Message: Emilio Henrique Garcia Bolivar v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Message No. 2085/2011. The Views were adopted by the Committee on October 16, 2014.
In 2011, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Subject of the message: conducting labor dispute litigation.
Substantive issues: the right to a public trial within a reasonable time.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that an important aspect of the fairness of the proceedings is their promptness and that delays in the proceedings, which cannot be justified by the complexity of the case or the conduct of the parties, constitute a departure from the principle of fair trial, as set out in paragraph 1 of article 14 (paragraph 7.3 of the Views) (See communications No. 203/1986, Munoz Hermosa v. Peru, November 4, 1988, paragraph 11.3, No. 514/1992, Fei v. Colombia, April 4, 1995, paragraph 8.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case. The Committee recalls that the author's claim for payment of social benefits, as well as compensation for damages and moral damage, was initially accepted for consideration by the court of first instance on November 21, 2000, and on May 15, 2007, the Cassation Chamber for Social Affairs of the Supreme Court requested the case from a lower instance for its consideration and decision. However, no date was set for the hearing, and the Interim Chamber was formed only on January 14, 2013. - five years and eight months after the Supreme Court's decision to request the case from a lower court. In addition, the Supreme Court issued a final decision on the author's appeal on June 17, 2013, 12 years and 4 months later, while referring the case to the relevant court of the Cassation Chamber for Social Affairs. Accordingly, at the time of the adoption of the present decision, no decision had yet been taken on the appeal against the refusal of the court of first instance to accept testimony, as well as on the initial claim for payment of social benefits, as well as compensation for damages and moral damage filed by the author more than 13 years ago. In the circumstances of the case, the Committee considers that the delays in the proceedings cannot be attributed to the author's conduct or the complexity of the case (Communication No. 1887/2009, para. 10.3.), and above all about the conduct of the State party's authorities, including the judiciary (paragraph 7.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee's conclusion. The Human Rights Committee considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).