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.25-16366 (E) 151125 171125
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. 54/2025 concerning Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri,
Carlos Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer and Williams Daniel Dávila
Barrios (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 25 November 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri, Carlos Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer and
Williams Daniel Dávila Barrios. The Government replied to the communication on
27 February 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 and 18–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 25–27
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/2025/54
General Assembly
Distr.: General
30 October 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
2
GE.25-16366
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.
Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri is a national of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and Italy, an opposition politician, a former member of the National Assembly
(between 2011 and 2021) and the founder of Guayana Libre.
5.
Carlos Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer, a national of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, is a leader of Causa R and was mayor of Sifontes, Bolívar State, for four terms
between 1995 and 2017.
6.
Williams Daniel Dávila Barrios, a national of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
and Portugal, is an opposition politician, former governor of Mérida State, a former member
of the National Assembly and a former member of the Parliament of the Southern Common
Market (MERCOSUR). He is currently political secretary of the National Executive
Committee of Acción Democrática (“en resistencia”).
7.
The source states that the three individuals were arbitrarily detained by State security
forces between 6 and 8 August 2024. These instances of detention occurred amid the political
persecution of opposition leaders that formed the backdrop to the presidential elections of
28 July 2024.
(i)
Context
8.
Although the official campaign for the presidential election began on 4 July 2024,
election season began on 1 January. On 18 January, the President called for the activation of
a civilian, military and law enforcement plan, known as “Bolivarian Fury”, to prevent
terrorist attacks. On 19 January, the Minister of the Interior, Justice and Peace linked the plan
to the fight against “traitors” and to national defence, a step that resulted in vandalism,
arbitrary detention, cases of temporary disappearance and an attempted abduction.
9.
According to the available data, at least 169 politically motivated arbitrary arrests
were made by 28 July 2024. After the elections of 28 July and the allegations of fraud,
repression increased, with 1,062 arrests reported by the Public Prosecution Service as of
31 July, although the figures vary from one source to another. A week later, the President
stated that there were 2,229 detainees, whom he described as terrorists; the website of the
Public Prosecution Service, for its part, stopped working and did not offer any further data.
10.
After 28 July 2024, according to the source, there were mass arrests during protests
or in people’s homes, including of teenagers and people with disabilities, as well as targeted
arrests of political leaders, activists and journalists.
(ii)
Arrests and criminal proceedings
Mr. De Grazia Veltri
11.
During the campaign for the presidential elections that were held on 28 July 2024,
Mr. De Grazia Veltri played an active role in organizing and mobilizing support for the
opposition candidate at the local level.
12.
The source notes that, previously, on 7 May 2019, the Supreme Court had ordered the
prosecution, without instituting the required preliminary proceedings, of six members of the
National Assembly, including Mr. De Grazia Veltri, who was accused of several serious
crimes. He then sought refuge in the Italian Embassy and went into exile. A year earlier, the
President had publicly accused him of leading a mining mafia in Barinas. On 31 August 2020,
he and other opposition figures were pardoned; he returned to the country in 2021 and ran
for governor of Bolívar.
13.
After the 28 July 2024 elections, Mr. De Grazia Veltri took refuge in Guayana and
then travelled to Caracas to combat the persecution he was facing.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
3
14.
On 7 August 2024, Mr. De Grazia Veltri was reportedly arrested in Altamira, Caracas,
after leaving La Floresta, a clinic to which he had gone for a check-up. He informed his
family that he was on his way to his lodgings, but he never arrived, and his neighbours did
not see him. He was presumably arrested at midday, as he missed a doctor’s appointment
scheduled for 2 p.m.
15.
His relatives became concerned when they lost contact with him. They tried to find
him with the app Find My iPhone, but it had been disabled. They thought it might have shut
down for some technical reason.
16.
On 8 August 2024, in the absence of news, Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s relatives searched
for him in detention centres. At El Helicoide they were informed that he was being held there
and were asked to bring him some personal items, but they were not allowed to see him, and
as a result they left unsure whether he was there. In addition, his car, a Chevrolet Aveo, was
impounded by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service.
17.
A family member later made a public statement confirming that Mr. De Grazia Veltri
was detained in Caracas at the headquarters – in the building known as El Helicoide – of the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service. Three days after his arrest, the family members
received a letter, written in Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s hand, containing a generic message in
which he sent them greetings.
18.
Mr. De Grazia Veltri was arrested in murky circumstances, and for at least 24 hours
his whereabouts were unknown. His relatives suspect that he was arrested for his
denunciation of the disappearance of the former mayor of Tumeremo and his support for the
opposition leader during the elections.
19.
The source notes that no arrest warrant was produced and that what the charges are is
unclear. The family has no official information about Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s health or legal
situation or direct contact with him except for letters with generic messages confirming that
he is alive. The officials produce these letters and then destroy them, thereby preventing
Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s relatives outside the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from verifying
that they are indeed from Mr. De Grazia Veltri.
20.
On 17 August 2024, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued
resolution No. 51/2024 on Mr. De Grazia Veltri, in which it found it regrettable that the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had taken no measures to protect him, thereby keeping
him in a situation of vulnerability.2
21.
On 9 August 2024, after Mr. De Grazia Veltri was arrested, a family member filed a
complaint with the Ombudsman, stating that Mr. De Grazia Veltri was being held
incommunicado. Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s lawyer had not had access to him, either, and the
source notes that the family members have insisted that he not be represented by public
defenders.
22.
National Prosecutor’s Office No. 61, the Third Procedural Court, which has
jurisdiction over cases related to terrorism, and public defender No. 93 are, according to that
complaint, involved in the case. In addition, Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s family learned that he
was charged with incitement to hatred. They have not, however, had access to the case file
or to information on the reasons for which he was deprived of his liberty.
23.
The source notes that in Con el mazo dando, the television programme of the Minister
of the Interior, Justice and Peace, the Minister stated that Mr. De Grazia Veltri was involved,
together with Mr. Chancellor Ferrer, members of the campaign team of the leader of the
opposition and two Spanish nationals, in the plans to assassinate the mayor of Upata, Bolívar.
24.
On 9 August 2024, a relative of Mr. De Grazia Veltri filed a writ for a remedy of
amparo before the Court of First Instance in Caracas for the violation of Mr. De Grazia
Veltri’s rights, as his communication with relatives and lawyers was limited and he had not
been informed of the reasons for the arrest. The complaint was also submitted to and
2 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 51/2024, 17 August 2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
4
GE.25-16366
acknowledged by the Directorate of Human Rights of the relevant office of the Public
Prosecution Service.
25.
On 16 October 2024, a family member made a report to the Office of the Inspector of
Courts contending that the Third Procedural Court had violated Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s right
to due process of law by preventing him from appointing a lawyer of his choosing or taking
part in the proceedings and by keeping him in solitary confinement for more than 70 days.
26.
On 16 October 2024, another family member filed a petition for a second writ of
habeas corpus in which a complaint was made against the judge of the Third Procedural Court
for proceeding unlawfully and thereby undermining the defence and interfering with the
constitutional guarantees of freedom, effective judicial protection and due process, as well as
the exercise of the right of defence.
27.
There has been no response to the complaints filed by the members of Mr. De Grazia
Veltri’s family, and what progress has been made in the investigation or in the defence
strategy adopted by the public defender he was forced to accept is unknown.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer
28.
In 2005, Mr. Chancellor Ferrer participated in a mining protest in Tumeremo, Bolívar,
and was charged with incitement to commit a crime and setting up roadblocks, charges that
led to his imprisonment. In 2008 he was elected mayor of Sifontes with the support of the
party Patria para Todos. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison in 2009 but was released on
probation, with restrictions on his freedom of movement, in 2011.
29.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer, a member of the party Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, was
re-elected mayor of the municipality of Sifontes in 2013. In 2016, he and Mr. De Grazia
Veltri denounced the disappearance, initially denied by the governor of Bolívar, of 28 miners
in Tumeremo. In 2020 he was arrested in Porlamar on 2005 warrants that had not been
removed from the system and released a month later.
30.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer was arrested on 6 August 2024 while travelling in Anzoátegui
State. He was arrested at around 2 p.m. at the La Guarapera checkpoint in El Tigre as he was
on his way to visit a relative. He made the trip in his personal vehicle in the company of
another person, who was doing him the favour of driving as a result of Mr. Chancellor
Ferrer’s vision problems, which prevent him from driving himself.
31.
The source states that, at the checkpoint, members of the Bolivarian National Guard
stopped their vehicle, asked for the two people’s papers, separated them and held them at the
checkpoint for approximately two and a half hours. A group of officers from the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence then arrived and, without producing an arrest
warrant issued by a court or uttering a word, proceeded to transfer Mr. Chancellor Ferrer to
the premises of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in Puerto Ordaz, Bolívar. They
released Mr. Chancellor Ferrer’s companion there and left Mr. Chancellor Ferrer in detention.
32.
That very night, the security forces made arrangements for a plane and took
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer to the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in
El Helicoide, Caracas, where he has remained to this day. He is being held incommunicado
and is in frail health, as he has chronic ailments that could get worse and put his life at risk.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer, who is 64, has high blood pressure and diabetes, in addition to an
ocular pathology related to macular degeneration, for which he must undergo monthly
treatment. There is no information on whether medical care is available in the prison.
33.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer’s family members travelled twice, once on 6 September and
once on 7 October 2024, to find out why he was in detention and how he was doing. On their
first visit, which took place after a month without news, they were informed that public
defender No. 94 was handling the case, which was being investigated by National
Prosecutor’s Office No. 48 and heard by the Third Procedural Court with jurisdiction over
cases related to terrorism. The family members provided evidence and references for him,
but, according to the source, none of what they provided was used in his defence.
34.
Like Mr. De Grazia Veltri, Mr. Chancellor Ferrer was accused on Con el mazo dando,
the television programme of the Minister of the Interior, Justice and Peace, of being involved,
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
5
together with members of the opposition leader’s campaign team and two Spanish nationals,
in the planning of the assassination of the mayor of Upata, Bolívar.
35.
On their second visit, Mr. Chancellor Ferrer’s relatives were able to see him in El
Helicoide under the surveillance of the police, who listened to what they were saying the
entire time. He told his family members that his initial appearance before a judge had taken
place there, without lawyers of his choosing, and that he was facing charges of incitement to
hatred, sedition and terrorism. During his imprisonment, he was transferred twice to a
medical centre for health problems.
36.
During the visit, it was observed that Mr. Chancellor Ferrer had a growing lesion on
his forehead and left hand. The source states that, during the judicial proceedings, the
Prosecutor’s Office did not summon witnesses or accept statements, and the defence lawyer
has neither met with Mr. Chancellor Ferrer nor challenged the detention.
Mr. Dávila Barrios
37.
Mr. Dávila Barrios and other opposition figures have faced restrictions imposed by
the Government since 2016. In 2017, the man who was then speaker of the National
Assembly, the current Minister of the Interior, Justice and Peace, threatened Mr. Dávila
Barrios on social media in the following terms: “I can leave the country – I doubt you can.”
His passport was cancelled that year, and he was banned from travelling in and out of the
country.
38.
On 6 September 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights adopted
precautionary measures in favour of Mr. Dávila Barrios after recognizing that he was facing
harassment and death threats, including shots fired at his home.3
39.
On 8 August 2024, Mr. Dávila Barrios was arrested by unidentified individuals who
put him in a sport utility vehicle without official markings; the individuals in question were
presumably members of paramilitary organizations known in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to be close to the Government. A video posted on social media shows the moment
in which a group of men forced Mr. Dávila Barrios into a silver Roraima without a licence
plate in the vicinity of Los Palos Grandes, a square in Caracas.
40.
The arrest took place as a peaceful rally calling for an end to persecution and the
release of all persons made political prisoners during the post-election protests came to an
end.
41.
On the day of the arrest and the following day, lawyers and members of Mr. Dávila
Barrios’s family went in search of him from one office or detention centre of the security
forces and intelligence services in Caracas to another, including the headquarters of the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in El Helicoide, the headquarters of the Directorate
General of Military Counter-Intelligence in Boleíta and the headquarters of the Bolivarian
National Police in Maripérez. In each of these places, the officials either refused to provide
them with information or informed them that they were not holding Mr. Dávila Barrios.4
42.
Days earlier, Mr. Dávila Barrios had made a statement in which he had questioned the
results announced by the National Electoral Council, by which Nicolás Maduro was
proclaimed the winner of the 28 July 2024 elections. In his statement, Mr. Dávila Barrios
highlighted what he described as the resounding victory of the opposition candidate, whom
he considers the legitimate President-elect of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the
period 2025–2031.
43.
After being arrested, Mr. Dávila Barrios was held incommunicado, and neither his
family nor his lawyers received any official information about his whereabouts or condition.
Unofficially, information suggesting that Mr. Dávila Barrios could be in El Helicoide, in
3 Resolution 35/2017, precautionary measure No. 533-17.
4 See the conference room paper, dated 14 October 2024, containing the detailed findings of the
independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, para. 833.
Available at www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/ffmv/index.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
6
GE.25-16366
Caracas, was provided. However, the reasons for the arrest have not been made clear, and to
this day he has not been allowed to communicate with lawyers of his choosing.
44.
It had been confirmed on 11 July 2023 that Mr. Dávila Barrios had severe aortic
stenosis and obstructive coronary artery disease; urgent surgery (transcatheter aortic valve
implantation and revascularization) had been recommended.
45.
The source claims that, although it was known through unofficial channels that
Mr. Dávila Barrios was being held in El Helicoide, it was later confirmed that on 14 August
2024 he was in the Hospital de Clínicas Caracas with a severe infection and in serious
condition. Members of his family were unable to see him until a week after the transfer,
however.
46.
On 12 August 2024, a relative of Mr. Dávila Barrios’s reported his enforced
disappearance to the Directorate for Fundamental Rights. Initially, the Public Prosecution
Service refused to accept the report because it had been made on a weekend, but after a
second attempt and three hours of waiting, it was accepted, albeit with the caveat that
acceptance of the report did not necessarily imply acknowledgement of its contents. In
addition, photos were taken of the report, the lawyers and the relative who filed the report.
47.
On 15 August 2024, Mr. Dávila Barrios’s lawyers met with the appointed public
defender, who noted that Mr. Dávila Barrios had been brought before the First Procedural
Court with jurisdiction over cases of terrorism, although the public defender, stating that he
would share it only with Mr. Dávila Barrios’s relatives, refused to provide more information.
On 27 August, the lawyers went with a family member who travelled from another city to
obtain information, but she was not received. After waiting four hours, they received only
medical reports and were not allowed contact with the public defender. Although the Public
Defender’s Office has the family’s telephone numbers, it has not made contact of any sort
with the family.
48.
On 21 August 2024, a relative of Mr. Dávila Barrios’s submitted a complaint to the
Ombudsman’s Office in which he claimed that Mr. Dávila Barrios’s human rights, including
the right of due process, had been violated and pointed out that, because of the court’s refusal,
neither the family nor Mr. Dávila Barrios’s lawyers had been able to petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. He asked the Office intervene in a bid to allow the appointment of a trusted
lawyer to petition for the writ. The State has not conducted an investigation of any kind.
49.
On 14 August 2024, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued
resolution 49/2024, in which it expressed concern about the continued risk faced by
Mr. Dávila Barrios and the State’s failure to take measures to protect him.
50.
On 16 October 2024, Mr. Dávila Barrios’s lawyers were informed that about 15 armed
officers of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service had entered his room at the Hospital
de Clínicas Caracas to move him to El Helicoide. Lawyers and a family member found that
there was no court order or medical discharge, so the transfer took place without medical
authorization.
51.
Forty-eight hours after the forced transfer to El Helicoide, the guards took Mr. Dávila
Barrios back to the hospital. It is believed that he was transferred for an initial hearing that
was to be held at El Helicoide.
52.
The source contends that one complaint of enforced disappearance was submitted to
the Public Prosecution Service and another to the Ombudsman’s Office but that no progress
has been made.
(iii)
Legal analysis
53.
The source argues that the detention of the three individuals falls within categories I,
III and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.
a.
Category I
54.
The source maintains that the arrests were arbitrary, since there was no warrant, none
of the three individuals was caught in flagrante delicto and there was no evidence justifying
the deprivation of liberty or the refusal to authorize alternatives.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
7
55.
According to the source, the three individuals were subjected to enforced
disappearance. Under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance, enforced disappearance is a multidimensional crime involving
three concurring situations: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) direct intervention by, or
acquiescence of, agents of the State; and (c) a refusal to acknowledge the detention or
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned.
56.
The source maintains that the present case involves these three situations. In addition
to the violation of the right to personal liberty resulting from the unlawful detention, the
detention was, according to the source, unlawful also because it was, in view of the
multidimensional nature of enforced disappearance, a violation of the right to personal safety
and recognition as a person before the law.5 The three individuals were deprived of other
rights, such as the right to be heard by a judge within a reasonable time, the right to inform
the members of their families and their lawyers that they had been detained, as well as the
right to have the members of their families receive information about their whereabouts.
b.
Category III
57.
According to the source, as of the date of submission of the complaint, the three
individuals were being held at the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence
Service in El Helicoide. They were subjected to enforced disappearance, and it can be
presumed that they have been subjected to ill-treatment, that they have been held
incommunicado and that the members of their families and their lawyers have been unable
to ascertain their real situation. El Helicoide is a symbol of repression in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela. Inhumane conditions and systematic torture are documented in
reports from international organizations and complaints from human rights organizations,
and a large number of personal accounts attest to overcrowding, violent interrogations and
physical and psychological abuse, especially of political prisoners.
58.
In the source’s view, there was a clear violation of the right to effective judicial
protection and there was an absence of supervision by the court after the detention of the
three individuals, as the courts responsible for guaranteeing the procedural rights of the
parties have taken no action; they have, on the contrary, contributed to the unlawfulness of
the detention to the point that Mr. De Grazia Barrios’s family members have decided to file
a complaint against the judge responsible for the oversight of guarantees of due process for
not doing his job.
59.
The source states that judges and prosecutors, by allowing the detention of the three
individuals without warrants, a prima facie case against them or evidence to justify the arrest,
demonstrated a lack of independence and impartiality. The upshot is a violation of the right
to be presumed innocent and the right to due process of law.
60.
In addition, there has been no response to the petitions that the family members of the
three individuals have submitted to the courts, in particular the petitions for writs of habeas
corpus and the complaints of human rights violations. As the courts have not responded
appropriately to the petitions, thereby violating the right to judicial protection, the petitions
are evidently ineffective.
61.
The source contends that a member of Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s family submitted several
complaints to the Ombudsman and the Public Prosecution Service but did not receive a
response. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the family has likewise gone
unanswered. The members of Mr. Chancellor Ferrer’s family have, for their part, faced
obstacles to having consideration given to exculpatory evidence and supporting witnesses.
62.
The State’s failure to comply with its obligation to ensure that oversight of the
arbitrary detention of the three individuals is exercised by a judicial authority, in flagrant
violation of article 14 of the Covenant and principles 11 and 37 of the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, is thus made
5 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, judgment of 22 September 2009,
paras. 90 and 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
8
GE.25-16366
amply clear. This demonstrates the total or partial non-observance of the international norms
relating to the right to a fair trial.
63.
The source adds that, under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, all persons charged
with a criminal offence are, in the determination of the charges against them, entitled, in full
equality, to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to
communicate with counsel of their own choosing.
64.
The independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela has noted that judges deny persons accused of a criminal offence the right to
counsel of their choosing, forcing them to accept a public defender. It has also noted that,
even when defendants were able to secure representation of their choosing, their ability to
prepare an adequate defence was hindered in various ways.6
65.
The source reports that the right of defence of has been systematically violated, in
particular since the electoral crisis of July 2024, by forcing public defenders on accused
persons and prohibiting them from being represented by lawyers of their choosing, thereby
affecting the fairness of trials. The three detainees were forced to accept public defenders
who never met privately with them. Members of Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s family submitted a
complaint to the Office of the Inspector of Courts in which they contended that the judge had
prevented them from appointing a lawyer they trusted.
c.
Category V
66.
The source submits that the account of the facts makes it clear that the detention of
the three individuals has been motivated chiefly by their political positions and activities as
opponents of the Government. The electoral context in which the arrests occurred suggests
selective persecution of opposition figures and thus a pattern of discrimination based on
political opinion. In addition, the failure to follow due process of law as the arrests were
made, including the absence of warrants and the lack of clear information about the charges,
is a violation of the fundamental principles of international law.
67.
The independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela documented instances of selective repression before and after the presidential
elections of 28 July 2024. In the 10 months before the elections, it investigated arrests of
opposition and civil society leaders and found that there had been 121 (of 106 men and
15 women) linked to opposition activities. The three individuals fit the profile of the victims
of arbitrary detention described in the conference room paper dated 14 October 2024: namely,
“members of opposition political parties and groups”. The case of Mr. Dávila Barrios was
preliminarily considered a case of arbitrary detention and was included in section E of the
paper (“Illustrative cases”, para. 829).7
(b)
Response from the Government
68.
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 25 November
2024 and requested it to submit a response by 24 January 2025. The Government requested,
and was granted, an extension of the deadline for providing its response. The Working Group
received the Government’s response on 6 June 2025, within the established time limit.
69.
The Government, in its response, states that, on 6 August 2024, officers from the
Strategic Investigations Directorate of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service arrested
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer in the act of spreading hateful and discriminatory messages directed
at President-elect Nicolás Maduro and at the social group that identifies ideologically with
6 A/HRC/57/57, paras. 68 and 69.
7 See the conference room paper, dated 14 October 2024, containing the detailed findings of the
independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Available at
www.ohchr.org/es/hr-bodies/hrc/ffmv/index and
www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-
versions/a-hrc-57-crp-5-es.pdf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
9
him. Using his social networks, he publicly called for an uprising against the legitimately
elected Government, taking advantage of his status as former mayor.
70.
On 7 August 2024, during a patrol on calle Arichuna, a street in Miranda State, in
which officials from the Strategic Investigations Directorate of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service were taking part, Mr. De Grazia Veltri was arrested in the act of posting
to social media sites destabilizing messages in which he called for violent and unlawful
action, as defined in the Venezuelan legal framework. Specifically, he was spreading hateful
and discriminatory messages directed at President-elect Nicolás Maduro and the group of
people who identify ideologically with him. He also called on the public to rise up against
the legitimately elected Government, branding it a dictatorship and stating that the security
forces had a licence to kill and that the constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela should hand the presidential palace over.
71.
After he was arrested, he was transferred to the headquarters of the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service located in El Helicoide, a building in Caracas. He was also
assessed by a commission from the Office of the Health Coordinator of the Strategic
Investigations Directorate; the assessment, in which his vital signs were checked, a physical
examination was performed and his medical records were reviewed, showed that he had
vitiligo and suffered from urinary incontinence.
72.
At the time of the arrests, the officials from the Strategic Investigations Directorate
informed the two individuals of the reasons for the arrest and read them their rights, as shown
in the relevant official documents dated 6 and 7 August 2024, which bear their legible
signatures and respective fingerprints.
73.
On 7 August 2024, Mr. Chancellor Ferrer and Mr. De Grazia Veltri appointed a public
defender to represent them before the Third Special Procedural Court with jurisdiction over
cases of terrorism, corruption and organized crime in the metropolitan area of Caracas. On
that very day, the two individuals were brought separately before the Court for an initial oral
hearing. At the hearings, both individuals, together with their lawyers, were in a position to
make the points they considered relevant to their defence.
74.
The Third Special Procedural Court of Caracas accepted the charges of incitement to
hatred and sedition filed against the two individuals and ordered that they be subjected to a
standard criminal trial and held until trial in El Helicoide, headquarters of the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service.
75.
The Court also decided to conduct an ordinary trial and ordered the two individuals,
who were assigned to Caracas Metropolitan Area Centre for Remand and Convicted
Prisoners I, a maximum security facility in El Helicoide.
76.
On 17 September 2024, the Public Prosecution Service filed formal charges against
the two individuals with the court hearing the case.
77.
On 17 October 2024, counsel for the defence of the two individuals filed motions in
which the Third Special Procedural Court was asked to dismiss the charges. The preliminary
hearings, in which Mr. Chancellor Ferrer pleaded not guilty, and Mr. De Grazia Veltri
claimed that he was prevented from communicating with his lawyer and members of his
family, were held on 28 October.
78.
The Government notes that counsel for the defence requested that the case be dropped,
that the charge of sedition be dismissed, that the hate crime be reclassified and that
Mr. De Grazia Veltri be released on condition that he report periodically to a judicial
authority. The Court admitted the charges and the evidence that the Public Prosecution
Service produced for incitement to hatred and sedition, approved the pretrial detention and
ruled that the case should go to trial. Neither of the defendants was linked to the alleged
murder of the mayor of Upata.
79.
The Government noted that, on 8 August 2024, officials from the Strategic
Investigations Directorate of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service arrested Mr. Dávila
Barrios in flagrante delicto for his involvement in the use of the mass media for the
continuous encouragement of insubordination with a view to spreading an insurrectionary
message in which a case was made for election results that, because they had not come from
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
10
GE.25-16366
the electoral branch of government, were illegitimate. As a result, acts of violence were
committed by followers of political parties opposed to the Government.
80.
He was arrested at a road checkpoint on Cuarta Avenida in Los Palos Grandes (in the
municipality of Chacao, Miranda State) and transferred to El Helicoide. According to the
medical report prepared by the National Medical and Forensic Science Service, he has
valvular heart disease and a stent, has undergone revascularization as a result of severe aortic
stenosis and has refractory pulmonary hypertension; a cardiological evaluation and
continuation of treatment were recommended. As he was arrested, the Strategic
Investigations Directorate officials informed Mr. Dávila Barrios of the reasons for the arrest
and read him his rights, as shown in the official report dated 8 August 2024, which bears his
signature and fingerprints.
81.
On 9 August 2024, a lawyer was appointed to defend Mr. Dávila Barrios, who did not
have a lawyer of his own, before the First Special Procedural Court, which has national
jurisdiction. On the same day, he appeared at the oral hearing, at which he and his lawyer
made their statements.
82.
The Caracas Metropolitan Area First Special Procedural Court, which has national
jurisdiction over cases related to terrorism, corruption and organized crime, confirmed the
preliminary charges of sedition, incitement to hatred and criminal association laid against
Mr. Dávila Barrios.
83.
The Court confirmed that the arrest was made, in accordance with article 234 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, in flagrante delicto. In addition, it issued orders for an ordinary
trial, pretrial detention in the custody of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in El
Helicoide, the medical examination that had been requested and the delivery of copies of the
record of the hearing.
84.
On 18 September 2024, the Public Prosecution Service filed charges against
Mr. Dávila Barrios within the time frame provided in article 236 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. On 9 October 2024, counsel for the defence filed motions alleging
non-compliance with article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The pretrial hearing was
scheduled six times (for 16 October 2024, 6, 11 and 27 November 2024, 10 December 2024
and 15 January 2025) but was postponed for reasons of force majeure. On 11 November
2024, the Public Prosecution Service stated that Mr. Dávila Barrios was being held at the
Hospital de Clínicas Caracas.
85.
The Government points out that, in each of the three cases, the courts considered
whether the requirements to keep the three individuals in pretrial detention were met: namely,
the commission of an offence that warrants a custodial sentence, evidence implicating the
suspects and a risk of flight or obstruction. It contends that these decisions are compatible
with article 9 (3) of the Covenant, under which it is permitted to detain accused persons in
custody to ensure that they appear for trial.
86.
Likewise, the detention of the three individuals cannot be considered arbitrary, since
at all times the criminal proceedings have unfolded in strict compliance with the guarantees
of due process and the right to a defence. The three individuals have had legal representation
throughout the proceedings. As soon as each of the men said he did not have a lawyer of his
own, a public defender was appointed for him.
87.
In these instances, the detention does not violate international law or constitute
discrimination based on political opinion, as the individuals, whose detention cannot be
considered arbitrary under category V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary
detention, were detained on suspicion of having committed serious crimes.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
88.
The source points out that, notwithstanding the claims made by the Government,
which contends that the arrests were lawful, the three opposition figures were apprehended
by unidentified agents, taken to clandestine facilities (such as El Helicoide) and held
incommunicado for more than 48 hours, without access to their lawyers or the members of
their families, a situation that constitutes enforced disappearance.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
11
89.
Due process of law, according to the source, was not followed. Moreover, the source
claims that the detainees were denied their right to a lawyer they trusted.
90.
The source argues that there is no concrete evidence for the charges of criminal
association and terrorist financing and that the three individuals have been charged for
legitimate opposition activities, such as criticism of the Government and participation in
electoral processes. The source notes that these charges are systematically used, in violation
of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, to criminalize dissent.
91.
In addition, the source denounces the lack of judicial independence: the courts hearing
the cases operate, in violation of the right to a hearing by an impartial tribunal, under the
control of the executive authorities. The source cites the reports of the independent
international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which document
the use of the justice system to persecute opposition figures.8
2.
Discussion
92.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
93.
To begin with, the Working Group was informed that Mr. De Grazia Veltri, 9
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer and Mr. Dávila Barrios10 were released between July and August 2025.
According to the source, the three individuals, who have been granted conditional release,
are still being prosecuted. The Working Group notes that the consideration of a case in such
circumstances is not ruled out under its methods of work.11 On the contrary, and in view of
the seriousness of the allegations concerning the deprivation of liberty of these persons, it
considers it necessary to render, in exercise of the power conferred on it under
paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, an opinion.12
94.
In determining whether the detention of the three detainees is arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international human
rights law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest
upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the
Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.13
(a)
Category I
95.
According to the source, the three individuals were arrested without being shown
arrest warrants or being duly informed of the reasons for the arrest. The Government, for its
part, maintains that that those allegations are untrue and produces official documents (records
showing that rights have been read) in which it is established that three individuals were
arrested, that they knew why they were arrested and that they had been read their rights.
96.
The Working Group notes, however, that, although an arrest warrant must always be
shown to any person taken into custody and, furthermore, that the person must be informed
at the time of arrest of the reasons for the arrest and of the judicial avenue to challenge the
lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty,14 there is no evidence in the Government’s response
or in the documents submitted by the Government (the records showing that rights have been
read) that this principle has been followed. The Working Group reiterates that the reasons
must include not only the legal basis of the arrest but also enough factual specifics, including
information on the wrongful act, to indicate the substance of the complaint. These reasons
are understood as being the official basis for the arrest, not the subjective motives of the
8 See A/HRC/54/57 and A/HRC/48/69.
9 Mr. De Grazia Veltri was released on 24 August 2025.
10 Mr. Chancellor Ferrer and Mr. Dávila Barrios were released on 18 July 2025 as a result of a trilateral
agreement entered into by El Salvador, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the United States of
America.
11 A/HRC/36/38, para. 17.
12 Opinions No. 33/2023, para. 86, and No. 55/2018, para. 59.
13 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
14 See A/HRC/30/37, principle 7.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
12
GE.25-16366
arresting officer.15 Likewise, detained persons have the right to be promptly notified of the
charges against them.
97.
The absence of evidence that at the time of the arrest the detainees were informed of
the reasons for the arrest lends weight to the source’s assertion that no arrest warrants were
produced and that the legal procedures laid out in article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant were
not followed.
98.
Mr. De Grazia Veltri’s whereabouts were unknown for at least 24 hours, during which
time members of his family searched for him in different detention centres. Finally, they
received news, along with the request to bring him toiletries and food, that he was in El
Helicoide. They were nonetheless not allowed to see or communicate with him, except
through brief letters that the guards destroyed as soon as they were read.
99.
The Working Group reiterates that there is no valid legal reason, under any
circumstances, for the detention of an individual by State agents to be followed by a failure
to provide information about his or her whereabouts or a refusal to acknowledge the situation
and that such conduct constitutes an offence of enforced disappearance within the meaning
of article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance. In addition, 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. 16 Enforced disappearance is prohibited by
international law and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.17
100.
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer, a prominent opposition politician who had been persecuted
and imprisoned previously, was arrested in Puerto Ordaz and transferred to El Helicoide in
Caracas. He was held incommunicado, and his health – he has hypertension, diabetes and a
degenerative eye disease that requires monthly treatment – was affected during his
imprisonment.
101.
Mr. Dávila Barrios, a noted Venezuelan politician, was threatened publicly by the man
who, later the Minister of the Interior, Justice and Peace, was, at the time, speaker of the
National Assembly, after which his passport was cancelled and he was banned from travelling
in or out of the country. Mr. Dávila Barrios was arrested in Los Palos Grandes, a square in
Chacao, after a peaceful rally and taken to El Helicoide, headquarters of the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service. The members of his family were not informed of his
whereabouts. Unofficially, it was learned that Mr. Dávila Barrios was taken to the Hospital
de Clínicas Caracas as a result of his medical condition. After a phone call from the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, he was returned to the prison under heavy escort
without being discharged from the hospital.
102.
In the light of the information that has been received, and as the Government has not
responded to the source’s allegations in a satisfactory manner, the Working Group is of the
view that the three detainees were victims of enforced disappearance, in violation of article
9 (1) of the Covenant. Furthermore, the Government’s failure to notify the family members
of the detainees of their arrest and the location of their detention was also a violation of
principle 16 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment.
103.
The Working Group stresses that detainees must be allowed to communicate with and
receive visits from their family members and that any restrictions and conditions on such
contact must be reasonable. As the Human Rights Committee has observed, giving prompt
and regular access to family members is an essential and necessary safeguard for the
prevention of torture and for protection against arbitrary detention and infringement of
personal security.18
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25.
16 Opinions No. 56/2023, para. 92, and No. 13/2020, para. 51.
17 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.
18 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58, and opinion No. 84/2020, para. 69.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
13
104.
The Working Group notes that holding people at secret locations and in circumstances
undisclosed to their family 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
105.
Moreover, the source transmitted to the Working Group copies of legal documents
attesting to all the efforts that had been made, to absolutely no avail, in a bid to obtain
information and protection from the various human rights organizations of the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, including the Ombudsman. Nor has the Government conducted an
investigation of any sort into these allegations.
106.
What is more, the steps taken to secure the release of the detainees include an appeal
to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which made a request for protective
measures that has been disregarded by the Government.
107.
In addition, the Working Group reminds the Government that pretrial detention must
be preceded by consideration of the alleged punishable act, the evidence of guilt and the risk
of flight or obstruction of justice. The Working Group notes, too, that, under article 9 (3) of
the Covenant, pretrial detention must be the exception, not the rule, and should be ordered
for as short a time as possible.20 It 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
108.
Courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention, such as bail, would
render detention unnecessary, 22 especially in view of the specific situation of the three
detainees, that of Mr. Dávila Barrios in particular.
109.
The Working Group notes that the Government simply cites domestic legal
provisions; it does not explain what circumstances specifically relevant to each of the three
individuals warranted keeping them in custody from the time of the arrest to the respective
court hearing. The Working Group therefore finds that article 9 (3) of the Covenant has been
violated. The Group notes that ordering pretrial detention without evidence and refusing to
authorize alternatives to detention, practices that constitute violations of article 11 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 (2) of the Covenant and principle 36 of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and deprive the three detained persons of the guarantees necessary for them to
defend themselves while at liberty, was a violation of the right to be presumed innocent.
110.
The Working Group is therefore of the view that the Government did not establish a
legal basis for the arrest and detention of the three individuals and that their deprivation of
liberty falls within category I.
(b)
Category III
111.
The rights to due process and to a fair and impartial trial are identified, for example,
in general comment No. 32 (2007) of the Human Rights Committee, which is an authoritative
interpretation of the meaning and application of article 14 of the Covenant. In that general
comment, the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law is held to be linked chiefly to article 14 of the Covenant, and that
right, together with the guarantees of the right to equality before courts, the right to be heard
publicly and the right to equality of arms, is applicable to all legal proceedings. States Parties
to the Covenant must respect all these rights, regardless of their legal traditions and their
domestic law.
112.
Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the
Covenant recognize the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed
innocent. The Working Group points out that the presumption of innocence, which is
fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of
proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved
19 Opinion No. 17/2024, para. 62.
20 Opinion No. 64/2020, para. 58, and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
21 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
22 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
14
GE.25-16366
beyond a reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of the doubt and requires
that persons accused of a criminal act be treated in accordance with this principle. 23
Furthermore, both the Committee and the Working Group have highlighted the duty of all
public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making public
statements affirming the guilt of the accused.24
113.
As shown by the source, the Minister of the Interior, Justice and Peace stated on his
television programme Con el mazo dando that both Mr. De Grazia Veltri and Mr. Chancellor
Ferrer, together with members of the campaign team of the opposition leader and two Spanish
nationals, were involved in the planning of the assassination of the mayor of Upata, Bolívar.
114.
The Working Group is of the view that such statements constitute a violation of the
right to be presumed innocent, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Covenant and principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
115.
This conclusion of the Working Group is bolstered by the fact that Con el mazo dando
is shown on several television channels and on other media, thereby making it possible that
both the public at large and the members of the justice system will form the opinion that the
accused are criminals before the merits of the case have been considered at a trial offering
the guarantees of due process.
116.
Similarly, in breach of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, which provides that everyone
charged with a criminal offence has the right to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his or her defence and to communicate with counsel of his or her own
choosing, the three individuals were forced to accept a lawyer appointed by the judicial
authorities. Consequently, they were prevented from exercising their right, enshrined in
article 14 (3) (d), to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own
choosing. These rights are also protected under principles 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
Accordingly, it is incumbent upon States to allow access – and to facilitate such access – to
a lawyer, preferably one chosen by the detained person, from the outset of detention. In this
case, the right to legal assistance was denied from that moment on.25 The Government
therefore violated the right of the detained persons to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing.
117.
In view of these circumstances, the Working Group is persuaded that the authorities
failed to observe the international norms relating to the right to a fair, independent and
impartial trial established in articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 of the Covenant. This non-observance is of such gravity as to lead the Working
Group to regard the detention of the three individuals as arbitrary under category III.
(c)
Category V
118.
The Working Group takes note of the political activity of Mr. De Grazia Veltri,
Mr. Chancellor Ferrer and Mr. Dávila Barrios and the significance of their presence in the
democratic scenario in the Venezuelan electoral context. The Working Group, having noted
that the detained persons have previously been persecuted and even imprisoned for their
opposition political views and that they have held positions as lawmakers, governors and
mayors, concludes that the deprivation of liberty of these persons is arbitrary under
category V of its categories of arbitrary detention, as it involved discrimination on political
grounds and on grounds of opinion and expression.
119.
The facts of the case show clearly that the three individuals were detained not on the
reasonable suspicion of having committed serious crimes but as part of a systematic pattern
of persecution of leaders of the political opposition, especially after sensitive elections, in
direct violation of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, which guarantee equality before the law
and protection against discrimination on any ground, as well as article 19 of the Covenant,
23 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
24 See opinion No. 40/2019.
25 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–53. See also A/HRC/30/37, annex, paras. 67–71 (guideline 8), and opinion
No. 38/2021, paras. 90 and 91.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
GE.25-16366
15
which guarantees freedom of expression, and article 21, which guarantees freedom of
peaceful assembly, all of which are fundamental rights in any democracy. Such conduct is
also incompatible with articles 1 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in
which all persons are declared equal in dignity and rights and any discrimination is
prohibited. Consequently, the detention, despite being framed as having resulted from
criminal offences, has no substantive basis; it is an instrument of political repression,
inadmissible under international law, and arbitrary under category V.
(d)
Concluding remarks
120.
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 Venezuela.26 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.
3.
Disposition
121.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Américo Giuseppe De Grazia Veltri, Carlos
Marcelino Chancellor Ferrer and Williams Daniel Dávila Barrios, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3 and 6–11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 2, 9, 14 and 26 of the Covenant, is arbitrary and falls within categories I,
III and V.
122.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of the three 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 Covenant.
123.
The Working Group is of the view that, taking into account all the circumstances of
the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the three individuals immediately and
unconditionally and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations,
in accordance with international law.
124.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the three
individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
their rights.
125.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
126.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
127.
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 three individuals have been unconditionally released and, if so, on
what date;
26 Opinions No. 36/2025, No. 19/2025, No. 8/2025, No. 6/2025, No. 38/2024, No. 31/2024,
No. 27/2024, No. 54/2023, No. 73/2020, No. 18/2020, No. 81/2019, No. 80/2019, No. 75/2019,
No. 13/2019, No. 86/2018, No. 72/2018, No. 41/2018, No. 24/2018, No. 87/2017 and No. 84/2017.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/54
16
GE.25-16366
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the three
individuals;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
the three 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 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.
128.
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.
129.
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.
130.
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.27
[Adopted on 27 August 2025]
27 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.