The case of Omaira del Carmen Ramirez v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated March 5, 2024. Communication No. 3066/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The author claimed that she and her children had been victims of forced eviction in violation of their right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference in their personal and family life and in the right to inviolability of their home. The Committee concluded that the State party had violated the rights of the author and her children under the provisions of the Covenant.
The Committee's legal position is that the term "home" used in article 17 of the Covenant should be understood as referring to the place where a person resides or engages in his or her normal activities (paragraph 6.2 of the Views).
In accordance with article 17 of the Covenant, any attack on the inviolability of the home must not only be lawful, but also not be arbitrary. The Committee considers that, in accordance with its general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, family life, inviolability of home and correspondence, as well as to the protection of honor and reputation, the concept of arbitrariness within the meaning of article 17 of the Covenant is intended to ensure that any interference, even permitted by law, is consistent with the provisions, objectives and the objectives of the Covenant and, in any case, was justified in the specific circumstances (paragraph 6.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 20 (1992), in which it did not consider it necessary to draw up a list of prohibited acts or establish clear distinctions between different forms of punishment or treatment, and concluded that these distinctions depend on the nature, purpose and severity of the treatment applied. The Committee also concluded that the prohibition provided for in article 7 of the Covenant applies not only to acts causing physical pain to the victim, but also to acts causing mental suffering. For example, the Committee has classified specific cases of attacks on the inviolability of the family home and evictions resulting in damage to property, or the expulsion of a single mother and her three minor children to a country where they face homelessness and poverty as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.4 of the Views).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 32 (2007) (para. 9), in which it clarifies that article 14 of the Covenant covers the right of access to the courts when considering any criminal charge and when determining rights and obligations in any civil proceedings. The Committee recalls that States parties must ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies to assert their rights under the Covenant. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) (para. 15) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which States parties must establish appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms to deal with complaints of violations of rights (para. 6.7 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: It has taken note of the fact that the house of the author and her minor children and their subsequent forced eviction were carried out during the People's liberation operations aimed at combating organized crime. The Committee noted that the police and military had not presented the author with a search warrant or any official document, such as one issued by a court, justifying her forced eviction because of the alleged "misconduct" of one of her older children, who did not live with her. The Committee also noted that the police and military did not find anything illegal in the author's house, so they did not initiate criminal proceedings against her or her eldest son. The Committee considered that by forcibly evicting the author and her minor children without due process of law, without due regard for the consequences, including the risk of depriving the author and her children of a roof over their heads, in a situation where they did not have immediate access to adequate alternative housing, the State party committed an arbitrary violation the inviolability of the author's home and her minor children, and thereby violated their rights under article 17 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee considered that the forced eviction of the author and her children constituted an arbitrary act, punishing the alleged "misconduct" of the author's eldest son and causing her and her minor children moral suffering and torment. The Committee concluded that this act constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.5 of the Views).
The Committee acknowledged that the eviction of the author and her minor children had been carried out in the absence of a court order under due process of law. He noted that the author had not had the opportunity to go to court to challenge the eviction and defend her rights. The author subsequently applied for an amparo procedure to protect her constitutional rights as a remedy for violations of her rights and those of her minor children as a result of the forced eviction. The Committee indicated that the author had submitted additional requests seeking a decision on her application, but to no avail. In the present case, the information available to the Committee indicated that the author did not have access to an effective remedy that would allow her to challenge the eviction of her and her children and receive compensation for the damage caused to them (paragraph 6.7 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented revealed a violation by the State party of the rights of the author and her children under article 7 of the Covenant, article 17, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 7 of the Views).