A/HRC/42/18 dismissal. 40 According to information collected by OHCHR, prosecutors and public defenders were not perceived as independent and impartial when acting in cases related to the sociopolitical crisis.41 40. OHCHR documented violations of the right to a fair trial in cases of persons prosecuted for their involvement in demonstrations, sometimes based on a distorted application of the criminal legislation, which is not in line with international human rights norms and standards. For example, judges repeatedly issued arrest, search or seizure warrants post factum, which, although allowed by the Criminal Procedural Code to render police actions lawful, contravenes international norms and standards. Judges have also imposed mandatory pretrial detention for particular crimes 42 almost systematically and without proper reasoning, which is contrary to international norms and standards, according to which the imposition of such measures has to be exceptional and to take into consideration the defendant’s individual circumstances.43 41. Individuals who participated in the protests, took part in picket lines and roadblocks, collected money or supplies to support demonstrators or fired home-made mortars against security forces faced charges that were disproportionate to the seriousness of those acts. They were usually charged with terrorism, financing terrorism, kidnapping, organized crime or illegal possession of arms. Some judges have admitted inaccurate accusations, built on weak or contradictory evidence. In a number of cases, the prosecutors’ accusations included inconsistencies about persons, places, periods of time and objects allegedly found at the crime scene. Despite objections by the defence, the judges accepted those allegations. 42. Numerous cases were investigated and prosecuted before courts in Managua, although the alleged criminal acts had occurred elsewhere. This was justified by the application of article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as reformed by Law 952, which is vaguely worded. 44 Some of these cases were transferred to courts in Managua, without complying, with legal procedures. Almost all hearings before district judges were closed to the public without valid justification. 45 Other hearings held before pretrial judges were allegedly conducted in facilities that only judicial personnel – including public defenders – could access, without information on times and venues being communicated in advance to defence lawyers. The hearings would also occur at unusual times, for example at dawn and on weekends, to avoid public scrutiny.46 The minutes would indicate that the hearings had taken place during working hours. 43. The authorities violated the right to presumption of innocence of most people detained in the context of the protests.47 After a person was arrested, they would be publicly accused of being a terrorist and then placed in mandatory pretrial detention, in contravention of international norms. 48 Many were kept in prison for more than six months, others for almost a year, without any judicial review. 49 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 10 See www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/483132-rafael-solis-renuncia-corte-suprema-justicia/. The Public Defenders’ Office comes under the authority of the Supreme Court of Justice. For instance, terrorism and organized crime (Law 735, art. 37 (b)). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 38. Judges from other judicial districts (e.g., Granada, Rivas, León and Juigalpa) who had previously convened hearings declined jurisdiction, in contradiction of the provisions of article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defence objected to these irregular proceedings, but the cases and the detainees were sent to the courts in Managua before the appeals were decided. The defendants’ family members, national and international human rights institutions and independent media have generally been prevented from attending the hearings. According to the Government, hearings were held at the premises of courts of justice on the dates and at the time set by judges. Communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to the OHCHR questionnaire, p. 12. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 30. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35, para. 38. Ibid.