BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF FOUR VENEZUELAN NATIONALS

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to take all necessary measures to implement Opinion No. 14/2024 of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida, Félix Abimael Dager Sifontes, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo, asking the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to release them immediately and unconditionally and to grant them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD opinion concerning Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida, Félix Abimael Dager Sifontes, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela): Opinion 14/2024.

ARREST AND ARBITRARY DETENTION OF FOUR VENEZUELAN NATIONALS

The four detained persons are all nationals of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida is a farmer, Felix Abimael Dager Sifontes works in a political party agency, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho is a clothing saleswoman, and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo is a shopkeeper. 

Their arrest was part of a police operation called “Operación Trueno” (“Operation Thunderbolt” in English), which took place on 20 and 21 April 2022 in the parish of Altagracia de Orituco, located within the municipality of José Tadeo Monagas, in the State of Guárico. A few days before the police operation, the town council had organized recreational activities in the town. Armed individuals, who were potential members of a criminal group called “Tren del Llano”, came to take advantage of these activities, despite the presence of the authorities on site. Some 800 police officers were mobilized, to track down the collaborators or accomplices of this criminal gang. Numerous searches and arrests were carried out among shopkeepers and farmers.

Mr. Seco Almeida was arrested on 21 April 2022, while he was at home with his family. He was first interrogated on the spot, then taken by the police to an area known as “El Botalón”. He was transferred several times and only learned of the charges against him on 27 April 2022, the day he was brought before a special judge with jurisdiction over terrorism matters. He was given a custodial sentence.

Mr. Dager Sifontes was also arrested on 21 April 2022, without his family being informed of either his arrest nor his place of detention. He was transferred during the night to appear in court the following day. He was charged with the offenses of criminal conspiracy and terrorism, the police claiming in particular to have found several high-caliber projectiles on him, which Mr. Dager Sifontes disputed.

Both Mr. Seco Almeida and Mr. Dager Sifontes had previously been the subject of criminal proceedings, which were allegedly one of the reasons for their arrest on 21 April 2022.

Ms. González Camacho was arrested at her home on 20 April 2022. No reason was given for her arrest, and she allegedly suffered beatings while at the Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence. Like other detainees, she was charged with the offenses of criminal association, terrorism and possession of illegal weapons.

Finally, Mr. Itriago Rebolledo was arrested on 20 April 2022, and his house was searched by agents of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service. He also suffered beatings and was subsequently ill-treated during transfers. He was brought before a judge on 26 April 2022, who ordered his pre-trial detention and accepted criminal prequalification. He was charged with the crimes of financing terrorism, criminal association and illicit trafficking in arms and munitions. However, his trial has still not taken place, and has been postponed ten times.

The Working Group gave the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Government the opportunity to refute the source's allegations, which it did on 24 January 2024.  

ARRESTED WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS AND IMPOSSIBILITY OF CHALLENGING PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Firstly, the source asserted that the arrest of the four people had no legal basis, and that the arrests had taken place at the homes of the individuals concerned, without a warrant and in the absence of a flagrant offence. The absence of a flagrant offence was contested by the Government, which considered the arrests to be part of the police operation. The Working Group noted that the source's account appeared to be coherent, supported by witness testimony, whereas the Government's response to the source's allegations was only partial, and at times somewhat incoherent. The Working Group, therefore welcomed the source's allegations, and found that the arrests of the four persons had taken place in their homes, in the absence of a warrant and without being in a situation of flagrant offence, which constituted a violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 (1) and (2) and 14 (3) of the Covenant.

The source further indicated that the four individuals had not been brought before a court within a reasonable time. The Government replied that they were all brought before a judge within 48 hours of their arrest, in a preliminary hearing. However, the source submitted that Ms. González Camacho was only brought before a criminal control court four days after her arrest and then before the Special Terrorism Court, again, four days later. In the case of Mr. Itriago Rebolledo, he was brought before a judge four days after his arrest to review his pre-trial detention, and three days later before a Special Terrorism Court. In the case of those two individuals, the Working Group therefore concluded that there had been a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, insofar as anyone arrested or detained for a criminal offence must be brought promptly before a judge and has the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In the present case, the Working Group concluded that four days separated their arrest from their appearance before a judge, which did not allow them to effectively challenge their detention.

The source also reported that the four individuals had been held in pre-trial detention from the time of their arrest until the date of the complaint. While the Government indicated that a judge had ruled on the necessity of their detention, it did not mention this necessity to the Working Group and merely recalled the legal framework. In the light of the source submission, the Working Group found that there had been a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant concerning the four individuals, a violation aggravated by the number of postponements and interruptions in the conduct of the trial since the arrest.  

Consequently, the Working Group concluded that the detention of the four individuals was arbitrary under category I.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In the light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group against Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida, Félix Abimael Dager Sifontes, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo was arbitrary and fell within category I, because their deprivation of liberty was contrary to articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Carlos Alejandro Seco Almeida, Félix Abimael Dager Sifontes, Briceidys Javierlys González Camacho and César Augusto Itriago Rebolledo without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international standards. The Working Group considered that, given all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be their immediate release and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law

Lastly, the Working Group expressed its concern about “Operación Trueno”, which has been recognized by the Independent International Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as an operation during which acts of arbitrary detention, extortion, torture and ill-treatment were allegedly committed, as was alleged in several of the cases presented by the source.