A/HRC/18/19 7. Uzbekistan 86. Regarding the case of Erkin Musaev mentioned in my previous report,34 the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment sent a joint urgent appeal on 21 March 2011. In the appeal, it was mentioned that, for the previous three months, Mr. Musaev had been regularly put into an isolation cell for periods of up to 15 days. On 15 February 2011, he was again placed in solitary confinement, then allegedly transferred to a medical unit of the prison owing to his deteriorating state of health. On 19 February 2011, Mr. Musaev was transferred to Tashkent Hospital, San Gorodok, where he was undergoing treatment; however, his family has not been allowed to see him. It is further reported that, while in isolation, Mr. Musaev was allegedly beaten by prison authorities. Mr. Musaev’s family has been warned not to contact any Uzbek authorities nor to seek further information about Mr. Musaev. The Government responded to this communication on 12 May 2011. Unfortunately, at the time of completion of the present report, the translation of this response was not yet available. 8. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 87. Regarding the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni mentioned in my previous report,35 the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent by several mandate holders on 28 July 2010.36 Judge Afiuni was the subject of two other joint communications, sent on 1 April and 26 July 2010.37 The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights mentioned the case of Ms. Afiuni in her statement at the tenth Biennial Conference of the International Association of Women Judges in Seoul and has subsequently engaged the Government on this particular case. 88. In September 2010, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted its Opinion No. 20/2010,38 in which it stated that the detention of Judge Afiuni was arbitrary under the Working Group’s categories I, II and III. The Working Group specifically mentioned this case in its 2010 annual report.39 It reiterated its concern that the arrest and detention of Ms. Afiuni was an act of reprisal against her decision to release on bail Eligio Cedeño in the light of the recommendations made by the Working Group in its Opinion No. 10/2009, in which the Working Group ruled the detention of Mr. Cedeño as arbitrary. In its recommendations in 2010, the Working Group called for all States to cease the practice of reprisals. The Chairperson of the Working Group mentioned this case during his interactive dialogue with the Human Rights Council at its sixteenth session, and called on the Government of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) to release Ms. Afiuni immediately. The Government replied that the rights of Ms. Afiuni were guaranteed and regretted the partiality of the report of the Working Group. It claimed that the Opinion of the Working Group had not included the explanations communicated by the Government and that this was not a case of reprisal. 89. The above case was also mentioned during the interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions during the seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council. The Government of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) responded that it regretted “the biased treatment that the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges 34 Ibid., para. 44. A/HRC/14/19, para. 45-47. 36 See A/HRC/16/44/Add.1, paras. 2427-2434. 37 Ibid., paras. 2467-2477; A/HRC/16/52/Add.1, para. 245. 38 A/HRC/16/47/Add.1. 39 A/HRC/16/47, paras. 19-21. 35 15