Opinion; Subjects: BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE 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.25-03261 (E) 280325 280325
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Views adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 101st session, 11–15 November 2024
Opinion No. 50/2024 concerning Luis Fernando Camacho
(Plurinational State of Bolivia)*
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 19 May 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia a communication
concerning Luis Fernando Camacho. The Government replied to the communication on
18 July 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).
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
General Assembly
Distr.: General
14 March 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
2
GE.25-03261
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Luis Fernando Camacho is a national of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and was
born on 15 February 1979. Mr. Camacho is a lawyer and is currently the Governor of the
department of Santa Cruz.
(i)
Arrest and criminal proceedings
5.
On 28 December 2022, at around 2.10 p.m., between radial roads 26 and 27 in Santa
Cruz de la Sierra, Mr. Camacho was driving home after leaving an official activity when his
vehicle was intercepted by more than 40 State officers whose faces were covered and who
were not wearing clothes identifying them as police officers. They did not produce an arrest
warrant and they were heavily armed with machine guns, shotguns, pistols and gas launchers.
The plain-clothes officers carried out an extremely violent operation in which they fired four
shots to intimidate and subdue Mr. Camacho’s security staff, who were accompanying him.
6.
The officers pointed a firearm at Mr. Camacho’s head, threatening to shoot him if he
resisted. When Mr. Camacho got out of the vehicle, the officers threw him onto his stomach,
with his face on the pavement, and restrained him with plastic handcuffs secured behind his
back. The officers placed a cloth hood over Mr. Camacho’s head so that he could see neither
his captors nor the place to which he was being transported. He was also hit in the back, at
the level of the kidney, and laid down in the back of a vehicle, while an officer used his boot
to press his head against the floor of the vehicle.
7.
Mr. Camacho’s cloth hood was briefly removed at Santa Cruz Airport and then put
back on to board a military helicopter that took him to Chimoré in Cochabamba, where he
remained for two and a half hours before continuing the flight, with the hood over his head,
to El Alto in La Paz.
8.
Mr. Camacho was denied contact with his family and lawyers until about five hours
after his arrest. Once in La Paz, on 28 December 2022, he suffered a medical crisis or
decompensation on the premises of the Crime Squad. In February 2019, Mr. Camacho had
been diagnosed with adult common variable hypogammaglobulinemia with selective IgA
deficiency and Churg-Strauss syndrome of the ANCA-associated vasculitis and autoimmune
group. For this reason, Mr. Camacho receives a series of medications and serums every
20 days. Without this medical treatment, his life would be in danger.
9.
From the day of his arrest, and throughout his detention to the present date, the
Government has refused to grant him unrestricted access to medication and treatment in a
proper medical facility, or has hindered that access, thereby repeatedly endangering
Mr. Camacho’s life. Both the authorities at the prison where Mr. Camacho is being held and
the militant groups of pro-government supporters who gather daily at the prison gates to
harass, threaten and beat Mr. Camacho’s visitors have obstructed the entry of medication,
doctors, equipment and ambulances on several occasions.
10.
On 29 December 2022, an online hearing was held in the Eighth Criminal
Investigation Court of La Paz (pretrial judge). Outside the Departmental Directorate of the
Crime Squad there were groups of militants affiliated with the ruling party who threatened to
attack the judge if Mr. Camacho was not sent to jail.
11.
According to the source, the pretrial judge ignored the publicly available and blatant
evidence that excessive force had been used. He also dismissed the request for a declaratory
judgment on the alleged unlawful arrest and the appeal for the annulment of the arrest
warrant, which was not issued until 29 December 2022, backdated to 31 October 2022, and
which did not set out any grounds or reasoning. The pretrial judge ruled that Mr. Camacho
should spend four months in pretrial detention in Chonchocoro Maximum Security Prison,
despite the fact that there were no procedural risks that justified the detention.
12.
The hearing was conducted online using Zoom – supposedly to prevent the spread of
the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) – and was plagued by irregularities. Neither the judge
nor the prosecutor activated their cameras, in spite of the lawyers’ requests. The judge
appeared to be reading from prepared documents, which violates the principles of immediacy
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
3
and orality, and his reading was inaudible. The protests raised by Mr. Camacho and his
defence were ignored. When the hearing ended, Mr. Camacho was sent to the dangerous
Chonchocoro Maximum Security Prison, which is known as a place where prisoners are
murdered.
13.
On 2 January 2023, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, who was in
Brazil, gave an interview to the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper in which he prejudged
Mr. Camacho’s guilt, saying “today, there are videos on the networks in which he confesses
to having participated in the plan to put Añez in office. As if that were not enough, everyone
saw him at the Palacio Quemado with the Bible in his hand. The evidence of his involvement
is clear.”2 On 22 January 2023, the Deputy Minister for Coordination and Governance, in an
attempt to downplay a demonstration in support of Mr. Camacho, said that even if the civic
committees marched every day, no judge would hold a hearing or grant an appeal in
Mr. Camacho’s favour.3
14.
On 26 January 2023, Mr. Camacho found a hidden camera in his cell while a family
member was visiting him. When he informed the prison guards, police officers tried to take
the device from him and forcibly transferred him to another cell. Both Mr. Camacho’s
lawyers and his family member filed complaints for violation of their privacy, dignity and
right to a defence, but these were dismissed.
(ii)
Legal analysis
15.
According to the source, Mr. Camacho’s detention is arbitrary within categories I, II,
III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
16.
The source argues that Mr. Camacho is accused by the Public Prosecution Service of
the offence of terrorism (Criminal Code, art. 133), which has been described by the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, in May 2022, as a vaguely defined
offence that gives rise to concern.4 Furthermore, in its 2021 report, the Interdisciplinary
Group of Independent Experts recommended bringing the vaguely defined and abstract
offence of terrorism – which, according to the Group, results in the undue criminalization of
acts aimed at subverting the constitutional order – into compliance with the principle of
legality and international standards because it noted that the offence was invoked arbitrarily
as part of a pattern of using criminal law for political ends.5
17.
The source points out that this criminal offence, being vaguely defined, is contrary to
the principle of legality and is used arbitrarily to persecute political opponents such as
Mr. Camacho. The Working Group has found that the application of vague and overly broad
provisions, particularly against persons who are critical of the Government, makes it
impossible to invoke a legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty.6
b.
Category II
18.
The source claims that the Government has detained Mr. Camacho in response to the
legitimate exercise of his freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association and his
exercise of public office as a democratically elected Governor (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, arts. 19–21, and the Covenant, arts. 19, 20 and 25).
19.
The Working Group concluded in Opinion No. 61/2019 that the arrest of an elected
mayor and opponent of the ruling Movimiento al Socialismo party was a direct consequence
2 See https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2023/01/pedirei-ajuda-de-lula-para-apurar-participacao-
de-bolsonaro-no-golpe-na-bolivia-diz-arce.shtml.
3 See https://www.opinion.com.bo/articulo/pais/viceministro-torrico-descarta-libertad-camacho-
civicos-marchen-todos-dias/20230122181035894752.html.
4 A/HRC/50/36/Add.1.
5 Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, Bolivia, Informe sobre los hechos de violencia y
vulneración de los derechos humanos ocurridos entre el 1 de septiembre y el 31 de diciembre de
2019, 23 July 2021, p. 261.
6 Opinion No. 16/2020, para. 73.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
4
GE.25-03261
of his criticism of the Government. It also pointed out that the persecution of the mayor was
part of a pattern of persecution of political leaders and opponents and it drew attention to the
growing number of legal proceedings against members of the political opposition and former
public officials, a pattern that has intensified under the current Government.
20.
As in the case that gave rise to Opinion No. 61/2019, Mr. Camacho’s violent arrest
and detention are the direct result of his outspoken criticism of the Movimiento al Socialismo
Government. Mr. Camacho is a victim today of the same broader pattern of persecution of
political leaders and critical opponents that the Working Group identified as early as 2019.
21.
Mr. Camacho is the President of the Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz (Pro Santa Cruz
Civic Committee) and, in this capacity, he called on civil society to demonstrate peacefully
on two occasions. The first occasion was when former President Morales stood again for the
presidency, in violation of article 168 of the Constitution and the outcome of the 2016
referendum on amending this article, in which the “no” option obtained the majority of votes.
The second occasion was to denounce the alleged electoral fraud in the presidential elections
of 2019.
22.
Mr. Camacho led demonstrations demanding the resignation of former President
Morales following the alleged electoral fraud. He even drafted a letter of resignation for
Mr. Morales and travelled to La Paz to deliver it personally. Together with a number of
organizations, he called on the security forces not to repress the people and to join the protest,
which culminated in the resignation of Mr. Morales. Since 2019, Mr. Camacho has been one
of the most forceful critics of the Movimiento al Socialismo Government. His detention is
seen as a reprisal for exercising his freedoms of expression, assembly and association by
leading peaceful protests against a Government accused of electoral fraud.
23.
Mr. Camacho’s pretrial detention is intended to prevent him from exercising his right
to participate in the public affairs of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and from continuing
to exercise his public role as Governor of Santa Cruz. Days after Mr. Camacho’s arrest, the
Minister of Justice publicly stated that, in view of his pretrial detention, Governor Camacho
should be removed from his post as Governor.7 The Ministry of Justice also threatened to
bring criminal proceedings against the Deputy Governor and the Legislative Departmental
Assembly of Santa Cruz if they did not replace Governor Camacho, stating that they would
be criminally prosecuted for the offence of breach of duties.8 Numerous representatives of
Movimiento al Socialismo in the Legislative Departmental Assembly called for elections to
replace Governor Camacho.9
24.
In February 2023, the judiciary admitted a writ of mandamus filed by representatives
of Movimiento al Socialismo in the Assembly requesting the removal of Governor Camacho
from office as a result of his pretrial imprisonment. The hearing seeking Mr. Camacho’s
dismissal was scheduled for 8 February 2023 but has repeatedly been adjourned.
25.
Mr. Camacho is facing at least five sets of criminal proceedings as a reprisal for his
criticisms of the Government.10 The pretrial judge considered evidence relating to “repeated
criminal conduct”, “risk of flight”, “danger to society” and “risk of obstruction”. He did not
mention the possibility of alternative measures, such as preventive custody or travel bans. In
addition, the judge argued that Mr. Camacho was a danger to society because of the protests
organized by his supporters after his arrest. With regard to the “risk of obstruction”, the judge
stated that, given his position as Governor, Mr. Camacho could tamper with evidence and
influence witnesses.
7 See https://eldeber.com.bo/pais/gobierno-advierte-con-accion-penal-si-el-vicegobernador-no-asume-
las-funciones-de-camacho_310121/.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Five sets of criminal proceedings for: (a) breach of duties, offences against health and insult to
symbols; (b) offences of discrimination and racism; (c) decisions contrary to the Constitution and
breach of duties; (d) undue use of influence, causing economic harm, attacking the President and
senior State dignitaries, political violence against women;and (e) offences of racism, attacks against
the freedom of labour, attacks against the freedom of public services.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
5
26.
The numerous criminal proceedings against Mr. Camacho, together with the fact that
his position and place of residence as a sitting Governor are known, should have ruled out
the possibility of there being a risk of flight or obstruction. The fact that the judge has not
issued a decision to release him immediately or handed down an alternative measure to
pretrial detention indicates that Mr. Camacho’s detention is arbitrary and is aimed at
depriving him of his rights to political participation and participation in public affairs.
c.
Category III
27.
Mr. Camacho’s right to the presumption of innocence has been violated as on repeated
occasions senior government officials have openly and improperly denounced him as a “coup
plotter” and a perpetrator of the offence of “terrorism” in connection with the “Coup d’Etat
I” case.11 The source refers to the Working Group’s jurisprudence, which concludes that the
public statements of high-ranking officials violate the right to presumption of innocence if,
in such statements, persons are declared guilty of an offence for which they have not yet been
tried, thereby leading the public to believe them guilty and prejudging the assessment of the
facts by the competent judicial authority.12
28.
The source alleges that Mr. Camacho was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment by the authorities as he was arrested in an extremely violent manner. This operation
has been described by the general public as a kidnapping.
29.
Following his arrest, Mr. Camacho was denied timely medical care after suffering a
severe health crisis, which included fainting, nosebleeds and tachycardia. He has continued
to be denied adequate medical care and alternative precautionary measures, despite the
serious risks to his health and life. Similar cases have been examined by the Working Group,
which has found that they constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the
authorities.13
30.
Mr. Camacho has been subjected to ill-treatment since his arrest, including denial of
medical care and unlawful surveillance in his cell. On 26 January 2023, he discovered a
hidden camera in his cell while a family member was with him. After publicly reporting it,
he was taken to the sick bay, probably to hide the evidence and to force him to hand over the
camera, which he refused to do. The Government has failed to acknowledge its responsibility
for installing the camera, and the judicial system has refused to investigate the incident. Since
then, his visiting arrangements have been severely restricted.
31.
Mr. Camacho’s family member has publicly stated that the camera had recorded
private moments. The family member filed a criminal complaint for sexual harassment and
psychological violence with the Special Anti-Violence Unit but it was recently dismissed.
32.
Mr. Camacho’s rights to have access to a lawyer, to prepare a defence and to equality
of arms between the defence and the prosecution have been violated. After he was arrested
without a warrant, Mr. Camacho spent about five hours without being allowed to
communicate with his family or lawyers.
33.
During the online preliminary hearing conducted on 29 December 2022, the judge
committed a number of irregularities: (a) he kept his camera turned off, which violated the
protocol for online hearings; (b) instead of conducting the oral hearing in a natural manner,
he read from previously prepared documents, which violated the requirement for prompt and
oral hearings to be held; and (c) owing to his rushed and unintelligible reading, and the poor
quality of the audio, the persons in attendance could not understand most of what he was
saying, which prevented them from understanding the reasoning behind the pretrial detention.
11 On 2 July 2020, former President Morales used his Twitter account to explicitly accuse the Governor,
among other persons: “All those who supported the November coup d’état (Tuto, Mesa, Camacho and
others) put Áñez (in power) and are responsible for the dire economic and health situation that the
country is undergoing”. See https://x.com/evoespueblo/status/1278647438941831168.
12 Opinion No. 61/2019, para. 84.
13 Opinion No. 13/2021, para. 74.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
6
GE.25-03261
34.
Mr. Camacho’s defence lawyers have publicly condemned the fact that their client is
allowed to meet with each of them separately for only 15 minutes, which severely hinders
the preparation of his defence.14
35.
Mr. Camacho’s right to remain at liberty during proceedings was also violated, since
the pretrial judge, instead of considering the five sets of criminal proceedings against him as
a reprisal for his criticisms of the Government, used them as evidence to justify his pretrial
detention.15
36.
Mr. Camacho’s right to be tried by an impartial judge is being violated.
Mr. Camacho’s imprisonment is part of a pattern of persecution of political leaders opposed
to the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in a context in which the judiciary
lacks independence and is made up of judges who operate under permanent pressure of
dismissal or imprisonment by the Ministry of the Interior.
d.
Category V
37.
The source alleges that Mr. Camacho’s detention in a maximum security prison for
having led civil society in peaceful mass protests against alleged electoral fraud is part of a
systematic pattern of persecution and discrimination against democracy and human rights
activists and political leaders opposed to the Government. The fact that Mr. Camacho was
transferred by military helicopter and military aircraft is evidence that his detention is based
on discrimination relating to his political opinions.
(b)
Response from the Government
38.
The Working Group, in accordance with its methods of work, transmitted the source’s
allegations to the Government on 19 May 2023 and requested it to submit a response by
18 July 2023.
39.
The Government’s response of 18 July 2023 stated that Mr. Camacho has already
appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting precautionary
measures. This request has not received a response from the Commission, despite the fact
that a significant amount of time has passed, which the Government considers to be a positive
reflection on its efforts and an acknowledgment that it is complying with its human rights
obligations. The Government goes on to describe the sociopolitical background of the
Plurinational State of Bolivia, which resulted in the arrest of Mr. Camacho, among other
serious incidents.
40.
The Government claims that, between October 2019 and October 2020, a series of
acts were committed in the Plurinational State of Bolivia that were in violation of both
national law and the fundamental principles of human rights. The Government states that
Mr. Camacho was directly involved in these acts, which led to several complaints being
submitted to the Public Prosecution Service by citizens.
41.
The Government states that these complaints were intended to ensure recognition of
the victims of massacres and other serious human rights violations, as established in the
aforementioned final report of the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts. It was this
Commission that found that the Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz, of which Mr. Camacho was
the President, and the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, led the strike called in 2019 by the Comité
Nacional de Defensa de la Democracia to challenge the result of the 2019 presidential
elections and organized the public to block the streets and restrict traffic in the main cities,
towns and highways of the department, where violence and racism prevailed, resulting in a
large number of injuries and deaths.
42.
The Government states that, on the basis of a complaint filed by a citizen, criminal
proceedings were initiated against Mr. Camacho and other persons for the alleged
commission of offences under articles 133 (terrorism), 123 (sedition) and 126 (conspiracy)
of the Criminal Code.
14 Opinion No. 45/2021, para. 96.
15 See opinion No. 33/2012.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
7
43.
The Government states that the records of the investigations setting out the activities
of the accused bring together several pieces of evidence indicating that Mr. Camacho
allegedly committed criminal offences. These include indications that he made a number of
financial deposits to the actors involved in the coup d’état (police officers, military personnel
and members of Jeanine Áñez Chávez’s cabinet), published several messages celebrating the
uprising and, some time later, revealed that, together with a relative, he had negotiated the
insurrection of the same police officers who subsequently committed all manner of human
rights abuses.
44.
The Government stated that, on two occasions, Mr. Camacho was summoned to
appear before the Public Prosecution Service and the Office of the Anti-Corruption
Prosecutor in La Paz. On both occasions, he undertook to appear, but when the day in
question arrived, he did not attend and sent a letter justifying his absence on health grounds.
45.
Mr. Camacho requested that the proceedings be held in Santa Cruz, which was
accepted by the Government. However, the prosecutor received security threats, which led
the Public Prosecution Service to suspend the hearing and issue an arrest warrant against
Mr. Camacho, authorizing the police to execute it.
46.
The Government notes that Mr. Camacho was arrested without the use of force, and
that a properly identified agent notified Mr. Camacho, attaching the decision and an arrest
warrant dated 31 October 2022. Mr. Camacho signed the record of notification of his arrest
as an indication of his consent. In addition, the Government states that he was never
threatened with a firearm or taken to La Paz with a hood over his head.
47.
The Government states that the police acted in accordance with the procedural manual
on respect for human rights in situations such as this one, taking into account that
Mr. Camacho had between 30 and 40 armed security personnel, who were all carrying
weapons with legal permits and were travelling in six vehicles. This explains the number of
police officers that were mobilized to carry out the arrest.
48.
The Government states that, during the procedure, an incident occurred when a pickup
truck rammed police vehicles near Santa Cruz Airport. As a result, the police decided to
transfer Mr. Camacho by helicopter from a military hangar, instead of taking a normal flight,
to avoid any possible interference by citizens that could have jeopardized the safety of
Mr. Camacho, his security team, the police officers, the prosecutor and members of the public
at the airport.
49.
The Government reports that, upon landing in El Alto, in La Paz, two doctors were
waiting for Mr. Camacho. With his consent, the doctors gave him medication for the altitude
(the city is 4,150 m above sea level). After this examination, he was taken – accompanied by
the same doctors – to the facilities of the Crime Squad, duly guarded to guarantee his safety.
50.
On 28 December 2022, Mr. Camacho was handed over to the Committee of
Prosecutors, which became aware of the arrest. In response to public allegations of
mistreatment during the transfer, a forensic medical expert was called in and confirmed that
Mr. Camacho showed no signs of mistreatment or assault and that his heart was functioning
normally. Mr. Camacho’s family doctor subsequently confirmed this diagnosis.
51.
The Government states that Mr. Camacho was immediately read his constitutional
rights and that, with the assistance of his lawyer, he decided to remain silent. The Public
Prosecution Service then requested that he be given medication, which was done under the
supervision of his personal doctor.
52.
On 29 December 2022, the prosecutor issued a decision to broaden the formal charges
and requested the application of precautionary measures against Mr. Camacho as a likely
participant in the offence of terrorism, based on the following grounds: (a) in November
2019, he had established the firm purpose of deposing a Government that was lawfully
constituted by popular vote; (b) he contacted officers of the Armed Forces of the Plurinational
State of Bolivia and the National Police to urge these bodies not to comply with their
constitutional duties; (c) on the day that the Armed Forces and the National Police requested
the resignation of the President, Mr. Camacho, guarded by police officers, entered the vicinity
of Plaza Murillo and the interior of Palacio Quemado; and (d) the computer forensics report
highlighted an audio recording in which Mr. Camacho confessed that the new Minister of
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
8
GE.25-03261
Defence, who went to negotiate with the police and the military, had been appointed “in order
to comply with commitments”.
53.
The Government reports that, on the day on which Mr. Camacho’s online hearing on
precautionary measures was held, doctors examined him to check his stability. The hearing
took place without interruptions, and the judge ruled that his arrest had been lawful and that
his rights had not been violated, confirming the likelihood of his guilt and that he posed a
risk of flight and obstruction. As a result, it was decided that he should be detained in
Chonchocoro Prison for security reasons. Neither Mr. Camacho nor his lawyers raised any
complaints about technical problems during the hearing. The Public Prosecution Service
requested that the cameras be deactivated in order to avoid any disruption resulting from the
large number of people connected and the Government states that the irregularities were
resolved in a timely manner by the judicial authority.
54.
The Government reports that, since the issuance of the pretrial detention order,
Mr. Camacho has been held in a separate cell from other inmates, subjected to ongoing
surveillance and given medical care, being monitored by specialists in immunology, general
medicine, rheumatology and laboratory testing. Churg-Strauss syndrome was identified as
being an underlying medical condition. For this reason, Mr. Camacho is accompanied and
supported by a family member and receives ongoing medical check-ups.
55.
With regard to category I, the Government argues that the use of a preventive measure
is legitimate, suitable, necessary and proportionate to the offences under investigation. After
the corresponding hearing, Mr. Camacho has been charged, not only with terrorism, but also
with financing terrorism, bribery, the corruption of troops, public incitement to commit an
offence and criminal association. In view of these circumstances, it was necessary to extend
Mr. Camacho’s pretrial detention for legal and procedural reasons. In addition, the judicial
authority considered that the existence of a risk of flight and a risk that the proceedings would
be obstructed, as established in the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been demonstrated.
56.
The Government argues that Mr. Camacho’s detention cannot fall within category II;
in that regard, it recalls that efforts are being made to punish persons who actually violated
human rights, on the basis of the report drawn up by the Interdisciplinary Group of
Independent Experts and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, among other pieces of evidence. According to the Government, Mr. Camacho
acknowledged that a member of his family had made a pact with the police and the military
to request the resignation of President Morales. It is therefore not possible to suppose that
Mr. Camacho was fighting for his human rights.
57.
The Government wishes to highlight the falsity of the source’s claim that
Mr. Camacho, as the President of the Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz, called on civil society
to demonstrate peacefully on two occasions. On the contrary, it is public knowledge that
Mr. Camacho called on the security forces to join him, made illegal deals with the police and
military to stage a rebellion and promoted acts of violence in the country and the city of Santa
Cruz, with the support of the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, the operational arm of the Comité
Cívico Pro Santa Cruz, which has been identified as a paramilitary group by the International
Federation for Human Rights and the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts. All
these acts contradict the claim that the protest was peaceful and are now being investigated
by the competent authorities.
58.
According to the Government, articles 25 and 26 of the Statute of Autonomy of Santa
Cruz de la Sierra establish that any absence from office implies abandonment of the office
and may give rise to a new criminal trial against Mr. Camacho, who cannot attend his office
or attend to his obligations as Governor of Santa Cruz.
59.
The Government denies that Mr. Camacho has not had access to a fair and impartial
trial. It states that it is important to consider his own statements about his participation in the
coup d’état, as well as the actions of his family member.
60.
With regard to the possible presence of a video camera in Mr. Camacho’s cell, the
Government states that it has invited Mr. Camacho’s lawyers to launch investigations with
the assistance of the Technical-Scientific Research Institute of the Police University and the
Crime Squad. After consulting the Public Prosecution Service, it was found that no complaint
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
9
has been made relating to sexual harassment, psychological violence, violation of the right
to privacy or any other offence involving the aforementioned camera in the cell.
61.
The Government states that the reasons that led to Mr. Camacho’s detention are not
related to the exercise of his human rights or to any ground relating to discrimination;
therefore, Mr. Camacho’s detention does not fall within category V either.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
62.
The Working Group transmitted the Government’s response to the source on 20 July
2023 and requested any final comments and observations, which were received on 4 August
2023.
63.
In the source’s additional comments, it draws attention to a contradiction between the
Government’s claims and the reality of Mr. Camacho’s situation. The Government claimed
that an arrest warrant was shown to Mr. Camacho at the time of his arrest but, at the hearing
held on 29 December 2022, the defence presented documentary evidence indicating that State
agents did not show him the warrant at the time of the arrest. Instead, several hours later, he
was forced to sign a paper acknowledging receipt of the warrant while being transferred in a
military helicopter.
64.
The Government has not refuted that, more than half an hour after arresting
Mr. Camacho, the Minister of the Interior published a tweet stating: “we inform the Bolivian
people that the Bolivian police has complied with the arrest warrant against Mr. Luis
Fernando Camacho”, without giving any further details.16 Both his family and his lawyers
learned of the arrest through the social network X, formerly known as Twitter.
65.
The Government states that it was not necessary to use weapons or force, as
Mr. Camacho claims, and that he was not hooded at any time. However, the source affirms
that this claim is false because Mr. Camacho’s defence did report the extreme violence
carried out by State agents in a habeas corpus action dated 29 December addressed to the
Departmental Court of Justice; and the fact that the Governor was hooded, as part of the
violence to which he was subjected, is common knowledge, to the extent that there is a video
showing a hooded Mr. Camacho being taken by State agents into a military helicopter.
66.
The source reiterates that the assumptions of “repeated criminal conduct”, “risk of
flight”, “danger to society” and “risk of obstruction” clearly do not apply to Mr. Camacho,
who works (or worked, until his arrest) every day from his public office.
67.
The source refutes the Government’s claim that Mr. Camacho receives 24-hour
medical supervision, appropriate treatment and visits from family members, doctors and
lawyers. On 27 January 2023, Mr. Camacho’s defence filed an appeal in which it denounced
the fact that ditches have been dug around Chonchocoro Prison to prevent his lawyers, family
and healthcare providers from entering and pointed out that, despite Mr. Camacho’s delicate
state of health, he has not received timely medical care.
(d)
Additional information from the source
68.
On 16 November 2023, the source provided additional information stating that the
First Anti-Corruption Court of the Plurinational State of Bolivia extended Mr. Camacho’s
pretrial detention by three months. Mr. Camacho’s defence had requested a hearing to review
his legal situation, as his pretrial detention had been extended twice previously, and was due
to expire on 28 August 2023. However, the public prosecutor’s office argued that it needed
more time to present a formal accusation at trial.
69.
The source reports that the Government, despite the issuance of a court order by Santa
Cruz Court on 13 September 2023, withheld Mr. Camacho’s medical reports. According to
a proctologist’s report dated 16 August, Mr. Camacho urgently requires surgery. As at
19 September 2023, however, the defence had not had access to these reports, which were
produced at Hospital del Sur in El Alto. Mr. Camacho’s deteriorating health and the
16 See https://x.com/EDelCastilloDC/status/1608171690575671296.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
10
GE.25-03261
restrictions on his access to medical care put his health at risk, as he needs constant
specialized medical attention.
70.
In an update sent to the Working Group on 5 January 2024, the source reported that
28 December 2023 is the first anniversary of Mr. Camacho’s arrest. His liberty is still
restricted, he has no access to visitors or any means of communication, and he spends only
one hour outdoors every day.17
71.
The source reported that, on 29 December 2023, in response to an appeal filed by
pro-government Assembly members, the Plurinational Constitutional Court issued a
constitutional ruling ordering the removal of Mr. Camacho from his position as Governor so
that the current Deputy Governor, who is a member of the governing party, could take office.
2.
Discussion
72.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
73.
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 laws constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood
to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.18 Mere assertions by the
Government that the national legal procedure has been followed are not sufficient to refute
the source’s allegations.19
74.
Firstly, the Working Group notes that the Government has submitted information and
a legal analysis setting out detailed explanations of the political background in the
Plurinational State of Bolivia in order to justify Mr. Camacho’s detention. The source has
provided an analysis whose purpose is to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the measures taken
by prosecutors and judges by citing a series of national laws.
75.
In this regard, the Working Group recalls that it refrains from taking the place of the
national judicial authorities or acting as a kind of supranational tribunal when it is urged to
review the application of national law by the judiciary. Reassessing the sufficiency of the
evidence or addressing errors of law allegedly committed by the domestic courts is beyond
the scope of the Working Group’s mandate.20 In the discharge of its mandate, the Working
Group refers to the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned,
in particular the Covenant, and, when appropriate, any other relevant standards.21
(a)
Category I
76.
The source has informed the Working Group that, on 28 December 2022,
Mr. Camacho was intercepted by a group of more than 40 armed State agents in plain clothes
while driving his vehicle in Santa Cruz de la Sierra. The agents did not show any police
identification or arrest warrant, used extreme violence, fired shots to intimidate his security
team, and detained him by holding a gun to his head. The agents also failed to inform
Mr. Camacho of the reasons for his arrest. Mr. Camacho was subsequently hooded and
transferred, first by helicopter to Chimoré, in Cochabamba, and then to El Alto, La Paz, in a
military plane. Hours after his arrest, Mr. Camacho was forced to sign a paper acknowledging
receipt of an arrest warrant while being transferred in a military helicopter.
77.
The Government has exhaustively described the circumstances, elements and methods
used to take Mr. Camacho prisoner. It has denied mistreating Mr. Camacho and making use
of a hood and has explained that the operation carried out to arrest the defendant was
necessary because he had a large team of trained security guards. The Government argues
that Mr. Camacho was notified on two occasions of his obligation to appear before the Public
17 See https://eldeber.com.bo/santa-cruz/abogado-de-camacho-denuncia-violaciones-a-los-derechos-de-
este-solo-tiene-acceso-a-una-hora-al-dia-d_341599/.
18 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
19 Ibid.
20 See opinion No. 40/2005.
21 A/HRC/36/38, para. 7.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
11
Prosecution Service and the Office of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor in La Paz to make
statements relating to the internal unrest and serious destabilization in the Plurinational State
of Bolivia. It claims that, on both occasions, Mr. Camacho stated that he would appear but
did not do so on the days in question, justifying his absence on health grounds.
78.
The Government claims that Mr. Camacho requested that the proceedings be carried
out in Santa Cruz, which was accepted by the Government. However, the prosecutor who
was to hear the statement received serious threats against his safety, so the Public Prosecution
Service decided to suspend the hearing and issue an arrest warrant against Mr. Camacho,
authorizing the police to detain him.
79.
Since the Working Group’s mandate is to examine whether the requirements
established by international law for the arrest of Mr. Camacho were met, the Working Group
notes that its analysis refrains from examining the circumstances and political and social
background in the Plurinational State of Bolivia and that its opinion concerns only the
circumstances of Mr. Camacho’s arrest.
80.
The Working Group notes with concern that, at the time of Mr. Camacho’s arrest, he
was not informed of his rights or of the legal charges against him, which would have set out
the reasons for his arrest. In addition, as the source pointed out, the arrest warrant appeared
later, retroactively dated 31 October 2022, and did not set out any grounds or reasoning.
81.
Moreover, the Government repeatedly mentions in its response that, although
Mr. Camacho was not mistreated during his detention, and the police acted in accordance
with the procedural manual on respect for human rights, in view of the fact that he had a team
of around 30 to 40 armed security personnel, all carrying weapons with legal permits and
moving in six vehicles, a large contingent of police officers was mobilized to carry out the
arrest procedure.
82.
The Government reports that the police transferred Mr. Camacho in a military
helicopter and that, upon landing in El Alto, La Paz, he was handed over to the Committee
of Prosecutors, which became aware of the arrest. The Government also describes the
medical care received by Mr. Camacho at all times.
83.
In view of these circumstances, the Working Group wishes to point out that, pursuant
to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of liberty except on such grounds
and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. In order for a deprivation
of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a national law authorizing
the accused person’s arrest. The authorities must invoke this legal basis and apply it to the
circumstances of the case. That is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order, or
an equivalent document.22 In addition, article 9 (2) and (3) of the Covenant provides that
anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest
and must be promptly informed of any charges so that he or she may challenge them
effectively. He or she must be brought before a court or judge in order to be able to seek a
formal legal remedy.
84.
The Working Group recalls that these assumptions are set out in principles 2 and 10
of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, which provide that procedures for carrying out legally authorized deprivation
of liberty should also be established by law and States Parties should ensure compliance with
them. 23 If these procedures are not respected, a detention is arbitrary and seriously
undermines the ability to conduct a proper legal defence.
85.
The Working Group points out that respect for these procedures is essential to the
fulfilment of the other rights enshrined in article 9 of the Covenant. After examining the
information provided by the source and the Government, the Working Group concludes that
Mr. Camacho was arrested at the request of, and by, the Public Prosecution Service. The
Government clearly states in its response that Mr. Camacho was taken away from his
jurisdiction – that is, the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra – and handed over to the Committee
of Prosecutors in El Alto, La Paz, despite the fact that the Working Group has consistently
22 Opinion No. 4/2023, para. 64.
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
12
GE.25-03261
stated in its jurisprudence that a prosecutorial body cannot be considered a judicial authority
for the purposes of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.24
86.
Any form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by a judicial or other
authority in keeping with the law or be subjected to the effective control of the judicial
authority, the status and mandate of which should afford the strongest possible guarantees of
competence, impartiality and independence in accordance with principle 4 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
87.
The Working Group points out that, in the area of criminal law, when coercive
measures are imposed, the right to defend oneself must be guaranteed during all phases of
the proceedings. This requires equality of arms for both the prosecution and the person
charged. In order to ensure this equality, the legal system must provide for a separation
between the authority driving the investigation and the authorities in charge of the detention
and ruling on the conditions of the pretrial detention. This separation is an essential
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.25
88.
It is an established norm of international law that pretrial detention should be the
exception, rather than the rule, and should be ordered for the shortest possible time.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant requires that the justification for pretrial detention be analysed
in a reasoned judicial decision in every case. This provision also establishes that release may
be subject to guarantees of appearance for trial, appearance at any other stage of the judicial
proceedings and, should the occasion arise, appearance for execution of the judgment.
89.
It follows that detention must be an exception made in the interests of justice. The
provisions of article 9 (3) of the Covenant can be summarized as follows: (a) any detention
should be exceptional and short-term, and (b) the accused person should be released if there
are measures in place to guarantee that he or she will appear for trial and for execution of the
judgment. If the period of pretrial detention is prolonged, this decision should be the result
of a periodic review to determine whether detention remains reasonable and necessary in the
light of possible alternatives.
90.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Camacho has been held in pretrial detention for
more than a year, and that this period continues to be extended, causing serious harm not only
to his health but also to his ability to exercise his functions. The source states that a
constitutional decision ordering Mr. Camacho’s removal from office has been issued and that
this decision has been challenged and contested in recent days by the President of the
Legislative Assembly of Santa Cruz, given that the majority of the members of the
Legislative Departmental Assembly of Santa Cruz support Governor Camacho and therefore
refuse to comply with the decision.
91.
Having analysed the seriousness of all these actions, the Working Group finds that
Mr. Camacho’s detention is arbitrary and falls within category I.
(b)
Category II
92.
On the basis of an examination of the facts related by the Government and the source,
the Working Group concludes that Mr. Camacho’s detention is related to his participation in
the protests, the state of unrest and the public uprising that took place in the Plurinational
State of Bolivia against the re-election of the Government of President Morales.
93.
The Government notes that Mr. Camacho presides over the Comité Cívico Pro Santa
Cruz, which is supported by the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista; and that these organizations
assumed the leadership of the strike called in 2019 by the Comité Nacional de Defensa de la
Democracia.
24 Ibid., para. 32; opinions No. 41/2020, para. 60; No. 6/2020, para. 47; No. 5/2020, para. 72;
No. 14/2015, para. 28; and A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 35.
25 E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 79.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
13
94.
The source states that Mr. Camacho has been detained in response to the legitimate
exercise of his freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association and the exercise
of his public office as a democratically elected governor.
95.
The Government has stated that Mr. Camacho even paid the police, making political
pacts with a view to overthrowing the elected Government. The Government has stated that
Mr. Camacho was directly involved in acts that led to several complaints being submitted to
the Public Prosecution Service by citizens. A number of public institutions endorsed these
complaints with a view to clarifying the facts and identifying and prosecuting the
perpetrators. However, the Working Group notes that the Government itself refers to only
one complaint leading to the initiation of the case against Mr. Camacho.
96.
The Working Group stresses that everyone has the right to freedom of expression,
which includes the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether orally or in any
other form.
97.
The Working Group shares the view of the Human Rights Committee that freedom of
opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of
the person and constitute the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.26 Both freedoms
are the basis for the effective exercise of a wide range of human rights, such as the freedoms
of assembly, association and the right to political participation, as set forth in articles 20 and
21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant.27
98.
The Government has provided extensive information on the harsh and painful events
that took place in the Plurinational State of Bolivia and on the victims to which these events
unfortunately gave rise. However, it has not identified the incriminating evidence that would
prove beyond any doubt that these events were brought about by Mr. Camacho in the exercise
of his rights as a citizen.
99.
The Working Group recalls that every citizen has the right to participate in the conduct
of public affairs; the right to vote and be elected; and the right to have access to public service.
These aspects have been established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are
legally guaranteed and protected by article 25 of the Covenant, to which the Plurinational
State of Bolivia is a party. In view of the gravity of all the facts described, the Working Group
decides to refer the case to the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association and to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression so that they may take the appropriate action.
100.
The Working Group is of the view that, in the light of the information provided by the
source and the Government, Mr. Camacho’s detention constitutes a violation of articles 19,
21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and is therefore defined as arbitrary within category II.
(c)
Category III
101.
In view of the findings relating to category II, in which it was concluded that
Mr. Camacho’s detention is the result of the exercise of his human rights, the Working Group
is of the view that there are no proportional grounds to justify his pretrial detention and
subsequent trial. However, in view of the fact that these actions are taking place and that long
prison sentences have been requested, and considering the source’s allegations, the Working
Group will proceed to analyse whether the fundamental elements that should characterize a
fair, independent and impartial trial, as identified in category III by the Working Group, have
been respected during the course of the judicial proceedings.
102.
The Working Group reaffirms that the right to due process and to a fair and impartial
trial is the basis of democracy and must be guaranteed to all persons in both civil and criminal
cases. Legal institutions and the rule of law of the State are rooted in the effective protection
of all human rights and in free and easy access to the administration of justice, which must
be provided by competent, independent and impartial courts of law that guarantee the
presumption of innocence, non-discrimination and equality before the law. The Human
26 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2.
27 Ibid., para. 4.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
14
GE.25-03261
Rights Committee, which authoritatively interprets the meaning and application of article 14
of the Covenant on the right to a fair trial, establishes beyond doubt that the right to a public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law is applicable
to all legal proceedings and must be guaranteed and implemented in all States Parties to the
Charter of the United Nations and the Covenant, regardless of their legal traditions and their
domestic law.28
103.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the
Covenant and principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provide that all persons charged with a criminal
offence must be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public
trial, for which they have received all the guarantees necessary for their defence. The
presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes
on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed
until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the
benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in
accordance with this principle.
104.
The Working Group maintains that it is a duty for all public authorities to refrain from
prejudging the outcome of a trial, for example by abstaining from making public statements
affirming the guilt of the accused.29 For this reason, the media should avoid news coverage
undermining the presumption of innocence. The Working Group notes that, according to the
source, on 2 January 2023, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, who was in
Brazil, gave an interview to the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper in which he prejudged
Mr. Camacho’s guilt. Furthermore, on 22 January 2023, the Deputy Minister for
Coordination and Governance stated that even if the civic committees marched every day, no
judge would hold a hearing or grant an appeal in Mr. Camacho’s favour.
105.
Such statements undoubtedly affect the presumption of Mr. Camacho’s innocence,
particularly given the high authorities that are making them. They also violate the
international provisions guaranteeing the presumption of innocence contained in the
Covenant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have already been
mentioned.
106.
In addition to these statements, it may be noted that, according to the latest information
received from the source, on 29 December 2023, in response to an appeal filed by
pro-government Assembly members requesting that Mr. Camacho step down from his
position, the Plurinational Constitutional Court issued a constitutional ruling ordering the
removal of Mr. Camacho from his position as Governor and his replacement by the Deputy
Governor, who, according to the source, is affiliated with the governing party.
107.
The Working Group is alarmed to note that the reason given by this high court is that
Mr. Camacho is absent from his functions, when it is public knowledge that he is being held
in pretrial detention by the same Government that is condemning him for being absent. The
Working Group considers that this pretrial detention is not in compliance with international
law, for the reasons set out below. In the Working Group’s view, this decision violates the
separation of powers, which is a necessary condition for ensuring respect for the right to a
fair trial enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14
of the Covenant. Both the notion of the separation of powers between the political organs of
Government and the judiciary, and the importance of safeguarding the independence of the
judiciary, are fundamental expressions of a democratic State and guarantee absolute respect
for the rights of all accused persons.
108.
The Working Group shares the view of the Human Rights Committee that States
should take specific measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary and to protect
judges from any form of political influence either under the Constitution or by means of the
adoption of other laws. A situation where the functions and competencies of the judiciary
28 General comment No. 32 (2007).
29 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
GE.25-03261
15
and the executive are not clearly distinguishable or where the latter is able to control or direct
the former is incompatible with the notion of an independent tribunal.30
109.
In view of these considerations, the Working Group considers that Mr. Camacho’s
right to be tried by a competent and impartial tribunal, as recognized in article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, was disregarded.
110.
In the light of the above, the Working Group is persuaded that Mr. Camacho’s
detention is arbitrary and falls within category III.
111.
In addition, and considering the seriousness of the violations committed against
Mr. Camacho’s rights, the Working Group decides to refer this case to the Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers, so that she may take any steps that she deems
necessary.
(d)
Category V
112.
Having carefully examined the file submitted, the source’s submissions and the
Government’s response, and having analysed the manner in which the present judicial
proceedings were conducted, the Working Group has come to the conclusion that
Mr. Camacho’s detention is arbitrary in that the principle of the equality of human beings
was violated because the detention was motivated by his political opinions as a leader. The
Working Group considers deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary when it is intended to punish
members of political groups as a means of silencing their demands, in violation of articles 2
and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant,
rendering the detention arbitrary under category V.
3.
Disposition
113.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Luis Fernando Camacho is arbitrary, as it
contravenes articles 2, 7, 9–11 and 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 22 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
114.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to
take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Camacho 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.
115.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Camacho immediately and accord him
an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
116.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Camacho and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
117.
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 and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers for appropriate action.
118.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
30 General Comment No. 32 (2007), para. 19.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/50
16
GE.25-03261
4.
Follow-up procedure
119.
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. Camacho has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Camacho;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Camacho’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the Plurinational State of Bolivia with its international
obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
120.
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.
121.
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 any failure to take action.
122.
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.31
[Adopted on 11 November 2024]
31 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.