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.25-07434 (E) 140725 140725
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025
Opinion No. 22/2025, concerning Rodrigo Bruno Arcángel, Stony
Bruno Smith, Oliver Bruno Palacios and Evertz Bruno Palacios
(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 14 January 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua a communication concerning Rodrigo Bruno
Arcángel, Stony Bruno Smith, Oliver Bruno Palacios and Evertz Bruno Palacios. 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
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
General Assembly
Distr.: General
18 June 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
2
GE.25-07434
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Rodrigo Bruno Arcángel is a national of Nicaragua, born on 12 July 1971.
5.
Stony Bruno Smith is a national of Nicaragua, born on 28 January 1995.
6.
Oliver Bruno Palacios is a national of Nicaragua, born on 21 October 2000.
7.
Evertz Bruno Palacios is a national of Nicaragua, born on 2 May 2004.
8.
The four individuals are members of the Mayangna Indigenous People. They are also
members of a group of volunteer forest rangers who defend Mother Earth in the Mayangna
Sauni As territory in the Bosawás Biosphere Reserve (Costa Caribe Norte autonomous
region). They usually reside in the community of Musawás.
(i)
Context
9.
According to the source, the arrests of the four individuals occurred in a context of
systematic political persecution of dissidents, with an increase in arbitrary detentions of
Indigenous environmental defenders.
10.
Indigenous leaders who defend their territories from invasion and who report abuses
face unjust imprisonment, trial without due process and inhuman conditions, with the aim of
weakening their struggle for collective rights.
11.
Since 2015, there has been an increase in attacks on Indigenous Peoples in the Costa
Caribe Norte autonomous region, perpetrated by non-Indigenous armed gangs with links to
companies or the State. The multidimensional crisis that Nicaragua has experienced since
2018 has created the conditions for serious human rights violations and abuses against
Indigenous Peoples and people of African descent living in the Caribbean coastal regions, as
the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua recently documented.2
12.
In this context, on 13 August 2023, between 2.30 a.m. and 3.27 a.m., members of the
National Police and the Nicaraguan Army, in a joint operation that involved the excessive
use of force and the use of tear gas, raided the Bruno family home in the community of
Musawás while the family was asleep. Members of the family, including women and
children, were also beaten. The four individuals were detained without a search warrant or
arrest warrant issued by a competent authority.
13.
In the Mayangna community, being a forest ranger implies leadership, as rangers
protect the territory from threats by confronting settlers and preventing the destruction of the
forest; they are the first line of defence. Their criminalization weakens community protection
of the territory.
14.
The source reports that members of the community have stated that the forest rangers
were detained in retaliation for defending their territory and denouncing an invasion of
settlers.3
(ii)
Arrest and trial proceedings
15.
On 13 August 2023, in the early hours of the morning, members of the National Police
and the army raided the Bruno family home in Musawás while the family was asleep. The
four individuals were detained without a search warrant or arrest warrant issued by a
competent authority. After their arrest, the four individuals were transferred to Managua,
2 See the conference room paper containing the detailed conclusions of the Group of Human Rights
Experts on Nicaragua, para. 207. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/ghre-
nicaragua/index.
3 The source attaches the following news article: https://www.divergentes.com/represalia-contra-
mayangnas-colonos/.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
3
418 km away, thus depriving them of the safeguard of their natural judge, the principle of
immediacy and their cultural environment, which differs greatly from the rest of the country.
16.
On 15 August 2023, the four individuals were presented before a judge as the “Los
Bruno” criminal gang, together with “Chabelo” and “Los Rocha” criminal groups, in
violation of the presumption of innocence. The National Police initially brought charges
against “Rodrigo and Tony Alberto Bruno” and “other members of the group”, without
mentioning the names of other members of the Bruno family, for the murder with firearms
of seven people and the arson of 12 houses, events that allegedly occurred on 26 December
2019.4 Subsequently, the four individuals were charged with different offences, namely
involvement in organized crime; making threats with weapons; illegally carrying or
possessing a firearm or ammunition; manufacturing, trafficking, possession and use of
restricted weapons or explosive substances or devices; and coercion and displacement.
Paradoxically, the charges included illegal weapons use, even though Mr. Bruno Arcángel
held a permit to carry a firearm.
17.
On 15 November 2023, the preliminary hearing was held, without the knowledge or
participation of counsel of the individuals’ choosing or of their relatives, before the Sixth
District Criminal Court of Managua under case number 020931-ORM4-2023-PN. Although
family members saw Mr. Bruno Arcángel on visiting days at the prison in August, September
and October 2023, and he told them that he was being tried, they were denied information
about the criminal proceedings, and this information does not appear on the web page of the
Nicarao judicial case system.
18.
On 16 November 2023, a habeas corpus motion for arbitrary or unlawful detention
were filed on the detainees’ behalf before the First Chamber of the Managua Court of Appeal.
The Court declared the motion inadmissible on 17 November 2023 at 12.13 a.m. but the
detainees were not notified of the decision until 12 December 2023.
19.
On 13 December 2023, counsel of the defendants’ choosing was appointed and the
defendants were notified that the public trial would be held on 22 January 2024 at 2 p.m. By
that time, the charges had been laid and information and evidence had been shared. The
source alleges that counsel did not have access to these documents in the case file, despite
his requesting them several times.
20.
On 11 January 2024, the Fifth District Criminal Trial Court of Managua formally
registered the case, although the defence was not given access to the case file. A trial was
convened for 22 January 2024 against members of the Bruno family charged with the
following offences: involvement in organized crime; making threats with weapons; illegally
carrying or possessing a firearm or ammunition; manufacturing, trafficking, possession and
use of restricted weapons, explosive substances or devices; and coercion and displacement.
21.
On 22 January 2024 at 2 p.m., the public trial was held with the participation of
defence counsel but without the presence of the defendants, who were deprived of the right
to communicate freely and privately with counsel. The defendants appeared at the hearing
via videoconference from prison, where they were in chains. Family members were not
allowed to attend the hearing, and the defence was not allowed to examine the witnesses.
22.
On 5 February 2024, the four individuals were sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment
with a provisional sentence completion date of 23 August 2048.
23.
On 16 February 2024 at 9 a.m., the Fifth District Criminal Trial Court of Managua
issued a formal notification of the judgment, supposedly to be served at 3.50 p.m. on 3 April
2024. This document only states the date and time of issuance and the operative part of the
judgment, without disclosing the analysis or the value attributed by the judge to each piece
of evidence.
24.
The source states that, on 22 March 2024, the defence counsel sent an urgent letter to
the judge of the Fifth District Criminal Trial Court of Managua, reminding him that the
defence had requested access to the case file several times, in writing and at the trial hearing.
4 The source attaches the following news article: “Capturan peligrosas agrupaciones delincuenciales”,
National Police, 15 August 2023. Available at https://www.policia.gob.ni/?p=106479.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
4
GE.25-07434
He also protested at the lack of interpreters during the public trial, since the defendants’
mother tongue is the Mayangna language and not Spanish – the language in which the trial
had been conducted. The letter also reminded the judge that the deadline for issuing the
judgment had expired. The source claims that no response was received.
25.
According to the source, on 19 April 2024, an appeal under protest was filed against
the judgment of 16 February 2024 on the grounds that the defence had not been given access
to the judgment, while an application for annulment that was filed was ignored by the judge.
In the appeal, the defence submitted that the indictment filed by the prosecution was
illegitimate since it lacked objective evidence and failed to establish the constituent elements
of the offences of which the four individuals stood accused. The source asserts that the judge
accepted as proven facts different from those alleged in the indictment, failed to assess the
evidence in accordance with rational criteria and failed to fully and properly notify the
defendants of the final judgment by which they were convicted.
26.
The source adds that, on 5 May 2024, an application for annulment was filed against
the formal notification of 16 February 2024, served at 3.50 p.m. on 3 April 2024, as it did not
include a copy of the full text of the judgment and was therefore improper and incomplete.
According to the source, it was claimed in the application for annulment that this situation
left the affected parties unable to mount a defence, as it restricted their right to adequately
challenge the judgment in due time and form. It was also claimed that the judgment impeded
their access to justice and violated their right to effective judicial protection, the principle of
legality and standards of due process. The judgment was issued after the legal deadline and
should have been read to the defendants at a hearing convened for that purpose. It was further
claimed that the defence had no access to the text of the judgment, that access to the physical
case file had never been granted and that the web page of the Nicarao judicial case system
was blocked or encrypted, preventing virtual access.
27.
According to the source, the four Indigenous persons are being held in maximum
security cells in Jorge Navarro Prison (known as “La Modelo”) in Tipitapa, municipality of
Managua. The conviction is final, since the appeal of 19 April 2024 was declared time-barred.
28.
The source states that the four Indigenous persons are being held in cruel, inhuman
and degrading conditions, without access to medical care or medication. Mr. Bruno Arcángel
requires urgent treatment for an ear infection that is causing him nasal and throat congestion.
They have no access to the courtyard, no sleeping mats, little drinking water and inadequate
food (semi-cooked rice and beans). At La Modelo they sleep on a concrete floor without
mattresses, which exposes them to insects and rodents. Although their families deliver food
once a month, it is uncertain that everything is received.
29.
Jorge Navarro Prison is almost 500 km from their community, which makes family
visits difficult. These visits last between 10 and 15 minutes and are conducted by telephone
through a glass window and under constant surveillance.
30.
According to the source, the domestic remedies sought before the Nicaraguan courts
were not effective in guaranteeing the lawfulness of the detention or protecting the
fundamental rights of the four Indigenous forest rangers. The urgent request submitted on
22 March 2024 to the Fifth District Criminal Trial Court, in which the defence repeated its
request for access to the case file and protested at the lack of interpreters and the failure to
comply with procedural deadlines, went unanswered. This omission demonstrates a lack of
judicial diligence and the obstruction of the right to obtain a timely and appropriate decision.
31.
According to the source, the various remedies by which the defence sought to
challenge procedural irregularities were neither addressed nor resolved in an appropriate
manner. The judge did not respond to the application for annulment of the notification of the
judgment, leaving the defendants unable to mount a defence. The appeal of 19 April 2024
was declared time-barred due to the delay in the notification of the judgment, a problem
caused by the procedural irregularities themselves. The habeas corpus motion of
16 November 2023, filed before the First Chamber of the Managua Court of Appeal, was
declared inadmissible on 17 November 2023, but the defendants was not informed until
12 December 2023, 26 days later, despite having requested that remedy several times in
court, without receiving a response.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
5
(iii)
Legal analysis
32.
The source claims that the detention of the four individuals falls within categories I,
II, III and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.
a.
Category I
33.
The source claims that the police never showed an arrest warrant or explained the
reasons for the arrest of the four Indigenous persons. At the time of the arrest, the authorities
used excessive force and resorted to disproportionate and excessive violence, beating several
of the detainees and their relatives, including minors. According to the source, the authorities
used tear gas and burned and stole the family’s property, including mattresses and school
supplies.
34.
The source adds that none of the four individuals were informed of the reasons for
their detention, the legal avenues to challenge the legality of their deprivation of liberty or
their right to a lawyer of their choosing. The source alleges that this conduct by the
Nicaraguan authorities constitutes a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant and principles 7
and 9 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.
Furthermore, the police carried out the raid and made the arrests outside the hours established
by law, namely, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., for the conduct of such operations.5
b.
Category II
35.
The source argues that the four detainees are members of the Mayangna Indigenous
People, which is an ethnic, religious and linguistic minority in Nicaragua. Historically,
members of the Mayangna community have been discriminated against on the grounds of
race, colour, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. In addition, they are Indigenous defenders of human rights and of the territory.
36.
The source adds that, because the four detainees are members of an Indigenous
People, they have been subjected to discrimination manifested in the form of significant
obstacles to their access to a simple legal remedy, to equal protection under the law and to
the right be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. They have also been
discriminated against in respect of their right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or
detention, and the right of their people to be protected against persecution, forced
displacement and genocide. In addition, their rights to participate in government and in the
defence of their communities’ lands and their rights to self-determination and to define
development on the basis of their world view as Mayangna Indigenous People have been
violated.
37.
According to the source, non-Indigenous settlers have subjected Indigenous
communities to attacks with firearms, with complete impunity, for almost a decade. Members
of the community believe that, by convicting the four individuals, the Government is making
an example of them so that other members of Indigenous communities refrain from defending
their traditional and ancestral lands and territories.
38.
The source asserts that the arbitrary detention of the four Indigenous persons is not an
isolated event but is part of the Government’s systematic persecution of Indigenous
communities and their leaders, a context that is already known to the Working Group.6
c.
Category III
39.
The source claims that the four Indigenous persons are deprived of their liberty in
Jorge Navarro Prison, which does not provide adequate conditions of detention in conformity
with international human rights standards.
40.
The source claims that the four Indigenous persons were unable to contact a lawyer
of their choosing from the moment of their arrest, in violation of article 101 of the Code of
5 Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 217.
6 See opinion no. 30/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
6
GE.25-07434
Criminal Procedure. They were not guaranteed private communication with their lawyer, and
they were denied timely access to the criminal case file. This situation is contrary to the
provisions on making judicial proceedings public contained in article 34 of the Constitution
of 1987 and the laws governing criminal proceedings. The source adds that, under
principle 11 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, detainees have a fundamental right to communicate promptly
with a lawyer of their choosing – a requirement that was ignored in this case.
41.
According to the source, on 15 August 2023, a special hearing for the protection of
constitutional guarantees was held without the participation of a lawyer of the defendants’
choosing, in violation of article 253 bis of Act No. 1060. Later in the proceedings, when the
four Indigenous persons had access to a lawyer of their choosing, he did not have access to
the case file.
42.
The source claims that not having access to their file hindered the four Indigenous
persons’ ability to understand and contest the charges. In addition, they were not provided
with information in their mother tongue, in violation of their right to receive effective legal
assistance.
43.
The source submits that the detention of the four Indigenous persons without access
to counsel of their choosing or to the case file is a serious violation of their right to justice.
Access to the case file and the Nicarao judicial case system was blocked, which impaired
their defence and their ability to lodge appeals, which in turn undermined their right to a fair
trial.
44.
Without access to the case file or counsel of their choosing, the Indigenous persons
could not know the reasons for their arrest or examine the evidence against them, leaving
them unable to mount any defence. They were also deprived of expert advice to help them
understand their legal rights, prepare their defence and exercise their rights to cross-examine
the accusers and present evidence in their defence.
45.
The source asserts that the remedy of habeas corpus did not have the effect of
protecting individual liberty. On 17 November 2023, the First Chamber of the Managua
Court of Appeal declared the habeas corpus motion inadmissible, without substantiation, in
a clear abuse of the law.
46.
The source argues that Nicaragua violated the right of the four Indigenous persons to
be presumed innocent, a fundamental right recognized in both national and international
human rights law.
47.
The source claims that, by presenting the four individuals as part of the “Los Bruno”
criminal gang, alongside other alleged criminals, the police authorities directly violated the
principle of presumption of innocence. This practice, in addition to being illegal, generates a
perception of guilt in the public mind that can negatively influence the judicial process and
compromise the impartiality of judges.
48.
The source adds that the lack of clarity and consistency in the charges further
aggravated the violation of the presumption of innocence. The charges brought initially were
for murder and arson, but these were later changed to include other offences without clear
justification. One of the charges, that of illegal weapons use, is particularly questionable
because Mr. Bruno Arcángel held a permit to carry a firearm, and demonstrates the charges’
lack of substance. These inconsistencies point to the possible arbitrary criminalization of the
Bruno family, rather than a prosecution based on solid evidence. The violation of the
presumption of innocence in this case is contrary to article 14 (2) of the Covenant and 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, which prohibit the
public presentation of defendants as guilty before conviction.
49.
The source mentions that the preliminary hearing of 15 November 2023 was held
without the knowledge or participation of counsel of the individuals’ choosing or of their
relatives. Family members were denied information about the criminal proceedings and the
case did not appear on the web page of the Nicarao judicial case system. The public trial was
held on 22 January 2024 at 2 p.m. with the participation of defence counsel but without the
presence of the defendants, who were deprived of the right to communicate freely and
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
7
privately with counsel. The four Indigenous persons appeared via videoconference from
prison, where they were in chains; family members were not permitted to attend the trial; and
the defence was not allowed to examine the witnesses.
d.
Category V
50.
The source contends that the detention of the four individuals fits into a pattern of
systematic and widespread political persecution against persons belonging to ethnic minority
groups, human rights defenders and persons who express criticism of the authorities, which
the Working Group has previously addressed.7 A systematic practice of depriving individuals
of their liberty on the basis of their political opinions and human rights work has been
observed since the crisis of 2018.8
51.
According to the source, the four Indigenous persons were not only subjected to
violations of their procedural rights, but the context suggests possible discrimination on the
basis of their ethnic identity and role in defending the environment – activities that often
expose Indigenous communities to undue criminalization. The source highlights that the
individuals were excluded from the release and exile to Guatemala, on 5 September 2024, of
135 persons who had been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty for political reasons. None of
the released individuals were Indigenous, and there remain at least 19 Indigenous persons
who have been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty for political reasons in Nicaragua.
52.
The source points out that article 7 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples establishes the right of Indigenous individuals to security of person and
to not be arbitrarily detained for reasons related to their identity or the defence of their
territory – a right that the Government has disregarded in the present case.
53.
The source adds that the four Indigenous individuals, whose mother tongue is
Mayangna, encountered multiple barriers on account of their belonging to an Indigenous
group. The trial was conducted exclusively in Spanish, which prevented the defendants from
fully understanding the proceedings and effectively participating in their defence. The
judicial system disregarded the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the defendants,
perpetuating the systemic exclusion faced by Indigenous Peoples in Nicaragua. This situation
violated article 27 of the Covenant, which protects the right of persons belonging to ethnic
minorities to participate fully in proceedings affecting them on an equal footing.
54.
The source adds that the four Indigenous individuals are forest rangers, which
suggests that the motive for their detention may have been their work in defence of territorial
and environmental rights, activities that are often linked to the struggle for Indigenous
Peoples’ rights. Such detentions are part of a known pattern of criminalization of human
rights defenders,9 especially in contexts where there are conflicts of interest with State or
private actors.
55.
According to the source, the political persecution, detention and criminalization of
Indigenous defenders on the basis of their identity and role constitute a form of discrimination
based on ethnic, social and political origin, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which protect the rights of
Indigenous Peoples to be free from any kind of discrimination and to live in freedom and
security.
56.
The source adds that the violence inflicted during the arbitrary detention and the
irregularities that have occurred since the arrests serve as evidence that the authorities are
doing everything in their power to make an example of the detainees and send a clear message
to their opponents. For this reason, the source considers that the four Indigenous individuals
7 See opinion No. 30/2024.
8 A/HRC/46/21.
9 See the conference room paper containing the findings of the investigation of the Group of Human
Rights Experts on Nicaragua into human rights violations and abuses and crimes committed against
the Indigenous and Afrodescendent individuals and communities of the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua
between 2018 and March 2024, which can be consulted on the Group’s web page:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/grhe-nicaragua/a-hrc-55-crp-
7-sp.pdf, paras. 250–334.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
8
GE.25-07434
have been detained for discriminatory reasons related to their status as opponents, Indigenous
leaders and defenders of their territory; in other words, they have been discriminated against
on political and ethnic or racial grounds. This course of action by the State contravenes
articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and articles 1 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.10
(b)
Response from the Government
57.
On 14 January 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 17 March 2025, detailed information on the
situation of the four individuals, clarifying the legal and factual grounds for their 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.
58.
The Working Group regrets that the Government has not submitted a response or
requested an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s methods of
work.
2.
Discussion
59.
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.
60.
In determining whether the detention of the four individuals is arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case for breach of international law
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.11 Mere assertions that lawful procedures
have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.
(a)
Category I
61.
The source claims that the detention of the four individuals is arbitrary under category
I because it lacks a legal basis. On 13 August 2023, the police and the army broke into the
Bruno family house in Musawás without a warrant, violently arrested the four individuals
and transferred them to Managua, 418 km away, removing them from the jurisdiction of their
natural judge and from their cultural environment. The source adds that none of the four
detainees were informed of the reasons for their arrest, of judicial avenues for challenging
the lawfulness of their detention, or of their right to counsel of their choosing.
62.
The Government has decided not to refute these allegations, although it had the
opportunity to do so.
63.
The Working Group has previously stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to
have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The
authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is
typically12 done through an arrest warrant or court order (or equivalent document).13 The
reasons for the arrest must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only
the general legal basis of the arrest, but also enough factual details to indicate the substance
of the complaint, such as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.14 If these
procedures are not respected, a detention is arbitrary and seriously undermines the ability to
conduct a proper legal defence.
64.
The Working Group notes with concern the source’s allegation that the four
individuals were arrested in their own homes, without an arrest warrant, when they were not
10 Opinion No. 41/2018, para. 28.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests
made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
13 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59 and No. 18/2023, para. 93.
14 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
9
in the act of committing an offence. It also notes that they were not informed of the reasons
for their arrest. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Working Group considers
that their detention lacks any legal basis and is arbitrary under category I, in violation of
article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
(b)
Category II
65.
The source claims that the detention of the four Indigenous persons is arbitrary under
category II as it results from the exercise of fundamental rights or freedoms, including the
rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association and freedom to
participate in public affairs, all of which are guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Covenant. The source adds that this arrest is not an isolated event but
is part of the Government’s systematic persecution of Indigenous communities and their
leaders.
66.
The detained persons are members of an Indigenous People that constitutes an ethnic,
religious and linguistic minority. The source states that they have dedicated their lives to
defending their territory, although they do not receive equal protection before the law and
their people are not protected against persecution, forced displacement or genocide.
Furthermore, they have not been guaranteed the rights to participate in government, to defend
their communities’ lands, to self-determination or to define development on the basis of their
world view as Mayangna Indigenous People.
67.
This situation prompts the Working Group to reaffirm that the work of human rights
defenders is fundamental to the strengthening of democracy. The obstacles and restrictions
faced by environmental human rights defenders have been of particular interest to the
Working Group and the Human Rights Council. 15 The latter has adopted a resolution
recognizing the importance of environmental human rights defenders and their protection,
expressing grave concern about their situation around the world, strongly condemning all
violations or abuses against environmental human rights defenders by State and non-State
actors, and stressing that such acts may violate international law and undermine sustainable
development at the local, national, regional and international levels.16
68.
The Working Group points out that environmental defenders are entitled to the rights
and protections set out in articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, in articles 19, 21, 22, 25 and 27 of the Covenant and in the Declaration on the Right
and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the rights to
freedom of expression, assembly and association and the right to an effective remedy.
69.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides that
Indigenous Peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy
or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and
means for financing their autonomous functions. This view is strengthened by the opinion of
the Human Rights Council that environmental defenders have the right to be protected in
their work. In addition, the Council has called on States to promote a safe and enabling
environment in which individuals, groups and organs of society, including those working on
human rights and environmental issues, including biodiversity, can operate free from threats,
hindrance and insecurity.17
70.
The Working Group points out that the four individuals, being forest rangers, exercise
a fundamental leadership role in the Mayangna Indigenous community, especially because
they constantly guard the territory against any type of threat. As the source states, by
defending their lands, confronting settlers, destroying illegal fences and dwellings and
reforesting, among other actions, they act as the first and strongest bulwark against invasion
and the plunder of the forest and other natural resources. It is for this reason that their work
15 See opinion No. 3/2020; and A/HRC/54/51, para. 55.
16 See Human Rights Council resolution 40/11.
17 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
10
GE.25-07434
is so important, and their criminalization means dismantling and weakening the community’s
defence of its territory.
71.
The Working Group is persuaded that Indigenous Peoples who are defending their
territory are being persecuted and intimidated. Both the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights and the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua have
warned about this situation.18 In the present case, Indigenous persons have repelled settlers
by exercising community resistance, which they did by voicing their complaints and
objections, mobilizing in defence of the territory and sharing information about the situation
through various media outlets. These activities were carried out peacefully and were therefore
protected under international human rights law.19 These rights – to freedom of expression,
peaceful assembly and association – have been restricted for the detained persons, resulting
in their arrest and prosecution.
72.
The Working Group does not consider that an analysis was conducted to determine
whether the grounds on which articles 19 (3), 21 and 22 (2) of the Covenant allow for the
restriction of these rights, namely, to ensure respect for the rights or reputations of others or
to protect national security, public order or public health or morals, actually applied.
Moreover, it should be recalled that a heightened standard of protection and detention review
applies in cases where freedom of expression and opinion appear to have been restricted,
particularly when such detentions involve human rights defenders.20
73.
In the absence of information provided by the Government, the Working Group
considers that the source has demonstrated that the four human rights defenders were
detained for exercising their rights enshrined in articles 19, 21, 22, 25 and 27 21 of the
Covenant and articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working
Group therefore concludes that their detention is arbitrary under category II.
74.
In view of the gravity of the case, the Working Group refers it to the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the human
right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the Special Rapporteur on the rights
of Indigenous Peoples.
(c)
Category III
75.
In the light of its findings under category II, namely, that the detention results from
the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association and political
participation, the Working Group considers that there are no grounds for a trial. However,
since a trial has taken 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.
76.
The source asserts that, on 15 August 2023, the police authorities presented the four
Indigenous persons to the media as a criminal gang (“Los Bruno”), alongside the “Chabelo”
and “Los Rocha” criminal groups, in violation of the presumption of innocence. The National
Police initially charged Rodrigo Bruno Arcángel, Stony Bruno Smith and “other members of
the group” with the murder with firearms of seven people and the arson of 12 houses, in
connection with events that allegedly occurred on 26 December 2019.22
77.
The Working Group notes that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of
his or her liberty and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right of the accused
to be presumed innocent is one of the cornerstones of the right to a fair trial. The presumption
of innocence is enshrined in article 14 (2) of the Covenant. In essence, the presumption of
innocence means that a person accused of a criminal offence must be treated as if he or she
18 See https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/grhe-nicaragua/a-hrc-55-
crp-7-sp.pdf; and https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2024/12/deputy-high-
commissioner-updates-human-rights-situation-nicaragua.
19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020).
20 Opinions No. 41/2017, para. 95; and No. 88/2017.
21 Poma Poma v. Peru (CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006), paras. 7.2–8.
22 See https://www.policia.gob.ni/?p=106479.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
11
has not committed an offence until convicted in a final judgment by an independent and
impartial court.23
78.
In the absence of information to the contrary, the Working Group notes that the nature
of the news articles and the portrayal of the four Indigenous persons as active members of a
criminal gang constitute a violation of their right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2)
of the Covenant. The four defendants were put on display as convicted criminals.
79.
The source claims that the four Indigenous persons were unable to contact a lawyer
of their choosing from the moment of their arrest. They were also denied the opportunity to
communicate with counsel in private and to consult the case file in a timely manner. The
source adds that, on 15 August 2023, a special hearing for the protection of constitutional
guarantees was held without the participation of a lawyer of the defendants’ choosing. Later
in the proceedings, when the four Indigenous persons had access to such a lawyer, he did not
have access to the case file. The lack of access to the physical and virtual files during the
proceedings severely restricted the right of the defence to examine and challenge the
evidence, which is essential to ensure a fair trial. Moreover, the defendants were not provided
with information in their mother tongue and the trial was conducted without interpreters. The
mother tongue of the four Indigenous persons is Mayangna and not Spanish.
80.
Under these circumstances and in the absence of information to the contrary, the
Working Group considers that, after their arrest, the four Indigenous persons were deprived
of legal assistance of their own choosing, in violation of their rights under article 14 (3) (b)
of the Covenant to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and
to communicate with counsel. The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their
liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their
detention, in particular immediately after their apprehension, and that such access must be
provided without delay.24
81.
The Working Group wishes to point out that, given defendants’ right to communicate
with counsel, lawyers should be able to meet their clients in private and to communicate with
the accused in conditions that fully respect confidentiality.25 As this right was not respected
in the present case, the Working Group finds a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
82.
The source has also stated that the Indigenous persons and their defence counsel did
not have access to the physical or virtual files during various stages of the proceedings. The
Government has had the opportunity to refute this allegation, but has chosen not to do so.
The Working Group recalls that, in principle, access to the case file must be provided from
the outset.26 In the absence of a rebuttal from the Government, the Working Group concludes
that the rights of the four Indigenous persons were also violated under article 14 (1) and
(3) (b) of the Covenant. With regard to the source’s allegation that information during the
judicial proceedings was not provided in the mother tongue of the Indigenous persons and
that no interpreter provided during the trial hearings, the Working Group considers that
article 14 (3) (f) of the Covenant was violated.
83.
The source claims that, after their arrest, the members of the Bruno family were
transferred to Managua, 418 km away, thus depriving them of the safeguard of their natural
judge, the principle of immediacy and their cultural environment, which differs greatly from
the rest of the country.
84.
In its jurisprudence, the Working Group has repeatedly stated that, where national law
expressly assigns competence to the court of the jurisdiction where an offence was allegedly
committed, it is a violation of the right to be tried by the competent or duly appointed judge
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007).
24 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–53. See also A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 67–71. See also opinion
No. 38/2021, paras. 90 and 91.
25 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34. See also Khomidova v.
Tajikistan (CCPR/C/81/D/1117/2002), para. 6.4.
26 See opinions No. 78/2019, No. 29/2020, No. 67/2020 and No. 77/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
12
GE.25-07434
for a person accused of an offence committed in one jurisdiction to be tried by a court in
another jurisdiction.27
85.
Accordingly, and in the absence of information provided by the Government, the
Working Group considers that the court that heard the case of the four Indigenous persons
was not competent to do so, which violated their right to be tried by the duly appointed judge,
in contravention of article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
86.
According to the source, the four Indigenous persons are detained in maximum
security cells in Jorge Navarro Prison (La Modelo) in Tipitapa, Managua. The conditions of
detention, from the moment of their arrest and continuing after their conviction, have been
cruel, inhuman and degrading. They do not have access to timely medical care or medication.
Mr. Bruno Arcángel needs urgent medical attention, as he is suffering from an ear infection
that causes congestion and swelling of the nasal passages and throat. The four Indigenous
persons have no access to the courtyard during daylight hours, nor do they have sleeping
mats. They have little drinking water and are given very poor quality food, consisting only
in semi-cooked rice and beans. One feature of La Modelo is that, among other ill-treatment,
inmates must sleep on the concrete floor, without mattresses, sheets or blankets, which leaves
them vulnerable to insect and rodent bites. According to the source, family members deliver
parcels of permitted food once a month, but they have no evidence that everything they
deliver reaches the forest rangers.
87.
The Working Group wishes to reiterate that the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
has noted, in a report prepared pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 33/9, that in
contexts of confinement and deprivation of liberty, violations of the right to health interfere
with fair trial guarantees, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and of torture and other forms
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the enjoyment of the right to life.28 Violations
of the right to health emerge as both causes and consequences of confinement and deprivation
of liberty.
88.
Moreover, the Working Group reminds the Government that, under article 10 of the
Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person and that endangering the health of detainees
constitutes a violation of rules 24, 25, 27 and 30 of the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). In view of the foregoing,
the Working Group decides to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
89.
In the light of the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the four
individuals’ right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give their detention an arbitrary
character under category III.
(d)
Category V
90.
The source states that the four detainees were deprived of their liberty because of their
work as human rights and environmental defenders, their Indigenous identity and their
critical stance towards the Government. He adds that, because of their ethnic identity, they
were excluded from the release and exile to Guatemala, on 5 September 2024, of 135 persons
who had been detained for political reasons. None of those persons were Indigenous, and at
least 19 Indigenous persons remain imprisoned for political reasons in Nicaragua.
91.
The Working Group recalls that detention is arbitrary under category V when it
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.
92.
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
27 Opinion No. 58/2021, para. 85.
28 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
GE.25-07434
13
persecution against the detained persons that includes, for example, previous detention, acts
of violence or threats.29
93.
As established in the discussion concerning category II, the detention of the four
defenders resulted from their exercise of their 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.30 In this context, the Working Group
refers to the source’s allegations, not refuted by the Government, that have already been
considered in the present opinion.
94.
Where Indigenous territories are concerned, the Working Group endorses the views
expressed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which has urged
Nicaragua to guarantee the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to own, use, develop and
exercise control over their lands, territories and resources and to make progress in the
demarcation and titling of these territories and ensure their legal recognition and protection.31
The experts regretted that they had received no information on investigations into reports of
acts of violence and attacks on the lives and physical integrity of members of Indigenous
Peoples and people of African descent, specifically in the Mayangna Sauni As territory in the
Bosawás Biosphere Reserve, which they feared could go unpunished.32
95.
In addition, the source claims that the four Indigenous persons, whose mother tongue
is Mayangna, encountered multiple barriers on account of their belonging to an Indigenous
group. The trial was conducted exclusively in Spanish, which prevented the defendants from
fully understanding the proceedings and effectively participating in their defence. The
judicial system disregarded the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the defendants,
perpetuating the systemic exclusion faced by Indigenous Peoples in Nicaragua.
96.
In view of the discrimination to which the four Indigenous persons were subjected,
the Working Group considers the detention to be arbitrary under category V. The four
defenders were detained because of their status as political opponents and their role within
their community and to teach a lesson to the other residents of the place, 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
97.
In order to allow the Working Group to establish a direct dialogue with all State
authorities, representatives of civil society and detained persons, with a view to gaining a
better understanding of the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country, the Working
Group would welcome the opportunity to conduct a visit to Nicaragua, as requested in its
notes verbales of 24 April and 21 November 2018. The Working Group recalls that on
26 April 2006 the Government extended an open invitation to the special procedures of the
Human Rights Council and that its most recent visit to Nicaragua was from 15 to 23 May
2006.33
3.
Disposition
98.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Rodrigo Bruno Arcángel, Stony Bruno Smith, Oliver
Bruno Palacios and Evertz Bruno Palacios, being in contravention of articles 3, 9–11
and 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 22,
25 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I, II, III and V.
29 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
30 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
31 See CERD/C/NIC/CO/15-21.
32 Ibid.
33 A/HRC/4/40/Add.3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/22
14
GE.25-07434
99.
The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of the four individuals without delay and bring it into conformity with
the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
100.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the four individuals immediately and accord
them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
101.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the four
individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
their rights.
102.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the
Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and
the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, for appropriate action.
103.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
104.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether the four individuals have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the four
individuals;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
the four individuals and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Nicaragua with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
105.
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.
106.
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.
107.
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.34
[Adopted on 7 April 2025]
34 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.