Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) held that the detention of Luis Fernando Camacho, governor of Santa Cruz and prominent opposition leader in Bolivia, was arbitrary and in violation of multiple provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Camacho was violently arrested in December 2022 without a warrant, kept incommunicado for hours, and subsequently placed in pretrial detention without proper judicial oversight. He was accused of terrorism based on his role in the 2019 protests against former President Evo Morales. The Working Group concluded that Mr. Camacho’s detention fell under four categories of arbitrariness: (I) lack of legal basis for the arrest; (II) punishment for exercising protected rights such as freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political participation; (III) denial of fair trial guarantees, including judicial independence and presumption of innocence; and (V) discrimination based on political opinion. It highlighted serious concerns regarding procedural irregularities, prolonged pretrial detention without justification, inadequate medical care despite Mr. Camacho’s chronic illness, and the use of vague criminal provisions as a tool for political repression. The UNWGAD emphasized that expressing dissenting political views and participating in peaceful protests are protected activities under international human rights law and cannot be criminalized under the guise of terrorism. It called for Mr. Camacho’s immediate release, adequate compensation, and an independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and prosecution.

---

Facts

Luis Fernando Camacho, a Bolivian lawyer and elected governor of the Santa Cruz department, is a prominent political figure who, at the time of the events, opposed the national government. On December 28, 2022, while returning home after an official activity, Mr. Camacho was violently intercepted by more than 40 armed state agents, with their faces covered and without visible identification. The agents fired shots into the air, subdued Governor Camacho’s security team, and detained him while hooded and handcuffed, without presenting a judicial warrant.

After being held at gunpoint, hooded, and beaten, Mr. Camacho was transferred by military helicopter, first to Chimoré (Cochabamba) and then to El Alto (La Paz), without allowing him to contact his family or lawyers for at least five hours.

Upon his arrival in La Paz on December 28, 2022, Mr. Camacho suffered a medical crisis. He has severe immunological conditions that require regular treatment every 20 days to preserve his life. Since his detention, the government has repeatedly obstructed his access to medication and adequate medical care, endangering his health. In addition, prison authorities and government supporters have interfered with the delivery of medicines and the entry of doctors and ambulances.

On December 29, 2022, a virtual hearing was held before the Eighth Criminal Investigating Court of La Paz to assess the detention of Mr. Camacho. The hearing was conducted via Zoom, with the judge’s and prosecutor’s cameras turned off, and without the detention order being audibly read. The defense alleged multiple irregularities, including the lack of reasoning in the detention order and the failure to consider alternative precautionary measures.

That same day, the judge ordered four months of pretrial detention in the maximum-security prison of Chonchocoro, despite the absence of any procedural risk to justify such a measure.

On January 2, 2023, the President of Bolivia made public statements about Mr. Camacho’s responsibility for his alleged role in the transfer of presidential power to Senator Añez. Likewise, on January 23, 2023, the Vice Minister of Government Coordination denied the possibility of a judge granting Mr. Camacho’s release despite ongoing protests in his favor.

Days later, Mr. Camacho discovered a hidden camera in his cell during a family visit. After reporting it, he was forcibly transferred to another cell, and his complaints about violations of privacy and the right to defense were dismissed by the authorities.

The charges and criminal proceedings against Luis Fernando Camacho have been systematically aimed at punishing him for his political leadership, participation in peaceful demonstrations, and critical expressions against the Bolivian government, all protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bolivia is a party. His case has been marked by serious procedural irregularities, the denial of basic due process rights, incommunicado detention, lack of adequate medical care despite his chronic health condition, and the repressive application of vague criminal provisions as retaliation for his civic and political activism. The case was brought before the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) by a source acting on Mr. Camacho’s behalf.

According to the source who filed the complaint, Mr. Camacho was charged with the crime of terrorism under Article 133 of the Bolivian Criminal Code, a criminal offense that has been questioned for its vagueness and arbitrary application. The source also explained that Mr. Camacho was arrested in retaliation for the legitimate exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political participation. They stated that, as president of the Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz (Civic Committee for Santa Cruz), Mr. Camacho led demonstrations against the unconstitutional re-election of former President Evo Morales and the alleged electoral fraud of 2019. It was argued that his arrest fits within a pattern—already identified by the Working Group—of judicial persecution against opposition leaders.

Furthermore, the source emphasized that following Mr. Camacho’s arrest, the government sought his removal from office through judicial actions and public pressure, also threatening other departmental authorities. They explained that Mr. Camacho faced at least five criminal proceedings as retaliation for his political opposition, and that his pretrial detention was ordered without evaluating alternative measures and was justified with unfounded arguments about alleged procedural risks.

The source added that Mr. Camacho has been subjected to multiple violations of his rights to due process and personal integrity, as high-ranking government officials publicly held he was guilty before trial, undermining his presumption of innocence. The source further stated that Mr. Camacho was violently arrested without a judicial warrant or immediate access to legal counsel or medical assistance, despite his delicate health condition.

The source noted that during the virtual precautionary hearing, there were serious irregularities that affected Mr. Camacho’s right to defense and to be judged by an impartial tribunal. They maintained that Mr. Camacho’s detention was part of a systematic pattern of persecution and discrimination against democratic activists and opposition leaders, motivated by their political views.

On May 19, 2023, the Working Group transmitted the source’s allegations to the Bolivian government. On July 18, 2023, the Government of Bolivia responded to the source’s allegations before the UNWGAD. The State argued that Mr. Camacho’s detention was based on complaints about his alleged involvement in violent acts during the 2019 political crisis, including alleged agreements with security forces to overthrow the government. It claimed that there was evidence justifying charges such as terrorism, sedition, and conspiracy, and that Mr. Camacho’s pretrial detention was legal, proportionate, and necessary due to the risk of obstruction of justice.

The State also affirmed that Mr. Camacho’s rights were respected during detention and the hearing, that he received adequate medical care, and that he remains under supervision in conditions compatible with his health. It rejected the claim that the detention was politically motivated, denied that Camacho promoted peaceful protests, and stated that there were no signs of mistreatment or violations of privacy in prison.

---

Decision Overview

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued Opinion No. 50/2024 regarding the detention of Luis Fernando Camacho. The main question before the Working Group was whether Mr. Camacho’s detention was arbitrary and violated his rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political participation. The Group concluded that the detention was arbitrary under four of its categories: Category I (lack of legal basis), Category II (punishment for the exercise of protected rights), Category III (denial of due process guarantees), and Category V (discrimination based on political opinion).

The source alleged that Mr. Camacho was arbitrarily detained in retaliation for his participation in peaceful protests against the 2019 elections. According to the source, he was apprehended without due process guarantees, secretly transferred, denied access to a lawyer of his choice, and held in isolation under conditions that affected his health. They claimed that his detention lacked any legal basis, constituted a form of political persecution, and violated multiple rights enshrined in international law.

For its part, Bolivia argued that Mr. Camacho’s detention was lawful and based on evidence linking him to acts of terrorism and the political crisis of 2019. The State claimed that his rights were respected throughout the process, that he received adequate medical care, and that due process was guaranteed. It denied any political motivation behind Mr. Camacho’s prosecution and asserted that the measures taken against him were proportionate given the gravity of the alleged crimes.

The UNWGAD based its analysis on the ICCPR—particularly articles 9 (liberty and personal security), 14 (due process), 19 (freedom of expression), 21 (freedom of assembly), 22 (freedom of association), and 25 (political participation), as well as on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

Category I: Lack of legal basis for the detention

The Working Group concluded that the circumstances of the arrest—including the absence of a detention warrant at the time of apprehension, the lack of information about the charges, and the subsequent presentation of a warrant with a retroactive date—violated article 9 of the ICCPR.

The UNWGAD clarified that Article 9 of the ICCPR requires that any person detained be promptly informed of the reasons for the detention and of the charges against them, and be brought without delay before a judge to exercise their legal defense. On this point, the Working Group explained that Mr. Camacho “was not informed of his rights nor of the formal charges legally brought against him setting out the grounds for his detention.” [para. 80]

The UNWGAD also emphasized that pretrial detentions must be exceptional, brief, and subject to periodic judicial review. It observed that Mr. Camacho has been detained for over a year without sufficient justification, affecting both his health and his duties as governor.

For these reasons, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Camacho’s detention was arbitrary and violated Article 9 of the ICCPR.

Category II: Exercise of Protected Freedoms

The UNWGAD held that Camacho’s detention was directly linked to his role in the 2019 protests against the re-election of then-President Evo Morales.

According to the Working Group, “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” [para. 96] Citing General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, the UNWGAD reaffirmed that freedom of opinion and expression are essential for personal development and the functioning of democratic societies, and the foundation for the exercise of other fundamental rights such as assembly, association, and political participation.

The Working Group also recalled that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, and to have access to public service. It noted that these rights are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and legally protected by Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bolivia is a party.

Subsequently, the UNWGAD stated that while the Government alleged public order disruption and conspiracy, it failed to provide concrete evidence that Mr. Camacho acted outside the legitimate framework of exercising protected rights.

For these reasons, the Working Group concluded that “the detention of Mr. Camacho constitutes a violation of articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and of articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, therefore, is defined as arbitrary under category II.” [para. 100]

Category III: Denial of Fair Trial Rights

The UNWGAD expressed concerns about substantial violations of due process, such as the absence of judicial oversight at the time of arrest, the intervention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in ordering and executing the detention, and the extension of pretrial detention without periodic judicial review.

The Working Group also recalled, referring to Article 14 of the ICCPR, that everyone has the right to be judged by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal and that there must be a clear separation between investigative bodies and adjudicatory authorities. It explained that “the right to due process and to a fair and impartial trial constitutes the very foundation of democracy and must be guaranteed to everyone, in both civil and criminal matters.” [para. 102]

The UNWGAD further noted that Article 11 of the UDHR enshrines the presumption of innocence of anyone charged with a criminal offence until their guilt is established by a fair trial. Thus, it considered that all state authorities must refrain from making public comments regarding the guilt of an accused person.

Referring to the specific case, the Working Group held that some public statements made by Bolivian authorities prejudged Mr. Camacho’s guilt. Hence, they affected his right to the presumption of innocence and improperly influenced the courts that ordered his pretrial detention.

In light of this, “the Working Group considers that Mr. Camacho’s right to be tried by a competent and impartial tribunal, recognized in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, has not been observed.” [para. 100] Therefore, it concluded that Mr. Camacho’s detention was arbitrary under Category III.

Category V: Discrimination based on political opinion

Finally, the UNWGAD held that Mr. Camacho’s detention was motivated by his political status and opposition to the ruling party, which constituted a form of discrimination based on political opinion. According to the Working Group, “deprivation of liberty motivated by political grounds violates the principle of equality of all human beings.” [para. 112]

Considering this, the UNWGAD held that the detention of political leaders to silence their claims violated articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR, as well as articles 2 and 7 of the UDHR.

***

The Working Group concluded that the detention of Luis Fernando Camacho was arbitrary under Categories I, II, III, and V, and violated multiple provisions of the ICCPR and the UDHR. It requested his immediate release, adequate reparations, and an independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and prosecution. It also ordered the transmission of the case file to the special rapporteurs on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and judicial independence for appropriate follow-up.

---