing
of 28 July 2019, the Tenth District Criminal Court of Managua ordered that Mr. Navarrete
Blandón be placed in pretrial detention and rejected a motion for annulment filed by his
lawyer, who argued that the detention was unlawful because Mr. Navarrete Blandón had not
been brought before a judge within the constitutionally mandated 48-hour period following
his arrest.
74.
The Working Group reiterates that pretrial detention should not be punitive in nature,
should be the exception rather than the rule and should be ordered for the shortest time
possible. It must also be based on an individual assessment of each individual. Pursuant to
article 9 (3) of the Covenant, the justification for pretrial detention must be analysed in a
reasoned judicial decision in every case. The documents examined show that this was not
done in the present case, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant.23
75.
Having examined the source’s allegations, and in the absence of a response from the
Government to refute or contradict them, the Working Group concludes that the detention of
Mr. Navarrete Blandón is arbitrary and falls within category I as defined by the Working
Group.
(b)
Category II
76.
The source argues that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is arbitrary because it is a
direct result of his exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, which are protected both
under the Constitution of Nicaragua and under international law. The Government has not
replied to the source’s allegations, despite having been given the opportunity to do so.
77.
The Working Group notes the source’s arguments that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s
detention is arbitrary, as it stems from his ideology and political opposition to the
Government. The source states that his prior imprisonment, from 15 June 2018 to
10 June 2019, was also in retaliation for his participation in the April 2018 anti-Government
protests in Nicaragua. The source further states that, before his rearrest on 24 July 2019,
Mr. Navarrete Blandón faced daily harassment and threats from law enforcement authorities
outside his home.
78.
The Working Group is convinced, in the absence of contradicting information, that
Mr. Navarrete Blandón has been persecuted since 2018 as a reprisal for his ideology and
22 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32; opinions No. 14/2015, para. 28,
No. 5/2020, para. 72, and No. 41/2020, para. 60; and A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 35.
23 Opinions No. 57/2014, No. 24/2015, No. 1/2018, No. 16/2018 and No. 53/2018; A/HRC/19/57,
paras. 48–58; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
12
GE.25-01677
political opposition to the Government, which, moreover, is the reason for his initial
imprisonment between 15 June 2018 and 10 June 2019.
79.
The Working Group is of the view that the freedoms of opinion, expression and
assembly, including peaceful protest, are the cornerstone of any free and democratic society.
These freedoms are the basis for the effective exercise of a wide range of human rights, such
as the rights to freedom of assembly and association and to political participation, as set forth
in articles 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22
and 25 of the Covenant. In the present case, Mr. Navarrete Blandón was detained and
proceedings were initiated against him precisely because of his work to promote freedom of
expression, association and assembly, and the detention and proceedings prevented him from
participating in the political and democratic life of his country.
80.
In its jurisprudence, the Working Group has consistently established that deprivation
of liberty is arbitrary when the authorities have detained a person to prevent him or her from
participating in public life, for example, by initiating criminal proceedings that render it
impossible for that person to participate in an electoral campaign or to express an opinion
about it.24
81.
The Working Group is deeply concerned about reports of the persistent harassment,
intimidation, threats and arrests to which Mr. Navarrete Blandón has been subjected. It also
reiterates that it applies a heightened standard of review in cases where freedom of expression
and opinion is restricted or in which social activists or human rights defenders are involved,
as in the case of Mr. Navarrete Blandón.
82.
The Working Group once again reiterates that the Human Rights Committee has
clearly established that citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting an
influence on them, either through debate and dialogue with their representatives or through
their capacity for organization.25 This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of
expression, assembly and association.
83.
In view of these circumstances, the Working Group decides to refer the present case
to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association.
84.
The Working Group, after having carefully examined the information provided by the
source, finds that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is arbitrary and violates articles 19 and
21 of the Covenant and articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It
therefore falls within category II.
(c)
Category III
85.
In the light of its findings under category II, namely, that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s
detention resulted from the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression,
freedom of association and political participation, the Working Group considers that there
were no grounds for a trial. However, since a trial took place, and in view of the claims made
by the source, the Working Group will proceed to analyse whether, in the course of this trial,
the fundamental components of a fair, independent and impartial trial were respected.
86.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the
Covenant recognize the right of everyone charged to be presumed innocent. The Working
Group has reviewed the allegations of the source in the light of paragraph 30 of the Human
Rights Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007). The Working Group notes that 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 the doubt and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in
accordance with this principle. Moreover, the Working Group has determined that statements
24 Opinion No. 24/2015, para. 44, No. 30/2015, paras. 39, 44 and 47, No. 33/2015, paras. 83–85,
No. 36/2017, para. 108, and No. 61/2018, para. 59, and A/HRC/36/37, para. 48 (d).
25 General comment No. 25 (1996).
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
13
publicly condemning the accused person before a sentence has been passed violate the
presumption of innocence and constitute undue interference that undermines the
independence and impartiality of the court.26
87.
The source alleges that, in a public speech on 9 February 2023, the President of
Nicaragua announced that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was among 228 individuals – all political
prisoners – set to be released from prison and exiled to the United States on that same day,
labelling them as United States mercenaries and coup plotters.27 However, Mr. Navarrete
Blandón’s transfer did not take place, as the United States refused to admit him. The source
argues that this speech illustrates how the entire judicial process, including the sentence
unification process and the politically motivated nature of his detention, was based on
fabricated evidence intended to justify his imprisonment for allegedly plotting a coup and
being a mercenary sent by the United States Central Intelligence Agency to destabilize the
Government of Nicaragua. In addition, police officers interrogated him about the identities
of individuals supposedly financing him for this purpose and accused him of being an agent
of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Government has not responded to these claims.
88.
The Working Group emphasizes that international law upholds the importance of
independent and impartial investigations and prosecution proceedings as essential to ensuring
access to justice.28 All authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a
trial – a duty that has been violated in this case.29
89.
Taking into account the information received, and in the absence of a response from
the Government, the Working Group considers that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was publicly
portrayed as a criminal guilty of destabilizing the country and was included on a list of
228 individuals set to be released from prison and exiled. The Working Group finds that this
constitutes a violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 14 (2) of the Covenant, both of which recognize the right to the presumption of
innocence.
90.
Moreover, the source alleges that the Nicaraguan judiciary is completely controlled
by the executive and that repression of the political opposition in Nicaragua has been growing
since the run-up to the November 2021 elections.
91.
The Working Group notes the source’s allegations of procedural irregularities in the
Seventh District Criminal Trial Court of Managua, which convicted Mr. Navarrete Blandón
without conducting any analysis of the evidence or arguments that might raise reasonable
doubt about his guilt. The court also failed to evaluate the defence’s arguments or consider
witness testimony, instead accepting the Public Prosecution Service’s statements without
scrutiny. Furthermore, it did not examine whether his detention and prosecution were
politically motivated, nor did it acknowledge the violent nature of his arrest, evidence that he
was not alone at the time but with a friend, or the fact that he was apprehended near his home
rather than in the location stated by the authorities. Additionally, the Court overlooked the
fact that a police officer pushed Mr. Navarrete Blandón down the stairs of the courthouse,
resulting in broken ribs.
92.
The Government has not denied any of these procedural irregularities, of which many
more were committed throughout the proceedings, undermining judicial independence and
due process.
93.
The Working Group also notes the source’s allegation that the judicial authorities
initiated a sentence unification process in violation of the non bis in idem principle, despite
knowing that one of the sentences had been subject to an amnesty under Act No. 996, which
is the reason for Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s release on 10 June 2019. The Government has not
contested these claims. Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that the fundamental due
26 See opinions No. 90/2017, No. 76/2018 and No. 89/2018.
27 The source refers to El País, “Daniel Ortega habla de la liberación de más de 200 presos políticos en
Nicaragua” (Daniel Ortega Says His Will Release More Than 200 Political Prisoners in Nicaragua),
available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNREcDBlDFQ (minutes 22:44 to 23:11 and 28:00
to 30:31).
28 See opinion No. 38/2019.
29 See opinion No. 40/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
14
GE.25-01677
process principle of non bis in idem appears to have been violated, as Mr. Navarrete Blandón
was tried and convicted for acts in relation to which he had been granted amnesty on
12 October 2018, in breach of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 14 (7) of the Covenant.
94.
The Working Group is concerned about the source’s allegations regarding the
treatment of Mr. Navarrete Blandón during his arrest, including reports that he was beaten,
pushed down the stairs during a trial hearing and subjected to physical abuse and ill-treatment
that resulted in broken ribs and a fractured nose, as well as reports he was assaulted during
his previous detention. Moreover, Mr. Navarrete Blandón has been held in solitary
confinement in a cramped, overheated and poorly ventilated maximum-security cell. Despite
sustaining multiple injuries from beatings by public officials since his arrest, as well as
developing new health issues, he has been denied medical care.
95.
The Working Group recalls that the denial of medical care can constitute a form of
torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.30 In the Working Group’s view, torture is not only
a serious violation of human rights per se, but also undermines the ability of individuals to
defend themselves and hinders the exercise of their right to a fair trial. Noting the gravity of
the allegations, the Working Group considers that the violations relating to the conditions of
detention of Mr. Navarrete Blandón and the lack of medical care significantly undermined
his ability to properly defend himself. In view of this situation, the Working Group decides
to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to
the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, for appropriate
action.
96.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group considers that serious violations of
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s fair trial guarantees under articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2), (3) (b) and (7) of the Covenant were
committed, rendering his detention arbitrary under category III.
(d)
Category V
97.
The source claims that Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention stems from his political
opposition to the Government and is therefore arbitrary under category V. The Government
has not refuted the prima facie credible allegations made by the source in this regard.
98.
Furthermore, the Working Group notes that one of the factors that suggest that there
is a discriminatory aspect to a deprivation of liberty is whether it is part of a pattern of
persecution against the detained persons that includes, for example, previous arrests or acts
of violence or threats. As established in the discussion concerning category II, Mr. Navarrete
Blandón’s detention resulted from his exercise of his fundamental rights under international
law. When a deprivation of liberty has resulted from the active exercise of civil and political
rights, there is a strong presumption that the deprivation of liberty also constitutes a violation
of international law on the grounds of discrimination.31
99.
The source alleges that Mr. Navarrete Blandón was arrested on 15 June 2018 for his
participation in an anti-Government protest in April 2018 and was sentenced to 22 years in
prison. He was subsequently released on 10 June 2019 under an amnesty granted by the
Government. However, after his release, he was threatened with re-imprisonment by the
police – threats that he reported in the independent media on 23 July 2019. The next day, on
24 July 2019, i.e. 44 days after his initial release, he was arrested again.
100.
The Working Group is of the view that Mr. Navarrete Blandón can be identified as an
active political opponent of the regime. It recalls that the right to hold and express opinions,
including opinions that are not in accordance with official government policy, is protected
under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.
30 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18, and opinion No. 20/2022, para. 104.
31 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43, and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
GE.25-01677
15
101.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group finds that
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s detention is arbitrary under category V, in violation of articles 2
and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
(e)
Concluding remarks
102.
In order to allow the Working Group to establish a direct dialogue with all State
authorities, representatives of civil society and detained persons, with a view to gaining a
better understanding of the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country, the Working
Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a visit to Nicaragua, as requested in its
notes verbales of 24 April and 21 November 2018.
103.
Moreover, the Working Group recalls that, on 26 April 2006, the Government of
Nicaragua extended an open invitation to the special procedures of the Human Rights Council
and that the Working Group’s most recent visit to Nicaragua was from 15 to 23 May 2006.
3.
Disposition
104.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Jaime Enrique Navarrete Blandón, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21 and 26 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
105.
The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Mr. Navarrete Blandón without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
106.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Navarrete Blandón immediately and
accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
107.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Navarrete
Blandón and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his
rights.
108.
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 the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
109.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
110.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Navarrete Blandón has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Navarrete
Blandón;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Navarrete Blandón’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/48
16
GE.25-01677
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Nicaragua with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
111.
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.
112.
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.
113.
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.32
[Adopted on 11 November 2024]
32 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.