A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429 (E) 200526 200526

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its 105th session, 23 March–1 April 2026

Opinion No. 7/2026 concerning Walter José Balmaceda Ruiz,

José Ricardo Cortez Dávila, José Olivar Meza Raudez, Eddy Antonio

Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Zacarías Cano Angulo, Rosendo Antonio Huerta

González, Leonel Antonio Poveda Palacios, Wilfredo Balmaceda

Castrillo and Jairo Alberto Obando Delgadillo (Nicaragua)

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 8 August 2025 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua a communication concerning Walter José

Balmaceda Ruiz, José Ricardo Cortez Dávila, José Olivar Meza Raudez, Eddy Antonio

Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Zacarías Cano Angulo, Rosendo Antonio Huerta González, Leonel

Antonio Poveda Palacios, Wilfredo Balmaceda Castrillo and Jairo Alberto Obando

Delgadillo. The Government has not replied to the communication. 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);

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

General Assembly

Distr.: General

23 April 2026

English

Original: Spanish

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

2

GE.26-05429

(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.

Walter José Balmaceda Ruiz is a national of Nicaragua born on 23 February 1980. He

works as a farmer, merchant and trucker.

5.

José Ricardo Cortez Dávila is a national of Nicaragua born on 9 August 1953. He

works as a merchant.

6.

José Olivar Meza Raudez is a national of Nicaragua born on 18 November 1966. He

works as a farmer.

7.

Eddy Antonio Gutiérrez Delgadillo is a national of Nicaragua born on 23 May 1977.

He works as a builder.

8.

Zacarías Cano Angulo is a national of Nicaragua born on 31 May 1973. He works as

a farmer.

9.

Rosendo Antonio Huerta González is a national of Nicaragua born on 8 January 1972.

He works as a farmer.

10.

Leonel Antonio Poveda Palacios is a national of Nicaragua born on 18 December

1966. He works as a merchant.

11.

Wilfredo Balmaceda Castrillo is a national of Nicaragua born on 30 October 1960. He

works as a farmer.

12.

Jairo Alberto Obando Delgadillo is a national of Nicaragua born on 18 July 1984. He

works as a builder.

(i)

Context

13.

On 19 July 2014, several convoys returning from celebrations in Managua marking

the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution were attacked in Matagalpa, leaving

5 dead and 24 injured. An armed group claimed responsibility, but no perpetrators were ever

identified.

14.

Following the attack, between July and August 2014, police conducted raids in

communities with a history of dissent, detaining as many as 19 people without arrest warrants

and without informing them of the charges against them. All those detained were subjected

to brief periods of enforced disappearance and tortured into making confessions.

15.

The nine individuals in the present case were arrested between 22 July and 2 August

2014, without warrants or any stated reason, in a bid to project an image of police

effectiveness in resolving the attack and to silence them as leading liberal voices.

(ii)

Arrest and detention

16.

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz was arrested on the Pan-American Highway on 22 July 2014 by

masked, armed men who stopped his truck.

17.

Mr. Cortez Dávila was arrested at 10.00 a.m. on 25 July by around 10 masked soldiers

who stopped the bus on which he was travelling. His home was raided without a warrant.

18.

Mr. Meza Raudez was arrested by officers of the Police Special Operations

Directorate at 1.00 a.m. on 26 July at his home in the Santa Ana neighbourhood (San Isidro,

Matagalpa).

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

3

19.

Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo was arrested by masked officers of the Police Special

Operations Directorate at 1.00 a.m. on 26 July at his home in Ciudad Darío. He was beaten,

and the officers threatened to kill his dog in front of his children. His home was raided without

a warrant.

20.

Mr. Cano Angulo was arrested at 9.00 a.m. on 26 July at his home in San Ramón

(Matagalpa) by army personnel and masked civilians. He was lashed with barbed wire in an

effort to force him to disclose the location of the weapons used in the attack. His home was

raided without a warrant.

21.

Mr. Huerta González was arrested at midnight on 30 July by officers of the Police

Special Operations Directorate at his home in Sabana Grande (San Ramón). He was taken to

the scene of the 19 July attack, where he was forced to leave his fingerprints on a liquor bottle

that the prosecution later used as its main item of evidence. His home was raided without a

warrant.

22.

Mr. Poveda Palacios was arrested at noon on 1 August by soldiers who intercepted

the public bus on which he was travelling.

23.

Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo was arrested on 2 August 2014 in a rural area by around

20 armed agents of the Police Special Operations Directorate, who beat him and threatened

to kill him. His home in Ciudad Darío had previously been raided on 26 July without a search

warrant.

24.

Mr. Obando Delgadillo was arrested at 1.00 a.m. on 2 August 2014 at his home in

Ciudad Darío by some 10 police officers, without a warrant. Upon seizing him, they pulled

a balaclava over his head and bundled him into a van.

25.

After their respective arrests, all of them were subjected to brief periods of enforced

disappearance: State authorities initially withheld information from their families about their

whereabouts and subsequently refused to grant access that would have confirmed their

detention on the premises of the Legal Cooperation Directorate (“El Chipote”). It was not

until 7 August 2014 that the men’s families learned they were being held at El Chipote, after

the police released a video in which some of the nine individuals (Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo,

Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo, Mr. Obando Delgadillo and Mr. Cortez Dávila) recounted and

confessed to their alleged involvement in the convoy attack of 19 July 2014 – confessions

that had been extracted under torture.

26.

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz’s family members were able to see him only on the fourth day

after his arrest, at a preliminary hearing held on 26 July, but were not allowed to speak with

him privately until around three months after his arrest.

27.

Mr. Cortez Dávila was subjected to disappearance for 14 days and held

incommunicado for around two months without being allowed any visitors. Mr. Meza Raudez

remained disappeared and was not allowed any visitors for around 20 days. Mr. Gutiérrez

Delgadillo was subjected to disappearance for 13 days and was not allowed any visitors for

over a month. Mr. Cano Angulo was subjected to disappearance for 13 days and went about

15 days without receiving any visitors. Mr. Huerta González was subjected to disappearance

for 9 days and was not allowed any visitors for 12 days. Mr. Poveda Palacios was subjected

to disappearance for eight days and was not allowed any visitors for over a month.

Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo was subjected to disappearance for seven days and was not allowed

any visitors for about two weeks. Mr. Obando Delgadillo was subjected to disappearance for

6 days and was not allowed his first visit for more than 10 days.

28.

Following their arrests, the nine individuals were taken to El Chipote in Managua. In

addition to being held completely incommunicado, during the first weeks they were subjected

to psychological torture, including prolonged interrogations in the early hours of the morning

without a lawyer present. During these interrogations, police officers would show them

photographs of their relatives or simply warn them that unless they confessed to the crimes,

their families would suffer the consequences, as the police were already tracking their daily

movements. Mr. Meza Raudez, Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Cano Angulo and Mr. Huerta

González were also subjected to restraint torture and were beaten if they moved. Mr. Poveda

Palacios, Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz and Mr. Obando Delgadillo were physically tortured by way

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

4

GE.26-05429

of severe beatings. All of them were confined to extremely small cells, with the lights kept

on at all times and without access to a yard or to sunlight.

29.

During the initial days of their detention at El Chipote, and concurrently with the

abuses described above, Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Poveda Palacios, Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz

and Mr. Obando Delgadillo were taken to an undisclosed, unofficial site where they were

subjected to severe physical torture at the hands of masked men led by the then Head of the

Legal Cooperation Directorate. Some of these acts of torture were described by Mr. Gutiérrez

Delgadillo, Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz and Mr. Obando Delgadillo during the public trial.

30.

The following is a list of some of the documented acts of torture. Mr. Gutiérrez

Delgadillo had a fingernail pulled out with pliers and a tooth extracted, was strangled with a

rope, had acid poured on his feet, was stretched by his limbs, was submerged in an electrified

barrel, had ants placed on his genitals and was beaten; at one point, an officer attempted to

slit his jugular. Mr. Poveda Palacios had a toenail torn out, was kept hooded and restrained

and was beaten while his captors taunted him about his political past. Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz

had his cheekbone broken, and the wound subsequently became infected; he was also kept

hooded, deprived of adequate food and basic necessities and forced to remain motionless

under threat of being beaten, and a knife or gun were held to his head while he was pressured

to confess. Mr. Obando Delgadillo was struck on the hands and face with a side-handled

baton, had a tooth broken, was hung naked inside a sack and was sexually assaulted by an

officer who inserted the barrel of an AK-47 rifle into his anus while others held him at

gunpoint and threatened to kill his family if he did not confess.

31.

According to the source, following the conviction of the men in early July 2015, they

were all transferred to Jorge Navarro National Prison Complex (“La Modelo”), where they

continue to be detained in individual maximum-security cells (Gallery 300), with the

exception of Mr. Cortez Dávila, who lost his sight entirely at the age of 70 owing to a lack

of medical care and was moved in early 2023 to Upper Gallery 2.

32.

The cells measure 2.5 metres by 3 metres and are poorly lit, poorly ventilated and

unhygienic. None of the men receive adequate medical care; in that regard, Mr. Cortez

Dávila’s blindness illustrates the risks faced by the others, in an environment amounting to

white room torture.

(iii)

Criminal proceedings

33.

On 25 July 2014, the prosecutor charged Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz before Matagalpa Court

with providing logistical support for the 19 July attack. He was alleged to have driven the

bus carrying three of the defendants and to have taken part in prior planning meetings.

34.

On 26 July, Matagalpa Court held a preliminary hearing in the case against

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz, ordered his pretrial detention on the ground that there was sufficient

evidence to establish his guilt and a risk that he might fail to appear at future hearings and

dismissed the defence’s complaint regarding the police’s refusal to allow communication

with the prisoner.

35.

On 27 July, a habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo

before Managua Court of Appeal, which on 29 July dismissed the petition on the ground that

it lacked territorial jurisdiction and indicated that it should be filed in Matagalpa.

Paradoxically, the criminal proceedings against the nine victims were subsequently

conducted in Managua, thereby removing them from the jurisdiction of the duly appointed

judge.

36.

On 4 August 2014, Matagalpa Court held the initial hearing in the case against

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz, scheduled the matter for trial and allowed counsel barely 10 minutes to

confer with their clients for the first time. Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz’s lawyer had filed motions

on 29 July and 6 August alleging torture at an undisclosed detention facility and requesting

authorization for a visit; however, this request was never granted.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

5

37.

At the initial hearing on 4 August, the prosecution’s evidence against Mr. Balmaceda

Ruiz consisted solely of a witness who testified that he had appeared nervous on the night of

19 July, a detective who reported, on the basis of hearsay, that an unnamed officer had

allegedly seen him planning the attack on 16 July and a purported arrest warrant that was not

shown to him at the time of his arrest.

38.

On 9 August 2014, Matagalpa Court declined jurisdiction and referred the case to

Managua, on the ground that the conspiracy had allegedly been planned there. On 12 August,

Managua Court accepted jurisdiction. A request for review filed that same day by

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz’s defence counsel was dismissed on 13 August 2014.

39.

On 12 August, the prosecution filed an amended indictment against Mr. Cortez

Dávila, Mr. Meza Raudez, Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Cano Angulo, Mr. Huerta

González, Mr. Poveda Palacios, Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo and Mr. Obando Delgadillo,

charging each with varying degrees of involvement in the attack of 19 July 2014.

40.

On the same day, 12 August 2014, a human rights lawyer filed a habeas corpus

petition before Managua Court of Appeal on behalf of Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo,

Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Meza Raudez, Mr. Cano Angulo, Mr. Huerta González,

Mr. Obando Delgadillo and Mr. Cortez Dávila, against the Chief Commissioner of the

National Police, citing the unlawfulness of their arrests and the fact that their whereabouts

remained unknown. On 10 September, however, the court dismissed the petition owing to

inaction in advancing the case.

41.

On 13 August 2014, the Sixth Court of Managua held a hearing on the amended

indictment. The defence filed a motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing

that the attack had taken place in Matagalpa. The judge denied the motion, ruling that the

attack had been planned in Tipitapa (Managua); he accepted the charges, sent the case to trial

and ordered that the defendants be held in pretrial detention.

42.

At a hearing held on 13 August 2014, the prosecution presented its evidence against

the eight defendants: 33 witness statements, 26 of them from passengers on the targeted buses

who merely recounted the incident from their own perspective. Only one police witness

referred to two of the defendants, and did so without providing any evidence of a crime. The

prosecution also submitted expert reports, including a chemical analysis according to which

gunshot residue had been gathered from Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo’s hand, a result of the

torture to which he had been subjected following his arrest, and arrest warrants that had not

been shown at the time of arrest.

43.

On 19 August 2014, the counsel for Mr. Cano Angulo and Mr. Huerta González filed

an appeal with the Sixth District Criminal Hearings Court of Managua against the ruling of

13 August denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and competence. The appeal

was admitted and referred to the Criminal Division of Managua Court of Appeal. After being

shuffled between chambers several times in disputes over jurisdiction, the appeal was

ultimately heard by Criminal Chamber No. 1, which dismissed it.

44.

On 3 October 2014, the Ninth District Criminal Trial Court of Managua opened the

public trial, reaffirming its territorial jurisdiction over the objection raised by the counsel for

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz. The judge decided to proceed by bench trial rather than by jury trial, a

decision challenged by the defence counsel. In the course of the trial, the Court disregarded

the evidence presented by the defence and dismissed the allegations of torture brought by

Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Obando Delgadillo and Mr. Balmaceda Castrillo.

45.

On 19 November 2014, the counsel for Mr. Huerta González and Mr. Cano Angulo

filed a habeas corpus petition before the Criminal Division of Managua Court of Appeal,

alleging unlawful detention on the ground that the three-month period set out in article 134

of the Code of Criminal Procedure had expired. The petition was admitted on 20 November,

but the Court dismissed it on 9 December owing to “inaction in advancing the case”.

46.

In early July 2015, the Ninth District Criminal Trial Court of Managua notified the

defence counsel that the defendants had been convicted through Judgment No. 174, dated

17 October 2014, and the nine individuals were transferred from El Chipote to La Modelo,

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

6

GE.26-05429

where they remain imprisoned. The judgment was handed down nearly nine months after the

final hearing on 9 October 2014, in breach of the three-day deadline established in article 323

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

47.

In Judgment No. 174, the Court disregarded the evidence and arguments put forward

by the defence demonstrating the defendants’ innocence, including those relating to the

statements obtained under torture. Despite the evidence on the record, including a photograph

showing Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo with his family at the time of the 19 July 2014 attack, the

judge convicted him as a joint perpetrator.

48.

The source states that some of the individuals were convicted of murder, aggravated

assault and organized crime, with sentences ranging from 37 to 133 years in prison, in some

cases accompanied by fines for the unlawful possession or use of a weapon. The sentences

imposed on Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz, Mr. Cortez Dávila, Mr. Cano Angulo and Mr. Poveda

Palacios are due to end between 24 July and 3 August 2044. Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo and

Mr. Obando Delgadillo were each sentenced to 113 years in prison and ordered to pay

50 day-fine units; their sentences are scheduled to end on 27 July and 3 August 2044,

respectively. Mr. Huerta González was sentenced to 37 years in prison and ordered to pay

200 day-fine units; his sentence is scheduled to end on 30 July 2044. Mr. Meza Raudez was

sentenced to 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. His sentence was served in full on

27 July 2024, but he has still not been released.

49.

On 15 July 2015, counsel for the nine defendants appealed the judgment on grounds

of due-process violations, including the fact that the case was not heard by a duly appointed

judge, coerced confessions and the use of anonymous witnesses. The appeals were admitted,

but, on 16 March 2017, Criminal Chamber No. 1 of Managua Court of Appeal upheld

Judgment No. 174 in its entirety, finding no violations and ruling that the sentences imposed

were not disproportionate.

50.

In April 2017, the nine individuals filed appeals on points of law, which were admitted

by Criminal Chamber No. 1 of Managua Court of Appeal. The Public Prosecution Service

requested to reserve its response for an oral hearing before the Supreme Court; however, such

a hearing was never held, and the appeals continue to await a final ruling over seven years

later.

51.

Mr. Meza Raudez’s counsel was arbitrarily detained for political reasons in January

2022 and stripped of his licence to practise, illustrating the risks faced by those who defend

political prisoners.

52.

After Mr. Meza Raudez completed his sentence on 27 July 2024, his family petitioned

Managua Court of Appeal for the appointment of new counsel and for his release; however,

they have received no response, despite filing two procedural actions to move the case

forward. A request for a judicial record was verbally denied, and the Ministry of the Interior

has stated that only a judge can order Mr. Meza Raudez’s release.

53.

The source submits that the domestic remedies pursued on behalf of the nine

individuals have proved ineffective – some have been rejected, while others have been

pending since April 2017, against a backdrop of the absence of impartial and independent

justice for political prisoners.

(iv)

Legal analysis

54.

The source claims that the detention of the nine individuals falls within categories I,

II, III and V of the Working Group’s categories of arbitrary detention.

a.

Category I

55.

According to the source, the arrests of the nine individuals were unlawful, as none of

them was shown a warrant. In addition, none of the nine individuals was brought before a

judicial authority within 48 hours of arrest for review of the legality of his detention.

56.

Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz was arrested on 22 July 2014 and brought before a judge on

26 July. The other eight individuals, arrested between 25 July and 2 August 2014, were not

brought before the court for a preliminary hearing until 13 August 2014.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

7

57.

The source points out that the Working Group has held that holding persons

incommunicado violates their right, under article 9 (4) of the Covenant, to challenge the

lawfulness of their detention before a court.2 It is therefore essential to ensure that detainees

have access to counsel from the outset of their detention. 3 The Working Group has

emphasized that deprivation of liberty constitutes enforced disappearance when a State

refuses to disclose a person’s fate and whereabouts. 4 Enforced disappearance violates

numerous substantive and procedural provisions of the Covenant and constitutes an

aggravated form of arbitrary detention.5

58.

According to the source, the nine individuals were subjected to enforced

disappearance and held incommunicado for several days, denied access to legal counsel and

tortured. Mr. Meza Raudez’s detention remains unlawful, because he has not been released

despite having served his sentence in full on 27 July 2024.

b.

Categories II and V

59.

The source argues that the detention of the nine individuals violated their right to

freedom of thought and belief under article 18 of the Covenant, as well as their right to

equality and freedom from discrimination on political grounds enshrined in article 26 of the

Covenant and article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It further contends that

the arrests were arbitrary and carried out in retaliation for the individuals’ dissenting views,

given that they were liberal community leaders and, according to Nicaraguan civil society,

became the first political prisoners of the Sandinista Government.6

60.

This type of politically motivated deprivation of liberty is not an isolated incident but

a systematic and widespread State practice, forming part of a discriminatory campaign

orchestrated at the highest levels of government.7 According to the Group of Human Rights

Experts on Nicaragua, politically motivated arrests have been deliberately carried out in

Nicaragua solely on the basis of the real or perceived identity of the persons concerned as

opposition figures,8 like the nine individuals in the present case. The Group of Human Rights

Experts on Nicaragua has characterized these practices as crimes of imprisonment and

persecution, amounting to crimes against humanity.9

61.

The arrest of the nine individuals on political grounds foreshadowed the pattern of

repression that would spread across the country in 2018. The police chief responsible for

torturing the nine victims at El Chipote in 2014 was identified in 2018 as having tortured

political prisoners and killed dozens of anti-government protesters that year.10 Similarly, the

judge who convicted them at first instance despite lacking territorial jurisdiction over the case

has been identified since 2018 as one of the judges most frequently used by the Government

to bring criminal charges against political prisoners, who number in the hundreds.11

2 Opinion No. 17/2024, para. 62.

3 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.

4 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 67.

5 Ibid., para. 68.

6 Colectivo Nicaragua Nunca Más, “10 casos de presos políticos silenciados por el régimen Ortega-

Murillo”, available at: https://colectivodhnicaragua.org/10-casos-de-presos-politicos-silenciados-por-

el-regimen-ortega-murillo/.

7 See the conference room paper containing the detailed conclusions of the Group of Human Rights

Experts on Nicaragua, 7 March 2023, available on the web page of the mandate,

https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/ghre-nicaragua/index, A/HRC/52/CRP.5, para. 1097.

8 Ibid., para. 1122.

9 Ibid., paras. 1048 and 1124.

10 Infobae, “Quién es Ramón Avellán, el verdugo del régimen de Daniel Ortega acusado por el asesinato

de 107 opositores”, 29 December 2019, available at: https://www.infobae.com/america/america-

latina/2019/12/29/quien-es-ramon-avellan-el-verdugo-del-regimen-de-daniel-ortega-acusado-por-el-

asesinato-de-107-opositores/.

11 Article 66, “Edgar Altamirano, el operador judicial de la dictadura para condenar a líderes de la

protesta”, 19 February 2019, available at: https://www.articulo66.com/2019/02/19/edgar-altamirano-

el-operador-judicial-de-la-dictadura-para-condenar-a-lideres-de-la-protesta/#google_vignette;

Nicaragua Actual.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

8

GE.26-05429

62.

The fact that the nine victims were charged with and convicted of offences under

ordinary law does not negate the de facto discriminatory nature of their arrests, which were

motivated by their political opposition. The source further claims that the police and the

prosecution fabricated evidence against the nine individuals to incriminate them as a form of

political punishment, a pattern consistent with the findings of the Group of Human Rights

Experts on Nicaragua, which reported the use of false evidence, tampered documents, and

weapons and drugs “planted” by the police.12

63.

The nine victims – detained since 2014 – have been subjected to inhuman treatment

and torture in discriminatory retaliation for their political beliefs, in continuing violation of

their right to physical integrity under article 7 of the Covenant and article 5 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

c.

Category III

64.

The source states that the nine individuals were not informed of the charges against

them until their preliminary hearings, in violation of their right to be promptly informed of

the reasons for their arrest and their right to prompt judicial review, contrary to article 9 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant.

65.

The source contends that, owing to political bias, the judicial authorities and the Public

Prosecution Service lacked independence and impartiality, in violation of article 10 of the

Covenant, read in conjunction with article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, resulting in de facto inequality and rendering the remedies

sought ineffective.

66.

The judges ruled in favour of the prosecution and rejected evidence of illegality,

torture and innocence, thereby violating due process. The refusal to release Mr. Meza Raudez

despite his having served his sentence further reflects the political nature of the case, in line

with the findings of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua concerning the

instrumentalization of the judicial system against real or perceived opposition figures.13

67.

The presumption of innocence of the nine individuals was violated when, at a press

conference on 7 August 2014, they were presented by the National Police as criminals,

handcuffed and dressed in grey, rather than as “suspects”.14 Some of them (Mr. Balmaceda

Castrillo, Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Mr. Obando Delgadillo and Mr. Cortez Dávila) were

even forced by the National Police to record a video recounting the alleged events, which

was released to the public that same day, 7 August.15 Moreover, in the days leading up to the

press conference, the nine individuals had been brutally tortured by the National Police, while

being held entirely incommunicado from the outside world, in order to force them to confess

to being guilty of acts fabricated by the police for that very occasion.

68.

Following the press conference, pro-government media outlets such as El 19 Digital

repeatedly described the nine individuals as “murderers” with links to a “criminal gang with

pseudo-family ties”, leading to prejudgment by society and the courts, with serious

repercussions for the honour and dignity of the victims and their families.

69.

Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (3) (b) and

(d) of the Covenant recognize the right to a defence, both material and technical. With regard

to article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, the Human Rights Committee has recognized that the

right to communicate with one’s defence counsel requires that the accused be granted prompt

access to counsel, in private and in conditions that respect the confidentiality of their

communications.16 Similarly, the Working Group has stated that the right of all persons

deprived of their liberty to communicate with counsel takes effect “immediately after their

apprehension, and such access is to be provided without delay”.17

12 A/HRC/52/CRP.5, para. 581.

13 Ibid., para. 518.

14 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQKMep8i4AM.

15 Ibid.

16 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 34.

17 Opinion No. 79/2020, para. 38.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

9

70.

The source states that the nine individuals were deprived of their right to a defence

and to communicate privately with counsel of their choice, as throughout their enforced

disappearance they were held incommunicado, tortured and interrogated in the absence of

their defence counsel, which prevented them from adequately preparing their defence.

71.

In the case of Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz, although his counsel was present at the

preliminary hearing of 26 July 2014, no private communication was permitted during that

proceeding. It was not until 4 August 2014 – 13 days after his arrest – that the judge

authorized a 10-minute private conversation. For the other eight individuals, the situation was

even more serious: until their preliminary hearing on 13 August 2014, they had not been

allowed to see either their counsel or their families, and confidential consultation with

defence counsel was not permitted until several days later.

72.

The right of the nine individuals to a fair trial was compromised because the

authorities failed to investigate the allegations of torture on their own initiative. 18 This

omission prevented the consideration of evidence that would have shown that the defendants

had been tortured into making self-incriminating statements. Furthermore, the defence was

not allowed to cross-examine the alleged police officer who claimed to have observed several

of the nine individuals gathering to plan the attack on the Sandinista convoy on 19 July 2014,

on the grounds that this had been an “intelligence” operation and that the officer’s identity

had to be kept confidential for security reasons.

73.

The Human Rights Committee has held that all proceedings must be conducted

without undue delay.19 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights interprets the concept of

“reasonable term” as relating to the total duration of the proceedings until the final judgment

is rendered.20 The source notes that the counsel filed appeals in April 2017, yet no hearing

has been scheduled to date. The appeal remains pending without a final ruling more than

seven years later, in violation of article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant.

74.

The source claims that the Government violated article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant by

torturing the nine individuals in order to force them to self-incriminate. Although three of the

individuals testified in court that they had been tortured, both the trial and appellate courts

ignored these allegations.

75.

The source indicates that, although the right to a reasoned decision is not expressly

mentioned in the Covenant or in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, jurisprudence

has incorporated it into the right to an appeal (Covenant, art. 14 (5)). The source further

argues that the convictions were unsubstantiated and failed to take exculpatory evidence into

account, and that the charge of organized crime against Mr. Gutiérrez Delgadillo was

arbitrary.

(b)

Response from the Government

76.

On 8 August 2025, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the

Government, in accordance with its methods of work. The Working Group requested the

Government to provide, by 7 October 2025, detailed information on the situation of the nine

individuals, clarifying the legal and factual grounds for their detention and explaining how it

is compatible with the obligations of Nicaragua under international human rights law and, in

particular, the treaties ratified by the State.

77.

The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply within the

established time frame, nor did it seek an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of the

Working Group’s methods of work.21

18 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, judgment

of 2 September 2015, para. 76; and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, arts. 6 and 12.

19 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.

20 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, judgment of 15 February

2017, para. 159.

21 A/HRC/36/38.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

10

GE.26-05429

2.

Discussion

78.

In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided

to render the present opinion on the basis of the information provided by the source, in

conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.

79.

In determining whether the detention of the nine individuals is arbitrary, the Working

Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary

issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international human

rights law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest

upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. 22 Mere assertions by the

Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the

source’s allegations.

(a)

Category I

80.

The Working Group was informed that the nine individuals had been arrested between

July and August 2014 for their alleged involvement in an attack on several convoys on

19 July. According to the source, the police conducted raids without warrants in communities

with a history of dissent, initially detained as many as 19 people without explanation and

subjected them to brief periods of enforced disappearance and torture in order to extract

confessions and project an image of police effectiveness, all while seeking to silence liberal

leaders.

81.

The Working Group reiterates that, pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one

may be deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such

procedure as are established by law. The mere existence of a legal provision authorizing the

arrest is not sufficient. The authorities must explicitly invoke that legal basis and apply it to

the circumstances of the case,23 which is typically done through an arrest warrant or an

equivalent document.24 Article 9 (2) of the Covenant requires that any person arrested be

immediately informed of the reasons for the arrest and of the charges against him or her. Any

form of detention or imprisonment should be ordered by a judicial or other authority in

keeping with the law or be subjected to the effective control of the judicial authority, the

status and mandate of which should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence,

impartiality and independence in accordance with principle 4 of the Body of Principles for

the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Respect for

these rights is essential to a person’s ability to challenge his or her detention, as provided for

in article 9 as a whole.

82.

On this basis, and in the absence of a response from the Government, the Working

Group concludes that the detention of the nine individuals, carried out without a warrant and

without their being informed of the reasons for their arrest, constituted a violation of

article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.

83.

The Working Group notes that the nine individuals were missing for periods ranging

from 6 to 14 days and were held incommunicado, without access to their families or legal

counsel. Their families did not learn of their whereabouts until 7 August 2014, when the

police released a video containing some of their “confessions”.

84.

The Working Group emphasizes that incommunicado detention in an unknown

location amounts to prima facie enforced disappearance.25 It is inherently arbitrary, as it

places the person outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 6 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 26 Enforced disappearance is prohibited by

international law and constitutes an aggravated form of arbitrary detention.27 In the light of

22 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

23 In cases of arrests made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be

available.

24 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27, No. 3/2018, para. 43, and No. 30/2018, para. 39.

25 Opinions No. 76/2017, para. 59, No. 19/2019, para. 34, and No. 20/2020, para. 81.

26 Opinions No. 13/2020, para. 51, and No. 56/2023, para. 92.

27 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 17.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

11

the information received, and in the absence of a response from the Government, the Working

Group considers that the nine individuals were subjected to enforced disappearance, in

violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant.

85.

The Working Group stresses the fact that detainees must be allowed to communicate

with family members and receive visits from them, and that any restrictions on such contact

must be reasonable.28 The Human Rights Committee has established that giving prompt and

regular access to family members is an essential safeguard for the prevention of torture and

protection against arbitrary detention and violation of personal security. 29 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.30

Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and is essential

in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.31 In addition, according to the source, none of the

nine individuals was brought before a judicial authority within 48 hours of arrest for review

of the legality of his detention. Accordingly, the Working Group also concludes that there

has been a violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant.

86.

The Working Group reiterates that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial

detention must be the exception rather than the general rule, must be ordered for as short a

time as possible32 and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable

and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the

recurrence of crime.33 Courts must consider whether alternatives to pretrial detention would

render detention unnecessary.34 According to the Human Rights Committee, States Parties

need to show that detention does not last longer than absolutely necessary, that its overall

length is limited and that they fully respect the guarantees provided for by article 9 of the

Covenant in all cases. In order to meet these conditions, regular review by a court or other

body possessing the same attributes as a judicial body is necessary.35

87.

In the present case, the detainees were held in pretrial detention starting in July or

August 2014 until July 2015, when they were notified of their conviction and transferred

from El Chipote to La Modelo. In the case of Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz, a pretrial detention order

was issued following a preliminary hearing on 26 July 2014, on the grounds that there was

sufficient evidence to establish his guilt and a risk that he might fail to appear at future

hearings. In the cases of the other detainees, the judges accepted the charges and ordered their

pretrial detention notwithstanding the allegations that their arrests had been unlawful and that

torture had been used to extract confessions. In the absence of a response from the

Government, the Working Group concludes that there was no duly reasoned judicial decision

assessing, on a case-by-case basis, the necessity of continued pretrial detention, in violation

of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.

88.

The Working Group finds that, in the present case, the criteria for category I have

been met to a serious degree, in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. The unlawfulness of Mr. Meza Raudez’s detention is

particularly egregious, given that the authorities failed to release him even after he had served

his 10-year sentence in full on 27 July 2024.

(b)

Category II

89.

The Working Group emphasizes that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and

expression, which includes the right to hold opinions of any kind – political, scientific,

historical, moral or religious – without interference, as well as the right to impart information

and ideas through any medium. Furthermore, it reaffirms the view of the Human Rights

28 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,

principle 16 (1).

29 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58. See also opinion No. 84/2020, para. 70.

30 Opinions No. 25/2021, para. 51, and No. 45/2019, para. 53.

31 A/HRC/30/37, para. 3; and CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, para. 24.

32 Opinion No. 64/2020, para. 58; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.

33 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., para. 15.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

12

GE.26-05429

Committee that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions

for the full development of the person and constitute the foundation stone for every free and

democratic society.36

90.

The Working Group notes that the provisions guaranteeing freedom of opinion and

expression include articles 17, 18, 25 and 27 of the Covenant. These freedoms are the basis

for the full exercise of other human rights, in particular the rights to freedom of association

and to political participation, as set forth in articles 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights and articles 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant.37

91.

The detention of the individuals concerned is therefore arbitrary, as it constitutes

discriminatory retaliation for their ideology and political views, which run counter to the

Government’s interests. The Working Group recalls that article 19 (1) of the Covenant

protects freedom of opinion and admits of no exception or restriction.38 The individuals

concerned have all been liberal community leaders for decades and, in that capacity, were

also exercising their right to freedom of association. Moreover, Nicaraguan civil society

regards them as the first persons to have been imprisoned for political reasons under the

Sandinista Government.

92.

According to the source, this type of politically motivated detention is not an isolated

incident but part of a systematic and discriminatory State practice orchestrated at the highest

levels of government.39 The Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua has stated that

such detention deliberately targets members of the opposition, or those perceived as such,

and has characterized the practice as a crime of imprisonment and persecution, amounting to

crimes against humanity.40

93.

Having examined the facts presented by the source, the Working Group concludes

that the charges of offences under ordinary law do not mask the underlying political motive,

given that the evidence was fabricated by the police and the prosecution in order to punish

the individuals concerned for their liberal leadership. This is corroborated by the findings of

the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, which warn of the systematic fabrication

of evidence (testimonies, documents with altered dates and planted weapons) as a tool of

ideological persecution.41

94.

In conclusion, the Working Group considers that the nine individuals – community

leaders whose ideology and political views are opposed to those of the Government – were

detained in response to the exercise of their rights. In the absence of a response from the

Government, it concludes that the rights enshrined in articles 18 to 21 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19, 22 and 25 of the Covenant have been violated,

and that the deprivation of liberty is therefore arbitrary, falling under category II.

(c)

Category III

95.

Given its findings regarding category II, namely, that the detention resulted from the

exercise of human rights, the Working Group is of the view that no trial should have taken

place. However, given that a trial took place and that sentences of more than 100 years’

imprisonment were handed down, and considering the allegations of the source, the Working

Group will proceed to determine whether fundamental elements of a fair, independent and

impartial trial have been respected in the course of the judicial proceedings.

96.

Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the

Covenant recognize the right of all persons charged with a criminal offence to be presumed

innocent. This right places a series of obligations on all State institutions to treat the accused

person as innocent until the charge has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In the view

of the Working Group, as well as that of the Human Rights Committee, this right requires all

36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2.

37 Ibid., para. 4.

38 Ibid., para. 5.

39 A/HRC/52/CRP.5, para. 1093.

40 Ibid., paras. 1048 and 1124.

41 Ibid., para. 580.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

13

authorities, including those of the executive branch, to refrain from prejudging the outcome

of a trial, which entails abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the

accused.42

97.

In the case of Nicaragua, there are several precedents in the Working Group’s

jurisprudence concerning violations of the presumption of innocence.43 In the present case,

the presumption of innocence was violated when the nine victims were publicly portrayed as

convicted criminals – paraded in handcuffs and prison uniforms – and when confessions

obtained under torture were disseminated. The authorities and pro-government media

repeatedly labelled them “murderers” and a “criminal gang”, which led to prejudgment of

their guilt by society and the courts and undermined their dignity before any judgment had

been handed down.

98.

The right to legal representation requires immediate and confidential access to counsel

of one’s choice from the moment of apprehension, in accordance with article 14 (3) (d) of

the Covenant.44 Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant guarantees the right to adequate time and

facilities for the preparation of a defence, including timely access to the evidence, which is

essential to ensuring a fair trial and upholding the principle of equality of arms.45 In the

present case, none of the nine detainees had access to such assistance during their

interrogations, which involved torture – Mr. Balmaceda Ruiz was able to speak privately

with his counsel for only 10 minutes, 13 days after his arrest, while the other eight were held

incommunicado until after the preliminary hearing. This situation constitutes a violation of

article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.

99.

Furthermore, during the proceedings, the detainees’ counsel were prevented from

cross-examining the alleged police officer who claimed to have seen them meet to plan the

attack on the Sandinista convoy on 19 July 2014, on the grounds that the information was

classified as “intelligence” and that his identity had to be kept confidential for security

reasons. The Working Group notes that the nine detainees were given neither sufficient time

to prepare their defence nor any extension to do so, which undermined their right to judicial

protection and violated article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.

100.

The Working Group notes that, according to the source, during their detention, some

of the detainees were taken to an undisclosed, unofficial location, where they were subjected

to severe physical torture by masked men led by the then Head of the Legal Cooperation

Directorate. Some of these acts of torture were described by three of the individuals during

the public trial. According to the source, all the detainees were subjected to physical torture,

beatings, prolonged interrogations without a lawyer present and threats against their family

members. They were also held in extreme conditions of confinement, in small cells with

constant lighting and no access to a yard or sunlight.

101.

It is also striking that, although the victims reported all these acts of torture at the

initial hearing, no authority took any action to order an investigation, ignoring the allegations

altogether.

102.

The Working Group observes that this conduct violates the absolute prohibition of

torture as a peremptory norm of international law, as well as article 5 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the Covenant, and is contrary to articles 2, 15

and 16 of the Convention against Torture; it has therefore decided to refer the present case to

the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment. Furthermore, the foregoing also constitutes a violation of article 14 (3) (g) of

the Covenant, which prohibits compelling anyone to testify against himself or herself or to

confess guilt.

42 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30. See also Kozulina v. Belarus

(CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008), para. 9.8.

43 Opinion No. 70/2024, paras. 87–90.

44 A/HRC/30/37, principle 9 and guideline 8. See Human Rights Committee, general comment

No. 32 (2007), para. 34.

45 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 32.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

14

GE.26-05429

103.

The Working Group is of the view that the requirement of impartiality requires that

judges must not allow their judgment to be influenced by personal bias or prejudice, harbour

preconceptions about the particular case before them or act in ways that promote the interests

of one of the parties to the detriment of the other. Furthermore, the tribunal must also appear

to a reasonable observer to be impartial.46

104.

The Working Group notes that the judicial authorities involved in the case lacked

independence and impartiality, in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant. This lack of impartiality was evidenced, in

particular, by the fact that Managua Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals filed despite clear

violations of due process, and by the fact that the trial judge, on the pretext that the attack

had been planned in Managua, assumed jurisdiction over the case despite lacking territorial

competence – the events having taken place in Matagalpa – thereby removing them from the

jurisdiction of the duly appointed judge.

105.

The Working Group has stated that, where national law expressly assigns competence

to the court of the jurisdiction where an offence was allegedly committed, it is a violation of

the right to be tried by the competent judge for a person accused of an offence committed in

one jurisdiction to be tried by a court in another jurisdiction.47

106.

The Working Group notes that the trial judge has, since 2018, been identified as a

judicial actor involved in bringing criminal charges against political opponents. The political

motivation of the detention is further confirmed by the refusal to release Mr. Meza Raudez

after he had completed his sentence on 27 July 2024, with no legal basis whatsoever. These

violations stem from the lack of separation of powers in Nicaragua, a context in which the

Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua has found that the judiciary has been

instrumentalized to prosecute real or perceived opposition figures under criminal law.48 The

Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the

independence of judges and lawyers.

107.

Moreover, the appeal on points of law lodged in April 2017 by the nine individuals

remains unresolved, and the case is still pending more than seven years on. The source

contends that this delay is excessive and unreasonable. In the absence of any information

from the Government to justify these delays, the Working Group finds that the trial was also

in violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, which guarantees the right to be tried without

undue delay.

108.

The Working Group notes that the source has submitted abundant evidence regarding

the lack of impartiality of the judges; while this evidence has been reviewed, it cannot be

reproduced in the present opinion for reasons of procedural economy. Nevertheless,

consideration of all these findings leads to the conclusion that there has been a grave violation

of the fair trial guarantees set forth in articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and in article 14 (1), (2), (3) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) and (5) of the Covenant;

the detention is therefore arbitrary, falling under category III.

(d)

Category V

109.

The Working Group has held deprivation of liberty to be arbitrary where it is intended

to repress members of political groups in order to silence their demands for

self-determination and their participation in the political life of their peoples.49

110.

The Working Group concludes that, in the light of the substantial evidence submitted

by the source, as well as reports in various newspapers and on public broadcasting stations,

the nine defendants have been subjected to significant discrimination on account of their

political activities in opposition to the Government. The political motivation behind the

detention has also been demonstrated; according to the source, it was intended to silence

46 Ibid., para. 21.

47 Opinion No. 30/2014.

48 A/HRC/52/CRP.5, para. 1167.

49 Opinion No. 11/2017.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

GE.26-05429

15

liberal leaders and to showcase “police effectiveness”, which amounts to a deprivation of

liberty based on discrimination on the ground of political opinion.

111.

The Working Group concludes that, having examined the evidence submitted, the

detention and prosecution of the nine defendants resulted from concerted action by the State

apparatus against certain leaders of movements opposed to the current Government, that

action in turn received public political backing from high-ranking officials of the

Government, including through statements publicly accusing the defendants of crimes under

ordinary law before a final ruling had been handed down.

112.

The detention of the persons concerned, having been motivated by their political

views, was therefore carried out in violation of the principle of equality and

non-discrimination contrary to article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

article 26 of the Covenant. Those provisions establish that all persons are equal before the

law and are entitled to equal protection without discrimination of any kind. They require the

State to ensure the effective enjoyment of these rights by all persons under its jurisdiction.

This conclusion is consistent with the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons

under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, in particular principle 5 (2); the facts

accordingly constitute arbitrary detention under category V.

(e)

Concluding remark

113.

The Working Group notes the lack of medical care provided to the detainees and the

conditions in which they are being held during this arbitrary detention. The Working Group

reminds the Government of Nicaragua of its obligations, under article 10 of the Covenant

and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson

Mandela Rules), to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are treated humanely and

with respect for their inherent dignity.50

3.

Disposition

114.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Walter José Balmaceda Ruiz, José Ricardo Cortez

Dávila, José Olivar Meza Raudez, Eddy Antonio Gutiérrez Delgadillo, Zacarías Cano

Angulo, Rosendo Antonio Huerta González, Leonel Antonio Poveda Palacios,

Wilfredo Balmaceda Castrillo and Jairo Alberto Obando Delgadillo, being in

contravention of articles 2, 3, 5–11 and 18–21 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 19, 22, 25 and 26 of the Covenant, is arbitrary and

falls under categories I, II, III and V.

115.

The Working Group requests the Government of Nicaragua to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of the nine individuals without delay and bring it into conformity with

the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

116.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the nine individuals immediately and accord

them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with

international law.

117.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the nine

individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of

their rights.

118.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and

lawyers, for appropriate action.

50 Nelson Mandela Rules, rules 24–35. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment

No. 35 (2014), para. 58.

A/HRC/WGAD/2026/7

16

GE.26-05429

119.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

4.

Follow-up procedure

120.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether the nine individuals have been released and, if so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the nine

individuals;

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of

the nine individuals and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of Nicaragua with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

121.

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.

122.

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.

123.

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.51

[Adopted on 24 March 2026]

51 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.