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.26-02183 (E) 180326 180326
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. 75/2025 concerning Sofía Sahagún Ortíz (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 16 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning Sofía Sahagún Ortíz. The Government replied to the communication on
14 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);
* Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 March 2026
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
2
GE.26-02183
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Sofía María Sahagún Ortíz is a national of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and
Spain, born on 26 May 1970. She lives in Caracas.
(i)
Arrest and detention
5.
According to the source, on 23 October 2024, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was at Simón
Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetía to board a flight to Madrid.
6.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had cleared migration control and was waiting in line to board the
plane when officers from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service arrested her and took
her through internal corridors to the Service’s premises within the airport. She was not
informed of the reason for her arrest or shown an arrest warrant at that time. The authorities
also confiscated her mobile telephone and laptop.
7.
The source reports that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was transferred to the city of Caracas on
24 October 2024. Once there, she was taken to the CorpBanca Tower before being transferred
to the headquarters of the Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Bolivarian National
Police Force in Maripérez, Caracas.
8.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was held in solitary confinement at the police headquarters for 57
days, during which time she was unable to receive visits from her relatives or lawyers and
had no contact with the outside world. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was unaware of the reasons for her
deprivation of liberty.
9.
The source reports that, during that time, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was interrogated by
officials from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, who told her that they could grant
her house arrest if she cooperated. During the interrogations, she was asked to give her home
address and questioned about her relatives and their possible whereabouts and about people
with whom she has no relationship. She was also asked to provide information on the files
stored on her laptop. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz interpreted these questions as a sign that her relatives
might also be arrested.
10.
According to the source, on 30 October 2024, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s relatives reported
her disappearance to the Public Prosecution Service since they were unaware of her
whereabouts. Officials from the Victim Support Unit refused to accept the report and drew
up an external referral notice indicating that it should be filed with the Special Victims
Division of the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigation Unit. The source reports that,
that same day, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s relatives went to that Division, which also refused the
missing persons report. Her relatives thus filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office,
which was registered and assigned case number P-24-037563.
11.
On 5 December 2024, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was informed that she would be brought
before a court. On 6 December 2024, while Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was still at the headquarters
of the Bolivarian National Police, a remote hearing was held before Procedural Court of First
Instance No. 3 with exclusive national jurisdiction to hear cases involving terrorism in the
criminal court circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area (Terrorism Court No. 3).
12.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was unable to be assisted by lawyers of her choosing at that hearing.
Instead, Terrorism Court No. 3 assigned her a public defender with whom she had never had
any contact, since he was not even in the same location as her at the time of the hearing.
Furthermore, during the hearing, as Ms. Sahagún Ortíz continued to be deprived of her liberty,
Terrorism Court No. 3 ceded competence to hear the case to Procedural Court of First
Instance No. 2 with exclusive national jurisdiction to hear cases involving terrorism in the
criminal court circuit for the Caracas metropolitan area (Terrorism Court No. 2).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
3
13.
According to the source, that same day, civil society organizations reported the alleged
disappearance of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz on social media.2
14.
According to the source, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was the subject of another hearing on
19 December 2024, which, this time, was held before Terrorism Court No. 2. During this
online hearing, charges were brought against her, and she was informed that she had been
arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. She was also accused of belonging to a terrorist
organization known as “los comanditos”. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz attempted to ask about the
reason for her detention and the absence of a lawyer, but the judge did not allow her to speak.
She was assigned a public defender, with whom she has had no contact. The judge asked
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz if she knew the telephone number of a private lawyer. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
did not know any numbers and, after further questioning, gave a number she thought
belonged to a relative. According to the source, a pretrial detention order was issued against
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz during the hearing.
15.
On 19 December 2024, 57 days after her arrest, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was transferred to
the Centre for the Control and Protection of Detainees of the Bolivarian National Police,
which is located in El Valle, Caracas. Once there, for the first time since she had been arrested,
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was able to call her relatives and inform them of her detention and the
detention facility in which she was being held.
16.
On 20 December 2024, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lawyers went to this police facility to
bring her some essential personal hygiene items, food and clothing. However, neither her
relatives nor her lawyers were allowed to see her. Officers from the Bolivarian National
Police indicated that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was no longer there but did not provide any
explanation.
17.
The source states that, on 6 January 2025, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lawyers informed the
Ombudsman’s Office of the call they had received from Ms. Sahagún Ortíz. They also
reported that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been disappeared once again.
18.
On 31 January 2025, the ombudsperson went to the Centre for the Control and
Protection of Detainees of the Bolivarian National Police in El Valle. She held a meeting
with the Centre’s director, who informed her that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been brought before
Terrorism Court No. 3 on 19 December 2024 in connection with case No. 3C-T-314-24 and
that, on 20 December 2024, she had been transferred to El Helicoide, the maximum security
detention centre of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in the Caracas metropolitan
area.
19.
On 3 February 2025, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lawyers went to Terrorism Court No. 3 and
were informed that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had indeed been brought before that court and that her
case had subsequently been referred to Terrorism Court No. 2 under file
No. 2CT-S-063-2024. Neither court provided further information about Ms. Sahagún Ortíz.
20.
On 5 February 2025, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lawyers went to El Helicoide, the
headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, to find out whether
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was being held there. According to the facility’s deputy director, who did
not identify himself and was dressed in civilian clothing, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was indeed being
held at the facility but was unable to receive visitors, make telephone calls or appoint lawyers.
21.
The source notes that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has not been allowed to appoint defence
lawyers of her choosing and that, instead, she has been assigned a lawyer working for the
National Public Defence Service. This lawyer has not fulfilled her duty to provide an expert
defence and has not challenged the detention.
22.
The source states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lawyers have been unable to file an appeal
against the decision ordering her detention because they have not been allowed to obtain
access to the case file or to formally register with the court as the defence counsel of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s choosing. While her relatives and private lawyers have made use of all
means available to them to determine her whereabouts and have the lawyers sworn in as her
2 See https://x.com/juanpappierhrw/status/1865184546779435104?s=46&t=wMXVoX_k_EvFsgiO-
ONinw.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
4
GE.26-02183
defence counsel, their efforts have been in vain. Furthermore, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has been
unable to receive visits from the lawyers of her choosing. The public defender assigned to
the case has not been in contact with her, has not attended the hearings and has not filed any
motion to request her release.
23.
On 7 and 24 January 2025, the Spanish Embassy in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela sent notes verbales to the Consular Relations Office of the Ministry of People’s
Power for Foreign Affairs, in which it requested the competent authorities to verify the
situation and whereabouts of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz, in accordance with article 36 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.
24.
According to the source, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
merely responded with a communication dated 9 January 2025, in which it stated that “the
requests in question have been forwarded to the competent national authorities, whose
findings will be reported in due course”. The Government did not, therefore, provide
information on the situation of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz, which means that, as a Spanish citizen,
her access to consular assistance has been undermined by the Venezuelan authorities.
25.
The source alleges that the proceedings against Ms. Sahagún Ortíz have clearly been
an irregular and arbitrary simulation of criminal proceedings. These proceedings have
consisted of a series of unlawful acts that have been kept secret not only from the lawyers of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s choosing, but also from her relatives and Ms. Sahagún Ortíz herself.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has not even been able to meet the public defender assigned to her, let
alone the lawyers of her own choosing, whom it has been impossible to appoint and have
sworn in before the court hearing her case. Furthermore, she is unaware of the contents of
the file on the case against her.
26.
The source reports that, on 19 February and 11 March 2025, a relative of Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz attempted to formalize the appointment of her defence lawyers before the court hearing
her case. However, the court staff refused to accept the appointment and stated that it was
invalid, thereby violating article 127 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes
the right of a defendant to “be assisted, from the outset of the investigation, by a defence
lawyer appointed by him or her or his or her relatives or, in the absence thereof, by a public
defender”.
27.
The source reports that court officials demanded that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz approve the
appointment of her defence lawyers and imposed requirements such as the need for the
relevant document to be signed by Ms. Sahagún Ortíz herself and stamped by the detention
centre. According to the source, these requirements are illegal and impossible to meet owing
to the de facto ban on visits from lawyers that has been imposed by officials from the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service working at El Helicoide.
28.
The source indicates that, on 12 March 2025, an application for amparo was filed
against the Terrorism Court on the grounds that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s right to a defence and
to legal assistance had been violated. The application was referred to Terrorism Chamber
No. 1, where, on 17 March 2025, the appointment of defence lawyers was recorded in the
original document. The next day, 18 March, the Chamber issued a decision stating the
following:
The plaintiffs do not provide reliable proof of their status as private defenders, as is
required by law. The plaintiffs are required to prove that they have been appointed by
the defendant who is named as the injured party and that they have taken the necessary
oath before the court or, alternatively, that they have the right to represent the
defendant by virtue of a valid and sufficient mandate or power of attorney, which, in
this case, has not been confirmed, meaning that the application must be declared
inadmissible.
The source also adds that the Chamber declared that “the application is inadmissible because
the plaintiffs were unable to adequately demonstrate the status they claim to have and do not,
therefore, have the credentials to bring that application”.
29.
The source states that, on 18 March 2025, an appeal was filed against the decision of
Terrorism Chamber No. 1. This appeal was referred to the Constitutional Chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice. A statement of grounds for the appeal was submitted on
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
5
4 April 2025. At the time of submission of the source’s communication, the Constitutional
Chamber had not issued any ruling in relation to the appeal.
30.
The source states that it had been discovered that the Terrorism Court had informed
Terrorism Chamber No. 1 that, in the criminal proceedings against Ms. Sahagún Ortíz, the
preliminary hearing had been held on 27 February 2025 and had culminated in a decision to
send the case to trial.
31.
On 1 April 2025, persons close to Ms. Sahagún Ortíz went to El Helicoide, the
headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, to deliver her weekly food
parcels. When they were there, the officials in charge of her custody told them that
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been authorized to make telephone calls to her relatives and to receive
visits at El Helicoide on Tuesdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. As part of these visits, which have
taken place on a weekly basis since 15 April 2025, a maximum of three approved individuals
are allowed to enter the detention facility.
32.
According to the source, from 15 April 2025 until the date of submission of the
communication, three persons close to Ms. Sahagún Ortíz have been allowed to visit her each
week. However, the ban on visits from her lawyers remains in place. There has been no
response to the violation of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s right to a defence and to legal assistance,
since her lawyers are still unable to see her and have no access to the file held by the court
hearing her case.
33.
The source states that several letters have been submitted to the Ombudsman’s Office
to request an investigation into the alleged enforced disappearance of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz.
These letters were sent on 30 October, 19 and 29 November and 4, 12 and 18 December 2024
and on 6, 10, 28 and 31 January 2025.
34.
The Ombudsman’s Office has also been notified of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s lack of access
to a defence, which has been outlined in letters sent on 21 February, 11 March, 7, 11, 24 and
29 April and 30 May 2025. Furthermore, on 25 February, 30 May and 5 June 2025, meetings
were held with the ombudsperson assigned to the case in order to raise the issue but did not
produce any results.
35.
The source reports that, in view of the above, on 16 May 2025, an application for the
annulment of the proceedings was filed on the basis of the serious and repeated violations of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s fundamental rights. On 19 May, 20 and 27 June and 4 July 2025, the
lawyers requested information about this application and were told that it would not be
referred to a court, but would instead be added to the file on the case being investigated by
the Terrorism Court. This has still not been done, meaning that the application remains
unanswered.
36.
The source reports that, on 9 April 2025, a complaint was filed with the National
Office for the Defence of Women’s Rights. On 5 May 2025, a request for information on
whether the complaint had been referred to a defender was submitted to no avail. As a result,
on 14 May 2025, another letter was sent to request that the proceedings be expedited. A
similar procedure was followed before the Public Prosecution Service, to which a complaint
was submitted on 29 April 2025. This complaint has not even been assigned to a prosecutor’s
office so that it can investigate the constitutional rights violations to which Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
is being subjected.
37.
The source indicates that, following the discovery on 29 May 2025 that property
owned by Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been seized, an attempt was made on 30 May 2025 to
submit a request for public prosecutor’s office No. 52 to intervene. The Public Prosecution
Service was asked to intervene to authorize the removal from the property of personal items
with great sentimental value, including the ashes of family members. However, the Public
Prosecution Service refused to accept the request, arguing that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s chosen
lawyers needed to be sworn in before the Terrorism Court before they could file an
application. For this reason, on that same day, the application was also submitted to the
Attorney General’s Office. However, the lawyers had not received a response by the date of
submission of the communication.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
6
GE.26-02183
(ii)
Legal analysis
38.
The source submits that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s detention is arbitrary and falls under
categories I and III of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
39.
The source argues that the arrest and subsequent detention of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz are
arbitrary and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
She was not arrested in flagrante delicto or pursuant to an arrest warrant, which is why her
arrest violates both article 9 of the Covenant and article 44 (1) of the Constitution.
40.
The source states that article 9 of the Covenant establishes that no one should be
deprived of liberty except on such grounds as are established by law. Article 44 (1) of the
Constitution provides that the only circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his
or her liberty are when an arrest warrant has been issued by a competent authority or the
arrest is made in flagrante delicto.
41.
There was no arrest warrant against Ms. Sahagún Ortíz at the time of her arrest. For
many days after her arrest, she received no information on the reasons for which it had taken
place. It was not until the alleged remote hearing that she was finally given partial information
on the crimes she was alleged to have committed.
42.
The source adds that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was not caught in flagrante delicto, since she
was waiting to board a flight to Madrid when she was approached by police officers, who
arrested her and took her into custody.
43.
The source recalls that article 44 (2) of the Constitution establishes that all persons
who have been detained have the right to immediately contact their relatives and lawyers.
Their relatives and lawyers, in turn, have the right to be informed of where the person is being
held and to be promptly notified of the reasons for the detention. Article 17 (2) (d) of the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
establishes the same guarantee and also provides for the right to receive visits.
44.
Notwithstanding the above, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s relatives had no news of her for 57
days following her arrest, after which time they received just two telephone calls on
19 December 2024. Furthermore, the court hearing the case has refused to grant them access
to the case file and has prohibited them from visiting.
45.
The source points out that article 44 of the Constitution establishes that, in cases
involving detained foreigners, consular notification as provided for in international treaties
must be guaranteed. However, such notification was never given. The Spanish Embassy in
Caracas nonetheless sent multiple notes verbales to the Consular Relations Office of the
Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs between November 2024 and late January
2025. In response, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela offered only a
vague and imprecise reply regarding the situation of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz, thereby violating
her right to obtain consular assistance as a Spanish citizen.
46.
The source notes that article 9 (2) of the Covenant establishes the right of all persons
to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for their arrest, which did not occur until
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been deprived of her liberty and held in solitary confinement for 45
days. During the first 57 days of her solitary confinement, police officers hid Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz from civilians who were passing through the facility, as they considered there to be a
risk that the civilians would recognize her following the circulation of news of her possible
detention and disappearance on social media.
47.
The source adds that article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the rules
governing police activities and that paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof indicate that the criminal
investigation police must inform detained persons of their rights and inform their relatives or
other individuals close to them of the facility in which they are being held. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
was deprived of these rights, since it was not until she had been deprived of her liberty for
45 days that she was given partial information on the alleged crimes with which she was
being charged, and she has still not been informed of the specific act for which she is being
investigated.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
7
48.
The source recalls that article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the
rights belonging to defendants, which include the right to be informed of the charges against
them and to communicate with their relatives and a lawyer of their choosing to inform them
of their detention. This article also establishes defendants’ rights to be assisted by a defence
lawyer appointed by them or their relatives, to request the Public Prosecution Service to
conduct an investigation, to appear directly before a judge, to be informed of the content of
the relevant investigation file and to be heard when they so request.
49.
The source states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has at no point been allowed to appoint a
defence lawyer of her choosing, since the defence lawyers who went to the court hearing her
case and have been granted power of attorney by her relatives have been prohibited from
visiting her and have been unable to obtain access to information on her case.
50.
The Public Prosecution Service has refused to provide information on the
investigation it is conducting against Ms. Sahagún Ortíz and has refused to accept requests
of any kind.
51.
Lastly, with regard to defendants’ rights to appear in person before a judge and to be
heard when they so request, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has never been taken to the court hearing her
case. The proceedings have, instead, been conducted remotely, which limits the detainee’s
participation and deprives her of the right to be heard.
b.
Category III
52.
The source states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s detention is arbitrary under category III,
as it violates article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
53.
The source recalls that these articles establish individuals’ rights to be informed of the
reasons for their detention and the content of the investigation file, to communicate with their
relatives and a lawyer of their choosing, to be assisted by a defence lawyer of their choosing
and to appear directly before a judge and be heard. In addition, the source claims that the
detention is arbitrary owing to the violation of the rights recognized in the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
Specifically, the source mentions that rules 58 (1), 61 (1) and (3), 62 (1), 68 and 119 (1) have
been violated during the detention.
Violation of the right to be informed of the reasons for the detention and content of the
investigation file
54.
The source argues that article 14 (3) (a) and (b) of the Covenant establishes the right
of all persons accused of a crime to be informed of the charges on the basis of which they are
being investigated and to have the facilities to prepare their defence. In addition, rule 68 of
the Nelson Mandela Rules establishes the right of detainees to inform their families of the
circumstances of their detention. Lastly, rule 119 (1) provides for the right of detainees to be
informed of the reasons for their detention.
55.
The source states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz, her relatives and her lawyers were
completely unaware of the reasons for her detention.
Violation of the right to communicate with relatives and a lawyer of one’s choosing and
inform them of the detention
56.
The source argues that article 14 (3) (a) and (b) of the Covenant establishes the right
of all persons accused of a crime to communicate with a lawyer of their choosing. Moreover,
rules 58 (1) and 61 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules set out the requirement for
communication with relatives and lawyers and the right to receive visits.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
8
GE.26-02183
57.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was held in solitary confinement from the date of her arrest on
23 October 2024 until 15 April 2025. During that period, she was only allowed to make two
telephone calls to relatives on 19 December 2024, 57 days after her arrest. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
was unable to regularly communicate with her family members through written
correspondence or electronic means or to receive visits from her relatives or lawyers. The
source claims that the authorities did not provide the opportunities, time or facilities needed
for such activities.
Violation of the right to be assisted by a lawyer of one’s choosing
58.
The source argues that article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant provides for the right to
appoint and choose one’s own defence counsel. Furthermore, rule 61 (3) of the Nelson
Mandela Rules sets out the right to receive legal assistance, and rule 62 (1) recognizes the
right to consular assistance.
59.
The source alleges that, during Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s detention, she has been prohibited
from appointing lawyers of her choosing and, instead, has been assigned a public defender
with whom she has had no contact. Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has not received legal assistance and
has been unable to obtain access to consular assistance as a Spanish national.
Violation of the right to appear directly before a judge and the right to be heard
60.
The source argues that article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights establish the right to be heard by a judge during criminal
proceedings.
61.
The source submits that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz attended her first hearing before the
Terrorism Court remotely. It does not have detailed information on the second hearing that
she may have attended. During the first 57 days of her solitary confinement, Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz was not taken to the court premises, and her participation in the remote hearing was
extremely limited. When she tried to exercise her right to be heard, the judge cut her off.
(b)
Response from the Government
62.
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 16 July 2025 and
requested it to submit a response by 10 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 14 October 2025, within the established time limit.
63.
The Government states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was arrested at Maiquetía International
Airport by officials from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service who were wearing
uniform, displaying the appropriate identification and acting pursuant to an arrest warrant
issued by the competent court.
64.
The arrest was made in the context of criminal proceedings brought for alleged
participation in a terrorist organization known as “los comanditos”, whose objective is
reportedly to undermine peace, stability and democracy in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela.
65.
The Government states that the Public Prosecution Service requested the measure of
deprivation of liberty before Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 with jurisdiction
over terrorism-related cases.
66.
The Government recalls that criminal proceedings in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela are adversarial and that, while the Public Prosecution Service institutes such
proceedings, only judges can order an individual’s deprivation of liberty. This prevents
arbitrary decision-making, since decisions are adopted by an independent judicial authority
following an evaluation of the evidence and procedural risks.
67.
The Government refutes the source’s allegations by clarifying that, in accordance with
procedural timelines, it was not until after the court hearing the case had issued the measure
of deprivation of liberty that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was arrested at Maiquetía International
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
9
Airport by officials from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, who were wearing the
correct uniform and displaying the appropriate identification.
68.
Following her arrest, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was promptly notified of her rights and the
reasons for her arrest, in line with the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
Covenant. Proof of such action is provided by the report of notification of rights attached to
the Government’s response.
69.
The court to which the case was initially referred ceded competence to Special
Procedural Court of First Instance No. 2 with jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases.
70.
The Government maintains that, at the initial hearing provided for in article 236 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and the subsequent arraignment hearing provided for in article
373 of that Code, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz stated that she did not have private legal representation,
which was why she was assigned a public defender to guarantee her right to a defence.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has also had the opportunity to be heard on several occasions and with
due process safeguards by competent, independent and impartial courts established by law.
71.
During the arraignment hearing, Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 2 with
jurisdiction over terrorism-related cases confirmed the preliminary charges brought against
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz by the Public Prosecution Service, which were criminal association,
financing of terrorism, treason and conspiracy with a foreign government. The Court decided
to follow the ordinary procedure and keep the pretrial detention measure against Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz in place.
72.
At the subsequent preliminary hearing (article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure),
the charges and evidence presented by the Public Prosecution Service were formally accepted,
the continuation of the pretrial detention measure was confirmed, and it was ordered that an
oral and public trial be held.
73.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz continues to be deprived of her liberty as she awaits the opening
of her trial before Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 1 with jurisdiction over
terrorism-related cases.
74.
The Government argues that the detention is not arbitrary since it is in full conformity
with national constitutional and procedural provisions and international human rights
standards, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
Covenant.
75.
The Government notes that the proceedings have been conducted with respect for due
process and the rights to a defence, to be heard by an independent and impartial court and to
be presumed innocent.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
76.
The Working Group transmitted the Government’s response to the source on
15 October 2025 and requested any final comments and observations, which were received
on 27 October 2025.
77.
The source refuted the Government’s response, stating that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was
arrested at Maiquetía International Airport on 23 October 2024 even though she had not been
caught in flagrante delicto and there was said to be no valid arrest warrant at the time of her
arrest.
78.
After her arrest, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was forcibly disappeared for 100 days, during
which time her family and trusted lawyers had no access to her or information on her
whereabouts. It was not until 31 January 2025 that official information on her whereabouts
was obtained after repeated requests had been sent to the Ombudsman’s Office.
79.
During the first 57 days of her detention, she had no contact with her loved ones or
chosen defence lawyers.
80.
The first procedural hearing was held on 6 December 2024 and was conducted
remotely and without the minimum guarantees, which, according to the source, represents a
serious violation of the 48-hour deadline for bringing a person before a court, as established
under the Constitution and article 9 of the Covenant.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
10
GE.26-02183
81.
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was not informed of her procedural rights or the reasons for her
detention and was not allowed to exercise her right to freely choose her defence lawyer.
Although one of her relatives duly appointed trusted lawyers, the courts have systematically
prevented these lawyers from being sworn in and obtaining access to the case file. The
lawyers have been subjected to requirements, such as obtaining the signature of Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz and the stamp of the detention centre, that are impossible to meet since the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service has prevented all physical contact with her.
82.
Meanwhile, other State bodies, such as the Ombudsman’s Office and public
prosecutor’s office No. 52, have formally recognized the private defence lawyers by
admitting and responding to their requests, which contradicts the Government’s claims that
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has no private representation.
83.
The criminal proceedings lack transparency, as neither Ms. Sahagún Ortíz nor her
defence lawyers have had access to the case file or been informed of the specific charges
against her, in violation of her right to an adequate defence as enshrined in article 14 of the
Covenant. The hearings have been a sham and have been held in inadequate conditions,
without a stable Internet connection and without the presence of lawyers of her choosing.
84.
The Government’s response is evasive, generic and insufficient. It omits key dates,
such as those of the issuance of the arrest warrant, the arraignment hearing and the filing of
the charges, which makes it impossible to verify compliance with the procedural timelines
established in the Code of Criminal Procedure. These omissions suggest that there was no
real due process.
2.
Discussion
85.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
86.
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.3 Mere assertions
by the Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.
(a)
Category I
87.
The Working Group will begin by considering whether there have been violations
under category I, which concerns deprivation of liberty without any legal basis.
88.
The source submits that the arrest and subsequent imprisonment of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
are arbitrary, since she was not caught in flagrante delicto and there was no arrest warrant
against her. The Government refutes these claims and maintains that an arrest warrant was
obtained before the arrest.
89.
The Working Group recalls that, pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is
to be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such
procedures as are established by law. The Working Group has previously stated that in order
for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may
authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the
circumstances of the case.4 This is typically done through an arrest warrant or arrest order (or
equivalent document). 5 In addition, the source pointed out that article 44 (1) of the
Constitution establishes that the only circumstances in which a person may be deprived of
his or her liberty are when an arrest warrant has been issued by a competent authority or the
arrest is made in flagrante delicto.
3 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
4 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
5 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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
11
90.
The Working Group has carefully reviewed the submissions from the source and the
Government. It notes that there are differing accounts of the circumstances surrounding the
arrest. In this regard, it is concerned that the Government has not specified the date on which
the arrest warrant was issued against Ms. Sahagún Ortíz. In the present case, the Working
Group is of the view that the Government has not provided a sufficiently detailed and
substantiated explanation to refute Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s allegations. Furthermore, there is no
indication that it was a situation of flagrante delicto. As a result, the Working Group finds a
violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
91.
The source adds that, for many days after her arrest, Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was not
informed of the reasons for which it had taken place and that it was not until a later hearing
that she was finally given vague information on the charges against her. The Government
maintains that the officers from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service informed her of
the reasons for her arrest.
92.
The Working Group notes that article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who
is arrested is to be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and is to
be promptly informed of any charges against him or her. The reasons for the arrest must be
provided immediately upon arrest6 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.7
93.
On the basis of the information provided by the parties and the specific circumstances
of the case, the Working Group is not convinced that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was promptly
informed of the charges against her, irrespective of whether or not she was informed of the
reasons for her arrest at the time of arrest. The Working Group notes that, according to the
source, it took 45 days for Ms. Sahagún Ortíz to be given partial information on the charges
against her and that the Government acknowledges that she was informed of the charges at a
hearing but does not specify on what date that hearing was held. Consequently, it appears
that 45 days passed before she was informed of the nature of the charges, in violation of
article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
94.
The source submits, also within the framework of category I, that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
has never been taken to the court hearing her case. The source claims that the proceedings
have been conducted remotely, which has limited her participation and deprived her of her
right to be heard. The Government, in contrast, maintains that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was able
to appear before the courts, either virtually or through other means. After examining the
allegations, the Working Group notes that the right to appear before a judge and to be heard
does not always require the individual concerned to physically attend court. Given that no
information has been provided to demonstrate how the detainee’s right to a fair trial was
affected by the use of remote modalities, the Working Group considers that it does not have
sufficient information to reach a conclusion on this matter.
95.
Furthermore, the source states that, once Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been arrested on
23 October 2024, she was not brought before a judge until 6 December 2024. The
Government maintains that legal procedures were followed but does not explain the reasons
for this prolonged period of pretrial detention or specify whether an individualized
assessment of her circumstances was conducted.
96.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant establishes that any person arrested or detained on a
criminal charge is to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law
to exercise judicial power. Similarly, article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides for the right of individuals to seek an effective remedy or amparo for violations of
their rights, including the right to a fair trial and to due process. The Human Rights
Committee has stated that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to transport the individual and to
prepare for the judicial hearing and that any delay longer than 48 hours must remain
6 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 27. See also opinion No. 30/2017,
paras. 58 and 59.
7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 25. See also opinion No. 25/2018,
para. 36.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
12
GE.26-02183
absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.8 Furthermore, the Working
Group recalls the view of the Human Rights Committee and its own recurrent findings that
pretrial detention should be the exception and not the rule, should be ordered for the shortest
possible time and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and
necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight,
interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. The courts must consider whether
alternatives to pretrial detention would render detention unnecessary in the case in question.9
The Working Group further recalls that holding persons incommunicado undermines the
right enshrined in article 9 (4) of the Covenant to challenge the lawfulness of the detention
before a court.10 Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal
liberty11 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Prohibiting contact with
the outside world may violate rule 58 of the Nelson Mandela Rules12 and principles 15, 16
(1) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
97.
In view of the lack of explanation from the Government regarding the prolonged
period of pretrial detention and the delay in bringing the detainee before a judge, the failure
to indicate whether an individualized assessment was conducted to determine the need for
detention during that period and the fact that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was held incommunicado at
the beginning of her detention, the Working Group considers that article 9 of the Covenant
has been violated.
98.
Given that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz had been detained for more than 50 days before she
was able to contact her family for the first time and that, according to the source’s allegations,
her relatives had tried to locate her but had been denied access to information on her
whereabouts by the authorities, which means that, in practice, she was placed outside the
protection of the law, the Working Group considers that this incommunicado detention also
constitutes enforced disappearance, thus aggravating the violation of her rights under article 9
of the Covenant.
99.
On the basis of the foregoing, the detention of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was arbitrary under
category I.
(b)
Category III
100.
The Working Group will now examine whether the alleged violations of the right to
a fair trial and to due process are of such gravity as to render Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s deprivation
of liberty arbitrary under category III.
101.
The source states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s detention is arbitrary under category III,
as it violates article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
102.
Firstly, the source claims that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was deprived of the right to legal
representation. The Government, in contrast, states that Ms. Sahagún Ortíz has had legal
representation throughout the proceedings. Whenever she indicated that she did not have a
private lawyer, she was immediately provided with representation by a public defender.
103.
With regard to access to a lawyer, and in accordance with article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of
the Covenant, the Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the
right to legal assistance by a lawyer of their choosing at any time during their detention, in
8 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
9 See, for example, opinions No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 5/2021, para. 43; and
No. 6/2021, para. 50. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38;
and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
10 Opinions No. 25/2021, para. 51; and No. 45/2019, para. 53.
11 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, para. 3; and CAT/C/VNM/CO/1,
para. 24.
12 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 39; No. 44/2019, paras. 74 and 75; and No. 45/2019, para. 76.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
13
particular immediately after their arrest. 13 Likewise, the same article of the Covenant
establishes that persons who have been detained for criminal offences have the right to be
given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence.
104.
The Working Group takes note of the information provided by the source that
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz was held in solitary confinement at the police headquarters for 57 days,
during which time she was unable to receive visits from her family or lawyers. The
Government has not provided detailed and substantiated information to refute this allegation.
Consequently, the Working Group is of the view that the existence of a violation of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s rights has been demonstrated irrespective of whether she had access to
public lawyers during her court hearings. This violation concerns article 14 (3) (d) of the
Covenant and her right under article 14 (3) (b) of that instrument to have adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of her defence. The Working Group expresses concern that the
Government has refused to allow Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s chosen lawyers to be assigned to the
case, without providing an explanation. This fits a broader pattern that has already been noted
by other United Nations bodies.14
105.
The source claims that the Venezuelan authorities have denied Ms. Sahagún Ortíz
access to the consular assistance to which she is entitled as a Spanish citizen. The
Government does not address this argument.
106.
The Working Group notes that consular assistance or protection constitutes an
important safeguard for individuals who are arrested and detained in a foreign State to ensure
compliance with international standards. It provides such detainees as well as consular
officials of the same nationality as the detainee with certain consular rights, which include
the right to communicate freely with and have access to their detained nationals and to be
informed about the arrest without delay.15 The consular assistance provided for under article
36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations can help ensure respect for the
rights to due process and to a fair trial, in accordance with articles 10 and 11 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant. These rights are also
set out in rule 62 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principle 16 (2) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
107.
Taking into account the Government’s failure to address this matter and the specific
circumstances of the case, the Working Group is of the view that there has been another
violation of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s right to due process, which falls under category III of the
Working Group.
108.
For the reasons outlined above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz’s right to a fair trial and to due process are of such gravity as to render
her deprivation of liberty arbitrary under category III.
(c)
Concluding remarks
109.
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.16 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.
13 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, principle 9 and guideline 8; Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55; and
A/HRC/48/55, para. 56. See also A/HRC/27/47, para. 13.
14 See the conference room paper, dated 8 September 2025, containing the detailed findings of the
independent international fact-finding mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
paras. 75–78. Available at www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/ffmv/index.
15 See, for example, opinions No. 34/2018 and No. 84/2018.
16 Opinions 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/2025/75
14
GE.26-02183
3.
Disposition
110.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Ms. Sofía Sahagún Ortíz, being in contravention of
articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and
14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls
within categories I and III.
111.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Sahagún Ortíz 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.
112.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Sahagún Ortíz immediately and accord
her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
113.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Sahagún Ortíz and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of her rights.
114.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
115.
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. Sahagún Ortíz has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of Ms. Sahagún
Ortíz’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.
116.
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.
117.
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.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/75
GE.26-02183
15
118.
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.17
[Adopted on 14 November 2025]
17 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.