The orlqlnal l.Iuthor of the communicllltion (lniti ... l letter, Imlllllted, receivw) on R Auqust 1981 IlInd further letters of 9 s",ptemtJer 198'1 /tnd 16 "'ehruary 1'184) I,ft Katy So16rzano de Pen8, ill Venezuelan cit!z~n, 11vlnq In CdraCft8, venezuela. Rh~ fIIuhmitted the communic8tion on hehalf of hef hrothflr, T,uifl I\lherto 80l6rzano, 8tl'lltinq thllt he WII8 ImpriRonec1 at the San C/uloR mIlitary hlHrlllcka (Cuart!!'l San CltrloA) In Vl"nezuelll ,'nd tllllt he Wlllil IInahle to suhmit the communication himself. Mr. So16rzillno was releaReel hy virtue of a Pre~idpntlal OOC'rel!' of 21 Decemher 1'184. In /I letter to the Ccmmitttu, (undllted), rece!vwl on 27 June 19A'l, he 101nerl lU' co-author of the romm.Jnlcatt.m.
Kllty Solt'Jr"ano Ht.ated that her hrothf'r (horn ,In H Novemher 19'i2) hll" heen IUf(!flterl at h19 home on 28 Fehruary 19..,., ",ithout Itn'! warrllnt of "rrest o1In<'1 that hln hOllae hitrl been neo'lrched wi thout II AIMrc:h ;Jaru'lnt. She further "tllt.,rl thllt he hlll<'l been Ruhjected to severp torturf" ...n<l qavp the nl'lmPR 01 ftvt~ offic:erll ;,ll.,qe<J1y relJpOnAlhl,~, all of them m!!'mhera of the nill!Ccion de Ion servicloll de lnteliqencia y Prev!!'lIcl,')n (DISlP). TheRe events, /lA wpll o!IA <lump" f th,1R" c1e8crlhe<l helow, OCcurre,1 hefore the entry into forcf" of tile Covenant, .'Ind thf" Opt l<'lInl Protocol for Vtml'zu.~lll (1 () l\ullUflt 1978). 1. i Soon after Mr. Solorzano't1 ,HreAt, ,) 1011 It",ry tr i.hullltl I"\d ord..red hi" ,letl'ntion on C"hl'llfllen of h/lvlnq )olne<l in ..,rm~<1 retwlllon. On 12 [)~;emhl'!r 1977 he h"l(l heen Indi"tpd. III thllt connl"ction, Un' IJrORecut.H· "tfirmed thfl exlllh,nce of 11 clandeRtlnp ;HIllI!<l !noVI-mont, '~"llud "Grupo d« ComandoR Hev'>luclon/lrlofl", Illmlnq .,t -1'\4--
In a summary of the leqal issues, Mr. Solorzano's defence lawyer observed that after December 1977, Sa16m Meza Espinoza and David Nieves, two individuals whose cases were linked with the case of Mr. Solorzano, had been elected deputies to the Venezuelan Conqress. On the basis of their new parliamentary immunity, both of them had requested their release, which had been subseauently ordered by a court martial. The military prosecutor had appealed the decision before the Supreme Court of Justice, to which the case had been transferred in mid-1979. All proceedinqs in the case, ineludinq those aqainst Mr. 50l6rzano, had been adjourned pendinq a ruling of the Supreme Court on the auestion of the leqality of the release of the two deputies.
Katv Sol6rzano alleqed that there had been various irreoularities in the proceedings aqainst her brother. She indicated that: Her brother, a civilian, had been tried by a military tribunal, althouqh that was contrary to the Venezuelan Constitution, The evidence presented by her brother and his lawyer had been disreqarded by the military tribunal, in partiCUlar, the lawyer could not obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her brother's behalf, Her brother's trial ,had been defective since, for example, false declarations had been admitted in evidence. In that connection, Mr. Decaril, Mr. So16rzano's lawyer, had stated that, inter alia, his Client's detention and the charqes against him had been based on declarations, made by policemen and other witnesses, which for one reason or another should have been considered invalid.
Katy So16rzano claimed that her brother had been SUbjected to inhuman prison conditions, that in February 1983 he had been severely beaten at the Cuartel San Carlos (the name of the responsible officer was given), that after those incidents and similar ones in other prisons, political detainees all over the country, includinq her brother, had carried out a mo~th-lonQ hunger strike to obtain better conditions of detention, that. due to the above-mentioned events, her brother had reauired medica~ treatment and his transfer to a hospital had been recommended, but that the prison authorities had not heeded the recommendation.
It was claimed that Mr. Soi6rzano was a victim of violations of articles 7, 9, paraqraqhs 1 and 4, 10, paragraph 1, and 14. paraaraDh 3 (c) and (e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that no domestic remedies were available in the case.
Raty Solorzano further indiCated that the present case was not being examined under another procedure of international investiqation or settlement.
Bv its decision of 20 OCtober 1983, the WOrking Group of the Human Riqhts Committee, having decided that Katy S010rzano was justified in actinq on behalf of the alleged victim, transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and
In a submission dated 16 January 1984, the State party informed the Committee that Luis A. So16rtano had been arrested in the course of the criminal proceedinQs instituted in connection with the· kidnappinq of a United States citizen, William Frank Niehous, by "an armed movement consistina of a qroup of persons formina a paramilitary orqanization known as Grupe de Comandos Revolucionarios, Operaci6n Araimiro Gabaldon". Followina pre-trial detention by the police authorities, as authorized in article 60.1, third paraqraph, of the Constitution, an order confirmina his detention had been issued On 7 March 1977 by the Permanent Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas, after the Court had determined the existence of military rebellion and had found that there was firm evidence of Quilt on the part of Mr. So16rzano, as required by article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 202 of the Code of Military Justice. The Sta~e party submitted that Mr. So16rzano's arrest had been effected in accordance with the Constitution and relevant criminal laws, and therefore it could not be described as arbitrary and that the alleqation of violation of article 9, psraQraph 4, of the Covenant was similarly inadmissible, "since the remedies of complaint and/or appeal aqainst a detention order are provided for in article 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 203 of the Code of Military Justice and should have been duly utilized, even if they would have been unsuccessful".
The State party further submitted that the alleqations of torture had not been accompanied by any suppertinQ evidence, while the alleqations of maltreatment of detainees "could well refer to acts of prison mutiny, which are quite outside the scope of the Covenant". The State party added that it would seem unlikely that those alleqations of maltreatment and torture were true, particularly as they had been investiqated by the PUblic Prosecutor's Department.
The State party observed that the author's alleaations reqardinQ irreqularities in the proceedlnqs (both, apparently, at the pre-trial stage and after the trial started with the indictment of the alleqed victim on 12 December 1977), leaal manoeuvres to delay proceedinqs and obstruction reqardinQ the cross-examination of witnesses could not be taken seriously since Mr. So16rzano's lawyer had stated that "the investiqation then proceeded normally until the indictment was made. The period for qivinQ evidence was observed, and Bome of the witnesses SUIBmoned to appear by the court wer~ cross-examined".
The State party also rejected the alleqation that the trial of Mr. solorzano had been delayed to prevent his release. In that connection, it stated that, in the decision handed down on 22 February 1979, the Court had ordered the unconditional release of Salom Meza Espinoza and David Nleves, who had been ctarqed alonQ with Mr. S016rzano and another person for military rebellion and other offences, that was because -they had been elected deputies to the National Congress and consequently enjoyed parliamentary immunity under article 143 of the Constitution. In the same decision, the above-mentioned Military Court had ruled that the Permanent Military Court of Caracas should forward the dossier to the Supreme Court of Justice for the purpOses laid down in article 215 (2) of the Constitution, which stated that one of the powers of the Supreme COurt of Justice was "to declare whether or not there are arounds for the trial of members of Conaress". The State party had further stated that while the ease was beinQ heard by the full court, a presidential oardon had been Qranted on 28 November 1993 to "As far as the a1leqations considered here are concerned, the most important consideration is that the proceedinqs aqainst Luis Alberto sol6rzano aqain followed the normal course, once the question of the special status of his co-defendants had been resolved."
The State party contended that domestic remedies had not been exhausted ·since the trial is enterinq the phase of summinq-up and sentencing at first instance. This leaves all the second instance procedure untouched, as well as the appeal to set aside the judqement, in accordance with the proc"~ural leqislation in force".
In a further submission dated 16 February 1984, Katv Sol6rzano commented on the State party's SUbmission and reiterated that her brother's detention was unlawful for the following reasons: "He was arrested more than one year after the kidnappinq of the American cititen, so that there is no question of flaqrante delicto, Which is an exception provided" for in article 60, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, "He is being detained without any written order by the competent offIcial. "
Katv So16rzano alleqed that her brother's riqht to defend himself had not been respected. In particular she mentioned that the right to cross-examine witnesses had been dQnied (names were qiven). She added that "the court failed to take any firm action when the only witness to appear voluntarily, on beinq cross-examined, admitted that she had made her statement aqa1nst Luie Alberto So16rzano because DISIP (Political Police) had threatened her with imprisonment if she did not do so, \. and also retracted her earlier statement against him. The name of this witness is Aurora Alonso de Sanchez, and the text of her statement can be found in the record of proceedinqs". As to the State party's contention that Mr. Sol6~zano's lawyer had conceded that procedural guarantees were observed and some witnesses cross-examined, Katy So16rzano stat~ that that had been done in order to secure her brother's release.
Katy So16rzano stressed that article 68 of the Venezuelan Constitution 9tipulated that the riqht to a defence was an inviolable right at every stage and level of proceedings and she recalled that her brother had been deprived of a trial for morE than five years. In that connection she commented: "While it is proper for the Supreme Court to take the proper time to issue a decision, nevertheless, the fact that this proper time should already have extended over more than five years surely defies all logic. w
Before considerinq any claims contained in a cO.JJmunication, the Human Riqhts Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 87 of. its provisional rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Article 5, paragraph 2, (a), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considerinq a communication if the same matter is beinq examined under another procedure of international investiqat!on or settlement. The Committee noted that there was no indication that that applied in the present case.
Article 5, paragraph 2, (b), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considerinQ a communication if all available domes~ic remedies have not been exhausted. The Committee therefore examined whether the authors' various claims met that requirement.
As to the claim that Mr. So16rzano was a victim of a violation of article 9, paraqraphs 1 and 4, of the Covenant, the Human Riqhts Committee observed that the arrest had taken place prior to the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Venezuela. The claim, in so far as it related to the alleqed victim's initial arrest and detention was therefore found to be inadmissible ratione temporise In so far as the communication miqht be understood as implyinq that the continued detention of Mr. So16rzano (after 10 August 1978) constituted, as such, a violation of article 9, paraqraphs land 4, of the Covenant, the Committee referred to the observations of the State party set out in paragraph 3.1 above and concluded that the issue was also inadmissible. because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
In so far as the claim concerninq the alleqed torture and mistr~atment of Mr. S016rzano, in violation of articles 7 and 10, paraqraph 1, of the Covenant, related to events said to have taken place prior to 10 Auqust 1978, the Committee observed that it was inadmissible ratione temporise In so far as the claim related to events all~ed to have taken place in February 1983 (para. 1.6 above), the Committee noted the observations of the State party (para. 3.2 above) and the author's comments ~hereon (para. 4.4 above). It was established that inquiries into the events in question had taken place and had led to an aQreement signed, amonq others, by Mr. 5016rzano. The implications of that aqreement, which miqht have constituted a remedy in reqard to the qround of complaint, were not clear. The Committee found that that part of the claim, therefore, belonqed to the examination of the case on the merits and was not inadm~ssible.
In so far as Katy 5016rzano claimed that the prolonqea delays in the court proceedinqs affectinq Mr. So16rzano constitu'~ed a violation of article 14, paraqraph 3 (c), of the Covenant, the Committee observed that the claim also concerned article 9, paraqraph 3, of the Covenant (which provided for the riqht to trial within a reasonable time or to release from detention). The contin~ed detention of Mr. So16rzano since 28 February 1977, without tr~~l. clearly raiSed an
As to Katy Sol6rzano's claim that Mr. Sol6rzano had been denied the riqht to examine, or have examined, the witnesses aqainst him in violation of article 14, oaraQraph 3 (e), of the Covenant, it appeared that she related that claim both to the period of pre-trial investiqation (Which ended with an indictment on 12 December 1971, i.e., before the Covenant entered into force for Venezuela) and to the trial period which followed thereafter (includinq some months from the entry into force of the Covenant for Venezuela on 10 Auqust 1978, until the trial proceedinqs were adjourned in February 1979). ConsiderinQ that she did not indicate any dates in support of her c1ai~ that article 14, paragraph 3 (e), had not been' respected and taking into account the other information before it in regard to the claim, the Human Riqhts Committee concluded that it should be deemed inadmissib~e. The issue mi~ht, however, be seen as subsumed in the claim that Mr. So16rzano was a victim of a breach of article 14, paraqraph 3 (c), which was to be considered on the merits.
On 2~ October 1984, the Human Ri~hts Committee therefore decided:
That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to alleaed i11-treatment of Mr. So16rzano in February 1983 and in so far as it related to the duration of the judicial proceedinqsJ
That the communication was inadmissible in resoect of the other claims c'aiRe(l llV the author.
In i~s submission under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Ootional Protocol, dated 25 April 1985, the State party informed the Committee that "Dr. Jaime Lusinchi, President of the Republic of Venezuela, undertook, throuqh Presidential Decree No. 441, of 21 December 1984 ••• the dismissal of the proceedinQs aqainet Luis Alberto So16rzano-, and that Mr. So16rzano had been released. The State party thus reauested the Committee to close the case.
Before takinq further action, tbe Committee instructed the Secretariat to ascertain from Mr. So16rzano whether he wished the C~mittee to continue consideration of the case and, if so, to confirm th~ facts of the case as presented by his sister and to correct any inaccuracies in that respect. "I. Since therlt Is 00 'ludqement aqair.ftt me, r'" civililln or mi 1 f tllry ent ity or llllthority in leQlIlly in III position to tllk:e a decl.·ion on PCltflUIl.!d quilt or innocence, "2. In other wordlt, I waa (Iehin&d for IIlmoat eiqht yellrlJ, durlnQ which thia tr ial did 1I0~ c:ull'llinl'Jte I.n " jllllqemcmt, 11 I'lIet which showlI the arhi trllrv ",,,'I l.rreqular ehlH"'cter of t.he procee<Hnqa to which I wnll sUbjected. "3. uctClIUl!l1t the 1'I1Ime Chl'lrllll~teri!itic8 IIttllched to my release, it: may he stated that my country' a Gov~rnment int"rfer ed ill the proceedinq,. 018 it plellaeci, refuflinq me th~ rlqht to jefel1ce throuqhout the period when the trial "'<'lR par "lyEed."
By a note dlllted 24 S...ptember 1911'>, the State party obsltrved that, liThe PeClRllnent Third Mi litary Court of Firut Instance of Caracas i8Rue~ 1'\ df',tenth.ln order IlIqainst r..llil'l Alherto Solbrzano, who was presumed to have committed the offence of mi l1tarv t'Ctbell 10n, which la puniahable untler article 476 of the Code of Militaq. JuaUcfl. The fact i8 thllt the Venezlloll'Ill leqal syBtl!lm includes di"mi8sal ilia one 01' the meana of stayinq trillls or proceedinqe. In lhia edse, thCll President of the Republic:, pursuant. to the tern,. of artkle <;4, parllqrllPh J, of the Code 'If Milltary Juatice and in k:eepinq with Presie'ential Decree No. 441 of :n OllCemher 1984, publhhed in Official Gaz!tt~ of the Repuhlic No. j3111 of the same date, ordered dillmiRH~l of the proceedinqe aqainRI: r'lis Alberto ~'(':>16rzllno. In the opinion of the Government of Vene'llllela, t.he caRe brouqht IIqalnat Luie Alhert SolorzlJl1o hlls come to a complftte l'!nd in accordance with t.'e ot)()ve. In any event, under our llKlal 8VSt.l!Im, citizun [,uia Alberto Solorzano ia entitled to b.:inq IIny leqr.l "ct!(m he deenlll appropr iate aqaln8t any per.on, natural or leqal, before the competent courts. In the pre.ent in.tance, hill IntentioJlII are aqaln.t the Venezuelan G<>vernment, which would, in the event of l.tal action hy 9016rzano, be repre"ftnted by the Attorney-General of t;,. Republic, who, under art iele 102, paraqraph I, of the Conatitution, 18 a.f11qnec1 th(ll tank of court or out-of-court representati0n and defence of the interesta of the Republic."
The Human Hiqht8 Commi tt..e, havinq examined the pre8flnt GommunI'.:lItion In the liqht of aU the information made avallahle to it by the parties a. provit1C!'11 in article <;, plHlIlqrllph 1, of the Optional Protocol, hereby dl!lCidea to ha"e it. viewll on the followinq fllcts, whiC\' lire either uncont••tec1 or are cont•• tOO by the State party only by den!.,l" of 11 qeneral character offerinq no plIrtlcull!lr informl1tlon or explanat ion".
Mr. l.ull, Alherto f,016cz1I110 waR arl ellted on 28 Februllry 1977 on lIu"'~'lcion of participation in armed rebellion, brouqht before a military tribunlll 'nd \Opt in detention until hi8 r9J.ease hy virtue of a Preaidentiltl Decree of 21 Decem' "'r lQ84, "hat ill, after more than eeven ~Iearll of detention. I\lthollqh he wal.'l ine11('(",,1 ,)n 12 December' len7 hy the Permallt,"t Militllry Court of Caracaa, proceedill<IR wel''' interrupt.ed in 1"'19 heCltllRe two co..-defendllnto hlld been elected eteputtea to the -140-
In formull\tlnq ltK views, t:- Human RlqhtA C,'mmittee "I,m t"kt"l inb, lte'"Ollllt thl!' fllUure of the St.• te party to furnillh certilin jnf')rlRl'ltion dnl! cl"rtficlllti.>ntt nece8Allry for the Committ.e to facllitllte itll taAks, in part1euliH with reqi'l[('1 to the tre/lll ml"nt in f<'ebruary 1983 of which "'r. 5010r7.l'1I00 has compldine<l. In the (~Ircumstanceo, tiue weiqhl: must he qi',en to the 1I'lthol'i' alleqlltlona. It t8 implicit in article 4, paraqraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the state pa.t:y hill" the <'Juty to inveatiqate In q<>Od faith all IIlleqat-lons of violittion of the CDvenant lRade aqainat. it ao<'I its authorities, and to furni8h to the Committee the illformatlon aVlllilllhle to It. In no circum8tdnce8 should a State party fllll to !l/vestiq4te duly anti to inform thtt Committee properly of its invll'lttiqation of .,lleqations of ill-treat..ment when the person or pprllons 1I11eqedly reBponuihle for the Ill-treatm.nt ~re id.ntified bV the Author of 11 commllnication. A tienial of th.1 ,'lIthors' allltQations in qeneral terms and the refer'tnce to an unsubmi tted invelltiQlltion by the Puhlic Prosecutor'. Department are not sufficient. The Committee would nlted pr«>cise information and reports, Inter alia, on thl!' qllestioninq of prison officialg accused of mAltreatment of prisonerR.
The lIuman Riqht. Committee, actinq under article 5, paraqraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political RiqhtR, i8 of '.he view that the facts as found by the Cammittee disclose vlo1llttona of the Covelllnt with reRpect tOI Artlcle 10, parllqrdph 1, hecause of the ill-treatment that Mc. Sol{,r?,ano sllffere<l durinq det.ntion, in particu1lllr i" FehrullfV 1981) Articles 9, paraqraph :t, and 14, paraq,- ... ph ) IC), hecause ht.' was not brouqht promptly b.fore a judqe nor tried within" reasonable time, and he,.:itUBI' he ""d8 kept in detention without judqement for over seven years. U, The Committee, accordinqlv, i8 of the view that the State party Is under an obllqlltinn, in IIccordanc. with the proviaions of IIrtiele 2 of the Covenllnt, to take effective meaBur.1!! to remedy the violations that Mr. So16rzIlno haB Ruffered and ',0 qrant him campenRat.ion, to Inve.tiaate Baid violationo, to takl! action thereon as IIppropriate and to take st~p. to ensure that IIlmi1." viollltiona tlo not occur in the futllre. tlot~8 a/ PlIrAuant. to rllle 8'> of th~ proviRlonal rllles of procedure, Mr. A;;dr',. Aquilar did not particlp"te 1n the cooAiderdtlon of this communication or In thl." IIdoption of tht" vlltW8 of th", Committee und"r lIrticie '>, pllrnqraph 4, of tht· Optlonnl Protoc~()l In thi,. mlltt.er. -141-