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.26-01213 (E) 240226 250226
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 69/2025, concerning Nélida del Rosario Sánchez Oropeza
(Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 10 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Nélida del Rosario Sánchez Oropeza. The Government replied to the
communication on 7 October 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).
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
General Assembly
Distr.: General
11 February 2026
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
2
GE.26-01213
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Nélida del Rosario Sánchez Oropeza is a national of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela, born on 23 January 1969.
5.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is a lawyer and certified public accountant and is the national
coordinator of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Súmate. She has 27 years of
experience in the National Electoral Council and other State institutions.
(i)
Context
6.
The source reports that the NGO Súmate was created in 2002 to promote, defend and
monitor electoral processes in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; it has technical
expertise and carries out constant activities in defence of democracy and civic engagement.
In pursuit of this objective, Súmate has denounced electoral irregularities, for which it has
allegedly faced persecution and repression by the Government.
7.
The founding members of Súmate include one of the current leaders of the Venezuelan
opposition, who in 2005 was prosecuted for various political offences along with the other
leaders of Súmate. In 2023, according to the source, the president of Súmate was arbitrarily
deprived of his liberty and held on baseless charges of treason, conspiracy, money-laundering
and criminal association in connection with his work for Súmate.
8.
The source states that both Súmate as an organization and its leaders and members
have been systematically persecuted by the State for more than two decades, adding that the
persecution of those seen as opponents of the Government has recently intensified.
9.
Since the presidential election of 28 July 2024, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza and persons
associated with her have reportedly been subjected to surveillance and harassment by the
authorities. The source claims that, owing to this situation, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza stayed away
from her place of residence and could not have known of any criminal proceedings against
her or of any court summons or arrest warrant.
10.
On 6 September 2024, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted
precautionary measures in favour of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza.2
(ii)
Arrest and detention
11.
On 26 August 2024 at noon, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza received a telephone call in which
she was informed that her partner was in hospital and needed help. Ms. Sánchez Oropeza and
a relative went to Victorino Santaella Hospital in Los Teques (State of Miranda).
12.
Upon arrival at the hospital, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza and her companion were
intercepted by a civilian vehicle. Four individuals, who identified themselves as officers of
the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, got out of the vehicle and proceeded to detain
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza without presenting her with a court order or having caught her in
flagrante delicto. The officers then transferred Ms. Sánchez Oropeza to the Service’s facility
in the La Macarena sector. The family member who was with Ms. Sánchez Oropeza at the
time of her arrest was informed that she would be interviewed and then taken home.
13.
Subsequently, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s family was informed that her partner was
neither hospitalized nor ill, but had been deprived of her liberty by agents of the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service on 25 August 2024 and had been pressured to contact
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza. Her partner had refused to do so, but her telephone was then
confiscated and used to contact Ms. Sánchez Oropeza. After Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s arrest,
her partner was released.
14.
Between 26 and 28 August 2024, a relative of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was able to visit
her in detention and provide her with food. The family member was informed at all times that
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was there as an “interviewee” and that she would be released.
2 See https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/mc/2024/res_64-24_mc_941-24_ve_en.pdf.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
3
15.
On the night of 28 August 2024, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s family was informed that
she had been transferred to the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service
in Caracas. Since then, the Service’s officials have refused to disclose information about her
whereabouts, or even clarify whether she was being held in Caracas or Los Teques.
16.
At around midnight on 28 August 2024, a relative of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza received
a text message from a public defender in which she was requested to appear in court.
Thereafter, in a meeting with the public defender, the family was informed that Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza had been brought before Procedural Court No. 3, which has jurisdiction over
terrorism-related cases, and that she had been charged with incitement to hatred, criminal
association, conspiracy, treason and terrorism. According to the prosecution, these charges
were based on two posts published on the social network X on 26 and 27 August 2024, while
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was deprived of her liberty.
17.
The source states that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza does not use her X account to post her
own tweets, but only to retweet, and that no messages were posted on the dates indicated by
the public defender.
18.
The source alleges that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was not allowed to have legal assistance
of her own choosing. The efforts of the private lawyer chosen by Ms. Sánchez Oropeza were
utterly fruitless, as the police and judicial authorities refused to allow him to visit his client,
or to transfer Ms. Sánchez Oropeza to a court for the purpose of his appointment, in clear
violation of her fundamental rights.
19.
Under these circumstances, the initial and preliminary hearings took place, during
which the Court confirmed the charges brought by the prosecution, ordered that the case
proceed to the trial stage and remanded Ms. Sánchez Oropeza in custody.
20.
During the criminal proceedings, it became known that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is being
held at the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, known as El
Helicoide, in Caracas. Only one of her family members, who is a physician, has been allowed
to visit her at that location, and he has expressed great concern about Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s
state of health, as she has not received timely or adequate medical care. In view of the
foregoing, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested precautionary
measures to protect Ms. Sánchez Oropeza, which the State has failed to implement.
21.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s family has filed several briefs with the Attorney General’s
Office, without receiving a response.
22.
Despite multiple requests by Ms. Sánchez Oropeza and her family to appoint lawyers
of their choosing, the judicial authorities have not allowed this and imposed a State-appointed
lawyer as her defence counsel. This occurred both at the initial hearing – held after the legal
deadline had expired – and at the preliminary hearing of 6 November 2024 before Procedural
Court No. 3.
23.
The preliminary hearing was held without Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s having counsel of
her own choosing and culminated in a judicial decision that rejected the evidence proving her
innocence. The judge admitted the indictment, which included the aforementioned charges,
and the evidence presented by the prosecution and ordered that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza remain
in detention.
24.
The criminal proceedings against Ms. Sánchez Oropeza are currently at the trial stage
before Trial Court No. 27; at the time of the source’s communication, the date of the first
hearing was unknown. The trial will be held without legal assistance of her choosing and
without exculpatory evidence, which constitutes a situation of defencelessness.
25.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is being held in a shared cell with four people, with no natural
light. Her diet depends on what is provided by her family, which also has to pay for drinking
water. Family members are permitted to deliver food, clothing and medicine on Tuesdays
and Thursdays.
26.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is allowed half an hour in the sun three times a week, although
at the beginning of her detention she spent 28 days without access to the courtyard or natural
light. After suffering insomnia, she was permitted time in the sunlight and later was allowed
to physically exercise.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
4
GE.26-01213
27.
Prior to her arrest, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza suffered from high blood pressure,
fibromyalgia, venous insufficiency, asthma and sinus tachycardia, all of which had been
previously treated, including through surgery. Since her imprisonment, these conditions have
worsened, and she now requires a higher dose of antihypertensive medication. The stress of
the legal process has triggered a deterioration of her fibromyalgia symptoms.
28.
She has suffered hypertensive crises, fibromyalgia flare-ups, gastrointestinal and
urinary infections and dehydration requiring intravenous hydration. A psychiatrist diagnosed
her with moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, causing her anxiety, panic
attacks, night terrors and insomnia, despite treatment with antidepressants and sleeping pills.
29.
Owing to Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s delicate health, a relative has repeatedly requested
the Public Prosecution Service to let her be evaluated by a forensic doctor, provided with
psychological assistance and visited by a priest, without receiving a response. The family has
also filed four briefs requesting a review of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s case, with the aim of
securing her release or obtaining special measures, but to date there has been no response.
(iii)
Legal analysis
30.
The source submits that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention is arbitrary and falls within
categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
31.
The source maintains that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention is arbitrary, as it has no
legal foundation under Venezuelan law and is based on false charges drawn up in connection
with social media posts that were published while she was under arrest.
32.
Prior to her arrest, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza had not been summoned to appear in any
investigative proceedings, nor had she been notified of the existence of criminal proceedings
against her. Furthermore, at the time of her arrest, she was not shown a warrant, nor was it
confirmed that such a warrant existed. Her deprivation of liberty did not occur in a situation
of flagrante delicto.
33.
According to the source, the Government’s justification for depriving Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza of her liberty in connection with the two messages published on the social network
X – while she was being held at the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service facility in Los
Teques – points to three hypothetical scenarios of an extremely serious nature in which her
human rights were violated: (a) the messages were never sent, which implies that documents
were falsified to incriminate Ms. Sánchez Oropeza; (b) the messages were sent by a
government official who gained access to Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s cell phone after her arrest,
her cell phones and computer equipment having been seized on the day of her arrest and
made available to the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service on the dates indicated by the
prosecution in its indictment; or (c) the messages were sent by Ms. Sánchez Oropeza while
under threats or acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
34.
Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza did not freely and voluntarily post
any messages after her arrest, the Government’s argument that she was deprived of her liberty
on account of her alleged tweets would, if true, constitute an attack on the right to freedom
of thought and expression, a fundamental pillar of democratic societies.
35.
The source claims that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s lack of access to counsel of her
choosing constitutes a violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 14 (1) of the Covenant and principles 12 and 14 of the United Nations Basic Principles
and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their
Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court.
36.
The source recalls that the Working Group has previously characterized the same
pattern of deprivation of liberty by the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
as arbitrary under category I.3
3 See opinions No. 40/2019 and No. 74/2021.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
5
b.
Category II
37.
The source argues that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has been deprived of her liberty in
retaliation for her work as a director of the organization Súmate, whose mandate relates to
the monitoring of public policies, electoral processes and civic engagement.
38.
The activities of Súmate are openly described on its website4 and include monitoring
electoral processes and promoting efforts to strengthen democracy. These activities include
denouncing irregularities in electoral processes in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and
are carried out in exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression.
39.
According to the source, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was arbitrarily deprived of her liberty
to put an end to her work and that of Súmate, silence her or prevent her from continuing to
act in her usual capacity5 and, at the same time, sow fear among other human rights activists
and representatives of NGOs who have denounced human rights violations. This adds up to
a serious violation of the right to protect human rights enshrined in articles 1, 5 (b), 6, and 7
of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of
Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.
40.
The source states that all this is taking place in a context of persecution of civil society
by the authorities, which has resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of several human
rights defenders and members of civil society.
41.
The source concludes that, since the detention of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza resulted from
her exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, to promote and protect human rights and
to freedom of association, it is arbitrary under category II.
c.
Category III
42.
The source alleges that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary
under category III, as it violates articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant, the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the
United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). In addition, the source states that the detention
violates article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance and article 2 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced
Disappearance of Persons.
43.
The source states that the Covenant (art. 14), the Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the Bangkok Rules
establish the right of all persons deprived of liberty to be tried without undue delay. The
source recalls that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and the Code of Criminal Procedure, all persons deprived of their liberty have the
right to be heard by a due process judge within 48 hours of their arrest.
44.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was arrested at noon on 26 August 2024 without a warrant and
without being caught in flagrante delicto. According to information provided by the public
defender, the initial hearing took place at around midnight on 28 August 2024, more than
48 hours after she was deprived of her liberty.
45.
The source adds that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s fundamental right to a hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal has been violated. One characteristic of the Venezuelan
justice system is its lack of transparency, independence and impartiality, as has been noted
in various United Nations reports. The source mentions that the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously highlighted the lack of judicial
independence in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The source has also documented that
judges and prosecutors are subjected to political pressure and have temporary contracts,
which impairs their impartiality and autonomy. The use of the judicial system to criminalize
dissent is also mentioned.6
4 See www.sumate.org.
5 Opinion No. 40/2019, para. 117.
6 See A/HRC/53/54; A/HRC/56/63 and A/HRC/59/58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
6
GE.26-01213
46.
In its reports of 2020, 2021 and 2022, the independent international fact-finding
mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela concluded that the Venezuelan justice
system does not act independently but rather is used to ensure impunity for serious human
rights violations, such as extrajudicial executions.7
47.
The source argues that the failure to observe the procedural time limits for bringing a
detained person before a judge and the presentation of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza before a
non-independent tribunal constitute a situation of arbitrary detention under category III.
48.
The source further submits that, since the beginning of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s
arbitrary detention, she has been denied her right to legal assistance of her own choosing, as
she was assigned a public defender during the initial hearing, whereas public defenders
should intervene in criminal proceedings only at the request of defendants when they do not
have access to counsel of their own choosing.
49.
The source claims that lawyers appointed by Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s family are thus
unable to visit her, which gives rise to a violation of her right of defence, and comes in
addition to other obstacles created by the Government to prevent the work of trusted counsel.
50.
According to the source, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has no access to the contents of the
case file and cannot obtain copies thereof, which constitutes another major factor in the
violation of her rights, since access to the case file is the only mechanism whereby detained
persons can adequately mount a defence in criminal proceedings. Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has
the right to receive copies of the contents of the file, to review her case with counsel of her
choosing and to use said copies to bring international proceedings in defence of her human
rights.
51.
Lack of access to the contents of the case file hinders the exercise of the right of
defence. Regardless of the technical work done by defence counsel, detained persons have
the right to participate actively in the development of their defence strategy. Persons deprived
of liberty have the right to review documents and audiovisual material presented in hearings
and to consult with other specialized legal professionals in order to form a defence team.
52.
According to the source, all of this has been prevented by the police and judicial
authorities.
53.
The source states that an effective professional relationship between lawyer and client
is based on mutual trust. From a procedural standpoint, from the time of arrest, the defence
counsel carries out the following fundamental tasks: (a) providing legal assistance to the
detainee at the time of arrest; (b) providing guidance on procedural aspects; (c) conducting a
confidential interview prior to the initial hearing; (d) evaluating the conditions of detention
and compliance with procedural time limits; (e) having the time and resources necessary to
prepare the expert defence, which means having access to and studying the case file and
investigative acts undertaken by the prosecution; (f) being present during investigative
proceedings that require the defence counsel’s presence; (g) furnishing exculpatory evidence
and requesting, inter alia, expert opinions, testimony or the production of documents; and
(h) reporting any violation of fundamental rights to the due process judge and other
authorities. The prevention of all of the above constitutes a violation of the guarantees
established in article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.8
54.
The source recalls that the Working Group has noted that enforced disappearance is
prohibited by international law and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary
detention. 9 A deprivation of liberty entailing a wilful refusal to disclose the fate or
whereabouts of the persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention has no valid legal
basis under any circumstances. In addition, it 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.10
7 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/ffmv/index.
8 See opinion No. 74/2021.
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
10 Ibid., para. 17.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
7
55.
The source points out that the deprivation of liberty of a person, carried out by agents
of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge such a
situation or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, constitutes a situation of
enforced disappearance within the meaning of article 2 of the Inter-American Convention on
Forced Disappearance of Persons and article 2 of the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
56.
According to the source, the situation of enforced disappearance of Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza commenced when her family was informed that she would be transferred from the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service facility in Los Teques, where her home is, to the
Service’s headquarters in Caracas. The authorities subsequently denied to the family that she
was being held at this last location. On 29 and 30 August 2024, thanks to information
provided by the public defender, a relative of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was able to visit her. The
enforced disappearance of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was consummated when officials of the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service denied that she was being held at the Caracas
headquarters.
57.
The source concludes that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has been subjected to enforced
disappearance in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, article 2 of the International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and article 2 of
the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
d.
Category V
58.
The source submits that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention occurred in a context
systematic political persecution of opponents, human rights defenders, journalists and critics
of the Government, which has intensified since the presidential election that, according to
Súmate, was won by the opposition candidate. The acts allegedly committed against
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza are part of this systematic persecution in which members of Súmate
are specifically targeted by State agents.
59.
The source highlights the lack of a response from the authorities, especially the
Attorney General’s Office, which demonstrates the absence of willingness to investigate the
human rights violations to which Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was subjected or to punish the
perpetrators.
60.
The source alleges that the detention in the present case forms part of a series of
arbitrary detentions carried out by the Venezuelan authorities against human rights defenders
who criticize State agents. This extremely serious situation jeopardizes the work of human
rights defenders and violates international law, since it amounts to discrimination on the basis
of political opinion, in contravention of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 7
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The source therefore considers the detention
to be arbitrary under category V.
(b)
Response from the Government
61.
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 10 July 2025 and
requested it to submit a response by 8 September 2025. The Government requested an
extension of the time limit for its response, which was granted. The Working Group received
the Government’s response on 7 October 2025, within the established time limit.
62.
In its response, the Government denied the circumstances reported by the source and
asserted that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza had been arrested and tried in accordance with article 113
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 4 (2) (3) (6) and (15) of the Regulations of the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, with respect for the principles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in conformity with article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
63.
The Government states that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was arrested on 26 August 2024 by
duly identified officials of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, in compliance with
a prior court order issued on 28 April 2024 by Special Procedural Court of
First Instance No. 3 with jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases. At that time, she was
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
8
GE.26-01213
formally notified of the reasons for her arrest and of her fundamental rights, in accordance
with the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
64.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was brought before Special Procedural Court of First Instance
No. 3, within the legally established time frame, for the purpose of holding the initial hearing.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza appointed a public defender, as she did not have private representation.
65.
At the subsequent preliminary hearing, the court hearing the case admitted the
prosecution’s charges, confirmed the precautionary measure of pretrial detention and ordered
that an oral and public trial be held. As of the date of submission of the Government’s
response, the case was at the trial stage.
66.
The indictment drawn up by the Public Prosecution Service sets out charges of
terrorism, conspiracy with a foreign government, treason and incitement to hatred – offences
for which, according to the Government, there is sufficient evidence.
67.
Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 assessed the requirements for
imposing pretrial detention – the existence of a punishable offence, evidence of criminal
liability and the risk of obstruction of justice – and decided to remand the detainee in custody.
68.
The Government maintains that the detention is not arbitrary under any of the
Working Group’s categories. It asserts that there is a clear legal basis and that judicial
procedures were duly followed, and that therefore the detention does not have an arbitrary
character under category I. Furthermore, it categorically denies that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza
has been detained in retaliation for her work with the NGO Súmate (category II) and insists
that she has been detained solely because she is suspected of committing serious crimes. With
regard to category III, the Government argues that guarantees of due process have been fully
respected: the accused was notified in a timely manner, had access to legal representation
and was heard by competent and independent courts, and the entire process was conducted
in accordance with the procedural laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
69.
The Government denies that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was forcibly disappeared, as she
was formally arrested and notified of her rights and the charges against her. As for category V,
the Government denies that the detention forms part of a State policy of systematic
persecution of dissidents, journalists or human rights defenders. It emphasizes that the
criminal proceedings are based solely on alleged criminal conduct, without discrimination on
the basis of political opinion. The Government claims that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention
is neither discriminatory nor connected with her work for an NGO but is the result of her
suspected involvement in serious crimes.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
70.
In its additional comments, the source indicates that the Government does not refute
fundamental facts regarding the arbitrary detention to which Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was
subjected, such as her arrest through a deceitful operation (the use of her detained partner’s
telephone) and the contradiction inherent to her allegedly posting on X at a time when she
had already been deprived of her liberty.
71.
Nor has the Government disproved the claim that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was forcibly
disappeared. The Government has refused to acknowledge her detention and it concealed her
whereabouts between 28 and 30 August – an enforced disappearance tacitly recognized
through the authorities’ silence and omissions.
72.
The Government has not submitted or attached to its response the prior court order it
claims to have used to detain Ms. Sánchez Oropeza at the time of her arrest, which confirms
that the authorities detained her without meeting the legal requirement to show said order,
rendering the detention unlawful.
73.
The Government fails to clarify that the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service,
which is a civilian intelligence agency, has no authority to make arrests or conduct criminal
investigations, which invalidates the legality of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention from its
outset.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
9
74.
Nor does the Government account for the lack of equality of arms by explaining why
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was denied the right to counsel of her choosing and access to the case
file. Added to this, according to the source, is the conduct of judges who lack independence
and the unjustified imposition of prolonged pretrial detention.
75.
The source also informs the Working Group of its grave concern for Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza’s physical and mental health.
2.
Discussion
76.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
77.
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 requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be
understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. 11 Mere
assertions that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s
allegations.
(a)
Category I
78.
The Working Group has stated that in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal
basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must
invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is typically12 done
through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).13 The reasons for the arrest
must be provided immediately upon arrest and must include not only the general legal basis
of the arrest, but also enough factual specifics to indicate the substance of the complaint, such
as the wrongful act and the identity of an alleged victim.14
79.
The source states that at noon on 26 August 2024, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza went to
Victorina Santaella Hospital in Los Teques after receiving a telephone call in which she was
informed that her partner was hospitalized, without suspecting that her partner was in custody
and that her telephone was being used maliciously to lure her there. Upon arrival, she was
detained by four agents of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, who deprived her of
her liberty without showing a warrant or informing her of the reasons for her detention or her
rights. The source insists that, under these circumstances, there can be no question of
flagrancy.
80.
The agents took Ms. Sánchez Oropeza to the premises of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service in La Macarena, without providing any explanation. Her companion was
informed that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza would be interviewed and then taken home. Since then,
Service officials have consistently refused to disclose any information about her whereabouts
and even denied that she was being held at any of their premises.
81.
During the evening of 28 August, family members were informed that Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza had been transferred to Caracas, and at midnight they received a text message from
a public defender requesting their presence in court. There, they learned that the initial
hearing had already been held before Procedural Court No. 3 with jurisdiction over
terrorism-related cases, where she had been charged with incitement to hatred, criminal
association, conspiracy, treason and terrorism.
82.
The charges are based on two posts allegedly published on the social network X on
26 and 27 August, when she was already in detention. Ms. Sánchez Oropeza does not post
tweets from her X account, only retweets, and there are no records of posts on those dates.
11 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
12 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests
made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
13 Opinions No. 30/2017, paras. 58 and 59; and No. 18/2023, para. 93.
14 Opinions No. 25/2018, para. 36; and No. 85/2021, para. 69. See also Human Rights Committee,
general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
10
GE.26-01213
83.
The source indicates that these circumstances point to three hypothetical scenarios,
each of a serious nature: the falsification of evidence; the misuse of her telephone, having
been seized by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service; or the publication of the posts
under coercion or torture or cruel treatment.
84.
The Government replies that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was arrested by authorized and
uniformed officers of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, who were enforcing an
arrest warrant issued by a competent court. However, the Government has not presented any
evidence in support of its counterarguments.
85.
The source claims that the arbitrary detention of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was not an
isolated event but part of a series of systematic and widespread arrests, since 2014, of
opposition figures or persons perceived as such by the Government.15
86.
The Working Group notes that enforced disappearance is prohibited by international
law and constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention.16 It recalls that a
deprivation of liberty entailing a wilful refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
persons concerned or to acknowledge their detention has no valid legal basis under any
circumstances. In addition, such deprivation of liberty 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.17
87.
The source has established that for a period of four days, the whereabouts of the
detainee were unknown, even though the family visited various facilities in search of
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza. At all facilities of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service,
officials denied holding Ms. Sánchez Oropeza.
88.
The fact that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s whereabouts were only revealed to her family
through a message regarding the need to appear before Procedural Court No. 3 with
jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases was a violation of principle 16 (1) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
89.
At the Court, the detainee’s family learned that the initial hearing had already taken
place and that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza had been charged with incitement to hatred, criminal
association, conspiracy, treason and terrorism.
90.
Therefore, Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was the victim of enforced disappearance between
26 August 2024 and 30 August 2024, when the family received a text message from a public
defender with a request to appear in court.
91.
The Working Group also recalls that article 9 (4) of the Covenant provides that all
detained persons must be promptly brought before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee
has stated, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to meet the requirement of bringing a detainee
“promptly” before a judge after arrest, and any longer delay must remain absolutely
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.18
92.
In the present case, the Working Group notes that the detainee was presented at a
hearing by means of teleconferencing, without the support or presence of counsel of her
choosing, as she was represented by a court-appointed lawyer who neither intervened in the
hearing nor communicated with the detainee beforehand, in violation of article 9 (4) of the
Covenant. The Working Group therefore concludes that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was excluded
from the protection of the law and that her right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated.
93.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was detained pending trial, and her pretrial detention was
confirmed while she was disappeared, a fact that the Government has not denied. The
15 Statement by Ms. Marta Valiñas, chair of the independent international fact-finding mission on the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, presented on 20 March 2024 at the fifty-fifth session of the Human
Rights Council. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2024/03/statement-
marta-valinas-chair-independent-international-fact.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
17 Ibid., para. 17.
18 A/HRC/57/54/Add.4, para. 29. See also opinion No. 17/2024, para. 62.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
11
Working Group reiterates that pretrial deprivation of liberty, as a precautionary and
non-punitive measure, must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and
proportionality to the extent strictly necessary in a democratic society. It may be imposed
only within the limits strictly necessary to ensure that the efficient undertaking of
investigations is not impeded nor the action of justice evaded, and provided that the
competent authority substantiates and confirms the existence of the alleged offences, which
did not occur in the case of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza.
94.
The Working Group reiterates that the exceptional nature of pretrial detention is a
consequence of the presumption of innocence, according to which, in principle, all persons
subject to trial must be tried at liberty. In the interests of justice, liberty should be recognized
as the general rule or principle, and pretrial detention as an exception.19
95.
In view of the acts documented by the source, the Working Group considers that
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was subjected to a period of enforced disappearance, was not informed
of the reasons for her arrest or of her rights, was not presumed innocent, and did not have
access to counsel of her choosing, thus depriving her of the right to challenge the legality of
her detention before a court. Moreover, she was held in pretrial detention until her court
hearing, which took place after the established deadline.
96.
The Government has not provided a valid justification for failing to respect the time
limit for bringing the detainee before a court, 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. The Working Group is of the view that the source has made
credible claims that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was arrested without being shown an arrest warrant
and that she was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for her arrest, in breach of
article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.
97.
Consequently, the Working Group finds that the Government has failed to establish a
legal basis for the arrest and detention of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza, rendering her detention
arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
98.
The source submits that the prosecution and imprisonment of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza
are arbitrary under category II, as they resulted from her legitimate exercise of rights and
freedoms protected under articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant.
99.
In this respect, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1992/22 on the
right to freedom of opinion and expression. In paragraph 7 of the resolution, the Commission
invited the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other special procedures to pay
particular attention to the situation of persons detained, ill-treated or discriminated against
for having exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
100.
The Working Group recalls that the right to hold and express opinions, including
opinions that are not in accordance with official government policy, is protected by article 19
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consequently, the Government must respect,
protect and uphold the right to freedom of opinion and expression, even where opinions that
are not to its liking have been expressed.
101.
Restrictions on freedom of expression must not be overly broad, they must conform
to the principle of proportionality, they must be fit for their protective purpose and they must
be the least intrusive of the instruments that might be used for that purpose.20
102.
Although the Government denies having political motivations, the source points out
that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is a lawyer and certified public accountant and was serving as the
national coordinator of Súmate, a non-governmental organization founded in 2002 with the
purpose of promoting, defending and monitoring electoral processes in the Bolivarian
19 Opinion No. 37/2022, para. 60.
20 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
12
GE.26-01213
Republic of Venezuela. In addition, for several years Ms. Sánchez Oropeza held public office
in the National Electoral Council and other State institutions.
103.
Since its creation, Súmate has been the target of State harassment for its work
monitoring elections and denouncing irregularities. One of its founding members, now an
opposition leader, was prosecuted in 2005 along with the organization’s other leaders.
104.
Repression against the organization has intensified since the presidential election of
July 2024, with Ms. Sánchez Oropeza being subjected to surveillance and harassment by the
authorities, forcing her to stay away from her place of residence. There is no record of her
having been formally notified of any criminal proceedings against her, or of any court
summons or arrest warrant.
105.
The deprivation of liberty of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has generated international
concern. On 6 September 2024, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted
precautionary measures in her favour, which the Government has failed to implement.21
106.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group is persuaded that the detention of
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is arbitrary under category II, since it resulted from her exercise of her
fundamental rights, including the freedoms of expression, association and political
participation, which are protected under articles 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant.
(c)
Category III
107.
As the Working Group has found that the detention of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is
arbitrary under category II, the proceedings against her for exercising her fundamental rights
should be halted. However, because Ms. Sánchez Oropeza is being prosecuted, and in view
of the claims made by the source, the Working Group will proceed to analyse whether, in the
course of the judicial proceedings, the fundamental components of a fair, independent and
impartial trial have been respected.
108.
The right to a fair trial was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
as one of the fundamental pillars of international law to protect individuals against arbitrary
treatment. The Working Group insists that the right to equality before the courts and tribunals
and to a fair trial is a key element of human rights protection and serves as a procedural means
to safeguard the rule of law.22 Furthermore, the purpose of article 14 of the Covenant is to
ensure that justice is served, but it is clear that in Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s case it was not.
109.
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza was not allowed counsel of her choosing or access to the case
file. This prevented her from establishing an adequate legal strategy for her defence. Lack of
access to the case file, in particular, made this task impossible.
110.
In its response, the Government asserts that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza, lacking the
assistance of a private defence lawyer, appointed a public defender before Special Procedural
Court of First Instance No. 3, which has national jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases.
111.
The Working Group, having examined the content of the source’s claim, finds that the
source has effectively demonstrated that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza did not receive the necessary
expert advice or the support of counsel of her choosing throughout the proceedings.
112.
The source alleges that lawyers of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s choosing have not been
allowed to assist her. The efforts of the Venezuelan lawyer chosen by Ms. Sánchez Oropeza
were utterly fruitless, as the police and judicial authorities refused to allow him to visit his
client, or to transfer Ms. Sánchez Oropeza to a court for the purpose of his appointment, in
clear violation of her fundamental rights and article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
113.
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
21 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 64/2024, precautionary measure
No. 941-24, 6 September 2024, available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/mc/2024/res_64-
24_mc_941-24_ve_en.pdf.
22 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 21.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
13
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
beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of the doubt and requires
that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle.23
114.
The Working Group considers that the right to the presumption of innocence of
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza, who was arrested for posting two messages on the social network X,
has been violated. The Government has not presented any evidence to prove that she was
detained for this reason, nor has it explained why an act of this nature deserved such a
disproportionate punishment. The events described above contravene the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of
All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
115.
The source adds that Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s fundamental right to a hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal has been violated. One characteristic of the Venezuelan
justice system is its lack of transparency, independence and impartiality, as has been noted
in various United Nations reports. The source mentions that the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously highlighted the lack of judicial
independence in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It has also documented that judges
and prosecutors are subjected to political pressure and have temporary contracts, which
impairs their impartiality and autonomy. The use of the judicial system to criminalize dissent
is also mentioned.24
116.
In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego
García-Sayán, urged all State institutions to respect, promote, and guarantee the
independence and impartiality of the judiciary, so that it could carry out its duties in a safe
environment and resolve cases without restrictions, influence, incentives, pressure, threats or
wrongful interference, either direct or indirect, from any source or for any reason.25 In view
of the above, and taking into account the violations of due process documented in the
preceding paragraphs, the Working Group concludes that in the present case the right to a
fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, as established in article 14 (1) of the
Covenant, has not been respected.
117.
All of the aforementioned facts give rise to arbitrary detention under category III, as
defined by the Working Group.
(d)
Category V
118.
The Working Group notes the significance of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s political activity
and her engagement within the democratic electoral sphere. It also notes that she and other
members of the NGO for which she works have been persecuted and imprisoned previously
for their political opinions and opposition activities.
119.
In view of these circumstances, the Working Group concludes that the deprivation of
liberty of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza constitutes arbitrary detention under category V, as it
involved discrimination on political grounds and on grounds of opinion and expression.
120.
The Working Group considers that the circumstances of the case reveal that
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s detention is not based on the reasonable suspicion of her committing
serious crimes, but rather forms part of a persistent pattern of persecution of leaders of the
political opposition, 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, which guarantees freedom of expression, and article 21, which guarantees freedom
of peaceful assembly, all of which are fundamental rights in any democracy. 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, have also been violated.
23 Ibid., para. 30.
24 See A/HRC/53/54, A/HRC/56/63 and A/HRC/59/58.
25 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/venezuela-must-ensure-judicial-independence-
governmental-pressure-judges.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
14
GE.26-01213
121.
Consequently, the Working Group considers the detention to have no substantive
basis and to be arbitrary under category V.
(e)
Concluding remarks
122.
The Working Group is concerned about Ms. Sánchez Oropeza’s state of health and
wishes to reiterate that it has consistently held in its jurisprudence that State authorities have
an obligation to protect the physical and mental integrity of all persons deprived of their
liberty and that the refusal to guarantee immediate and effective access to adequate medical
care, especially when the detainee’s health is seriously compromised, may constitute a form
of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and contribute to the arbitrariness of the
detention. The Working Group points out that this situation could constitute a violation of
articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant.26
123.
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.27 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, to prevent them, and to punish
them if they are committed.
124.
In view of the recurrent pattern of arbitrary detention identified by the Working Group
in recent years, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is urged to consider
inviting the Working Group 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
125.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Nélida del Rosario Sánchez Oropeza, being in
contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
126.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Sánchez Oropeza
without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including
those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
127.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Sánchez Oropeza immediately and
accord her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
128.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Sánchez Oropeza and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of her rights.
129.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
26 Opinion No. 32/2023.
27 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 and No. 73/2020.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/69
GE.26-01213
15
Follow-up procedure
130.
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 Ms. Sánchez Oropeza has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Ms. Sánchez
Oropeza’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the 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.
131.
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.
132.
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.
133.
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.28
[Adopted on 12 November 2025]
28 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.