A/HRC/45/CRP.11 347. Starting in March 2020 to the time of publication of the report, due to Covid-19, restrictions to family visits were imposed in Ramo Verde. However, DGCIM officers continued to enter Ramo Verde prison during the lockdown period. 3. The Judicial System 348. The arbitrary detentions documented by the Mission concern elements of the criminal judicial process, often starting before the arrest. The investigation revealed that public prosecutors and judges played an essential role in moving forward with the prosecution of cases that amount to arbitrary detentions. In many cases, it is difficult to determine whether actors in the justice system willingly participated in the arbitrary detention or whether they did so because of pressure, intimidation and/or fear of reprisals. Foundation for Arrests and Criminal Charges 349. The 1999 Constitution establishes that, “No person may be arrested or detained except by virtue of a court order, unless s/he is caught in the act of committing a crime”.794 In almost all of the cases involving SEBIN, the person was detained without an arrest warrant or without a crime in progress or just committed, as required by law (in flagrante delicto).795 The cases examined revealed no indication that judicial authorities conducted reviews of the legality of these detentions.796 350. At various procedural stages, the State did not provide sound evidence to sustain the defendant’s participation in the commission of a crime. The cases investigated show various irregularities, several of which sometimes occurred in the same case, for example: • Investigations were later revealed to be based on false accusations or manipulated evidence. For example, in the case of Roberto Marrero, the SEBIN inspector later testified that no investigation had actually been carried out, but that his supervisor had told him what he should write down as “investigation” results. 797 • Prosecutors or judges later said that they were pressured to maintain charges against defendants. In the case of Leopoldo López, the prosecutor and control judge later stated that they were pressured by superiors, as well as SEBIN and DGCIM officers, to issue an arrest warrant. • The evidence presented by prosecutors to prove the crimes alleged was weak. For example, the treason charge against Ángel Zerpa, was sustained during initial court appearance solely on the basis of a photo of his swearing in as a judge following his appointment by the National Assembly. • Confessions were extracted from the accused or a third party without a lawyer present or under duress, such as in the case of Juan Requesens.798 351. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, information will only have value if it has been presented at the relevant procedural stage and obtained through lawful means.799 Information may not be used if it has been obtained by torture, ill-treatment, coercion, threat, fraud, unlawful interference communications, among others. 800 If the information on which a conviction is based is false, the conviction of the accused must be reviewed. 801 352. In almost all cases investigated, the accused were charged with serious crimes with significant detention periods. Charged included treason, criminal association, incitement, public intimidation, arson of a public building, damage to public property and concealment of weapons, among others. Most of the crimes charged were from the Crimes against the 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 90 1999 Constitution, art. 44. Criminal Procedure Code, art. 234. Criminal Procedure Code, arts. 236, 356 and 373. Written declaration submitted by Joel Garcia, Mr. Marrero’s lawyer, to the Mission, 12 May 2020. Criminal Procedure Code, art. 132. Criminal Procedure Code art. 181. Ibid. Criminal Procedure Code, art. 462.