Opinion; Subjects: VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF), ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-08227 (E) 140825 150825
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025
Opinion No. 8/2025 concerning José Javier Tarazona Sánchez
(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 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 24 July 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela a communication
concerning José Javier Tarazona Sánchez. The Government replied to the communication on
23 October 2024. The State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 June 2025
English
Original: Spanish
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
2
GE.25-08227
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
José Javier Tarazona Sánchez is a national of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
and was born on 21 July 1982. He is also a long-time human rights defender in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, and at the time of his arrest was the director and chief executive of
the organization FundaRedes.
(i)
Context
5.
FundaRedes is an organization that, since 2005, has denounced what the Ejército de
Liberación Nacional, the Ejército Popular de Liberación, the Fuerzas Bolivarianas de
Liberación and the dissident forces of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo, all irregular armed groups, have been doing on Venezuelan
territory with the alleged complicity of the current Government of the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela. For his trouble, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has reportedly been the target of
constant attacks and threats for which members of those groups and Venezuelan public
officials are presumably responsible. Since 2020, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has been a
beneficiary of precautionary measures requested by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights.2
6.
The source claims that it was precisely the records constantly kept by Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez and his constant denunciations that brought him and his FundaRedes team to the
attention of the authorities. Their work involved calling attention to the serious situations
they reported and required the authorities to take concrete action to prevent the serious human
rights violations they reported. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez can therefore be considered a
whistle-blower, or a person who discloses information about human rights violations.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
7.
On 2 July 2021, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested, along with several FundaRedes
activists, as he was reporting acts of harassment by State security forces at the offices of the
Public Prosecution Service in Coro, a city in the State of Falcón.
8.
Several days before being arrested, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and members of his team
noticed that they were being followed and harassed by people they presumed were officers
of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service. In fact, one day earlier, on 1 July 2021, those
officers had apparently shown up at the hotel where Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and members of
his team were staying, looking for them, although they were not there just then.
9.
On the day of the arrest, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and two other colleagues of his were
doing administrative work for FundaRedes, a non-governmental organization (NGO), when
they noticed that they were still being followed and harassed by a group of officers of the
Bolivarian National Intelligence Service. As a result, they decided to go to the offices of the
Public Prosecution Service to file a complaint for persecution and request protection. On
arriving, they were met by a prosecutor who asked them to wait a moment.
10.
The source notes that a task force, apparently from the Special Action Forces of the
Bolivarian National Police, arrived somewhat later and, without showing a warrant or court
order of any sort, arrested them and, without requesting the presence of or having them
accompanied by a prosecutor, removed them from the Prosecution Service’s offices in
handcuffs, in full view of the officials present. Nor were they told why they were being taken
into custody.
11.
After being arrested, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his two colleagues were transferred
to the headquarters of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (currently known as the
Centre for Remand and Convicted Prisoners of the Caracas Metropolitan Area (maximum
security I)), located in Caracas. The source adds that, for several days, the court responsible
for the case – a court of appeal with jurisdiction over cases of terrorism located in Caracas –
2 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, resolution 30/2020, precautionary measure
No. 258-20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
3
and the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service prevented them from appointing lawyers of
their choosing, despite the requests and complaints they had submitted to the Public
Prosecution Service, the Ombudsman’s Office and the court itself.
12.
From 2 July to 11 October 2021, a total of 101 days, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez had no
access to lawyers of his choosing. What is more, for 60 days he had no access to members of
his family. The authorities allowed them only to bring him food.
13.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested not for committing crimes but for continuously
reporting to the competent authorities the irregular activities, which have allegedly led to
serious human rights violations, of the Venezuelan State. His allegations were widely
reported by national and international media at every turn.
(iii)
Trial proceedings
14.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his two colleagues were brought before the Procedural
Court of First Instance No. 3 of Caracas on 3 July 2021 and placed in pretrial detention for
the alleged crimes of promotion of or incitement to hatred, treason and terrorism. According
to the source, the only thing that was shown in the initial hearing was that the NGO
FundaRedes had on several occasions used social media to denounce or criticize the
Government’s handling of the armed conflicts with irregular groups in the State of Apure,
which had reportedly cost several members of the Venezuelan armed forces their lives.
15.
The preliminary hearing was put off nine times. It was first scheduled for 13 October
2021 and ended up taking place on 9 December 2021. At the hearing, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez
was ordered to stand trial. His two colleagues were released on bail, whereas the decision to
keep him in detention, where he has remained to this day, was upheld.
16.
The trial of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has begun three times. It began for the first time
on 16 August 2022 and was halted on 18 October 2022. It began again (for a second time)
on 7 December 2022 and on 18 July 2023 was again halted before restarting yet again (for
the third time) on 21 November 2023. In conclusion, the trial has had to begin three times, to
the obvious detriment of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez, who has been deprived of his liberty for
more than three years without having been convicted, in violation of article 230 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The trial (having started for the third time) is ongoing, and
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez remains in detention.
17.
Officials from office No. 94 of the Public Prosecution Service, which has jurisdiction
nationally, have stated in different hearings that, on 1 July 2021, the office received
instructions to initiate a criminal investigation of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s social media posts
and the statements he made on the FundaRedes website; several opinion pieces published by
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez that prosecutors described as containing smears and insults directed
at the Venezuelan authorities, the sole purpose of which was to disturb the peace and promote
and incite hatred, were then found. According to the source, the Public Prosecution Service
mentions several allegations that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has made about the suspected
relationship between the Venezuelan State and irregular groups such as the Fuerzas
Bolivarianas de Liberación and the Ejército de Liberación Nacional. The Service also notes
that “hate publications and propaganda directed at Venezuela are an attack on the sovereignty
of the Venezuelan State”. The Public Prosecution Service notes, too, that, for the sole purpose
of agitating internationally for an international intervention to undermine the sovereignty of
Venezuela, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez “has devoted himself to publishing statements and articles
in which he notes that he has received threats to his bodily integrity and death threats from
senior figures in the Government and from the Fuerzas Bolivarianas de Liberación and the
Ejército de Liberación Nacional, irregular guerrilla groups”.
18.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested and
charged with the crimes of terrorism and promoting or inciting hatred as a result of an
illustrated public accusation he had made in which he had noted that a government supporter
and member of his family had met with the high command of the irregular group Ejército de
Liberación Nacional in Venezuelan territory.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
4
GE.25-08227
19.
According to the source, it is important to note that the plaintiffs in the case are two
citizens who have been identified as natural persons, not representatives of the Venezuelan
State – that is, the accusation was a personal one.
20.
The source argues that whistle-blowing is not a crime. In any case, there is, in
accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, legal
liability for public accusations against a person. Under domestic law, the authorities should
proceed with a private prosecution rather than a complaint for the alleged commission of the
crimes of promotion of or incitement to hatred, treason and terrorism.
21.
The source states that a petition for Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s release, in accordance
with article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was submitted to the relevant court on
15 July 2024. The court has not responded.
(iv)
Allegations of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s health
22.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has been tortured, and his health is seriously compromised.
Seven times there have been orders for him to be transferred to a medical facility for the
proper checks. He has not been transferred, however.
23.
When Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested at the offices of the Public Prosecution
Service, more than eight heavily armed officers, with their faces covered and without
identification, pointed long guns at him and his companions, beat them, handcuffed them,
took their telephone equipment and put them in vehicles – a different one for each of them –
to take them away. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was beaten throughout the journey to the
headquarters of the Special Action Forces, while also being asked where the other people
who worked with him were.
24.
On reaching the headquarters, the blows caused Mr. Tarazona Sánchez to urinate. The
officers did not allow him to go to the bathroom. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s blood pressure was
immediately affected, and the officers told him that they hoped he would die there and then.
They struck him repeatedly and kicked him, too, while trying to get him to tell them where
the other FundaRedes people were.
25.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his two colleagues were taken to a cell where they spent
their first night and their first 45 days incommunicado, in complete isolation. Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez could leave the cell only to go to the offices of the investigation unit where he was
being questioned. The questioning took place at all hours – in the morning, in the afternoon,
at night and at first light. In addition, while being questioned, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was
subjected to beatings, psychological abuse and constant threats that if he did not tell the truth
his whole family would be jailed and he would rot in prison for 30 years. He was forced to
recount some facts and link a series of prominent figures in the country with his activity as a
human rights defender, activist and researcher of border situations. Those steps were taken
in around the first 60 days of the investigation, after which the Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his
colleagues were moved to a new cell that they stayed in until April 2022.
26.
In April 2022, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was again placed in solitary confinement, as
letters in which he had written a message to human rights activists to intercede with the
Government for his release were found. Upon taking those letters from his cell, the authorities
again placed him in solitary confinement for several days. Another time, too, after a visit
from his lawyers, he was placed in solitary confinement. He was forced to spend three months
in a cell with a camera, completely separated from the population, as a result of statements
made by his lawyers.
27.
The source maintains that both the Public Prosecution Service and the court
responsible for the case have been informed of the situation. There has been no investigation
of the officials responsible for these acts, however.
28.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez currently has serious health problems that have not been
addressed. Seven times there have been orders to have him transferred to a medical facility,
but the transfers have not taken place. His health requires him to take medication in a
controlled and constant manner, as well as to watch what he eats, neither of which is possible
in the prison he is in.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
5
(v)
Legal analysis
29.
The source claims that the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez falls within categories
I, II, III and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.
a.
Category I
30.
The source argues that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is being detained in serious violation of
article 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that pretrial detention may in no
case last more than two years, in addition to an exceptional extension of one year, for a
maximum total of three years.
31.
As Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has already spent longer in pretrial detention than allowed
under Venezuelan law, he is a victim of a serious violation of his right to personal liberty and
to the presumption of innocence, and his time in pretrial detention has become a sort of
advance punishment that is wholly incompatible with Venezuelan and international law.
32.
What is more, there is no evidence for the claims made by the police, the Public
Prosecution Service or the courts. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his colleagues were
apprehended not because they had been committing a crime of any sort but because of their
accusations and their work as human rights defenders. The real reason for the arbitrary
detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his colleagues was to retaliate against them, as well
as to send a threatening message to other human rights defenders in the context of the
systematic and continuous harassment and persecution faced by human rights activists and
defenders in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Why two of the three detainees originally
accused of the same offences have been released pending their trial, while Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez, who, like his two colleagues, could have been released, is still being held, also goes
without an explanation. It is thus impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez.
b.
Categories II and V
33.
While awaiting trial, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez continues to be arbitrarily deprived of his
liberty for having exercised the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the Covenant.
34.
Before being arrested, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez already had a long history as a human
rights defender. He had helped victims of serious rights violations and reported to the
Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, on social media, the manner in which
armed conflicts with irregular groups in the State of Apure, which had apparently cost several
members of the Venezuelan armed forces their lives, were allegedly being handled.
35.
The detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his colleagues is the result of an effort by
the security agencies to neutralize them as human rights defenders and critics of the
Government and to criminalize a group of innocent citizens with a view to lending credibility
to a political narrative according to which (it is asserted without proof) they are “committing
terrorist acts” targeting the Government. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s right to freedom of
association, recognized in article 22 (3) of the Covenant, has also been violated.
36.
The real reason for the arbitrary detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and his
colleagues, according to the source, was to retaliate against them, as well as to send a
threatening message to other human rights defenders in the context of the systematic and
continuous harassment and persecution faced by human rights activists and defenders in the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights.3 The source also adds that this conduct follows a pattern and has entailed
the arbitrary imprisonment of workers, demonstrators, journalists, communicators, political
activists, human rights defenders and even members of the National Assembly.
37.
As the Working Group concluded in its opinion No. 58/2016, the arbitrary detention
of a whistle-blower or other accuser for the purpose of punishing him or her and sending a
3 A/HRC/47/55.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
6
GE.25-08227
threatening message to others who might consider reporting or otherwise pointing to
irregularities in the public sector is a violation of articles 9 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
38.
In this context, the political nature of the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is clear,
and it squares with the systematic and widespread use of arbitrary detention on the grounds
of discrimination based on political opinion. The detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is
therefore arbitrary under categories II and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary
detention.
39.
In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, according to the source, there has been a
systematic pattern in which widespread use is made of the arbitrary detention of people
considered politically inconvenient with a view to preventing the expression of political ideas
and opinions critical of government policies or to consolidating certain political narratives
for the benefit of the authorities.
c.
Category III
40.
The prosecution of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has not been impartial, let alone fair. He
was arrested for no valid legal reason applicable to his case and without evidence of his
responsibility for a crime of any sort. In addition, since he has been in detention, he has been
exposed to serious risks to his health.
41.
The source notes that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was initially not allowed lawyers of his
choosing. His preliminary hearing was postponed nine times, and his trial has been restarted
three times.
42.
Several of the guarantees of due process enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant have
been violated in this case. The source claims that politically motivated judicial proceedings
conducted in likely collusion with government authorities – and in which there were
numerous violations of international norms related to a fair and expeditious trial – have led
to the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez. Portraying human rights defenders as criminals
for doing their work violates international norms relating to the right to a fair trial.
43.
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s lawyers are subjected to severe limitations during the
hearings. They are, for example, intimidated and accused of “acting in bad faith”, and
attempts are made to prevent the general public from entering the courtroom; when access is
granted, there is a roll call, and a record is made of the identities of the members of the public
in attendance. The defendants are always heavily guarded by members of the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service. Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is moved around the courthouse by up
to 15 officials, all of them armed, which, according to the source, is prohibited.
44.
At each and every one of the hearings, according to the source, requests were made
for the release, even if but conditional, of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez. The requests were always
either rejected or simply ignored.
45.
The source concludes that 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 under category III.
(b)
Response from the Government
46.
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 24 July 2024 and
requested it to submit a response by 23 September 2024. The Government requested an
extension of the time limit for its response, which was granted. The Working Group received
the Government’s response on 23 October 2024, within the established time limit.
47.
In its response, the Government notes that the criminal proceedings instituted against
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez are related to the false and defamatory statements he has posted to his
social media accounts and those of the NGO FundaRedes, where, without evidence, he
accused the Government of links to Colombian guerrilla groups such as the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo and the Fuerzas Bolivarianas de
Liberación. Investigations showed that his goal was to generate disinformation and chaos,
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
7
damaging the country’s image and encouraging foreign military incursions. The Public
Prosecution Service sought his arrest for the crimes of promotion of or incitement to hatred,
terrorism and treason. The Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 issued an arrest
warrant on 2 July 2021.
48.
Criminal proceedings in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are adversarial. The
Public Prosecution Service initiates criminal proceedings and requests coercive measures,
but it is the relevant court that makes decisions on detention. On 2 July 2021, Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez was apprehended by members of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, who
informed him of his rights under the Covenant, as shown in the report of 2 July 2021, where
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s signature and fingerprints can be seen, stating that he had been read
his rights. On 3 July, he was brought before Special Procedural Court No. 3 for an initial
hearing, at which he had the opportunity to defend himself. His lawyer, who did not make
claims of abuse by officials, requested a less severe pretrial regime and a forensic medical
evaluation.
49.
Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 provisionally accepted the
preliminary charges of promotion of or incitement to hatred, terrorism and treason against
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and decided to follow the ordinary procedure. It maintained
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez in pretrial detention, assigning him to the Simón Bolívar New Man
Prison, and ordered that he be taken for a medical examination.
50.
The Government asserts that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was duly informed (within the
legally established time limit), at the time of arrest, of the charges against him, as required
under article 9 (2) of the Covenant. In deciding to order pretrial detention, Special Procedural
Court No. 3 carefully considered whether the relevant conditions had been met, including
(a) whether a punishable act that warrants deprivation of liberty had been committed, (b)
whether there was substantiated evidence that the defendant had committed or been accessory
to the commission of a punishable act and (c) whether it could reasonably be presumed, based
on an evaluation of the particular circumstances of the case, that there was a risk of flight or
of obstruction of the search for the truth in a specific investigation. The pretrial detention
order is compatible with article 9 (3) of the Covenant, according to which pretrial detention
may be ordered to ensure the appearance of the accused for trial or at any other stage of the
judicial proceedings.
51.
On 17 August 2021, the Public Prosecution Service filed formal charges against
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez. The preliminary hearing, at which the defendant and his personal
lawyer had the opportunity to speak, was held on 9 December 2021, but Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez decided not to testify. One of his lawyers sought the annulment of the investigation
and the dismissal of the indictment. The Court accepted the charges filed by the Public
Prosecution Service and the evidence for the crimes of promotion of hatred, treason and
terrorism submitted by the Service. No claims of human rights violations were made at the
hearing. In addition, a decision to keep Mr. Tarazona Sánchez in pretrial detention was made,
he was transferred to the Centre for Remand and Convicted Prisoners of the Caracas
Metropolitan Area (maximum security I) and he was ordered to stand trial. His medical
transfer to the Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital was approved on 25 April 2022. On
19 May 2022, the Court rejected the defence’s request for review of the custodial measure,
thereby keeping the measure in place. In view of his health, approval was granted for the
transfer of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez on 7 June 2022 to the premises of the National Medical
and Forensic Science Service for an assessment of his condition.
52.
On 8 July 2022, the Court scheduled the opening of the oral and public trial of
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez for 25 July 2022, but it was postponed twice: on 25 July because one
defendant had not been transferred and on 8 August 2022 because of the absence of the case
file. On 27 July, the defence requested medical reports on Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s health,
and on 4 August 2022 the Court agreed to send them. The trial began on 16 August 2022 and
continued on 25 August, 7 and 20 September and 6 October 2022.
53.
During the trial, more than a year later, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez claimed that he had
been subjected to human rights violations, torture and cruel treatment by the Bolivarian
National Intelligence Service. On 24 August 2022, the Court approved his transfer to the
Dr. Carlos Arvelo Military Hospital for a gastroenterology examination. On 7 September, the
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
8
GE.25-08227
defence requested a copy of the notification of the allegations of ill-treatment and asked for
humanitarian measures to be taken on account of his health. On 14 September, the Public
Prosecution Service held a hearing to evaluate his health and take his complaint. On
4 October 2022, the defence requested copies of the notifications transmitted to the National
Commission for the Prevention of Torture and made other motions.
54.
The Government notes that, on 7 October 2022, the Court rejected the requests made
by Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s defence team, as it was of the view that the circumstances had
not changed sufficiently to warrant lifting the pretrial detention order. On 20 October, the
Court approved his medical transfer to the premises of the National Medical and Forensic
Science Service. On 3 November, the defence requested a certified copy of a letter of
appointment, a request that was granted. On 8 November, the Court responded to the Court
of Appeals, reiterating its decision to reject the defence’s requests. On 28 November 2022,
the defence requested a review of the pretrial detention order, but on 1 December, the Court,
stating that the circumstances had not changed, declined to review it.
55.
The public trial of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez began on 7 December 2022. Nine hearings
have been held, guaranteeing the right to a defence and due process. At the first hearing, the
defence mentioned for the first time the torture to which the defendant had allegedly been
subjected. On 12 January 2023, the Court approved his transfer to the Military Hospital for
spinal pain. On 22 February 2023, the defence requested a copy of the letter of appointment
of counsel, notification of the Ombudsman’s Office and the Prosecution Service and other
formalities related to the request for evidence and witnesses.
56.
On 7 March 2023, the Court ordered that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez be transferred to the
Military Hospital. On 14 March, the request for transcripts and the appointment of counsel
for the defence were approved. On 17 April, letters were sent to the Ombudsman’s Office
and the Public Prosecution Service, and on 27 April a medical evaluation was arranged. On
17 May, a notice of alleged violation of rights was reviewed. On 21 June, the trial was set to
resume on 6 July. On 3 July, the defence made a request for immediate release that was
rejected on 4 July for want of a change in the situation; another medical transfer was also
ordered. On 6 July, a request was made to change the trial venue, and on 28 August 2023, a
complaint was received from the Ombudsman’s Office and a new judge was assigned to the
case.
57.
On 30 August 2023, counsel for Mr. Tarazona Sánchez requested that the trial be
expedited, a request that was granted with the appointment of the new judge. On 19 October,
the Public Prosecution Service requested a forensic medical examination, which was
authorized on 26 October. On 21 October, the defence submitted a complaint to the National
Commission for the Prevention of Torture and an application for annulment of the
proceedings to the Court, requesting the dismissal of the case and an analysis of the validity
of the proceedings. On 21 November 2023, the trial resumed with the initial collection of
evidence, and the next session is scheduled for 24 October 2024. The amount of evidence to
be evaluated is the cause of the length of the trial.
58.
The Government claims that the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was not arbitrary
under category II, as it was unrelated to his work at FundaRedes. It was a consequence of his
suspected involvement in serious crimes. The source’s assertions to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not “neutralizing” human rights
defenders or critics of the Government.
59.
During the trial, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has had the right to a lawyer of his choosing,
and when he requested a public defender, one was appointed for him. He has filed the relevant
appeals and has received appropriate responses. The detention does not violate international
human rights, as it was ordered for crimes under Venezuelan law, was not politically
motivated and involved no intimidation.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
60.
The Working Group transmitted the Government’s response to the source on
24 October 2024 and requested the source’s final comments and observations, which were
received on 7 November 2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
9
61.
It is noted in the source’s additional comments that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has already
spent more than three years in pretrial detention. Spending such a long time in pretrial
detention not only violates international norms but is also a serious violation of article 230
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that pretrial detention may not last more
than two years, in addition to an exceptional extension of one year. The Government
acknowledges that counsel for Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has in fact repeatedly requested
reconsideration of the decision to place him in pretrial detention, requests that have been
systematically rejected.
62.
The source states that the Government itself acknowledges its responsibility (not that
of the defence or the defendant) for the continuous procedural delays to which Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez has been arbitrarily subjected. It claims, as a pretext for not following the norm
requiring it to release Mr. Tarazona Sánchez, that the amount of evidence to be studied is the
cause of the length of the trial.
63.
The source argues that nowhere in the Venezuelan legal framework is it established
that a trial can be drawn out or subjected to undue delays because of a large amount of
evidence or that the existence of a large amount of evidence would be a justifiable reason for
postponing the preliminary hearing nine times, interrupting the trial several times and having
to start it again three times; much less, according to the source, would it be a reason for failing
to comply with the express provision of law according to which pretrial detention is to last at
most two years, extendable for only one more year.
64.
The source contends that, whenever a request for the release of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez
is made, the Government simply states that the reasons for keeping him in custody have not
changed, when the indisputable fact is that they have changed, since the length of time that
he has spent in pretrial detention (more than three years and four months) cannot be denied.
65.
The source notes that the Government claims that the detention of Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez is unrelated to his work at FundaRedes, but this claim is belied by the investigation
into his publications on social networks and on FundaRedes’s website initiated by the Public
Prosecution Service in July 2021. The Service described his articles as containing smears and
insults directed at the authorities, the sole purpose of which was to disturb the peace and
promote and incite hatred.
66.
According to the source, it is impossible to conclude anything other than that
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is being detained solely and exclusively because of his work as a
human rights defender and director of FundaRedes. That is what the Public Prosecution
Service has argued throughout the proceedings.
67.
The source emphasizes that the Government has not opened investigations into the
allegations of torture and inhumane treatment, even though Venezuelan law requires as much.
The State explains that it has failed to open an investigation because of the time that has
passed since the acts in question, but this is unacceptable, since there is no statute of
limitations for such acts. The source also notes that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was unable to file
a complaint earlier for fear of reprisals, as he was in custody at the facility overseen by the
perpetrators.
68.
The source reiterates that the trial has been unduly delayed, that it has been restarted
at least three times and that, at first, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was not allowed the assistance of
defence attorneys of his choosing.
69.
The arbitrary detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has a political purpose – namely, to
intimidate people who denounce human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela and to justify repression based on a false narrative. This pattern includes the
imprisonment of workers, protesters, journalists, activists and lawmakers, demonstrating that
the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is part of a systematic practice of discrimination based
on political opinion.
2.
Discussion
70.
The Working Group thanks the parties for their submissions.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
10
GE.25-08227
71.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has made a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.4
(a)
Category I
72.
The source notes that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez, together with other FundaRedes
activists, was detained on 2 July 2021 while they were at the offices of the Public Prosecution
Service reporting acts of harassment by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service.
According to the source, they had already noticed, before being arrested, that they were being
followed. When they arrived at the Service’s offices, a prosecutor asked them to wait.
Subsequently, members of the Special Action Forces proceeded to arrest them without
producing a warrant, handcuffed them and took them away without telling them why they
had been arrested.
73.
The Government, for its part, submits that, on 2 July 2021, at the request of the Public
Prosecution Service, the Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 issued a warrant
for the arrest of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez. It also asserts that, at the time of arrest, Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez was duly informed – within the legally established time period – of the reasons for
his arrest, in accordance with article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
74.
Under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his or her liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Furthermore, article 9 (2) of the Covenant states that anyone who is arrested must be
informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest and must be promptly
informed of any charges against him or her.
75.
The Working Group, drawing on the information provided to it, is of the view that,
despite the Government’s argument that an arrest warrant was issued, it was not shown to
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez when he was arrested. The Working Group notes that the Government,
in its response, does not provide detailed information demonstrating that the warrant was
shown to Mr. Tarazona Sánchez. What is more, the source and the Government offer
diametrically opposed accounts of how Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was informed of the reasons
for his arrest. The Working Group is of the view that it is not necessary to determine which
account is correct since the Government’s failure to address the question of whether the
warrant was presented indicates that a procedural violation occurred at the time of the arrest,
and therefore a violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
9 of the Covenant.
76.
The Working Group finds it alarming that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has been in pretrial
detention for more than three years and four months. The source states that even the
Government’s own statements, in which it is noted that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested
on 2 July 2021, provide corroboration of this situation. The source adds that this circumstance
not only contravenes international norms but also constitutes a serious violation of article 230
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
77.
The Government contends that Special Procedural Court of First Instance No. 3 gave
comprehensive consideration to the reasons for ordering Mr. Tarazona Sánchez into pretrial
detention, in particular the risk of flight and obstruction of the investigation.
78.
The Working Group emphasizes that, in accordance with article 9 (3) of the Covenant,
pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the rule and should be ordered for the
shortest possible time. Liberty, in other words, is recognized in the Covenant as the general
rule, and pretrial detention is simply an exception. Pretrial detention must thus be based
strictly on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such
purposes as to prevent flight, tampering with evidence or the recurrence of the offence. In
determining whether the conditions governing pretrial detention have been met, the Working
Group examines whether the national courts have taken into account the particular
4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
11
circumstances of the person concerned but does not check whether there are risks that would
make pretrial detention necessary.5
79.
The Working Group notes that the Government simply points to domestic legal
provisions but does not explain what circumstances specifically relevant to Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez justify having kept him in pretrial detention since his arrest in July 2021. The
Working Group therefore finds that article 9 (3) of the Covenant has been violated.
80.
Consequently, the Working Group is of the view that the detention of Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez is in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 9 of the Covenant and that it is arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
81.
The source reports that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez, a human rights defender and director
of FundaRedes at the time of his arrest, has since 2005 denounced the presence, in which the
Government is allegedly complicit, of irregular armed groups in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela. These denunciations have led to threats and attacks, prompting the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to request precautionary measures on his
behalf in 2020.6
82.
According to the source, the Government’s assertion that the detention of
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s detention is unrelated to his work at FundaRedes is belied by the
actions of the Public Prosecution Service. In July 2021, the Service, prompted by
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s publications on social networks and on FundaRedes’s website,
opened an investigation. Those publications were described by the Service as containing
smears and insults directed at the authorities, the sole purpose of which was to disturb the
peace and promote and incite hatred.
83.
The Working Group recalls that human rights exercised by the defenders thereof are
protected in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and
Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. These rights are the right to protection, the right to criticize
government bodies and agencies and the right to provide legal assistance. These
circumstances clearly situate the detainees – as stated, accurately in the Working Group’s
view, by the source – as human rights defenders, thereby prompting the Working Group to
recall that the work of human rights defenders is key to the strengthening of democracy.
84.
Furthermore, the source asserts that the continuous work Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and
his FundaRedes team did to keep records and make denunciations attracted the attention of
the authorities in an extraordinarily negative manner, since the work entailed requesting a
response, including concrete government action to put a halt to grave human rights violations,
to the serious denunciations they had made concerning irregular groups and constant human
rights violations. This activity made Mr. Tarazona Sánchez comparable to a whistle-blower,
a person who discloses information about human rights violations.
85.
The Working Group has determined that the detention of persons for their activities
as human rights defenders is a violation of their rights to equality before the law and equal
protection of the law, their rights to freedom of opinion, expression and association and their
right to participate in political affairs recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Covenant. These are fundamental rights of long standing in the field of human
rights protection, and violating them renders the detention of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez arbitrary
within the parameters of category II.
86.
In view of the gravity of the case, the Working Group will refer the case to the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
5 Opinion No. 15/2022, para. 66.
6 Resolution 30/2020, precautionary measure No. 258-20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
12
GE.25-08227
(c)
Category III
87.
In the light of its findings under category II – namely, that the detention results from
the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association and political
participation – the Working Group is of the view that there are no grounds for a trial. Since
a trial has been conducted, however, and in view of the claims made by the source, the
Working Group will proceed to consider whether it was a fair, independent and impartial
trial.
88.
The source notes that, for days, the Court and the Bolivarian National Intelligence
Service blocked the appointment of lawyers of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s choosing, despite the
complaints that were lodged. In addition, his lawyer had to deal with intimidation and
courtroom restrictions, including on the members of the public in attendance. Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez was guarded by up to 15 armed officers of the Bolivarian National Intelligence
Service in the courtroom, which is prohibited.
89.
The Working Group notes that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
legal assistance by counsel of their choice throughout the period of their detention, in
particular immediately after their apprehension, and that such access is to be provided without
delay.7 The Working Group also notes that the right to a defence is key to ensuring a fair trial
that is conducted according to the principle of equality of the parties with a view to avoiding
biases that may affect the decision. A fair trial in which the principle of legality is observed
must ensure that the parties have the time they need to challenge decisions, may appeal and
have access to an efficient, suitable and effective remedy for the defence of their rights. Such
steps, however, cannot be taken without the assistance of a lawyer who understands the
complexity of the legal universe, since, in the absence of such a lawyer, the victim would, as
in Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s case, find him- or herself at a disadvantage to the prosecution.
90.
The Working Group notes with alarm that, because Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s lawyers
have been constantly prevented from defending him, he was not allowed a fair trial conducted
in accordance with the principle of equality of arms or the opportunity to exercise his right
to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, in violation of articles 10
and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b) of the
Covenant.
91.
The source reported that, on 2 July 2021, Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was violently
arrested, subjected to physical and psychological torture, forced to recount facts and
incriminate others and held in solitary confinement for 45 days. His health is seriously
affected, and although he has been ordered transferred on medical grounds seven times, the
transfer has not taken place. The Government denies the allegations, claiming that the
allegation of torture was first made in December 2022 and that the Court has authorized
medical transfers since January 2023.
92.
The Working Group has consistently held in its opinions that subjecting a person to
torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment prevents him or her from adequately
preparing his defence, in violation of the principle of equality of the parties to judicial
proceedings and of the right to a fair trial.8 In the Working Group’s view, the torture or
ill-treatment of detainees is not only a grave violation of human rights but also a serious threat
to the fundamental principles of a fair trial, as it can compromise a person’s ability to defend
him- or herself, especially in the light of the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself
or to confess guilt.9
93.
In view of the detailed nature of the source’s submissions and the lack of specificity
of the Government’s responses, the Working Group finds that those submissions have
corroborated the source’s claims that the fairness of the proceedings was tainted by
ill-treatment and torture, circumstances that constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial
7 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–53. See also A/HRC/30/37, annex (United Nations Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring
Proceedings Before a Court), paras. 67–71 (guideline 8). See also opinion No. 38/2021, paras. 90 and
91.
8 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42.
9 Opinions No. 22/2019, para. 78, and No. 56/2019, para. 88.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
GE.25-08227
13
enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3)
(g) of the Covenant.
94.
The Working Group has been able to verify that the trial, which has been restarted on
at least three occasions, has been subject to undue delays. The Working Group also finds it
alarming that the preliminary hearing was postponed nine times. Other than a cursory
attempted explanation that does not satisfy the legal requirements of international human
rights law, the Working Group has not received an effective exculpatory explanation of these
postponements and delays from the Government. The Government attributes the delay in the
trial to the amount of evidence before the Court, which has stood in the way of a final
judgment.
95.
The reasonableness of any delay in bringing a case to trial must be assessed in the
circumstances of each case, taking into account its complexity, the conduct of the accused
and the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the authorities.10 This guarantee relates
not only to the time between the formal charging of the accused and the time by which a trial
should commence but also to the time until the final judgment on appeal. All stages, whether
in first instance or on appeal, must take place without undue delay.11
96.
The source asserts that the prolonged legal proceedings that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is
facing are a violation of his right to be tried without undue delay. The Working Group notes
that there is nothing to suggest that the authorities made the slightest effort to ensure that the
proceedings were conducted in a timely manner. In fact, the authorities may have been partly
responsible for prolonging the trial and Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s time in pretrial detention. In
the circumstances, the Working Group finds that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’s right to be tried
within a reasonable time frame and without undue delay, as provided in articles 9 (3) and
14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, was violated.
97.
The Working Group therefore concludes that the violations of the right to a fair trial
and due process are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez an arbitrary character that falls within category III.
(d)
Category V
98.
The Working Group, having analysed the case, is of the opinion that the deprivation
of liberty of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez is arbitrary under category V, as he is a human rights
defender with a recognized public record of promoting democratic principles. The source
reports that, when Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was arrested, he was the director of FundaRedes,
an organization that, since 2005, has denounced the presence, in which the Government is
allegedly complicit, of irregular armed groups in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The
source claims that these denunciations have earned Mr. Tarazona Sánchez threats and attacks
and that his detention is part of a pattern in which critics who denounce human rights
violations are accused of crimes with a view to silencing them.
99.
Non-discrimination, together with equality before the law and equal protection of the
law without any discrimination, constitutes a basic and general principle relating to the
protection of human rights. Thus, article 2 (1) of the Covenant sets out an obligation for each
State Party to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind. When
detention results from the active exercise of civil and political rights, there is a strong
presumption that the detention also constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds
of discrimination based on political or other views.12
100.
In view of the facts of which it has been apprised, the Working Group comes to the
conclusion that Mr. Tarazona Sánchez was deprived of his liberty on discriminatory grounds
– that is, on account of his status as a human rights defender and the political and other
opinions he expressed in his attempts to hold the authorities to account. His detention is a
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 37, and general comment No. 32
(2007), para. 35.
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 35.
12 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 43, No. 13/2018, para. 34, and No. 59/2019, para. 79.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/8
14
GE.25-08227
violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1)
and 26 of the Covenant.
3.
Disposition
101.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of José Javier Tarazona Sánchez, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 7, 9–11 and 19–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2, 9, 10, 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.
102.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Tarazona Sánchez
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.
103.
The Working Group is of the view that, taking into account all the circumstances of
the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Tarazona Sánchez immediately and
accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
104.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of his rights.
105.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression.
106.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
107.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Tarazona Sánchez has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Tarazona
Sánchez;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Tarazona Sánchez’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.
108.
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.
109.
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/2025/8
GE.25-08227
15
110.
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.13
[Adopted on 2 April 2025]
13 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.