3.        Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention – Conditions of Detention/Method of Execution

103.          The Petitioners have alleged that the conditions in which Mr. Sewell has been detained by the State constitute a violation of his rights under Article 5(1) of the Convention to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected, as well as his right under Article 5(2) of the Convention not to be subjected to cruel, unusual or degrading punishment or treatment.

104.          As described in Part III(A)(3)(c) of this Report, the Petitioners have made numerous allegations respecting Mr. Sewell’s conditions of detention on death row, based in part upon an affidavit sworn by Mr. Sewell on February 6, 2001.  The Petitioners claim further that their allegations are corroborated by more general sources of information concerning prison conditions in Jamaica.  These include an April 1993 report prepared by Americas Watch in respect of the death penalty, prison conditions and prison violence in Jamaica, and a December 1993 report by Amnesty International proposing an inquiry into death and ill-treatment of prisoners in St. Catherine's District Prison.

105.          The State has contended that notwithstanding the content of these reports, a generalized position should not be adopted every time a complaint is lodged with the Commission, but rather each complaint must be considered individually.

106.          Moreover, the State has provided a significantly different version of conditions of detention on death row in St. Catherine's District Prison, by reference to affidavits sworn in November 1998 respecting the conditions of detention of another death row inmate, Neville Lewis.  Based upon these affidavits, the State disputes Mr. Sewell’s characterization of his conditions of detention.  The State contends, for example, that death row inmates are provided with foam mattresses, that they are permitted to place light bulbs inside of their cells, that the ventilation in the cells is very good, and that the prisoners clean their cells every day under the supervision of a warder.

107.          The State also contends that a senior officer at the prison is charged with communicating with prisoners on a daily basis to take note of any complaints, that complaints made by prisoners are dealt with promptly, and that on some occasions the Superintendent will hear a prisoner's complaint and take appropriate actions to remedy it.  Concerning medical conditions, the State contends that St. Catherine District Prison houses a medical center that is staffed by two registered medical practitioners, a general practitioner and a psychiatrist, and that the general practitioner attends at the medical center daily and when he is not on duty he is on call.  The Commission notes, however, that the State has not provided any information pertaining specifically to Mr. Sewell’s treatment or conditions of detention.

108.          Based upon the record before it, the Commission is faced with contradictory versions of Mr. Sewell’s conditions of detention.  The Commission must therefore determine which characterization of Mr. Sewell’s detention conditions is more reliable and therefore should be accepted as accurate.  The Commission observes in this regard that the Petitioners have provided the Commission with specific details concerning Mr. Sewell’s personal situation in detention both before and following his two convictions, and have supported those details through evidence from Mr. Sewell.  In response the State has submitted general affidavit evidence that does not specifically address Mr. Sewell’s situation, but rather provides details concerning the general and specific circumstances of another death row inmate, Neville Lewis and does not address the issue of pre-trial conditions of detention, generally or in Mr. Sewell’s case.

109.          While it appears that Mr. Sewell is detained in the same facility as Mr. Lewis during a portion of his incarceration, the Commission should, as the State itself has pointed out, avoid taking a generalized approach when it comes to the issue of prison conditions in the context of individual cases.  Rather, the Commission should endeavor to determine each complaint on its individual circumstances.  In the present case, the State has not provided any evidence specifically rebutting or otherwise addressing Mr. Sewell’s treatment during his pre-trial or post-conviction detention.  Rather, the State has provided information concerning the general and specific death row conditions of another inmate, without specific evidence relating to the alleged victim’s situation.

110.          Weighing this information on the record, and in the absence of contradictory evidence from the State relating specifically to Mr. Sewell’s treatment, the Commission accepts as established the Petitioners' allegations with respect to Mr. Sewell’s post-conviction conditions of detention.  According to Mr. Sewell, prior to his trial and re-trial, he was held for a total of 3 years and 6 months in crowded cells with no basic or proper bedding or furniture and poor ventilation.  The conditions of the facility were unhygienic, the food was meager and substandard, and Mr. Sewell was not afforded any opportunities to exercise. 

111.          Also according to Mr. Sewell, during the 1 year and 9 months between his first appeal and second trial, and since his second conviction on April 6, 1998, his conditions of detention included the following:

(a)      he has been locked in a cell on death row at St. Catherine District Prison in solitary confinement for 23 ½ hours per day;

(b)      he has been deprived of a mattress and sleeps on a concrete bunk;

(c)      he has no furniture except for a water jug and a bucket that he must use as a toilet and for all other sanitary purposes and that he is only permitted to empty once a day;

(d)      his cell has inadequate ventilation and is therefore hot and uncomfortable;

(e)      the standards of health and hygiene on death row are poor, including a gutter of stagnant waste water in front of his cell that is always full;

(f)      the food provided to him is inadequate and he is often ill after eating it.  Despite numerous requests, he has not had access to a doctor or dentist since his conviction in October 1997;

(g)      he is provided with inadequate food;

(h)      he does not have access to an adequate mechanism for dealing with prisoner complaints. [38]

112.          Mr. Sewell’s characterization of his conditions of detention is corroborated by more general sources of information provided by the Petitioners concerning prison conditions in Jamaica.  These include an April 1993 report prepared by Americas Watch in respect of the death penalty, prison conditions and prison violence in Jamaica, and a December 1993 report by Amnesty International proposing an inquiry into death and ill-treatment of prisoners in St. Catherine's District Prison.  The reports provide information regarding such matters as the ill-treatment of prisoners by warders and the absence of effective complaint mechanisms concerning conditions and treatment in detention facilities in Jamaica.  In the 1993 Americas Watch Report, for example, the following observations are made in respect of conditions of detention in Jamaica:

Past reports by Americas Watch have found the prisons squalid: "overcrowded, filthy and unsanitary cells, insect infestation, inadequate or no light in cells, insufficient ventilation…". A Jamaican cabinet task force of 1989 was "shocked at the appalling conditions."

Unfortunately, there is no substantial improvement to report.  The equivalent of about fifty cents a day is budgeted for food for each inmate.  St. Catherine's District Prison, which houses 1300 inmates in a space built for 800, has had prison riots between 1990 and 1992 arising out of conditions there.  The sanitary conditions, due to inadequate plumbing and garbage disposal, are dreadful.  The conditions at the General Penitentiary are substantially similar.  Recent studies have reiterated the findings of earlier studies that the situation has not improved. [39]

113.          The Commission must next determine whether Mr. Sewell’s conditions of detention, as determined by the Commission, are inconsistent with Articles 5(1) or 5(2) of the Convention.  After carefully considering the information available, the Commission has found that Mr. Sewell’s detention conditions, when considered in light of the period of nearly 5 years that he spent on remand or in death row in the trial process, fail to satisfy the standards of humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention.

114.          In reaching this conclusion, the Commission has evaluated Mr. Sewell’s conditions in light of previous decisions of this Commission and by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in which similar conditions of detention were found to violate Article 5 of the Convention. [40] As in these previous cases, the record in the present case indicates that Mr. Sewell has been held in overcrowded conditions on remand and in solitary confinement on death row.  The cells have had inadequate hygiene and ventilation, and Mr. Sewell has been allowed out of his cell infrequently.  These observations, together with the length of time over which Mr. Sewell has been held in detention, indicate that Mr. Sewell’s treatment has failed to meet the minimum standards under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention.  As the Commission has observed in previous cases, these standards apply irrespective of the nature of the conduct for which the person in question has been imprisoned [41] and regardless of the level of development of a particular State Party to the Convention. [42]

115.          A comparison of Mr. Sewell‘s prison conditions with international standards for the treatment of prisoners also suggests that his treatment has failed to respect minimum requirements of humane treatment.  In particular, Rules 10, 11, 12, 15, and 21 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, [43] which in the Commission's view provide reliable benchmarks as to minimal international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners, prescribe for the following basic standards in respect of accommodation, hygiene, medical treatment and exercise:

10. All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping arrangements shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climactic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.

11. In all places where prisoners are required to live or work,

(a)     the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation;

(b)     Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight.

12. The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner.

15. Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean, and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness.

21(1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.

(2) Young prisoners, and others of suitable age and physique, shall receive physical and recreational training during the period of exercise.  To this end space, installations and equipment should be provided.

116.          It is evident based upon the Petitioners' allegations that the State has failed to satisfy these minimum standards of proper treatment of prisoners.  The cumulative impact of such conditions, together with the length of time for which Mr. Sewell has been incarcerated in connection with his criminal proceedings, cannot be considered consistent with the right to humane treatment under Article 5 of the Convention. [44]

117.          Consequently, the Commission finds that the conditions of detention to which Mr. Sewell has been subjected fail to respect the physical, mental and moral integrity of the victims as required under Article 5(1) of the Convention, and, in all of the circumstances, constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention.  The Commission therefore finds the State responsible for violations of these provisions of the Convention in respect of these victims, in conjunction with the State‘s obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention.

118.          The Petitioners have also contended that execution by hanging constitutes cruel, unusual or degrading punishment or treatment contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention and claim that hanging is therefore inconsistent with the requirements under Article 4(2) of the Convention governing the implementation of capital punishment.  Given its conclusions in Part IV(C)(2) of this Report that Mr. Sewell’s death sentence contravenes Articles 4, 5 and 8 of the Convention so as to render any subsequent execution unlawful, the Commission does not consider it necessary to determine for the purpose of this complaint whether the method of execution employed in Jamaica constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment contrary to Article 5(2) of the Convention.  The Commission nevertheless reserves its competence to determine in an appropriate case in the future whether hanging is a particularly cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment in comparison with other methods of execution.

4.        Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention - Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time

119.          The Petitioners have alleged that the State failed to try Mr. Sewell within a reasonable time contrary to Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention.  In this regard, the Petitioners refer specifically to the 4 year and 9 month delay between his initial arrest in August 1993 and his second conviction in April 1998.  According to the evidence before the Commission, this, together with the 2 year and 2 month delay between his second conviction and the dismissal of his petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in July 2000, has resulted in a total delay of 6 years and 11 months in Mr. Sewell’s criminal proceedings.

120.          In its observations of February 2, 2001, the State did not dispute the period of delay alleged by the Petitioners, but rather indicated that it “undertakes to immediately investigate the facts surrounding the applicant’s trial and submit the results thereof to the Commission as soon as they are complete.” As of the date of this report, no further information has been received by the Commission from the State concerning the issue of the delay in Mr. Sewell’s criminal proceedings.

121.          The State responded to the allegations relating to the delay in trying the victims in these cases by recognizing that the delays had been "longer than desirable".  It suggested, however, that the delays were justified due to the fact that preliminary inquiries had been held in each case, and owing to the complexities of the issues in the cases.

122.          In addressing the issue of a “reasonable time” under Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, the Inter-American Court has confirmed that the purpose of the reasonable time requirement is to prevent accused persons from remaining in that situation for a protracted period and to ensure that a charge is promptly disposed of. [45] The Inter-American Court has also considered that the point from which a reasonable time is to be calculated is the first act of the criminal proceedings, such as the arrest of the defendant, and that the proceeding is at an end when a final and firm judgment is delivered and the jurisdiction thereby ceases.  According to the Inter-American Court, the calculation of a reasonable time must, particularly in criminal matters, encompass the entire proceeding, including any appeals that may be filed. [46]  

123.          In determining the reasonableness of the time in which a proceeding must take place, the Inter-American Court has shared the view of the European Court of Human Rights that three points must be taken into account: (a) the complexity of the case; (b) the procedural activity of the Interested party; and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities. [47] This Commission has likewise suggested that the reasonableness of a pre-trial delay should not be viewed exclusively from a theoretical point of view, but must be evaluated on a case by case basis. [48]

124.          In addition to its case by case analysis of the reasonableness of the pre-trial delay, the Inter-American Commission has established that the burden of proof is on the state to present evidence justifying any prolongation of a delay in trying a defendant.  In assessing what is a reasonable time period, the Commission, in cases of prima facie unacceptable duration, has placed the burden of proof on the State to adduce specific reasons for the delay.  In such cases, the Commission will subject these reasons to the Commission’s “closest scrutiny.” [49]

125.          In the present case, Mr. Sewell was subjected to a total delay of 6 years and 11 months between his arrest and his final appeal, nearly 5 years of which occurred prior to his final conviction.  In light of the past jurisprudence of this Commission and other international authorities, the Commission is of the view that the delay in this case is prima facie unreasonable and calls for justification by the State. [50]

126.          In addition, while the record indicates that a portion of this delay is attributable to the fact that Mr. Sewell was tried twice for his crime, the Commission considers that responsibility for the resulting delay should not fall upon Mr. Sewell.  Rather, as the need for a further trial resulted from errors attributable to the State in Mr. Sewell’s first trial, the State should bear responsibility for the delay occasioned by the need for a second trial.

127.          In addition, upon having reviewed the records in these cases, the Commission is not satisfied, based upon the materials available, that the delay is adequately explained based upon the nature of the prosecutions.  As the Petitioners point out, Mr. Sewell’s conviction was based principally upon the evidence of one eye witness, David Morris, who claimed to have been present at the scene of the crime.  The State has failed to point to any particular aspect of the case that would explain why over five years was required to properly try Mr. Sewell for his crime.  There is also no evidence of procedural activity on the part of the alleged victim that would adequately explain or justify the delay.

128.          After considering the information before the Commission in this case in light of pertinent jurisprudence as outlined above, the Commission concludes that the delay in trying Mr. Sewell was unreasonable contrary to Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, and therefore that the State is responsible for violations of Mr. Sewell’s rights under these provisions.

5.       Articles 8, 24 and 25 of the Convention – Denial of Access to Constitutional Motions

129.          The Petitioners argue that Mr. Sewell has been denied recourse to domestic protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights contrary to Articles 24 and Article 25 of the Convention because he does not have the financial means to pursue a Constitutional Motion before the Jamaican Supreme Court in respect of violations of his rights under the Constitution of Jamaica, and legal aid is not effectively available for Constitutional Motions before the courts in Jamaica.  Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention provide as follows:

24      All persons are equal before the law.  Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.

25(1)  Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.

(2)     The States Parties undertake:

(a)     To ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state;

(b)     To develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and

(c)     To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

130.          As noted previously, the Petitioners suggest that the effective pursuit of Constitutional Motions before the domestic courts in Jamaica require the assistance of counsel.  The Petitioners also claim that Mr. Sewell is indigent and that the State does not provide legal aid to pursue Constitutional Motions in Jamaica.  As a consequence, the Petitioners contend that notwithstanding the legal right that the Jamaican Constitution confers on Mr. Sewell to pursue a Constitutional Motion, the remedy is not an effective one in all of the circumstances of his case.

131.          In its response to this contention, the State argues that Articles 24 and 25 of the Convention do not place an obligation on State Parties to provide legal aid for Constitutional Motions.  Rather, the State argues that Article 8(2)(e) of the Convention only places an obligation on State Parties to provide legal aid for criminal proceedings, and as a Constitutional Motion is not a criminal proceeding, the State denies that there has been a breach of the Convention.

132.          In light of the material before it, the Commission is satisfied that Constitutional Motions dealing with legal issues of the nature raised by Mr. Sewell in his proceeding before the Commission, such as the mandatory nature of his death sentence and his right to due process, are procedurally and substantively complex and cannot be effectively raised or presented by a victim in the absence of legal representation.  The Commission also finds, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Sewell lacks the financial means to bring a Constitutional Motion on his own, and, based upon the observations of both the Petitioners and the State, that Jamaica does not provide legal aid to individuals in Jamaica to bring such motions.

133.          Based upon these submissions and the Commission’s existing jurisprudence, the Commission considers that the State is subject to an obligation under the American Convention to provide individuals with effective access to Constitutional Motions, which may in certain circumstances require the provision of legal assistance.  In particular, the Commission considers that a Constitutional Motion in the Supreme Court of Jamaica must, as a proceeding for the determination of an individual’s rights, conform with the requirements of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Convention.  Moreover, in the circumstances of the present case where the Supreme Court would be called upon to determine Mr. Sewell’s rights in the context of his trial, conviction and sentencing for a criminal offense, the Commission considers that the requirements of a fair hearing mandated by Article 8(1) of the Convention should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principles in Article 8(2) of the Convention, including the right under Article 8(2)(e) to the effective assistance of counsel. [51] Accordingly, when a convicted person seeking constitutional review of the irregularities in a criminal trial lacks the means to retain legal assistance to pursue a Constitutional Motion and where the interests of justice so require, legal assistance should be provided by the State.  In the present case, the effective unavailability of legal aid has denied Mr. Sewell the opportunity to challenge the circumstances of his criminal conviction under the Constitution of Jamaica in a fair hearing, and therefore has contravened his right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1). [52]

134.          Moreover, Article 25 of the Convention provides individuals with the right to simple and prompt recourse to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his or her fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the State concerned or by the Convention.  The Commission has stated that the right to recourse under Article 25, when read together with the obligation under Article 1(1) and the provisions of Article 8(1), “must be understood as the right of every individual to go to a tribunal when any of his rights have been violated (whether a right protected by the Convention, the constitution, or the domestic laws of the State concerned), to obtain a judicial investigation conducted by a competent, impartial and independent tribunal that will establish whether or not a violation has taken place and will set, when appropriate, adequate compensation.” [53]  In addition, the Inter-American Court has held that if legal services are required either as a matter of law or fact in order for a right guaranteed by the Convention to be recognized, and a person is unable to obtain such services because of his indigence, then that person is exempted from the requirement under the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies. [54]   While the Court rendered this finding in the context of the admissibility provisions of the Convention, the Commission considers that the Court's comments are also illuminating in the context of Article 25 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present cases.

135.          By failing to make legal aid available to Mr. Sewell to pursue a Constitutional Motion in relation to his criminal proceedings, the State has effectively barred his recourse to a competent court or tribunal in Jamaica for protection against acts that potentially violate his fundamental rights under the Constitution of Jamaica and under the Convention.  As a consequence, the State has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 25 of the Convention in respect of Mr. Sewell.  The Commission likewise concludes that the State has failed to respect Mr. Sewell’s rights under Article 8(1) of the Convention by denying him an opportunity to challenge the circumstances of his trial, conviction and sentencing under the Constitution of Jamaica in a fair hearing.

136.          In light of the above conclusions, the Commission does not consider it necessary to determine whether the State is responsible for a violation of Article 24 of the Convention in relation to Mr. Sewell’s denial of recourse to a Constitutional Motion in Jamaica.

V.      PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT 34/02

          137.          The Commission examined this case in the course of its 114^th regular session and on February 28, 2002 adopted Report N° 34/02 pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention.

          138.          On March 18, 2002, the Commission transmitted Report N° 34/02 to the State, and requested that the Government of Jamaica inform the Commission within two months as to the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations made to resolve the situation denounced.

139.          As of May 18, 2002, the date of expiration of the prescribed two-month period, the Commission had not received a response from the State to Report N° 34/02.

          140.          Of pertinence to the issues raised in the present case, on June 21, 2002 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. [55] In its judgment, the Court found, inter alia, that the mandatory death penalty under Trinidad and Tobago’s Offenses Against the Person Act of 1925 violated the victims’ right to life under Articles 4(1) and 4(2) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, because it “automatically and generically mandates the application of the death penalty for murder and disregards the fact that murder may have varying degrees of seriousness,” and “prevents a judge from considering the basic circumstances in establishing the degree of culpability and individualizing the sentence since it compels the indiscriminate imposition of the same punishment for conduct that can be vastly different.” [56]

VI.          CONCLUSIONS

The Commission, based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, and in the absence of a response from the State to Report N° 41/01, ratifies its conclusions that:

141.          The Commission is competent to consider the Petitioners’ petition, and the claims in the petition are admissible in respect of Articles 4, 5, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention.

142.          The State is responsible for violating Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the Convention in respect of Mr. Sewell, in conjunction with violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by sentencing him to a mandatory death penalty.

143.          The State is responsible for violating Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in respect of Mr. Sewell, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of his treatment and conditions in detention.

144.          The State is responsible for violating Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the delay in trying Mr. Sewell.

          145.          The State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in respect of Mr. Sewell, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the denial to Mr. Sewell of recourse to a Constitutional Motion for the determination of his rights under domestic law and the Convention in connection with the criminal proceedings against him.         

          VII.          RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis and the conclusions in the present report,

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATE OF JAMAICA:

1.          Grant Mr. Sewell an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence in relation to the mandatory death sentence imposed upon Mr. Sewell, and compensation in respect of the remaining violations of Mr. Sewell’s rights under the American Convention as concluded above.

2.          Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in contravention of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including and in particular Articles 4, 5 and 8.

3.          Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which Mr. Sewell is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.

4.          Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions in accordance with the Commission’s analysis in this report.

VIII.          PUBLICATION

146.          By communication dated October 30, 2002, the Commission transmitted the content of this report, adopted as Report Nº 59/02 pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Convention, to the State and to the Petitioners in accordance with Article 51(2) of the Convention and granted a period of one month within which to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with the Commission's recommendations. The parties did not present responses within the time limit prescribed by the Commission.

147.          Based upon the foregoing considerations, and in the absence of a response by the State to Report Nº 59/02, the Commission in conformity with Article 51(3) of the American Convention and Article 45(3) of its Rules of Procedure decides to ratify the conclusions and reiterate the recommendations in this Report, to make this Report public, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. The Commission, according to the norms contained in the instruments which govern its mandate, will continue evaluating the measures adopted by the State of Jamaica with respect to the above recommendations until they have been complied with by Jamaica.

Done on the 27^th day of the month of December, 2002. (Signed): Juan E. Méndez, President; Marta Altolaguirre, First Vicepresident; José Zalaquett, Second Vicepresident; Robert K. Goldman, Julio Prado Vallejo, Clare K. Roberts, and Susana Villarán, Commissioners.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]