|
|
|
l.
Trinidad and Tobago
The
Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case
347.
Through a Decision of the
President of the Court dated January 18, 2002, the parties (the
representatives of the alleged victims, the Inter-American Commission,
and the State of Trinidad and Tobago) were convened for a public
hearing, which took place on February 21 and 22, 2002. However, the
State of Trinidad and Tobago gave notice to the Court on February 8,
2002 that it would not appear. As planned and on the appointed date,
the Court held a public hearing at its seat on the merits of the case
and possible reparation. At that hearing, it received the reports of
the three expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, as well as the
final arguments of the Commission and of the representatives of the
alleged victims.
348.
Judgment was rendered on June
21, 2002. In it, the
Court unanimously resolved as follows regarding the merits of the
case:
1.
That the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article
4(1) and 4(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 109 of the
present Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George
Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles,
Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas,
Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen
Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De
Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah,
Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin,
Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah,
Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
2.
That the State breached its obligation established in Article 2
of the American Convention on Human Rights for the reasons stated in
paragraph 118 of the present Judgment to the detriment of Haniff
Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste,
Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin
Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney
Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred
Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh
Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo,
Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal,
Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
3.
That the State violated the right to be tried within a
reasonable time protected in Articles 7(5) and 8(1) in conjunction
with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights
for the reasons stated in the paragraph 152(a) of the present
Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine,
Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas,
Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Martin Reid, Rodney
Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred
Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh
Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo,
Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal,
Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
4.
That the State violated the right to an effective recourse
established in Articles 8 and 25 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of
the American Convention on Human Rights for the reasons stated in the
paragraph 152(b) of the present Judgment, to the detriment of George
Constantine, Wilson Prince, Mervyn Edmund, Martin Reid, Gangadeen
Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Natasha De Leon, Phillip Chotalal,
Wilberforce Bernard, Amir Mowlah, and Mervyn Parris;
5. That the State violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 172 of the present Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
6.
That the State violated the right of all persons sentenced to
the death penalty to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of their
sentence enshrined in Article 4(6) in conjunction with Articles 8 and
1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in
paragraph 189 of the present Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff
Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste,
Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin
Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney
Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred
Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh
Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo,
Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal,
Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
7.
That the State arbitrarily deprived Joey Ramiah of his right to
life in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human
Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 200 of the present Judgment.
8.
that the State should abstain from applying the Offences
Against the Person Act of 1925 and within a reasonable period of
time should modify said Act to comply with international norms of
human rights protection for the reasons stated in paragraph 212 of the
present Judgment;
9.
That the State should order a retrial in which the new criminal
legislation resulting from the reforms to the Offences
Against the Person Act of 1925 will be applied, for the reasons
stated in paragraph 214 of the present Judgment, in the criminal
proceedings in relation to the crimes imputed to Haniff Hilaire,
George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence
Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger
Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis,
Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick,
Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram,
Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin,
Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah,
Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
10.
That the State should submit before the competent authority and
by means of the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon, for the
reasons stated in paragraph 214 of the present Judgment, the review of
the cases of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James,
Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia,
Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester,
Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne
Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip
Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve
Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine
Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
11.
On grounds of equity, that the State should abstain from
executing, in all cases, regardless of the results of the new trials,
for the reasons stated in paragraph 215 of the present Judgment,
Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste,
Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin
Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney
Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred
Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh
Boodram, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter
Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir
Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;
12.
On grounds of equity, that the State should pay for
non-pecuniary damage to the wife of Joey Ramiah, Carol Ramcharan, the
sum of US $50,000 (fifty thousand United States of America dollars) or
its equivalent in Trinidad and Tobago dollars (TTD) to support and
educate their child, Joanus Ramiah, for the reasons stated in
paragraph 216 of the present Judgment;
13.
On grounds of equity, that the State pay Joey Ramiah’s
mother, Moonia Ramiah, the sum of US $10,000 (ten thousand United
States of America dollars) or its equivalent in Trinidad and Tobago
dollars (TTD) for non-pecuniary damage, for the reasons stated in
paragraph 216 of the present Judgment;
14.
That the State should modify the conditions of its prison
system to conform to the relevant international norms of human rights
protection on the matter, for the reasons stated in paragraph 217 of
the present Judgment;
15.
On grounds of equity, that the State should pay the
representatives of the victims the sum of US $13,000 (thirteen
thousand United States of America dollars) or its equivalent in
Trinidad and Tobago dollars (TTD) as reimbursement for the expenses
they have incurred in bringing this case before the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, for the reasons stated in paragraph 219 of the
present Judgment;
16.
That the State, from the date of notification of the present
Judgment, shall provide
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with a report every six
months regarding the measures taken to implement the present Judgment,
and
17.
That the Court shall oversee implementation of this Judgment
and will deem the case to be closed once the State has duly complied
with the terms of the present Judgment.
m.
Venezuela
The
Caracas Shootings Case (“Caracazo”)
349.
On August 29, 2002, the Court
rendered judgment and resolved unanimously as follows:
1.
That the State must conduct,
in accordance with paragraphs 118 to 120 of the judgment, an effective
investigation into the facts of this case, identify those responsible
for physically carrying out or for plotting the damage, together with
any accessories to the crimes, and punish them under administrative
and criminal law as the case may be; that the next of kin of the
victims and surviving victims shall have full access to and capacity
to act in all stages and areas of the investigations in accordance
with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention on
Human Rights; and that the findings of the investigations shall be
made public;
2.
That the State must locate,
disinter, and, using appropriate techniques and instruments, identify
and hand over to the next of kin, in accordance with paragraphs 121
and 124-126 of the judgment, the remains of the eighteen victims
listed in those same paragraphs;
3.
That the costs of the
exhumations, in the place chosen by the next of kin, of the remains of
the persons referred to in the foregoing operative paragraph shall be
defrayed by the State, in accordance with paragraph 124 of the […]
judgment;
4.
That the State must adopt all
precautions needed to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances and
facts of the instant case, in accordance with paragraph 127 of the
judgment, under which it shall: a) take the necessary steps to educate
and train all members of its armed forces and security forces in the
principles and legal provisions governing the protection of human
rights and the limits that apply, even in states of emergency, to the
use of firearms by law enforcement officers; b) modify operational
plans for dealing with public disturbances to ensure that they meet
the requirement to observe and protect those rights, adopting, along
with other measures, those designed to oversee the in situ behavior of
members of the security forces, in order to prevent the excessive use
of force; and c) guarantee that, in cases in which it may be necessary
to use force to deal with public disturbances, the members of its
armed forces and security forces shall employ only such force as is
necessary to bring those situations under control in a rational and
commensurate fashion, while respecting
the right to life and personal security;
5.
That the State must within a
reasonable period of time publish in the Official Gazette and a major
national newspaper, at least once, Chapter I entitled Introduction to
the Case, paragraph 1.a, b, c, d, e, f and (a) and the operative items
contained in Chapter VII of the judgment on the merits and paragraphs
66 to 66.16 of the judgment on reparations;
6.
That the State must pay
compensation for material damages in the amount of US$1,559,800.00
(one million five hundred fifty-nine thousand eight hundred US
dollars) or the equivalent in Venezuelan currency, corresponding to
the following items:
a) US$13,800.00 (thirteen thousand eight hundred US dollars) corresponding, in accordance with paragraph 85 of the […] judgment, to reimbursement of the funeral services costs incurred by the next of kin of the twenty-three victims of murder whose corpses were handed over by the authorities;
b) US$37,000.00 (thirty-seven thousand US dollars) corresponding,
in accordance with paragraph 86 of the […] judgment, to compensation
for expenses incurred in searching for and locating the thirty-seven
victims whose were murdered and “disappeared” in various different
government offices and for expenses incurred or to be incurred for
health care received or to be received by the next of kin of those
victims;
c) US$1,348,500.00 (one million three hundred forty-eight thousand
five hundred US dollars) corresponding, in accordance with paragraph
88 of the […] judgment, to compensation for loss of income of the 37
murdered and disappeared victims;
d) US$29,000.00 (twenty-nine thousand US dollars) corresponding,
in accordance with paragraph 87 of the […] judgment, to compensation
for damages related to expenses incurred or to be incurred for health
care and the purchase of material need to mitigate the disabilities
inflicted during the incidents referred to in the instance case on the
three victims of bodily injury; and
e) US$131,500.00 (one hundred thirty-one thousand five hundred US
dollars) corresponding, in accordance with paragraph 89 of the […]
judgment, to compensation for loss of income of the three victims of
bodily injury;
7.
That the payments referred to in the foregoing operative
paragraph shall be effected as follows:
a)
Items a), b) and c) under the foregoing operative paragraph shall be
paid in a lump sum and distributed among the next of kin of the
victims in accordance with the Table in paragraph 90, in conjunction
with paragraph 91 of the […] judgment; and b)
Items d) and e) in the foregoing operative paragraph shall be
distributed among the three victims of bodily injury as indicated in
paragraphs 90 and 92 of the judgment.
8.
That the State must pay compensation for moral prejudice in the
amount of US$3,921,500.00 (three million nine hundred twenty-one
thousand five hundred US dollars) or the equivalent in Venezuelan
currency, corresponding to the following items:
a)
US$555,000.00 (five hundred fifty-five thousand US dollars),
corresponding, in accordance with paragraph 101 of the […] judgment,
to compensation for the suffering caused by the facts of the case to
the 37 murdered and disappeared victims;
b) US$35,000.00 (thirty-five thousand US dollars) corresponding,
in accordance with paragraph 102 of the […] judgment, to
compensation for the additional suffering caused by the facts of this
case to each of the seven victims of murder who were minors at the
time; which amount shall be additional to the sum indicated in
foregoing item a);
c) US$90,000.00 (ninety thousand US dollars) corresponding, in
accordance with paragraph 103 the […] judgment, to compensation for
suffering caused by the facts of this case to the three victims of
bodily injury;
d) US$2,310,000.00 (two million three hundred ten thousand US
dollars) corresponding, in accordance with paragraphs 104 and 105 of
the […] judgment, to compensation for the suffering caused by the
facts of the case to the next of kin of the 37 murdered and
disappeared victims;
e) US$256,500.00 (two hundred fifty-six thousand five hundred US
dollars) corresponding, in accordance with paragraphs 104 in
fine of the […] judgment, to compensation for the additional
suffering caused by the facts of this case to the next of kin of the
fourteen murdered and disappeared victims, whose remains have not been
handed over to the next of kin; which amount shall be additional to
the sum indicated in foregoing item;
f) US$630,000.00 (six hundred thirty thousand US dollars)
corresponding, in accordance with paragraphs 107 and 108 of the […]
judgment, to compensation for moral damage (daño inmaterial) relating to violation of the rights to judicial
protection, due process of law, and access to an effective remedy of
the next of kin of the 37 murdered and disappeared victims;
g) US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand US dollars) corresponding, in
accordance with paragraphs 107 in fine of the […] judgment, to compensation for moral damage (daño
inmaterial) relating to violation of the rights to judicial
protection, due process of law, and access to an effective remedy of
the next of kin of the four persons specified in those same
paragraphs; and
h)
US$15,000.00 (fifteen thousand US dollars) corresponding, in
accordance with paragraph 109 of the […] judgment, to compensation
for moral damage (daño
inmaterial) relating to violation of the rights to judicial
protection, due process of law, and access to an effective remedy of
the three victims of bodily injury;
9.
The payments specified in the foregoing operative item shall be
effected as follows:
a) Items a) and b) shall be paid in a lump sum and distributed
among the next of kin as specified in the Table in paragraph 110, and
paragraph 111 of the […]
judgment;
b) The payments mentioned under c), d), e), f), g) and h) shall be
made directly to the beneficiary of the compensation concerned, in the
amounts indicated in the Table in paragraph 110 and paragraph 111 of
the […] judgment; and
c) In the case of persons whose relationship to the victims has
not been established in this judgment and who may be beneficiaries of
reparations compensating for moral damage (daño
inmaterial) in accordance with paragraphs 73 and 106 of the […]
judgment, the respective payments shall be effected provided that such
persons appear before the State within twenty-four months of the date
this judgment is rendered and show proof attesting, in accordance with
domestic legislation, to their status as next of kin of any of the
victims, as provided in Article 2.15 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court;
10.
That the State must, in accordance with paragraphs 132 and 133
of the judgment, pay the Committee of the Next of Kin of the Victims
of the Events of February-March 1989 (COFAVIC), US$75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand US dollars) to
reimburse expenses and legal costs generated by the proceedings before
domestic courts and the inter-American system as well as US$10,000,00
(ten thousand US dollars) to cover future expenses incurred in actions
related to compliance with the […] judgment; and that it must pay
US$1,000.00 (one thousand US dollars) to the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL), pursuant to paragraph 132 of the […]
judgment to reimburse expenses and legal costs incurred for
proceedings before the inter-American system;
11.
That the payments ordered in the […] judgment shall be exempt
from any existing or future levy or tax;
12.
That the State must comply with the reparation measures ordered
in the […] judgment within twelve months of notification thereof,
except as regards operative item 9.c of the
[…] judgment.
The
El Amparo Case
350.
After
taking into account the statements made by the State, the Commission,
and the representatives of the victims and the victims’ next of kin,
the Court issued the following decision on November 28, 2002:
1. The State is obliged
to adopt all necessary measures to enforce and comply promptly with
the judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on
September 14, 1996 in the El Amparo case, as provided in Article 68.1
of the American Convention on Human Rights.
2.
The State shall pay the next of kin of the victims and the
surviving victims interest due on account of the delay in making the
reparation payments; the amount of that interest being US$28,751.44
(twenty-eight thousand seven hundred fifty-one US dollars and
forty-four cents.)
Request
for Advisory Opinion OC-17
351.
A
public hearing was held on June 21, 2002 regarding the request for
advisory opinion OC-17 stemming from a petition presented by the
Commission. Observations were made by the United Mexican States, Costa
Rica, the Inter-American Commission, the United Nations Latin American
Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders
(ILANUD), and other NGOs in their capacity as amici
curiae.
352.
In the request for an
advisory opinion, presented on March 30, 2001 pursuant to Article
64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission asked
the Court to interpret Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on
Human Rights in connection with Article 19 of the same international
instrument.
353.
Accordingly,
on August 28, 2002, the Court issued an advisory opinion. For the
purposes of this Opinion, “child” or “minor” denotes a person
less than 18 years of age, unless he or she has reached legal age. In
its Opinion, the Court expressed the view:
1.
That, under contemporary
provisions of international human rights law, of which Article 19 of
the American Convention forms a part, children are bearers of rights (titulares
de derechos) and not just objects of protection.
2.
That the expression “best
interests of the child,” enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child implies that the child’s development and the
full exercise of his/her rights must be considered the guiding
criteria in the drawing up and application of legal provisions in all
areas affecting the life of the child.
3.
That the principle of
equality before the law cited in Article 24 of the American Convention
on Human Rights does not preclude the adoption of specific rules and
measures in respect of children, who need to be treated differently
because of their special conditions, This treatment should be directed
toward protection of children’s rights and interests.
4.
That the family constitutes
the fundamental sphere for the development of the child and the
exercise of his or her rights. For that reason, the State must support
and strengthen the family, through the various measures that it
requires in order to enhance the performance of its natural function
in this field.
5.
That steps should be taken to
preserve and propitiate conditions in which children stay with their
nuclear families, unless there are compelling reasons to separate them
from their families in the child’s best interest. The separation
should be exceptional and, preferably, temporary.
6.
That to care for children,
the State must use institutions with qualified staff, adequate
facilities, suitable means, and proven experience in this kind of
work.
7.
That respect for the right to
life, in the case of children, encompasses not only the prohibitions,
including the prohibition to arbitrarily deprive someone of their
right to life, established in Article 4 of the American Convention on
Human Rights, but also the obligation to adopt the measures needed to
ensure that children can develop in decent conditions.
8.
That true and full protection
of children entails their being able to enjoy the full exercise of
their rights, including the economic, social, and cultural rights
accorded them in various international instruments. States parties to
international human rights instruments are obliged to take positive
steps to guarantee protection of all the rights of the child.
9.
That the states parties to
the American Convention are obliged, under Articles 19 and 17, in
conjunction with Article 1.1 of that Convention, to adopt all positive
measures to ensure that children are protected from maltreatment, be
it in their relations with the public authorities, or in relations
between individuals, or with nongovernment entities.
10.
That in judicial or
administrative proceedings involving the rights of children the
principles and standards of due process of law must be observed. This
comprises the rules governing the use of regular–competent,
independent, and impartial–judges, duplication (doble instancia), presumption of innocence, contradiction, and
hearing and defense, with special attention to the particularities
arising out of the specific situation of children, which may
reasonably entail, among other things, personal intervention in those
procedures and the measures of protection that are essential for the
observance of those.
11.
That children under 18
accused of criminal conduct should be subject to jurisdictional bodies
that are different from those for adults. The type of intervention the
State should have in the case of juvenile delinquents must be
reflected in the composition and working procedures of these courts,
and in the type of measures they may adopt.
12.
That the conduct giving rise
to intervention by the State in the cases referred to in the foregoing
paragraph must be described in criminal law. Other cases, such as
abandonment, destitution, risk, or disease must be treated with
procedures that differ from those applicable to persons committing
acts defined in criminal law. Nevertheless, in such cases, too, the
principles and standards of due process of law must be observed, in
respect of both the minors and those who exercise rights with respect
to them, based on family law, taking into account the specific
conditions in which the children are living.
13.
That it is possible to use
alternative forms of conflict settlement for controversies involving
children, but that it is necessary to regulate application of those
alternative mechanisms very carefully, so as to avoid altering or
diminishing the rights of the child.
Request
for Advisory Opinion OC-18
354.
On May 10, 2002, the United
Mexican States submitted a request for an advisory opinion regarding
the interpretation of various treaties concerning protection of human
rights in the American states. Specifically,
the consultation refers to “deprivation of the enjoyment and
exercise of certain workers’ rights and its compatibility with the
obligation of American states to guarantee the principles of equality
before the law, nondiscrimination and equal and effective judicial
protection, enshrined in international instruments to protect the
human rights (of migrant workers); and to the subordination or
conditioning of the observance of the obligations imposed by
international human rights law, including those that are exceptionable
erga omnes, when it comes to achieving certain domestic
political objectives of an American state.” The consultation also
has to do with “the status that the principles of equality before
the law, nondiscrimination, and equal and effective judicial
protection have acquired in the context of the progressive development
of international human rights law and its codification.”
355.
As this report was drawn up,
the Commission was in the process of completing its report with regard
to this advisory opinion.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |
