Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Venezuela violated the procedural dimension of the right to life of Juan Pablo Pernalete Llovera by failing to carry out an effective investigation into his death, which occurred during a protest in Caracas, Venezuela, in April 2017. Juan Pablo, a 20-year-old university student, died after being struck by a tear gas canister fired by an agent of the Bolivarian National Guard while he was participating in mass protests calling for the restoration of democratic order. His parents alleged that the use of force was disproportionate and that, thereafter, the authorities obstructed the criminal investigation. For its part, Venezuela argued that the protests had not been peaceful and that the use of force had been proportionate. Although the Committee declared the substantive allegations concerning freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly inadmissible due to inconsistencies in the petitioners’ account, it concluded that, after almost eight years of proceedings without an effective judicial response, Venezuela had failed to comply with its procedural obligations under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, the Committee ordered the State to proceed without delay with an exhaustive, independent, and impartial investigation and to sanction those responsible if their culpability were established.

---

Facts

On April 26, 2017, in the context of the mass protests that took place in Venezuela between April and August 2017, Juan Pablo Pernalete Llovera, a 20-year-old university student, died while participating in a demonstration in the Altamira area, Chacao municipality, Caracas. The protests called for the restoration of democratic and constitutional order in Venezuela and unfolded in a climate of intense State repression, with an estimated toll of between 124 and 157 people killed and more than 5,000 arbitrary detentions during that period.

According to his parents, José Gregorio Pernalete López and Elvira del Carmen Llovera Hurtado, Juan Pablo was demonstrating peacefully and was not armed nor did he pose a threat to State agents. In that context, they stated that an officer of the Bolivarian National Guard fired a tear gas canister directly at his chest, in a horizontal manner and at close range —approximately 30 meters— causing his death within minutes.

The autopsy conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the cause of death was “cardiogenic shock due to hemorrhagic cardiac contusion caused by blunt thoracic trauma at the precordial level,” and the forensic analysis of his clothing revealed the presence of tear gas residue in the area of impact. [para. 2.2]

According to his parents’ account, following the events, State authorities and pro-government media outlets disseminated versions denying the responsibility of the Bolivarian National Guard and stigmatizing Juan Pablo Pernalete and other demonstrators, labeling them as “terrorists.” [para. 2.3]

As a result of these events, a criminal investigation into the death of Juan Pablo Pernalete was initiated. However, no prosecutor was appointed to the case during the first three months, and over the years at least thirteen prosecutors were successively assigned, which, according to his parents, entailed a constant process of revictimization.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On April 26, 2018, the petitioners José Gregorio Pernalete López and Elvira del Carmen Llovera Hurtado —parents of their deceased son, Juan Pablo Pernalete Llovera— submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee alleging, among other violations, the impairment of their son’s right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as of his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (Articles 19 and 21), as he was deprived of his life while participating in a public protest.

In particular, the petitioners argued that, although tear gas is not lethal, it was used lethally by being fired as a projectile directly at their son and at close range. They further alleged that “given that their son was not armed and did not represent a threat, the conduct of the Bolivarian National Guard was neither proportional nor necessary in the context of a peaceful demonstration and did not pursue a legitimate aim.” [para. 3.1] They also emphasized that “the demonstrators, like their son, were unarmed civilians who were peacefully exercising their right to protest and their freedom of expression.” [para. 3.2]

The petitioners also underscored that the right to life includes, as an essential dimension, the obligation to carry out an effective investigation and to ensure accountability when there are reasons to believe that a person has been arbitrarily deprived of life.

The parents alleged multiple obstacles in the investigation, including acts of obstruction by military commanders who refused to provide key information to identify those responsible. They explained that although investigative steps were taken to identify the agents present at the operation and their superiors, three years after the events the case remained at a preliminary stage, without determining who fired the projectile or charging the chain of command in the crime.

For its part, the Venezuelan State, in its reply, denied that the demonstration had been peaceful and claimed that Juan Pablo Pernalete had participated in violent acts, including throwing Molotov cocktails, and therefore considered that the agents’ conduct was necessary and proportionate to protect public order. Venezuela alleged that “the conduct of the officials pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary and proportionate to guarantee public order, protect rights (in particular freedom of movement, life and personal integrity) against an illegitimate threat, and safeguard public and private property.” [para. 6.6] It also stressed that it did not violate the right to freedom of expression because “violent demonstrations are not protected by the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the ICCPR.” [para. 6.7]

---

Decision Overview

On March 18, 2025, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued its Views in the case Pernalete López v. Venezuela. The Committee had to examine whether the Venezuelan State had failed to comply with its obligations concerning the right to life, freedom of expression, and the right to peaceful assembly in relation to the death of Juan Pablo Pernalete Llovera during a demonstration that took place in Caracas in April 2017.

The petitioners argued that their son died while peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of expression and assembly, after a tear gas canister was fired directly at his chest at close range. They stated that he was unarmed and did not represent a threat, and that therefore the use of force was neither necessary nor proportionate nor did it pursue a legitimate aim. They further alleged that the domestic investigation was obstructed, remained for years at a preliminary stage, and failed to identify either the material perpetrator or the chain of command.

For its part, Venezuela denied that the demonstration had been peaceful and asserted that Juan Pablo Pernalete had participated in violent acts, including throwing Molotov cocktails. It maintained that the actions of the security forces pursued a legitimate aim and were necessary and proportionate to guarantee public order.

The Committee recalled that the right to life, enshrined in Article 6 of the ICCPR, not only imposes negative obligations of restraint on the State, but also positive obligations. It emphasized that States must investigate, prosecute, and, where appropriate, punish potentially unlawful deprivations of life, and provide effective remedies to victims and their relatives.

In turn, citing its own General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, the Committee recalled that “investigations of reasonable suspicion of unlawful use of force by law enforcement officers in the context of demonstrations should examine the legal responsibility of senior officials with regard to violations of the right to life committed by their subordinates.” [para. 11.4]

Although the Committee acknowledged that the domestic investigation had progressed and that the State had carried out a significant number of investigative steps, it also observed that almost eight years had elapsed since the events, that more than thirteen prosecutors had been successively assigned to the case, and that, despite this, the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage, without a preliminary hearing having been held in respect of the two accused agents. In this context, the Committee held that Venezuela “must provide the petitioners with a judicial response in accordance with due process, either by pronouncing a conviction of those responsible or by concluding that the conduct of the officials pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary and proportionate.” [para. 11.5]

In light of these considerations, the Committee stated that “the investigations carried out in relation to the death of Mr. Pernalete Llovera have not yet enabled the petitioners to be provided with a response in accordance with due process and concludes that the facts reveal a violation of Article 6 of the Covenant.” [para. 11.6]

Furthermore, the Committee declared inadmissible the allegations relating to the alleged violation of the right to life in its substantive dimension, as well as those concerning the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee held that the petitioners had incurred contradictions by initially maintaining that their son “was not armed and did not represent a threat” and subsequently acknowledging that he had thrown at least one Molotov cocktail, which prevented it from determining whether the use of force by State agents had been disproportionate. [para. 10.5]

Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the complaints regarding freedom of expression and the right to assembly had not been sufficiently substantiated and declared them “inadmissible.” [para. 10.6]

For all the foregoing reasons, the Committee determined that Venezuela had failed to comply with its procedural obligations derived from the right to life and ordered that the State “must, without delay, continue the criminal proceedings for the death of Mr. Pernalete Llovera, by carrying out an effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation, and, if responsibility is established, sanction those responsible.” [para. 13]. It also urged the State to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Commissioner Rodrigo A. Carazo issued a dissenting opinion in which he held that Juan Pablo Pernalete was the victim of an extrajudicial execution as a result of the arbitrary and extremely excessive use of force by State agents, which should have led the Committee to declare Venezuela’s international responsibility for the substantive violation of the right to life. In his view, the State failed to demonstrate that the demonstrator’s conduct had caused injuries or deaths, or that it justified the lethal use of force.

Carazo criticized the Committee for relying disproportionately on the initial inconsistencies of the victim’s parents to declare the substantive allegations concerning the rights to life, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly inadmissible, thereby limiting its analysis exclusively to the procedural obligations of the right to life.

Finally, he emphasized that “the victim was subjected to an extrajudicial execution by law enforcement agents of the State party as a result of the arbitrary and extremely excessive use of force. The Committee overlooks this most deplorable action of the State.” [para. 7 of the dissenting opinion]

---