A/HRC/45/33 124. Of the protests the mission reviewed, 13 involved some form of confrontation between security forces and protesters. Security forces fired tear gas canisters, anti-riot pellet guns and used hydrant trucks. The mission reviewed over 70 videos shot at demonstrations, none of which gave any indication that security forces attempted non-violent measures, such as dialogue or warnings, before taking these measures. 125. Some individuals involved in protests also committed violent acts, including throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails at the security forces, which could be criminal acts. On occasion, protesters used improvised mortar devices to fire low-grade explosive material. 126. According to the Constitution, the police are responsible for maintaining public order (art. 332). The Constitution also grants the Bolivarian National Guard a basic responsibility for conducting operations as required to maintain internal order within the country (art. 329). 127. Since 2014, the command structure responding to protests became increasingly militarized. With resolution No. 8,610 of January 2015, the Minister of Defence authorized the Bolivarian National Armed Forces to intervene in public meetings and demonstrations. In April 2017, the President enacted Plan Zamora, describing a military response in protests and against different categories of perceived enemies. Other targeted military plans were derived from that master plan: for example, Plan Guaicaipuro and Plan Zamora Fragmentada in Mérida State. 128. Several plans and policies applied to demonstrations provided scope for military and paramilitary intervention in protests and sometimes for the participation of colectivos (armed citizen groups) in security tasks. 1. Arbitrary detentions and due process concerns 129. The mission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the protests in the periods reviewed – February to April 2014; April to July 2017; and January and February 2019 – recurring arbitrary detentions of demonstrators occurred in violation of their rights to liberty and security. 130. Official statistics are not available publicly but civil society organizations have attempted to track numbers of arrests in the context of protests, identifying between 3,459 and 3,696 in 2014; between 2,553 and 5,549 in 2017; and an estimated 2,252 in 2019.20 131. In April 2014, the Supreme Court issued a judgment interpreting the right to peaceful assembly under the Constitution (art. 68) and the 2010 Law on political parties, public meetings and protests as requiring prior permission from local authorities. 21 The Court held that failure to obtain authorization absolutely limited the right to peaceful demonstration, preventing any kind of meeting or demonstration from being held and that those holding protests without authorization could incur in criminal responsibility for disobeying authority. 132. The mission observes that the Supreme Court decision appears at variance with the country’s international obligations related to the right of peaceful assembly, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human rights standards obligate States to allow peaceful assemblies without unwarranted interference and to facilitate the exercise of that right. Notification systems are permissible to facilitate peaceful assemblies but must not be misused to repress them. 133. Detainees were held incommunicado before being brought to a judge for their initial court appearance, unable to contact families and lawyers. In most cases, the detainees were not informed of the reasons for their arrest until they were brought before a judge for the initial court appearance, which often did not take place within 48 hours of detention, as required by the Constitution (art. 44 (1)). 134. In the cases investigated, 403 persons were arrested. Of these, 312 were charged with a criminal offence during the initial appearance. In 66 cases, the judge ordered the pretrial detention of the detainees to be continued. The mission’s review of the cases did not reveal 20 21 See www.derechos.org.ve/pw/wp-content/uploads/16libertad_personal1.pdf (in Spanish); and Foro Penal, Gráfica de Arrestos por Año 2014–2019 (on file with the mission). Supreme Court, Judgment No. 276, 24 April 2014. 15