Opinion; Subjects: VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF), ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-18091 (E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 53/2025 concerning Franklin Alfredo Caldera Martínez
(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the Commission on
Human Rights in its resolution 1991/42. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended
and clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution
60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 30 October 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Franklin Alfredo Caldera Martínez. The Government replied to the
communication on 30 January 2025. The State is a party to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 November 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
2
GE.25-18091
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Franklin Alfredo Caldera Martínez, a national of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and a former lieutenant in the Bolivarian National Guard, was 28 years old at the
time of his arrest.
(i)
Context
5.
Since April 2013, when the current President took office, there have been repeated
allegations of coups and conspiracies for which the Government has held military officers of
different ranks responsible.
6.
Mr. Caldera Martínez deserted from the army on 13 January 2019 as he disagreed
with the policies of the State.
7.
On 23 January 2019, when the President of the National Assembly assumed the
interim presidency of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Mr. Caldera Martínez, along
with other military personnel, participated in reading out a televised public statement
denouncing the Government. This resulted in the persecution of him and his family, which
culminated in his subsequent arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and torture.
8.
Family members of Mr. Caldera Martínez were arrested and others had to go into
hiding because they received threats, although they were later captured by officials of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence when they left their hiding place to buy
medication. Close family members of Mr. Caldera Martínez were repeatedly questioned
about his whereabouts.
9.
On 24 December 2019, armed officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence arrested a family member to interview her. She returned that same night, affected
by the psychological torture to which she had allegedly been subjected during the questioning.
10.
On 28 December 2019, Mr. Caldera Martínez spoke publicly with other military
personnel in hiding to explain that they constituted Operation Aurora, a military rebellion
formed by a group of officers whose aim was to protect the Indigenous People of the south
of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from State threats of repression, persecution and
illegal mining.
11.
On 14 December 2020, Mr. Caldera Martínez informed his family that he was in
Brazil trying to travel to Cúcuta, Colombia, to see another close family member, whom he
finally met on 10 February 2021 at a shopping centre in Cúcuta.
12.
On 23 February 2021, another family member managed to communicate with
Mr. Caldera Martínez, who informed him that he had been betrayed in Cúcuta and that his
location had been reported to Venezuelan military counter-intelligence.
(ii)
Arrest and trial proceedings
13.
Mr. Caldera Martínez was captured by officers of the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence in Cúcuta on 11 February 2021 and transferred to the Generalísimo
Francisco de Miranda airbase in La Carlota, Caracas. He was taken to a clandestine torture
centre at the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in La Mariposa, Caracas,
where he was tortured for 12 days. Mr. Caldera Martínez was suspended from the ceiling by
his arms and feet, suffocated with bags and water and tortured by being given electric shocks
to his body. During his detention, he reportedly received water only occasionally and was not
given food.
14.
After 12 days, Mr. Caldera Martínez managed to escape from the torture centre and
walked for several kilometres through a wooded area until he reached a highway in Caracas.
A civilian helped him and took him to his home in Las Minas de Baruta, Caracas. According
to the source, the civilian who protected him is in custody. Family members of Mr. Caldera
Martínez were arrested by officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence and taken to its headquarters in Boleíta, Caracas, where they were threatened
and tortured.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
3
15.
On 24 February 2021, State security forces disseminated an image of Mr. Caldera
Martínez and requested his capture, accusing him of having raped and murdered two minors.
Officials of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence located and captured
him again. Although Mr. Caldera Martínez was unarmed and put up no resistance, a military
officer shot him in the leg in retaliation for his escape. Mr. Caldera Martínez was returned to
the torture centre at the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence and, because of
his injuries, was initially transferred to the military hospital in Fort Tiuna and then to the
Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital in Caracas.
16.
During his time in the hospital, he was handcuffed to the bed in his underwear and
surrounded by armed military personnel. The source stated that he felt dizzy and had possibly
been drugged. On 27 and 28 February 2021, he did not receive any medication or medical
care. On 26 February, 15 days after his arrest, his hearing before the Fourth Court with
jurisdiction over cases involving terrorism-related offences was held at the hospital, where
he was remanded in custody.
17.
During the arraignment hearing, Mr. Caldera Martínez, whose torture wounds were
evident, spoke of the violations to which he had been subjected. However, the judge told him
that he was not interested in his situation, that he would rot in the “house of dreams” (the
name given to a torture area in the basement of the headquarters of the Directorate General
of Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleita) and that he would never see daylight again.
Between 26 February and 18 March, the officials refused to divulge information about
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s whereabouts to his family members when they asked to see him at
the hospital.
18.
In late February 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez made an audio recording stating that he
had been kidnapped and expressing his fears about the 30-year sentence that the judge had
given him at the arraignment hearing. On 2 March 2021, an official of the Directorate General
of Military Counter-Intelligence falsely informed Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members
that he had been executed.
19.
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members reported his enforced disappearance to the
Ombudsman’s Office and the Director of Human Rights of the Public Prosecution Service
on 3 March 2021. On 4 March, they filed a writ of habeas corpus. The source claims that
none of their complaints and appeals received a response from the State authorities. It also
notes that, on 17 March 2021, they reported his enforced disappearance to the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Working Group on Enforced
or Involuntary Disappearances. On 19 May 2021, they filed an additional complaint with the
Directorate for the Protection of Fundamental Rights of the Public Prosecution Service.
20.
On 17 March 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez was transferred from the military hospital
to the headquarters of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence. His family
members witnessed his admission but were prevented from approaching him.
21.
On 22 March 2021, officials from the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights informed Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members that the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence had confirmed that he was being held
at its headquarters in Boleíta. On 15 May 2021, his family members visited him and saw that
he was being held in a cell measuring 3 x 2 m with two other officers and that he was given
only one minute per day to go to the bathroom, since he was allowed outdoors for 10 minutes
every day only after two months. On 29 May 2021, his family members visited him again
and requested his transfer.
22.
On 4 June 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez was transferred to the Ramo Verde National
Centre for Military Detainees in Los Teques. On 18 August 2021, a traumatologist prescribed
medical tests that the State did not authorize.
23.
On 30 August 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez was brought before a court for a
preliminary hearing, at which a public defender was imposed on him instead of the lawyers
of his choosing. The judge admitted the charges for the offences of criminal association,
terrorism, theft of weapons or ammunition, conspiracy against the political system and escape.
24.
On 13 December 2021, the court granted Mr. Caldera Martínez’s private defence
lawyers access and allowed them to review case file 3JT-036-21, which was under
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
4
GE.25-18091
consideration by the Third Trial Court of First Instance with national jurisdiction to hear
cases involving terrorism of the criminal court circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area. In
2022, no progress was made in the trial.
25.
On 25 July 2022, Mr. Caldera Martínez’s lawyers requested his transfer to the
Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital to receive medical care. Although the request was
approved, it was not carried out and no reason was given, which would have aggravated his
state of health.
26.
On 26 January 2023, people close to Mr. Caldera Martínez attended a meeting with
members of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in
Caracas and realized that they were being watched and followed by unidentified persons in a
vehicle.
27.
As an alleged reprisal against Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family, on 17 March 2023, the
State transferred him without a court order from Ramo Verde Prison to a facility located in
Fort Tiuna, which was under the supervision of the Directorate General of Military Counter-
Intelligence.
28.
One of Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members began to receive calls from unknown
numbers, with the caller threatening negative consequences for him and his family if he did
not stop making complaints.
29.
On 8 April 2023, Mr. Caldera Martínez’s guards violently entered his cell and
conducted an arbitrary search, destroying his belongings. On the same day, at 7 p.m., a close
relative received a call from Mr. Caldera Martínez, who allegedly told him about the situation,
asked him to stop making public accusations, requested that he ask the press to stop
disseminating his statements, and urged him to give a new press conference at which he
would retract all the statements he had made against the State to affirm that everything was
a lie and that his statements had been made under the influence of opposition groups.
30.
On 15 April 2023, a family member of Mr. Caldera Martínez visited him at the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Fort Tiuna to check on his physical
integrity. The family member was watched and followed by an unlicensed vehicle from his
home in Carabobo to the military compound.
31.
During the visit, a guard asked the family member to go to the director’s office, where
the director, a colonel, informed him that the Major General had issued an order for him to
stop making public complaints about the Government and to retract them. The colonel
warned that, if he did not do so, Mr. Caldera Martínez would suffer in prison and that he
could be imprisoned for defaming the State.
32.
In view of this situation, Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family member requested a hearing
with the prosecutor handling his case in order to learn about the progress made in the
investigation into the acts of torture committed against Mr. Caldera Martínez and the situation
surrounding the threats and persecution allegedly directed at him for months. He also
repeatedly requested copies of the complaint and reports on the progress made in the
investigation, but the lawyer of the Forty-Ninth Office of the Special Prosecutor for
Fundamental Rights did not respond to these requests.
33.
In early 2023, the source stated that the criminal case was at the trial phase in the
proceedings, which have taken more than two years, thereby exceeding the maximum time
limit for pretrial detention permitted under article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The hearings for the trial have been deferred on several occasions.
34.
On 14 July 2023, it was reported that the trial of 45 alleged political prisoners,
including Mr. Caldera Martínez, were suspended following the reassignment of the terrorism-
related cases to another court. The case was transferred to the Twenty-Ninth Court, with a
new judge, which involved restarting the proceedings. According to the source, this measure
was intended to prolong Mr. Caldera Martínez’s detention without sufficient evidence. The
trial has been at a standstill since July 2023 and no new hearing has been convened.
35.
On 29 May 2023, Mr. Caldera Martínez informed his family by telephone that he was
being subjected to threats and harassment by officials of the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
5
36.
On 18 September 2024, one of Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members travelled to
Cúcuta to testify before the public prosecutor’s office about his alleged kidnapping on
11 February 2021. On leaving the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, he was intimidated by
an immigration official and, as a form of reprisal, on 3 October 2024, Mr. Caldera Martínez
was subjected to searches, threats and intense bouts of questioning by officials of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in the presence of one of his alleged
kidnappers. During the questioning, Mr. Caldera Martínez was asked about an alleged plan
to invade the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that supposedly involved himself and a
family member and included details of the participants and the location of weapons.
37.
On 21 October 2024, Mr. Caldera Martínez claimed that he had been a victim of
severe torture during the week of 14 to 18 October. He was removed from his cell at Fort
Tiuna and taken to a place known as El Hueco, without being able to identify his location.
There, he was stripped naked, beaten with blunt objects and subjected to electric shocks. In
addition, he incurred a deliberate injury to his knee, where the officers had shot him during
his second arrest, which prevents him from walking properly. After this brutal beating,
wearing no clothes in that place despite the low temperatures, Mr. Caldera Martínez was
forced to record a video confession incriminating fellow officers from his cohort who had
defected with him in 2019 and are outside the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In the
recording, he also mentioned an alleged plan to invade the country and carry out terrorist
attacks. During the torture, Mr. Caldera Martínez was told that if his family member returned
to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, he would be detained and tortured and would never
leave prison.
38.
Mr. Caldera Martínez suffers from the sequelae of torture and a gunshot wound that
causes him pain and difficulty walking, in addition to panic attacks and anxiety. His state of
health is worsening as a result of the isolation, lack of natural light and threats made against
him at the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence.
(iii)
Legal analysis
39.
The source claims that the detention of Mr. Caldera Martínez falls within categories
I, III and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.
a.
Category I
40.
Under article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention requires well-founded
evidence of participation in an offence punishable by imprisonment, with no statute of
limitations and the existence of a risk of flight or a risk that the search for the truth would be
obstructed. Deprivation of liberty may take place only when the act is defined as an offence
in law. The source maintains that the arrest was not conducted in flagrante delicto and no
arrest warrant was shown. It considers Mr. Caldera Martínez’s arrest on 11 February 2021 in
Cúcuta by officials of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence to have been
improperly conducted since there was no international warrant and the extradition process
was not carried out.
41.
The source points out that omitting to implement the extradition process violated the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Colombia. For this reason, the international
cooperation mechanism should have been used.
42.
The source states that it is extremely serious that, following his arrest, Mr. Caldera
Martínez was transferred to a clandestine torture centre at the Directorate General of Military
Counter-Intelligence in La Mariposa, where he was tortured for 12 days, being suspended
from the ceiling by his arms and feet, suffocated with water bags (waterboarded) and given
electric shocks to the body. During that time, no arrest warrant was shown and his family
members were unaware of his whereabouts.
43.
The source reiterates that Mr. Caldera Martínez’s arrest on 11 February 2021 violated
national and international standards as the claims were not clearly or precisely substantiated,
which made it impossible to prove his responsibility for, or involvement in, any offence.
Thus, pretrial detention was carried out without sufficient evidence to prove its necessity.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
6
GE.25-18091
44.
Mr. Caldera Martínez is alleged to be a victim of enforced disappearance, during
which police officers did not inform his family or his lawyers about his whereabouts for two
months. This involved the violation of his liberty, personal integrity and legal personality in
that he was prevented from exercising rights such as the right to be heard by a judge within
a reasonable period of time.2
45.
The source points out that Mr. Caldera Martínez’s disappearance has repeatedly been
reported to a number of national and international authorities without any response.
b.
Category III
46.
The source recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to
equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, which stresses that this right is
important for ensuring an effective defence by the accused and their counsel.3 The source
claims that the right to expert assistance was denied to Mr. Caldera Martínez on multiple
occasions: (a) at the military hospital; (b) before the judge with competency for terrorism-
related cases assigned to his case; (c) before a prosecutor attached to the Public Prosecution
Service; and (d) before an official of the Ombudsman’s Office. He was denied again on
30 August 2021 at the arraignment hearing and when he was brought before a court for a
preliminary hearing and a public defender was imposed on him in place of the lawyers of his
choosing.
47.
The source notes that, although Venezuelan law provides for legal remedies to correct
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s situation, the lack of response from the Ombudsman’s Office, the
Office of the Special Prosecutor for Fundamental Rights and the writ of habeas corpus
demonstrates their ineffectiveness. Consequently, Mr. Caldera Martínez’s unlawful pretrial
detention and the paralysed trial are evidence of the violation of due process and of the
principles of presumption of innocence and equality before the law.
48.
The source notes that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant and article 44 (1) of the
Constitution, all detained persons must be brought promptly before a judge to rule on the
lawfulness of the detention. It adds that this guarantee applies even before formal charges are
brought as it seeks to ensure judicial oversight of any confinement. The authority exercising
this function must be independent, objective and impartial.
49.
The source claims that, notwithstanding the above, Mr. Caldera Martínez was
deprived of his liberty on 11 February 2021 and the arraignment hearing took place 15 days
later, i.e. on 26 February 2021, exceeding the 48-hour time limit and thereby depriving him
of judicial protection while he was being tortured by his guards. Furthermore, although the
judge assessed the signs of torture suffered by Mr. Caldera Martínez, who was interned in
the military hospital and told him everything that had happened, the judge stated that he was
not interested in his situation and that he would rot in the “house of dreams” and never see
daylight.
c.
Category V
50.
The source states that Mr. Caldera Martínez was persecuted, detained, tortured and
disappeared for opposing the Government and for refusing to support its policies. He had
also participated in a televised address from Colombia on 23 January 2019 in which he had
urged the Venezuelan military to react to the crisis in the country.
51.
In the speech of 23 January, the military personnel expressed their support for, and
recognition of, the Venezuelan opposition leader who had appointed himself as
president-in-charge of the country, calling him the Commander in Chief of the Bolivarian
Armed Forces of Venezuela. On 28 December 2019, Mr. Caldera Martínez and other military
personnel in hiding made a public statement, explaining that they constituted Operation
Aurora. The source claims that these acts resulted in the persecution, detention,
disappearance and torture of Mr. Caldera Martínez and his family members.
2 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, judgment of 22 September 2009,
paras. 90 and 91.
3 Bryukhanov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014), para. 9.2.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
7
52.
In the case of Mr. Caldera Martínez, the source alleges that his persecution and
subsequent detention occurred as a result of his having broadcast a widely known televised
political opinion voicing support for the then opposition leader, which gave rise to a situation
of discrimination in violation of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and articles 1 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(b)
Response from the Government
53.
The Working Group, in accordance with its methods of work, transmitted the source’s
allegations to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on 30 October 2024
and requested it to submit a response by 30 December 2024. The Government requested an
extension of the time limit for its response, which was granted. The Working Group received
the Government’s response on 30 January 2025, within the established time limit.
54.
The Government reports that Mr. Caldera Martínez is being prosecuted as part of a
criminal investigation into his alleged participation in the insurgent operation known as Wey
Pa’ka, or Operation Aurora, implemented on 22 December 2019. This action constituted an
armed attack against two military units belonging to the Bolivarian National Armed Forces:
the assault against the 513th GD Mariano Montilla Padrón Jungle Infantry Battalion and the
frustrated attempt to take over the 5102nd Motorized Cavalry Squadron in Gran Sabana,
Bolívar.
55.
Contrary to the source’s claim, the Government states that the operation was proved
to have been an insurrectional act intended to change the constitutional order, destabilize
democracy and steal military weapons for subversive purposes.
56.
In the assault on the 513th Jungle Infantry Battalion, the attackers stole numerous
weapons and ammunition, demonstrating their intention to confront the State and committing
serious offences that affected public peace and national security.
57.
The legal investigations found that there was sufficient evidence indicating that
Mr. Caldera Martínez had led the attempted takeover of the Motorized Cavalry Squadron,
the military unit where he had served. His participation was planned and arose from an
organized structure with international links and opponents abroad.
58.
Thus, on 26 December 2019, the Seventeenth Military Court of Due Process of Ciudad
Bolivar issued arrest warrant No. 502-19 for the military offences of military rebellion,
causing affront to the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, theft of military effects and
violation of a security zone, in accordance with the Code of Military Justice.
59.
In view of the importance of the facts and their connection with terrorist activities and
criminal association, the Public Prosecution Service, through the National Plenary
Prosecutor’s Office (prosecutor’s offices No. 67 and No. 83), requested the Fourth Special
Court of First Instance with competency to deal with terrorism-related offences to issue an
arrest warrant within the scope of competence of the ordinary criminal courts. On 20 January
2020, this Court issued arrest warrant No. 007-2020.
60.
Mr. Caldera Martínez was arrested on 22 February 2021 by duly uniformed and
identified officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Táchira, in
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is not the case that he was captured in Colombia, or
11 days earlier, as the source claimed.
61.
Mr. Caldera Martínez was issued with oral and written notifications of the grounds
for his arrest and his constitutional and procedural rights. This notification is recorded in the
report of notification of rights of 22 February 2021, which bears the defendant’s legible
signature and fingerprints.
62.
During the intervention, two telephones, a portable computer device, an external
memory drive and several military and police uniforms were seized, including material from
the Chacao police force, which supports the hypothesis that this was an armed organization
in the making.
63.
On 23 February 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez escaped from the facilities of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence while his appearance before a court was
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
8
GE.25-18091
pending. He was recaptured the following day in Miranda state, following a confrontation
with security officers, when he tried to flee carrying an object similar to a firearm.
64.
After being recaptured, he was again notified of his rights and immediately transferred
to the Dr. Vicente Salías Military Hospital, and later to the Coche Peripheral Hospital and
the Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital, thereby guaranteeing his right to health.
65.
During both his arrests (on 22 and 24 February 2021), all the requirements of legality
were met.
66.
On 26 February 2021, Mr. Caldera Martínez was brought before the competent court
within the 48-hour legal deadline for his arraignment hearing.
67.
Since he did not have private counsel, a public defender was appointed for him,
guaranteeing his right to a defence. He did not testify during the hearing.
68.
The Court confirmed the preliminary charges of conspiracy against the political
system, terrorism, theft of reserves of weapons or ammunition and criminal association. He
was also charged with escaping.
69.
It was agreed to follow the ordinary procedure of holding him in pretrial detention
owing to the risk of flight and the seriousness of the facts, in accordance with article 236 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 9 (3) of the Covenant, which allow for pretrial
detention to ensure the appearance of accused persons.
70.
At the request of his defence, it was agreed to detain him at the Ramo Verde National
Centre for Military Detainees and not at the Boleíta headquarters of the Directorate General
of Military Counter-Intelligence, as has been falsely claimed.
71.
On 12 April 2021, the Public Prosecution Service formally filed the charges and, on
9 July 2021, the preliminary hearing was held, at which the Court fully confirmed the charges
and the evidence and ordered that an oral and public trial be held.
72.
The trial began on 28 October 2021 but was suspended because Mr. Caldera Martínez
requested that a private defence be appointed. This request was immediately honoured. Since
then, his lawyers have fully exercised his right to a defence.
73.
The oral trial began on 28 June 2022, with several hearings being suspended owing to
the absence of witnesses and prosecution experts. Mr. Caldera Martínez and his defence were
able to make statements, put forward evidence and request medical transfers but did not
report any acts of torture or persecution, which undermines the credibility of the international
allegations.
74.
On 25 February 2023, the Court agreed to a one-year extension of pretrial detention
after reassessing the procedural risks.
75.
Multiple medical transfers to attend to conditions relating to the detainee’s spine, knee
and oral health were authorized at the request of the defence and approved by the court.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
76.
Contrary to the Government’s claims, the source maintains that Mr. Caldera
Martínez’s case is directly linked to his public opposition to the current regime, as expressed
in two public statements: in the first, made from Colombia on 23 January 2019, together with
other military personnel, he called on the armed forces not to remain indifferent to the
national crisis; in the second, made on 28 December 2019, he denounced the State repression
of Indigenous communities and illegal mining. It was these political statements that led to
his persecution.
77.
Mr. Caldera Martínez deserted from the Bolivarian National Armed Forces in January
2019 and went into exile in Brazil. He was therefore unable to participate directly in the
assault on the 513th Jungle Infantry Battalion on 22 December 2019. The military arrest
warrant, issued almost a year after his desertion (on 26 December 2019), indicates a
deliberate attempt to accuse him of acts committed when he was no longer in the country or
on active duty, which reinforces the suspicion of selective criminalization.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
9
78.
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members were granted a precautionary measure by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights owing to the acts of harassment and
persecution to which they had been subjected because of their public complaints. 4
Mr. Caldera Martínez was also included in a subsequent extension resolution following his
allegations of torture.5
79.
The source states that the Government claims in its response that the arrest took place
on 22 February 2021 in Venezuelan territory but does not provide convincing evidence to
corroborate this claim. On the contrary, the source mentions that it annexed to the
communication sent to the Working Group the complaints that his family members made to
different agencies about Mr. Caldera Martínez’s detention and enforced disappearance
without receiving any response. It is up to the State to investigate and prove that these acts
were not committed.
80.
The source reports that the independent international fact-finding mission on the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela cited the case of Mr. Caldera Martínez as an example of
the courts’ failure to take action in cases of short-term enforced disappearances.6
81.
The Government claims in its response that Mr. Caldera Martínez “escaped” from the
facilities of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence, where he was deprived
of his liberty. This escape took place against the backdrop of the severe acts of torture to
which he was being subjected and because he had spent more than 11 days in military custody
without being brought before a judge.
82.
Mr. Caldera Martínez was not allowed to appoint a lawyer of his choosing until
13 December 2021, almost one year after his arrest, which violated his right to a defence at
the most critical stages. The proceedings, which began in 2021, have been unjustifiably
prolonged through the fault of the State and the lack of witnesses from the public prosecutor’s
office. After three years, the trial has not concluded, and the legal limit for pretrial detention
has been exceeded.
2.
Discussion
83.
The Working Group thanks the parties for their submissions.
84.
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 law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood
to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.7
(a)
Category I
85.
The source states that Mr. Caldera Martínez was arrested by officials of the
Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Cúcuta on 11 February 2021 and was
transferred to Caracas, where he was held for 12 days in a clandestine torture centre before
escaping. A civilian helped him but, on 24 February, he was recaptured, shot in the leg and
returned to the centre. He was then taken to the hospital in Fort Tiuna and to the Dr. Carlos
Arvelo Military Hospital. He was arrested without a warrant and, between 26 February and
18 March, his family members received no information on his whereabouts. On 2 March
2021, an official of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence falsely stated
that he had been executed.
86.
The Government responds that Mr. Caldera Martínez was arrested on 22 February
2021 by officers of the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Táchira and
that he was informed of the reasons for the arrest and his rights. It states that two arrest
warrants had previously been issued: No. 502-19, issued on 26 December 2019 for military
rebellion, and No. 007-2020, issued on 20 January 2020 for terrorism and criminal
association.
4 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 40/2023.
5 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 87/2024.
6 A/HRC/48/69, para. 71.
7 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
10
GE.25-18091
87.
Under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his or her liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. 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 typically done8
through an arrest warrant or a court order, or an equivalent document.9 The Working Group
reiterates that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons
for the arrest and the judicial avenues available for challenging the lawfulness of the
deprivation of liberty.10 The reasons for the arrest must include not only the legal basis for
the detention, but also factual specifics to indicate the substance of the complaint and the
wrongful act committed.11
88.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members submitted
complaints regarding his detention and alleged enforced disappearance to national and
international authorities but did not receive any response. The source annexes copies of the
complaints. 12 The Working Group notes that the Government neither refers to these
allegations nor states whether investigations into the claims were launched or what their
outcome was, if any.
89.
The Working Group has examined the detailed findings of the independent
international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which document
the case of Mr. Caldera Martínez.13 The mission’s description of his capture in Cúcuta, his
transfer across the border to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and his subsequent
detention and torture coincides with the account provided by the source. The mission cited
this case as an example of transnational repression perpetrated by the Directorate General of
Military Counter-Intelligence to obtain intelligence and capture real or perceived dissidents
wanted by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
90.
On the basis of all the information gathered, the Working Group is not persuaded that
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s capture in Cúcuta, his transfer from Colombia to the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela and his subsequent detention were carried out in accordance with
article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, owing to the lack of proper procedures and to the fact
that, at the time of his arrest, he was not informed of the reasons for the arrest.
91.
The Working Group reiterates that there is no valid legal basis, under any
circumstances, for an individual’s detention by State agents followed by a failure to provide
information or a refusal to acknowledge such a situation or even give information concerning
his or her location or whereabouts, which constitutes a situation of enforced disappearance
within the meaning of article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The detention is inherently arbitrary, as it places the
person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant and article
6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.14 Enforced disappearances are prohibited by
8 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39.
9 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59; and No. 18/2023, para. 93. In cases of arrests made in
flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 24 and 25.
11 Ibid.
12 On 3 March 2021, they approached the Ombudsman’s Office and the Public Prosecution Service. On
4 March, they filed a writ of habeas corpus. On 17 March, the family members reported Mr. Caldera
Martínez’s enforced disappearance to agencies of the United Nations. On 19 May, they filed an
additional complaint with the Directorate for the Protection of Fundamental Rights.
13 See the conference room paper containing the detailed findings of the independent international fact-
finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, table 7; available at
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session45/list-reports. See also the
conference room paper containing the detailed findings of the independent international fact-finding
mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on crimes against humanity committed through the
State’s intelligence services: structures and individuals involved in the implementation of the plan to
repress opposition to the Government, paras. 87 and 221; available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-
bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session51/list-reports.
14 Opinions No. 13/2020, para. 51; and No. 56/2023, para. 92.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
11
international law and constitute an aggravated form of arbitrary detention.15 The Committee
on Enforced Disappearances and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances recall that enforced disappearance constitutes a grave human rights violation
regardless of its duration.16
92.
In the light of the information received, and given that the Government has not
commented on the actions taken by Mr. Caldera Martínez’s family members in respect of his
enforced disappearance, the Working Group considers that Mr. Caldera Martínez was a
victim of enforced disappearance, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The
Government’s failure to notify the detainee’s family of his arrest and the location of his
detention violates principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group stresses the fact that
detainees must be allowed to communicate with family members and receive visits from them,
and that any restrictions on such contact must be reasonable. The Human Rights Committee
has established that giving prompt and regular access to family members is an essential
safeguard for the prevention of torture and protection against arbitrary detention and violation
of personal security.17
93.
The source claims that Mr. Caldera Martínez was brought before a judge 15 days after
his arrest. The Government claims that the arraignment hearing was held within the 48-hour
legal time limit.
94.
The Human Rights Committee has established that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to
satisfy the requirement to bring a detainee “promptly” before a judge after the arrest, and any
longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified by the circumstances.18 The
Working Group notes that holding people at secret locations and in circumstances
undisclosed to their families is a violation of their right to contest the legality of their
detention before a court or tribunal under article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant.19
95.
The Working Group concludes that Mr. Calera Martínez was brought before a judicial
authority after a delay, appearing on 26 February 2021, i.e. 15 days after his arrest, in
violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principle 32 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
96.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Caldera Martínez has spent more than three years
in pretrial detention, which is in contravention of international standards. The source claims
that, although the State requested an extension of the preventive measure, it could not be
extended for more than one year under national law, which means there is no legal
justification for keeping Mr. Caldera Martínez in pretrial detention.
97.
The Government states that it was agreed to follow the ordinary procedure of holding
him in pretrial detention owing to the risk of flight and the seriousness of the facts, in
accordance with article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 9 (3) of the
Covenant, which allow for pretrial detention to ensure the appearance of accused persons.
98.
The Working Group reiterates that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial
detention must be the exception rather than the general rule, must be ordered for as short a
time as possible,20 and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable
and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the
recurrence of crime.21 Courts must consider whether alternatives to pretrial detention would
render detention unnecessary.22 According to the Human Rights Committee, States Parties
need to show that detention does not last longer than absolutely necessary, that its overall
length is limited and that they fully respect the guarantees provided for by article 9 of the
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
16 CED/C/11, para. 15.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58. See also opinion No. 84/2020,
para. 70.
18 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 32 and 33.
19 Opinion No. 17/2024, para. 62.
20 Opinion No. 64/2020, para. 58. See also A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
22 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
12
GE.25-18091
Covenant in all cases. In order to meet these conditions, regular review by a court or other
body possessing the same attributes as a judicial body is necessary.23
99.
The Working Group notes that the Government has limited itself to citing domestic
legal provisions without explaining the relevant circumstances that would justify detaining
Mr. Caldera Martínez from February 2021 to date (more than four years). Nor has it
demonstrated that a prompt and periodic review was carried out to determine the need to
maintain this measure. The Working Group finds a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
100.
Therefore, the Working Group considers that the detention of Mr. Caldera Martínez
is in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9
of the Covenant and that it is arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category III
101.
The source states that Mr. Caldera Martínez was not allowed to appoint a lawyer of
his choosing until the intermediary stage of the proceedings. The State allowed him to appoint
a lawyer of his choosing on 13 December 2021, almost a year after his arrest. The
Government states in its response that Mr. Caldera Martínez, from the time of his arrest to
the present date, has had contact with his defence lawyers and that they have been able to
represent him in all parts of the proceedings. It adds that only when Mr. Caldera Martínez
stated that he did not have private defence counsel to assist him was he represented by public
defenders.
102.
The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
legal assistance by counsel of their choice throughout the period of their detention, in
particular immediately after their apprehension, and that such access must be provided
without delay.24 The right to a defence is key to ensuring a fair trial that is conducted
according to the principle of equality of the parties with a view to avoiding biases that may
affect the decision. A fair trial in which the principle of legality is observed must ensure that
the parties have the time they need to challenge decisions, may appeal and have access to an
efficient, suitable and effective remedy for the defence of their rights. This is not possible
without the assistance of a lawyer, as it would place the victim at a disadvantage in relation
to the prosecution, as happened in the present case.
103.
The Working Group notes that the complaint submitted by the source to the Public
Prosecution Service on 19 May 2021 stated that Mr. Caldera Martínez had not been allowed
to appoint a lawyer of his choosing. The complaints were sent to officials of the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence on several occasions but were never processed. The
Working Group further notes that the Government’s response did not provide any
information in this regard.
104.
The Working Group stresses that Mr. Caldera Martínez did not have counsel of his
choosing during his enforced disappearance or during the first stage of the proceedings. This
is in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, which provides that access to a lawyer
must be guaranteed from the very outset of detention.
105.
The source state that, following his arrest, Mr. Caldera Martínez was taken to a
clandestine torture centre at the Directorate General of Military Counter-Intelligence in La
Mariposa, where he was tortured for 12 days. Mr. Caldera Martínez was suspended from the
ceiling by his arms and feet, suffocated with bags and water and tortured by being given
electric shocks to his body. The Government denies the accusations, claiming that at no time
during the proceedings did Mr. Caldera Martínez or his defence team refer to the alleged
violations or assaults.
106.
The Working Group notes that the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights in favour of a family member of Mr. Caldera
23 Ibid., para. 15.
24 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–53. See also A/HRC/30/37, annex (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), paras. 67–71 (guideline 8). See also opinion No. 38/2021, paras. 90 and
91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
13
Martínez have been extended and that they directly include Mr. Caldera Martínez himself.
These measures state that he had allegedly been subjected to acts of torture, that he was being
held in inadequate conditions of detention and that he required medical treatment that he was
not receiving. 25 The Working Group has also examined the detailed findings of the
independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
which document the case of Mr. Caldera Martínez and conclude that he was subjected to acts
of torture.26
107.
The Working Group has consistently held in its opinions that subjecting a person to
torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment prevents him or her from adequately
preparing his defence, in violation of the principle of equality of the parties to judicial
proceedings and of the right to a fair trial.27 In the Working Group’s view, the torture or
ill-treatment of detainees not only is a grave violation of human rights, but also a serious
threat to the fundamental principles of a fair trial, as it can compromise a person’s ability to
defend himself or herself, especially in the light of the right not to be compelled to testify
against oneself or to confess guilt.28
108.
In view of the detailed nature of the source’s submissions and the lack of specificity
of the Government’s responses, the Working Group finds that those submissions have
corroborated the source’s claims that the fairness of the proceedings was tainted by
ill-treatment and torture, circumstances that constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial
enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3)
(g) of the Covenant.
109.
Given the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the right to a
fair trial and due process are of such gravity as to give Mr. Caldera Martínez’s deprivation
of liberty an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
(c)
Category V
110.
The source states that Mr. Caldera Martínez was persecuted, detained, tortured and
disappeared because of his public political criticism of the Government and his refusal to
contribute to its repressive policies and arbitrary actions. The source also states that
Mr. Caldera Martínez deserted from the army on 13 January 2019 and, on 23 January 2019,
he participated in a televised address from Colombia, along with other military personnel, in
which the Venezuelan military was called on to no longer remain indifferent to the serious
situation that the country was experiencing. In the speech, Mr. Caldera Martínez expressed
his support for, and recognition of, the Venezuelan opposition leader who had designated
himself as the country’s president-in-charge. This resulted in the persecution of Mr. Caldera
Martínez and his family, which would culminate in his subsequent arbitrary detention,
enforced disappearance and torture.
111.
The source adds that, in contrast to other officials who have deserted from the security
forces, it is apparent that Mr. Caldera Martínez’s persecution and subsequent arrest occurred
precisely as a result of his widely known, televised political statement, in which he spoke out
against the Government’s actions and expressed his support for the then opposition leader,
giving rise to a situation of discrimination in contravention of articles 2 and 26 of the
Covenant and articles 1 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
112.
In its response, the Government states that Mr. Caldera Martínez’s detention cannot
be classified as arbitrary under the Working Group’s category V since his detention is in full
conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.
113.
Non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of the
law without any discrimination, constitute basic and general principles relating to the
25 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 87/2024.
26 See the conference room paper containing the detailed findings of the independent international fact-
finding mission, table 7; see also the conference room paper containing the detailed findings of the
independent international fact-finding mission on crimes against humanity committed through the
State’s intelligence services, paras. 87 and 221.
27 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42.
28 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78; and No. 56/2019, para. 88.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
14
GE.25-18091
protection of human rights. Thus, article 2 (1) of the Covenant sets out an obligation for each
State Party to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind. When a
detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong
presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds
of discrimination based on political or other views.29
114.
The Working Group notes that, in determining whether an arrest and detention were
based on discriminatory grounds, it takes into account a number of factors, including whether
the context suggests that the authorities have detained persons for the purpose of preventing
them from exercising human rights such as the right to express their political opinions.30 The
Working Group has also analysed the discriminatory treatment that may occur within this
process (arrest and a period of deprivation of liberty), since the treatment received by a
detained person may also be based on discriminatory grounds.31
115.
The Working Group notes that the independent international fact-finding mission, in
its conference room paper of detailed findings entitled “Crimes against humanity committed
through the State’s intelligence services: structures and individuals involved in the
implementation of the plan to repress opposition to the Government”, stated that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a widespread and systematic policy to silence, discourage
and quash opposition to the Government has been established in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela.32 The mission has identified that one of the selected targets has been military
officers considered to be potential dissidents.33 The mission investigated the cases of 122
officers and former officers of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces who had been detained
between 12 February 2014 and mid-2022.34 These officers include Mr. Caldera Martínez,
who is mentioned as an example of a former military officer who, for having expressed
political opinions critical of the Government, was persecuted, arbitrarily detained, subjected
to enforced disappearance and tortured.35
116.
In other conference room papers, the mission cites the case of Mr. Caldera Martínez
to illustrate the poor detention conditions to which political opponents are subjected. The
case of Mr. Caldera Martínez is given as an example of prolonged solitary confinement and
poor sanitary conditions, including lack of toilet facilities and the presence of wastewater in
cells.36
117.
In the light of the reports examined, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Caldera
Martínez was deprived of his liberty, subjected to enforced disappearance and tortured on
discriminatory grounds because of his political opposition to the Government, as expressed
after he deserted from the army. His detention constitutes a violation of articles 2 and 7 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
(d)
Concluding remarks
118.
The Working Group wishes to clarify that this review refers to the arbitrary nature of
Mr. Caldera Martínez’s detention but does not make a judgment on the commission of the
offences with which he is charged. This case is one of a number of cases brought before the
Working Group in recent years concerning arbitrary detention in the Bolivarian Republic of
29 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43; and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
30 A/HRC/36/37, paras. 46–49.
31 Opinions No. 21/2015, para. 27; No. 31/2017, paras. 35–37; No. 44/2017, paras. 38 and 39; and
No. 71/2017, para. 55.
32 See the conference room paper containing the detailed findings of the independent international fact-
finding mission on crimes against humanity committed through the State’s intelligence services,
para. 4.
33 Ibid., paras. 69–71.
34 Ibid., para. 68.
35 Ibid., paras. 86, 87 and 221.
36 See the conference room paper of the independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela on the government apparatus, its repressive mechanisms and restrictions on
civic and democratic space, para. 246; available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-
sessions/session54/list-reports.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
GE.25-18091
15
Venezuela. 37 The Working Group is concerned that this might be a sign that arbitrary
detention is widespread or systematic in the country. The Working Group stresses that States
have an obligation not to commit acts that may constitute crimes against humanity and to
prevent and punish them if they are committed.
119.
In view of the recurrent pattern of arbitrary detention identified by this international
mechanism in recent years, the Government is urged to consider inviting it to make an official
country visit. Such visits are an opportunity for the Working Group to engage in direct
constructive dialogue with the Government and with representatives of civil society, with the
aim of better understanding the situation of deprivation of liberty in the country.
3.
Disposition
120.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Franklin Alfredo Caldera Martínez, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 7 and 9–11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2, 9, 10, 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
121.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of Mr. Caldera Martínez
without delay and to bring it into conformity with the relevant international standards,
including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
122.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Caldera Martínez immediately and
accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with
international law.
123.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Caldera Martínez and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of his rights.
124.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
125.
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. Caldera Martínez has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Caldera
Martínez;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Mr. Caldera
Martínez’s rights and, if so, the outcome of that investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with its
international obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
126.
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
37 Opinions No. 84/2017, No. 87/2017, No. 24/2018, No. 41/2018, No. 72/2018, No. 86/2018,
No. 13/2019, No. 75/2019, No. 80/2019, No. 81/2019, No. 18/2020, No. 73/2020, No. 54/2023,
No. 27/2024, No. 31/2024, No. 38/2024, No. 6/2025, No. 8/2025, No. 19/2025 and No. 36/2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/53
16
GE.25-18091
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
127.
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.
128.
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.38
[Adopted on 27 August 2025]
38 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.