On December 21, 2009 Assistant Attorney General 13 verified that Judge
Afiuni was being “held and protected in a security area of that penitentiary.”
g) On March 3, 2010, a group of inmates placed marking tape on their legs and
heads as a sign of “war” or “riot,” planning to “burn the judge alive” - referring to
Ms. Afiuni – along with three other detained persons considered to be close to her.
According to the petitioners, this group of persons tried to pour gasoline in the area
where Ms. Afiuni is held and set it on fire. Judge Afiuni was transferred by the
authorities to the prison guards’ area in order to protect and preserve her life;
h) On January 11, 2010, the Commission asked the State to adopt precautionary
measures to the benefit of Ms. Afiuni. It demanded that the State:
Adopt the measures necessary to guarantee her life and physical integrity.
Adopt the measures necessary to transfer her to a safe place.
Report on the actions taken to judicially resolve the facts that led to the
adoption of precautionary measures.
i) On January 15, 2010 the State indicated that on December 21, 2009 a
government attorney from the Office of the Attorney General confirmed that Judge
Afiuni was being held in a security area called the “Admission Area.” The area was
used in “special cases” and was completely separate from other confinement areas
“such that there is no risk of her being attacked by other inmates.” In addition, it
indicated that the Director of Human Rights Protection of the Attorney General’s
Office and the Attorney General of the State of Miranda went to the INOF to verify
the conditions in which Ms. Afiuni was kept, noting that the she expressed “her
decision to stay at INOF and not be transferred to another facility, and that she
thanks the guard staff for their constant protection.” According to the information
provided by the State, Judge Afiuni was transferred to the INOF on December 19,
2009;
j) On January 26, 2010, the petitioners informed the Commission that Ms. Afiuni
had been transferred to a maximum security cell. They highlighted that it did not
meet minimum sanitary conditions, and that Judge Afiuni’s supposed comments were
the result of a manipulation of her statements, as she had requested “to be
transferred to her old cell” because of the conditions of the new one. They
emphasized that no part of the INOF is secure enough for the beneficiary, indicating
that the prison authorities have done “what little they could.” This communication
was forwarded to the State on February 1, 2010, for its comments. However,
Venezuela did not respond;
k) The petitioners indicated to the Commission that in March of 2010, Ms. Afiuni
identified two lumps near her breast. After several requests to have her examined
outside the INOF, on July 16, 2010, the Forensic Medicine Institute (hereinafter the
“IMF” according to its Spanish acronym) checked the lumps found by Judge Afiuni
and a series of scrapes on one of her legs. They claimed that the latter injury had
not been reported by the INOF when Ms. Afiuni entered the prison;
l)
In April of 2010, the Director of Basic Rights Protection of the Attorney
General’s Office forwarded the results of the exams performed on Ms. Afiuni to the
3