Arbitrary eviction targeting a woman and her children within the context of a police and military operation

Facts

The importance of this case lies in the Committee’s failure to provide justification for not separately examining complaints related to article 24 (children’s rights). Multiple Committee members issued multiple separate opinions since they believed that both the negative obligation (violent eviction without due process) and the positive obligation (failure to provide alternative housing) should have been addressed, indicating a violation of article 24 (1). Additionally, the case is significant due to the State’s lack of cooperation during the proceedings, which increased its burden of proof.

The author is Omaira del Carmen Ramírez, a Venezuelan citizen also representing her children, Greyber Alejandro Coronado Ramírez and Grendy Alejandra. The claim relates to the government’s Operativos para la Liberación del Puebo (OLP), police and military operations to combat insecurity where mass human rights violations occurred. The author and her children were forcefully evicted from her apartment during one such operation, causing a deterioration in living conditions and psychological well-being. Despite filing a constitutional protection action seeking restitution or alternative housing, the author has not received a response from the Venezuelan Supreme Court. The author asserts that she exhausted all available domestic remedies, claiming a violation of her right to housing and related rights.

The author alleges that she and her children were forcibly evicted without notice or relocation options, violating their rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant, and subjecting them to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as per article 7. Furthermore, the author contends that the eviction was motivated by punitive measures related to her adult son’s alleged misconduct, constituting an illegal and arbitrary punishment without due legal process, violating article 14 and article 15 (1) of the Covenant. The author also alleges a violation of articles 2 (3) and 14 (1) as the authorities did not provide the opportunity to legally contest the eviction.

The State party’s non-cooperation is noted, as it failed to provide observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication, despite multiple invitations. The Committee emphasizes the State’s obligation to examine allegations in good faith and provide relevant information. The lack of response requires giving due weight to the author’s claims, provided they are well-founded.

 

Admissibility

The author exhausted domestic remedies by filing a constitutional protection action, but the lack of response made it ineffective. Allegations under article 15 (1) are declared inadmissible due to insufficient demonstration of raising them in substance at the national level in the application for amparo or before the national court. Claims related to articles 7, 17 (1), 24, and 14 (1) (read with article 2 (3)) are considered admissible, and the Committee proceeds to examine them on the merits.

Merits

The Committee acknowledged the author’s claim of being forcibly evicted, constituting a violation of their right to home under article 17 (1) of the Covenant. The eviction, carried out without presenting a search warrant or legal justification, occurred in the context of combating organized crime. Despite finding nothing illegal, no legal proceedings were initiated. The Committee deemed this eviction arbitrary, as it lacked due process and consideration of consequences, thus violating their rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

The Committee acknowledged the author’s claim that the forced eviction of her and her minor children, without offering alternative housing, resulted in extreme suffering amounting to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under article 7 of the Covenant. Considering the violent raid and the absence of alternative housing, particularly impacting vulnerable minors, the Committee deems the eviction punitive and arbitrary, violating their rights under article 7. Therefore, it will not separately address claims related to the violation of article 24 of the Covenant.

The Committee acknowledged the author’s claim that she was unable to challenge her eviction effectively or have her rights adjudicated by a court, as her application for amparo remains unresolved. Referring to its general comments, the Committee noted that the author lacked access to an effective remedy to challenge the eviction and obtain redress for the harm suffered, violating her rights under article 14 (1) in conjunction with article 2 (3). Therefore, the Committee found a violation by the State party of the author’s and her minor children’s rights under articles 7, 17 (1), and 14 (1) in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to:

a) Provide redress, including compensation and alternative housing;

b) Prevent similar violations.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 25 April 2024

More information on the case:

— PROVEA - Comité de Derechos Humanos de ONU condena desalojo forzoso ocurrido durante OLP

— Runrun.es - Comité de DDHH de la ONU falla a favor de familia desalojada arbitrariamente en una OLP