Summary executions


Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Amenazas de Muerte contra Tres Jóvenes en Caracas



Descargar 2.06 Mb.
Página45/48
Fecha de conversión09.05.2019
Tamaño2.06 Mb.
Vistas437
Descargas0
1   ...   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Amenazas de Muerte contra Tres Jóvenes en Caracas
Violación alegada: Amenazas de muerte
Persona objeta del llamamiento: 3 hombres (2 menores)
Carácter de la respuesta: Respuesta cooperativa pero incompleta
Observaciones del Relator Especial
El Relator Especial aprecia que el Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela por la información adicional que ha proporcionado relativa al estado de sus investigaciones con relación a las amenazas de muerte. El Relator Especial también aprecia el compromiso del Gobierno de mantenerlo informado sobre el progreso de dichas investigaciones.
El Relator Especial lamenta que el Gobierno no haya proporcionado información sobre las medidas de protección adoptadas para garantizar la seguridad de Edison Steveen Gámez Cabrera, José Manuel Silva Díaz y Eduardo Antonio Moro.
Llamamiento urgente del 1 de septiembre de 2006
Quisiera llamar la atención de su Gobierno sobre la información que he recibido en relación con los actos de intimidación y las amenazas de muerte en contra de los jóvenes Edison Steveen Gámez Cabrera (18 años), José Manuel Silva Díaz (14 años), y Eduardo Antonio Moro (17 años), por parte de un funcionario de la Policía de Circulación de Miranda y de otro funcionario uniformado de la policía Metropolitana, en el barrio La Cruz, de la ciudad de Caracas, Venezuela. Según la información recibida:
El 17 de julio de 2006, Edison Steveen Gámez Cabrera se encontraba en frente del negocio y residencia de la Sra. Eglé Díaz, ubicado en el barrio La Cruz, cuando un funcionario de la Policía de Circulación de Miranda, que vestía de civil y se desplazaba en una moto de placa Nº 4-18, lo habría amenazado con arrestarlo por haber presuntamente robado unos zapatos y una pelota que se encontraban en su casa. José Manuel Silva Díaz, hijo de la Sra. Eglé Díaz, se habría acercado al escuchar las amenazas. En ese momento, el funcionario de la policía se habría dirigido a José Manuel y a Eduardo Antonio Moro, otro joven que se encontraba allí, diciéndoles que a ellos también los iba a desaparecer y a ajusticiar. Desde entonces, este funcionario de la Policía de Circulación de Miranda, que reside también en el barrio La Cruz, habría continuado amenazando de muerte a estos jóvenes, así como preguntado a los vecinos sobre los lugares que los jóvenes frecuentan y lo horarios en los que suelen salir. Según nuestras fuentes, este funcionario también pasaría frente al negocio y residencia de Sra. Eglé Díaz, junto a otro funcionario uniformado de la policía Metropolitana, y señalaría la casa con gestos amenazantes.

De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 27 de julio del 2004, la Sra. Eglé Díaz denunció este hecho ante la oficina de Atención a la Víctima del Ministerio Público, pero el funcionario público a cargo habría manifestado que el Ministerio Público no tenía competencia para recibir denuncias sobre amenazas a la seguridad personal. Igualmente, se habrían realizado denuncias ante la división de asuntos internos de la Policía de Circulación de Miranda y de la Policía Metropolitana, no obstante ninguna investigación habría sido iniciada.


Frente a estas alegaciones, expreso mi temor por la seguridad de las personas anteriormente mencionadas, e insto al Gobierno de su Excelencia a tomar de inmediato las medidas necesarias para garantizar la seguridad e integridad física y psicológica de José Manuel Silva Díaz, Steeven Gómez Cabrera y Eduardo Antonio Moro. A este respecto, llamo la atención de su Gobierno sobre las normas fundamentales enunciadas en la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos y en el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos. Los artículos 3 y 6 de estos instrumentos garantizan a todo individuo el derecho a la vida y a la seguridad de su persona y disponen que este derecho sea protegido por la ley y que nadie sea arbitrariamente privado de su vida.
Igualmente, me permito llamar su atención sobre los Principios relativos a una eficaz prevención e investigación de las ejecuciones extralegales, arbitrarias o sumarias, resolución 1989/65 de 24 de mayo de 1989 del Consejo Económico y Social. Los principios 4 y 9 a 19 obligan a los Gobiernos a garantizar una protección eficaz, judicial o de otro tipo, a los particulares y grupos que estén en peligro de ejecución extralegal, arbitraria o sumaria, en particular a aquellos que reciban amenazas de muerte. Los Gobiernos deben proceder a una investigación exhaustiva, inmediata e imparcial de todos los casos en que haya sospecha de tales ejecuciones o amenazas; publicar en un informe las conclusiones de estas investigaciones; y velar por que sean juzgadas las personas que la investigación haya identificado como participantes en tales ejecuciones, en cualquier territorio bajo su jurisdicción.
De acuerdo con el mandato que me ha entregado la Comisión de Derechos Humanos, mandato reforzado por las resoluciones pertinentes de la Asamblea General, es mi responsabilidad intentar conseguir clarificación sobre los hechos llevados a mi atención. En mi deber de informar sobre esos casos al Consejo de Derechos Humanos, estaría muy agradecido de tener su cooperación y sus observaciones sobre los asuntos siguientes:
1. ¿Son exactos los hechos referidos?
2. Si fueron presentadas quejas o denuncias, ¿cuales han sido las respuestas a las mismas y las acciones referidas en las respuestas?
3. Por favor, proporcione los detalles así como los resultados de las últimas diligencias judiciales o de otro tipo, realizadas en relación a este caso. ¿Han sido adoptadas sanciones de carácter penal o disciplinario contra los presuntos culpables?
4. Indicar las acciones adoptadas para garantizar la seguridad de José Manuel Silva Díaz, Steeven Gómez Cabrera y Eduardo Antonio Moro.
Respuesta del gobierno de Venezuela del 12 de luglio de 2007
Los ciudadanos arriba mencionados, todos adolescentes, fueron testigos de actos de violencia contra las persones, supuestamente cometidos por funcionarios adscritos a la Policia de Circulación del estado Miranda el 17 de julio de 2006, en el Barrio La Cruz, calte La Línea, casa N° 16, de Petare, par lo que presuntamente recibieron amenazas por parte de tales funcionarios.
El casa es conocido actualmente por las Fiscales Octogésima Sexta y Centésima Primera del Ministerio Público de la Circunscripción Judicial del Area Metropolitana de Caracas, abogadas Lisbeth Brandt Lamus y Adriana Gamez, quienes iniciaron las investigaciones en fecha 17 de julio de 2006, realizando las difgencias pertinentes, a las fines de establecer las responsabilidades a que haya lugar, entas las cuales cabe destacar: citaciones libradas para que las adolescentes en cuestión comparezcan a la sede del Despacho Fiscal, a fin que rindan declaración con relación a los hechos. Igualmente se solicitó colaboración a la Red de Apoyo par la Justicia y la Paz, para la localización de los mismos.
Es importante indicar que la causa se encuentra en fase de investigación, razón por la cual quedo a su disposición de presentar mayor información une vez sea recibida.
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Amenazas de muerte contra la familia de

Hernández Mota
Violación alegada: Amenazas de muerte y temor por la seguridad
Persona objeta del llamamiento: 1 mujer, 2 hombres
Carácter de la respuesta: Respuesta en gran parte satisfactoria
Observaciones del Relator Especial
El Relator Especial agradece al Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela Colombia por la información adicional que ha proporcionado relativa a las medidas de protección adoptadas por el Gobierno.
El Relator Especial preguntará información sobre los resultados de las investigaciones mencionadas en la respuesta del Gobierno.
Carta de seguimiento del 17 de octubre de 2006 relativa a una carta mandada el 31 de mayo de 2005
Me gustaría llamar la atención de su Excelencia sobre nuestro intercambio de correspondencia (consignado en mi último informe al Consejo de Derechos Humanos E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1 p. 299-301) con relación a las amenazas de muerte y los actos de intimidación en contra de Carmen Alicia Mota Hernández, Roberto Carlos Hernández Mota y Carlos Arturo Hernandez Mota. En su respuesta del 3 de Noviembre de 2005, el Gobierno de su Excelencia me informó que el Juzgado segundo en función de control del circuito judicial penal del Estado Guárico, había otorgado medidas de protección a favor de las personas arriba mencionadas. Sin embargo, en esta misma carta, se me informó que las medidas de protección decretadas por este órgano jurisdiccional aun no habían sido implementadas.
En este contexto, y como lo señalé en las observaciones que hice sobre este caso en mi informe, le agradecería al Gobierno de su Excelencia que me proporcione información reciente con relación al cumplimiento de las medidas de protección referidas en su respuesta. Igualmente, agradecería que se me proporcione información reciente con relación al proceso penal que se lleva a cabo con ocasión del homicidio del Sr. Carlos Arturo Hernandez Ortega (esposo y padre de las personas arriba mencionadas), así como del cumplimiento de las decisiones que se deriven del mismo.
Respuesto del Gobierno de Venezuela del 30 de marzo de 2007
En relación al proceso penal sobre el homicidio del ciudadano Carlos Arturo Hernández Ortega, el Ministerio Público se encuentra en "Fase de Juicio" ante et Tribunal Sexto de Primera Instancia en Funciones de Juicio del Circuito Judicial Penal del estado Carabobo, et cual fijó para et pasado 5 de febrero la celebración de una audiencia oral y pública, en contra de los acusados Wilfredo Rafael Febres, Juan Ramón Rivas Lara, Enrique Ledezma Ruiz, Evin Rafael Quiche y Adolfo León Delgado por la comisión del delito de homicidio intencional calificado.
En lo que respecta a la providencia dictada por el Juzgado Segundo en Funciones de Control del Circuito Judicial Penal del estado Guarico, con sede en Valle de Pascua, previa consulta con el órgano designado por el Tribunal para cumplir la tutela a favor de la ciudadana Mota y su familia, se conoció que las medidas de protección se han venido cumpliendo, como consta ben los registros que a tal efecto realiza el cuerpo de seguridad, a saber miembros de la zona 2 de la policía del estado Guarico.
Respuesta del Gobierno de Venezuela del 11 de luglio de 2007
La causa se encuentra en fase de Juicio por ante el Tribunal Sexto de Primera lnstancia en Funciones de Juicio del Circuito Judicial Penal del estado Carabobo, et cual fijó para el día 28 de marzo de 2007, la celebración de una audiencia oral y pùblica, en contra de los acusados, a saber, Wilfredo Febres, Juan Ribas Lara, Luis Enrique Ledezma Ruiz, Evin Rafael Quiche y Adolfo León Delgado, por la comisión del delito de homicidio intencional calificado, en perjuicio del ciudadano Arturo Heméndez, siendo finalmente iniciada la referida audiencia el 19 de junio de 2007, en la cual se evacuaron las declaraciones de dos testigos promovidos por el Ministerio Público, encontrándose fijada la continuación de la misma para el día 29 de junio de 2007.
Los Fiscales comisionados, interpusieron igualmente un Recurso de Apelación contra la decisión del 26 de febrero de 2007, emitida por el Órgano Jurisdiccional antes mencionado, mediante la cual se les otorgó Medida Cautelar Sustitutiva de Libertad a todos los acusados, previa solicitud interpuesta por los abogados defensores privados de los ciudadanos Febres y Ribas Lara, siendo esta revocada al Sr. Wilfredo Rafael Febres el día 06 de junio del año en curso, en virtud de haber incumplido con las obligaciones de presentar con periodicidad mensual, los informes médicos que indiquen la evolución o involución de la patología de la que argumenta adolece, toda vez que la providencia fue acordada como medida humanitaria por presentar un cuadro de salud delicado.
Paralelamente al proceso judicial, se mantienen en plena vigencia las medidas de protección acordadas a la Sra. Mota y su familia, por parte de la Policía del estado Guarico en Valle de la Pascua, para garantizarla integridad fisica de la misma".
Respuesta del Gobierno de Venezuela del 10 de octubre de 2007
En relación a este caso originado con ocasión a la muerte del esposo de la ciudadana Carmen Alicia Mota, quien en vida respondiera al nombre de Arturo Hernández, la Dirección General de Derechos Fundamentales de la Fiscalía General de la República informa que la causa se encuentra en Fase de Juicio del Circuito Judicial Penal del Estado Carabobo, el mismo fue iniciado en fecha 06 de junio de 2007, siendo objeto de varias suspensiones y diferimientos; finalmente el 01 de agosto de 2007, en la oportunidad de la continuación del Juicio Oral y Público, la Juez de la causa, se inhibió de conocer, alegando tener amistad manifesta con uno de los defensores de los imputados, en la actualidad nos encontramos a la espera del nombramiento del nuevo Juez que conocerá del expediente.
Viet Nam: Death Sentences of Le Manh Luong, Tran Van Hoi, Nguyen Minh Tuan and Nguyen Van Can
Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment
Subject(s) of appeal: 4 males
Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
The Special Rapporteur notes the information provided by the Government of Viet Nam.
The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that, inter alia, Le Manh Luong, Tran Van Hoi, Nguyen Minh Tuan and Nguyen Van Can are facing the death penalty for crimes which according to international human rights law do not fall within the category of “most serious crimes” for which the death penalty is admissible.
Urgent appeal dated 11 May 2007 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
We are writing concerning Le Manh Luong, Tran Van Hoi, Nguyen Minh Tuan and Nguyen Van Can who, we understand, are at imminent risk of execution. According to the information we received:
They were arrested in 2004 (along with three others), tried and convicted of trafficking in heroin, illegally buying and selling a pistol and bullets and forgery of identity documents. They were sentenced to death by the People’s Court, Quang Binh Province on 25 November 2006. Mr Luong, Mr Tuan and Mr Can appealed to the People’s Supreme Court of Vietnam in hearings that took place on 5 and 6 April 2007, and the Court upheld the sentences. It is understood that applications for clemency were submitted to President Nguyen Minh Triet.
It is furthermore our understanding that Mr Luong currently suffers from a mental disorder. On 29 August 1967 when Mr Luong was six years of age a B-52 bomber dropped a bomb on his family’s house killing two of his brothers and causing him serious brain injury. Mr Luong’s defence lawyer submitted medical evidence to the Court which states that Mr Luong had received a significant trauma to the head and that he was diagnosed as having “unstable emotional disorder” or asthenia. Dr Kennedy, a British consultant psychiatrist who has analysed the findings of the Vietnamese Doctors wrote that there “is evidence from the doctors who examined him in Vietnam that in March 2006 the defendant was suffering from psychiatric problems related to a structural problem in his brain”. Dr Kennedy has concluded that Luong’s brain damage would be seen as a mitigating factor for sentencing in Britain.
We also understand that the above four men are shackled at the ankles and the wrists twenty four hours a day, at the custody centre for the police, where they are currently detained. It is our understanding that such shackling normally continues until the time of execution.
Although the death penalty is not prohibited under international law, we would like to remind your Excellency’s Government that it must be regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life, and must as such be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. Secondly, it is crucial that all restrictions and fair trial standards pertaining to capital punishment contained in international human rights law are fully respected in proceedings relating to capital offences.
The limitation of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”: Pursuant to the Article 6(2) International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), ratified by Vietnam, sentence of death may only be imposed for the most serious of crimes. The Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty provide: “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.” We would note that drug trafficking has consistently been held by the Human Rights Committee, as well as by the Special Rapporteur, to fall short of the “most serious crimes” threshold. (see e.g, A/50/40 (1995), para. 35 [HRC]; A/55/40 (2000), para. 13 [HRC]; A/51/457 (1996), para. 107 [SR].) Under international human rights law, the crimes for which the above were convicted, while serious, cannot be considered among the “most serious crimes” for which the death penalty may be imposed. We note that the Human Rights Committee in its 2002 Concluding Observations on Vietnam reported a reduction in the number of crimes that carry the death penalty, from 44 to 29, but expressed concerns with the large number of crimes for which the death penalty may still be imposed including for crimes that are not considered as the most serious ones (U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/75/VNM (2002)).
Right to have conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal: Article 14(5) ICCPR provides “Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." This requires that a review by a higher court must be a genuine review of the issues in the case.
We are informed however that in 1999, 99.93% of appeals failed (1999 People’s Supreme Court Report), and there were similar figures in 2003 when only 7 convictions were overturned on appeal and in 2004 when only 5 successful appeals were recorded. In the circumstances, we are concerned that the review of the above persons’ convictions and sentences may have not have amounted to a genuine review and therefore have been in violation of the provisions of ICCPR.
Prohibition on executing the mentally ill: To execute an individual who is mentally incapacitated violates the right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7 ICCPR), and to impose a death sentence on a mentally incapacitated individual is also prohibited (article 6(2) ICCPR). The great importance attached to this norm by the international community is further indicated by its inclusion in the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty (principle 3: "nor shall the death sentence be carried out... on persons who have become insane" ) and resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights (see CHR resolution 2000/65, paragraph 3 (e), urging States "not to impose [the death penalty] on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder").In light of the medical evidence submitted regarding Le Manh Luong’s mental health condition, it would appear that the imposition of the death sentence and execution would be in violation of the provisions of ICCPR.
Shackling of prisoners: We would like to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We would further like to draw your Government’s attention to paragraph 1 of Resolution 2005/39 of the Commission on Human Rights which, “Condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all Governments to implement fully the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur on Torture the practice of shackling somebody for twenty four hours a day is inhuman and degrading and serves only as an additional form of punishment of someone already subjected to the stress and grief associated with having been sentenced to death.
We ask your Excellency’s Government not to carry out the executions of the above named persons for the reasons given and to consider commuting their sentences to an appropriate term of imprisonment.
Response from the Government of Viet Nam dated 2 August 2007
The Government informed that they were core actors of a transnational drug crime organization. Due to the extremely serious offences, the four said persons were tried and sentenced to death upon their crimes of drug-trafficking (article 194 of the Penal Code), illegally buying, selling and using military weapons (article 230 of the Penal Code), and using forged certificates and other important documents (article 266 of the Penal Code). With regard to a specific crime of drug-trafficking, the Penal Code stipulates that illegally buying and selling over 100g of heroin is a commission of an extremely serious crime, and for an amount over 600g, the trafficker will face the death sentence. Currently Luong, Tuan and Can are detained at a prison in Nghe An province. They are strictly supervised in accordance with law provisions on death-sentenced offenders. With regard to Le Manh Luong in particular, he had 16 previous convictions and offences tried by courts of the United Kingdom upon various types of crimes. During the investigation and trial on Luong in Viet Nam, he played many cunning tricks against the concerned agencies, inter alia, he pretended to be suffering from mental sickness, with a view to avoiding criminal responsibilities. The investigation agency sent Luong to the Central Council of Mental Medical Jurisprudence for examination. The results were negative and showed he had full civil capacity to carry out his criminal responsibilities. During the time he was monitored and examined, he was able to communicate with his family members, bribe cadres of the concerned agencies and the Central Council, and organize his escape from the Central Institute of Mental Health. This demonstrates that Luong was not mad at all; he was fully able to be aware of and control his behaviour. The trial on the above-mentioned individuals was totally lawful and in full accordance with criminal procedures recognized by the international community. The trial was attended by representatives of the British Consulate because a few offenders held British passports (like Le Manh Luong). The Government is of the view that the application of the death penalty must be based on the specific conditions of each country. In Viet Nam, it is necessary to maintain the death penalty on persons who commit to extremely dangerous crimes. The death penalty is a necessary and effective deterrence to crimes.
Viet Nam: Death in Custody of Kpa Kin
Violation alleged: Death in custody
Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male
Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Viet Nam in relation to the death of Kpa Kin.
Allegation letter dated 19 October 2007 with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

We would like to bring to your Government’s attention information we have received regarding Mr. Kpa Kin, a Christian believer aged 35, born at Ploi Tao Or village, commune Ia Hru, district Cu Se in Gialai Province. According to the information received:


In April 2004, Mr. Kpa Kin participated in a demonstration calling for religious freedom and land rights, following which he went into hiding. He was arrested on 16 December 2005 by security police and detained in Cu Se District. He was then transferred to T-20 prison in Pleiku Province and later to Phu Yen Province prison. Upon each transfer he was beaten with batons, kicked and electro-shocked on all parts of his body. As a result, he became seriously ill and needed to be taken to the hospital in Phu Yen Province, where the doctors, since they were unable to help him, recommended that he be released for medical reasons. However, on 24 August 2007, Mr. Kin died in Phu Yen Province hospital. When his family asked for his corpse to be returned to his home in order to be able to bury him, the request was refused. The authorities argued that since Mr. Kin was sentenced to three years in prison and had not yet finished his prison term, his body will be buried at the prison; only after the expiration of the three-year term, his relatives may collect the corpse.

Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we recall that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Viet Nam is a Party enshrines the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s life. When the State detains an individual, it is held to a heightened level of diligence in protecting that individual’s rights. As a consequence, when an individual dies in State custody, there is a presumption of State responsibility. This means that a State is presumed to be responsible for the death of the person under international law, unless clear evidence to the contrary emerges, explaining how the death occurred. In this respect, we would like to recall the conclusion of the Human Rights Committee in a custodial death case (Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, communication no. 84/1981 (1990)): “While the Committee cannot arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether Hugo Dermit committed suicide, was driven to suicide or was killed by others while in custody; yet, the inescapable conclusion is that in all the circumstances the Uruguayan authorities either by act or by omission were responsible for not taking adequate measures to protect his life, as required by article 6 (1) of the Covenant.”


We should like to appeal to your Excellency’s Government to seek clarification of the circumstances regarding the case of Mr. Kin. We would like to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We would like to draw your Government’s attention to General Comment No. 31 [80] in which the Human Rights Committee concluded that the right to a remedy enshrined in Article 2 ICCPR includes the obligation for the State to investigate promptly allegations of violations including summary and arbitrary killings. In addition, the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65), establish that “there shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions,” and that these investigations should include an adequate autopsy. These Principles also provide for the return of the body of the deceased to his family upon completion of the investigation.

We would also like to draw your Government’s attention to paragraph 1 of Resolution 2005/39 of the Commission on Human Rights which, “Condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all Governments to implement fully the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”


We would also like to appeal to your Excellency's Government to ensure the right to freedom of religion or belief in accordance with the principles set forth in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief and article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as well as of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We urge your Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of Mr. Kin’s relatives are respected and that accountability of any person guilty of the alleged violations is ensured. We also request that your Government adopts effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.
Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and extended by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:
1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?
2. Has a complaint been lodged?
3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations/autopsies, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.
4. Please provide information as to the existence of a rule which establishes that the remains of someone who dies in custody will not be returned to his family until the term of his sentence has expired.
5. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken; have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?
6. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the family of the victim.


Compartir con tus amigos:
1   ...   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48


La base de datos está protegida por derechos de autor ©psicolog.org 2019
enviar mensaje

enter | registro
    Página principal


subir archivos