A/HRC/24/29 of Internal Affairs conformed strictly to current legislation and the regulatory standards established by the Ministry.36 7. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 46. According to updated information on Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, whose case was mentioned in my three most recent relevant reports,37 she was subjected to assault, acts of intimidation and rape by a government agent, which resulted in pregnancy and a miscarriage while in detention.38 Her trial began in November 2012 after former President Hugo Chávez amended the Penal Code by means of an enabling law (ley habilitante) so that trials could be held in the absence of the accused. Judge Afiuni, in consultation with her legal counsel, had indicated that she would not enter the trial chamber to challenge violations of her right to due process. On 14 June 2013, a court in Caracas revoked her house arrest on health grounds after a request was received from the Attorney General. The terms of Judge Afiuni’s release require her to report to the court every 15 days, and forbid her to leave the country and speak to the media. The trial continues. 47. Judge Afiuni was arrested on 10 December 2009 after she ordered the conditional release of an individual whose detention the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered arbitrary. President Chavez reportedly publicly demanded that she be sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment. In September 2010, the Working Group, in its opinion No. 20/2010, concluded that the detention of Judge Afiuni was arbitrary.39 48. On 14 February 2013, five United Nations special procedures mandate holders issued a public statement in which they urged the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to free Judge Afiuni, and called for investigations into her most recent allegations.40 They noted that Judge Afiuni had been in detention for more than three years, despite the fact that article 230 of the Penal Code established that detention could not exceed the limit of the minimum sentence of the most serious crime of which the person was accused, which would be three years. No response from the Government had been received as at the end of the period under review. III. Conclusions and recommendations 49. The present report clearly illustrates that, regrettably, reprisals against persons cooperating with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights continue. They take many forms, ranging from smear campaigns, threats, travel bans, harassment, fines, the closing of organizations, sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, prosecutions and lengthy prison sentences through to torture, illtreatment and even death. Many of the cases remain unresolved for lengthy periods. 50. In my statement of 13 September 2012, on the occasion of the opening of the twenty-first session of the Human Rights Council, during which a panel discussion on reprisals was held, I referred to reprisals as one of the main challenges faced by the Council and the United Nations. I reiterate that reprisals and intimidation against individuals cooperating with the United Nations in the field of human rights are 36 37 38 39 40 14 A/HRC/22/67, p. 187. A/HRC/14/19, paras. 45-47; A/HRC/18/19, paras. 87-90; A/HRC/21/18, paras. 68-69. See A/HRC/24/21. A/HRC/16/44/Add.1, p. 93. See www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12994&LangID=S.