The lawyer and vice president of the Penal Forum, Gonzalo Himiob, recalled that international human rights organizations, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, consider that house arrest or “house arrest” continues to be a form of deprivation of liberty. Perkins Rocha, Freddy Superlano and a detainee with serious health problems have been subject to these measures since January 8, says the organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón. Regarding Juan Pablo Guanipa, his whereabouts are unknown
The releases continue in parallel with the amnesty bill, which the National Assembly approved in its first discussion last Thursday, February 5. One of the discordant notes of the process, in addition to the deaths of family members or the serious state of health of some political prisoners, occurred in the last hours.
Lawyer Perkins Rocha and political leader Freddy Superlano They were taken from their place of confinement, under a measure of house arrest, on Sunday, February 8.
«What they are changing is the place of confinement. Article 242, paragraph 1, of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes house arrest. However, many of them have police station, that is, they cannot even leave their homes. They are still imprisoned but they changed the location,” he explained to SuchWhich Joel García, specialist in criminal law and human rights defender.
This type of deprivation of liberty has occurred in other politically motivated arrests or sentences, such as the case of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, arrested in 2009 and convicted of “corruption.” Since the releases on January 8, the organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón has registered another case of “house for prison”: that of a political prisoner with serious health problems that required surgery.
The lawyer and vice president of the Penal Forum, Gonzalo Himiob, recalled that international human rights organizations, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, consider that “house arrest” continues to be a form of deprivation of liberty.
He cited the case of lawyer Marcelo Crovato, in which it was pointed out that house arrest is equated with deprivation of liberty “with the understanding that the person is in closed facilities and does not have authorization to leave that place. Currently, for the Working Group, house arrest is a form of deprivation of liberty for which there is no consent.”
Indeed, this is how María Constanza Cipriani, wife of Perkins Rocha, expresses it. In interview with NTN24 He commented that “he is firm, serene, calm, happy in his home. I have tried to remove a little drama and anguish from what it means to have an electronic shackle on his ankle. This morning I told him that he is not released from prison, he is imprisoned at home, he changed his cell.”
He also indicated that despite the lawyer’s limitations in exercising his freedom of expression and opinion, whether before the media or social networks, and the police officers stationed outside his home, “we understand that we have achieved one more step to achieve his freedom. Within so much evil, I am left with the joy of having my husband with me, and that satisfaction, that joy, I am not going to allow a Perkins ankle bracelet to ruin it.”
Rocha, detained on August 27, 2024 east of Caracas, has had serious illnesses that require specialized medical care. Joel García expressed that, in his case, it is up to the public defense to manage the authorizations before a court to take him to a medical center. “The problem is the public defense, which also follows orders.”
*Read also: Cabello defends Juan Pablo Guanipa’s new arrest: He wanted to “embarrass the country”
In the case of Juan Pablo Guanipa, he was released from prison on Sunday afternoon and a little more than 10 hours later he was arbitrarily detained by unknown individuals. In the early hours of the morning, the Public Ministry confirmed his arrest under the allegation that he failed to comply with the alternative measures imposed by a court, for which they requested that he be transferred “to a regime of house arrest.”
As of the closing of this note, his relatives do not know if he was brought before a court, is in a detention center or was transferred directly to his home.
Orlando Moreno, from the Vente Venezuela Human Rights Committee, stated that Guanipa is detained at the PNB headquarters located in Mariperez.
“If there was a rule of law, that measure would not have been revoked. The judge, if he does so, is grounds for dismissal because it is an inexcusable error in the law. Juan Pablo Guanipa had two measures: periodic presentation every 30 days and a ban on leaving the country. Neither of the two factual assumptions occurred, and since the factual assumptions are not present there cannot be the motivation and, therefore, the judicial resolution. What is going to happen to him? They are going to take him home; without However, we hope that the public defense will appeal, because the reason is appealable and the court must give it to them,” stated Joel García.
*Journalism in Venezuela is carried out in a hostile environment for the press with dozens of legal instruments in place to punish the word, especially the laws “against hate”, “against fascism” and “against the blockade.” This content was written taking into consideration the threats and limits that, consequently, have been imposed on the dissemination of information from within the country.
Post Views: 1
