|
|
|
Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR (Continuation)
CASE 11.478, Report N° 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)
269. In Report N° 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$100,000 as compensation to each of the victims of the situations alleged, and to note the lack of compliance with respect to the punishment of the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and with respect to the payment of interest for the delay in payment of the above-noted sum.
2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
270. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
271. The Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.512, Report N° 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)
272. In Report N° 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceedings with respect to the sanction of the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment regarding the trial of persons implicated in the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, of its compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
273. Paragaph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensatory payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
274. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.605, Report N° 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)
275. In Report N° 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceeding to punish the persons implicated in the alleged violation.
2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
276. Paragraph 1 recognizes that the Ecuadorian State has complied with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
277. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.779, Report N° 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)
278. In Report N° 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and the beginning of judicial proceedings to punish the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
279. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
280. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.992, Report N° 66/01, Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)
281. In Report N° 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR concluded that with respect to Dayra Maria Levoyer Jimenez, the State of Ecuador violated the following rights established in the American Convention: the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to personal liberty (Article 7), the right to a fair trial (Article 8) and the right to due process (Article 25), together with the general obligation to respect and ensure set forth in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.
282. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:
1. Proceed to grant full reparations, which involve granting adequate compensation to Mrs. Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez.
2. Order an investigation to determine responsibility for the violations detected by the Commission and eventually to punish the individuals responsible.
3. Take such steps as are necessary to reform habeas corpus legislation as indicated in the present report, as well as to enact such reforms with immediate effect.
283. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with these recommendations on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
284. The Commission concludes that the aforesaid recommendations have been partially implemented.
CASE 11.441, Report N° 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)
285. In Report N° 104/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify that the State has complied with the commitment to pay US$10,000 to each victim in this case, as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by instituting judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
286. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
287. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.443, Report N° 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)
288. In Report N° 105/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case, as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it should fully implement the friendly settlement by beginning judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR, every three months, on the implementation of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
289. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with respect to the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
290. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.450, Report N° 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)
291. In Report N° 106/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
292. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
293. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.542, Report N° 107/01, Angel Reiniero Vega Jiménez (Ecuador)
294. In Report N° 107/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
295. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with respect to the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
296. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.574, Report N° 108/01, Wilberto Samuel Manzanos (Ecuador)
297. In Report N° 108/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
298. Paragraph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
299. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.632, Report N° 109/01, Vidal Segura Hurtado (Ecuador)
300. In Report N° 109/01 of October 11, 2001 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
301. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
302.
The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the
recommendations. CASE 12.007, Report N° 110/01, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez (Ecuador)
303. In Report N° 110/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$20,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
304. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with respect to the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
305. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.515, Report N° 63/03, Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda (Ecuador)
306. In Report N° 63/03 of October 10, 2003 the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to pay US $30,000 dollars to the victim by way of compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
307. Paragraph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
308. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 12.188, Report N° 64/03, Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, Rocío Valencia Sánchez (Ecuador)
309. In Report N° 64/03, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amount of USD $25,000 to each of the three victims in this case.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the Friendly Settlement Agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
310. Paragraph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
311. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 12.394, Report N° 65/03, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor Argote and Hugo Lara Pinos (Ecuador)
312. In Report N° 65/03, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amounts of US $100,000.00 to Mr. Hernández, US $300,000.00 to Mr. Loor, and US $50,000.00 to Mr. Lara.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreements by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlements; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the Commission on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
313. Paragraph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
314. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
PETITION 12.205, Report N° 44/06, José René Castro Galarza (Ecuador)
315. The case was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. In the agreement clauses contained in the friendly settlement report, the Ecuadorian State acknowledges its international responsibility for having violated the human rights of Mr. José René Castro Galarza, recognized in Article 2 (Duty to Ensure Domestic Legal Effects), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all in connection with the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, and other international instruments, considering that the violations were committed by State agents, which could not be disproved by the State, giving rise to State responsibility. Given the aforementioned, the Ecuadorian State accepted the facts in Case 12.205 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Award to Mr. José René Castro Galarza a one-time compensatory payment in the amount of eighty thousand US dollars (US$80,000.00).
2. Bring civil and criminal proceedings and pursue administrative sanctions against those persons who are alleged to have participated in the violation in the performance of State functions or under the color of public authority. The Office of the Attorney General pledges to encourage the State Attorney General, the competent judicial organs, and public agencies or private institutions to contribute legal evidence to determine the liability of those persons. If admissible, the prosecution will be subject to the constitution and laws of the Ecuadorian State. The Office of the Attorney General shall deliver to the State Attorney General all necessary documents to open investigations to punish those responsible for the aforesaid violations. By the same token, it shall encourage the competent judicial organs, and public agencies or private institutions to contribute legal evidence to determine the liability of such persons. If admissible, the prosecution will be subject to the Constitution and laws of the Ecuadorian State.
316. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
317. Considering the compensatory payment effected, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the points of the friendly settlement agreement.
PETITION 12.207, Report N° 45/06, Lisandro Ramiro Montero Masache (Ecuador)
318. The case was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. Under the terms of the agreement Ecuador accepted responsibility for violating the human rights of Mr. Lizandro Ramiro Montero Masache, rights emanating from the general obligations of Article 1(1) of the American Convention and other international instruments, and that are specifically enshrined in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention. These violations were committed by agents of the State and have not been refuted by the State, which thus must bear responsibility for them before society. The State agreed to accept the facts outlined in Petition 12.207 before the IACHR, and to take any reparatory measures necessary to assuring compensation of the damages suffered by the victim.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Compensate Mr. Lizandro Ramiro Montero Masache with a lump sum payment of sixty thousand US dollars (US $60,000).
2. To bring both civil and criminal proceedings and to pursue administrative sanctions against those persons who, in the course of their official duties or by taking advantage of their position, are presumed to have participated in the alleged violation. The Office of the Attorney General will make available to the Public Prosecutor all documentation needed to initiate investigations that could lead to the punishment of the parties responsible for the violations in question. Likewise, it will encourage the competent judicial organs and other public or private entities to provide any legal evidence that may contribute to establishing responsibility for the violations. Any prosecution that may ensue will be carried out in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework of Ecuador.
319. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
320. Considering the compensatory payment effected, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the points of the friendly settlement agreement.
PETITION 12.238, Report N°46/06, Myriam Larrea Pintado (Ecuador)
321. The petition was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. In the agreement clauses the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for having violated the human rights of Ms. Myriam Genoveva Larrea Pintado, provided for by Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection), both in connection with the general obligation of compliance provided for by Art. 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and by other international instruments. Said violations were committed by State agents; the State has not been able to refute these facts, which have therefore, in turn, given rise to its responsibility to society. And, the State does not contest the facts that constitute Petition 12.238 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and undertakes the obligation to provide the necessary measures of reparation in order to compensate for the damages caused to the victim of said violations.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Compensate Ms. Myrian [sic] Genoveva Larrea Pintado in the sum of two hundred seventy-five thousand United States dollars (US$275,000.00).
2. Initiate the actions necessary for the institution of both civil and criminal proceedings against, and the administrative sanctions of, those persons who, in carrying out state duties, or using their public authority are assumed to have participated in the alleged violation. The Office of the Attorney General of the State will turn over all the necessary documentation to the Office of the Public Prosecutor in order to commence the investigations for the punishment of those found responsible for said violation. Likewise, it will request both the competent organs of the Judiciary and public or private organizations to provide legally grounded information that will lead towards the establishment of said persons’ responsibility, should it arise. Should these trials be warranted, they shall be carried out in observance of the constitutional and legal order of the Ecuadorian State.
3. Erase from the Registry of Criminal Records, and from any other type of public or reserved registry, the name of Myrian [sic] Genoveva Larrea Pintado.
4. Publish the text of clause III of this Friendly Settlement Agreement in the daily newspaper of the widest circulation. In this publication Ms. Myrian [sic] Genoveva Larrea Pintado’s gratitude towards doctors Germánico Maya and Alejandro Ponce Villacís, attorneys and counselors of Ms. Myrian [sic] Genoveva Larrea Pintado.
5. Fashion a plaque with the name of Myrian [sic] Genoveva Larrea Pintado, which will record the responsibility of the Ecuadorian State, in accordance with number III of this agreement. The plaque shall be unveiled in an auditorium or another similar room of the Superintendencia de Bancos [Office of Banking Supervision].
322. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
323. Considering the compensatory payment effected, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the points of the friendly settlement agreement.
PETITION 533-01, Report N° 47/06, Fausto Mendoza Giler y Diógenes (Ecuador)
324. The petition was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. In the agreement clauses contained in the friendly settlement report, the Ecuadorian State accepted responsibility for violating the human rights of the minor Fausto Mendoza Giler and of Mr. Diogenes Mendoza Bravo, rights emanating from the general obligations of Article 1(1) of the American Convention and other international instruments, and that are specifically enshrined in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention. These violations were committed by agents of the State and have not been refuted by the State, which thus must bear responsibility for them before society. The Ecuadorian State thus agreed to accept the facts outlined in Petition 533-01 before the IACHR, and to take any reparatory measures necessary to assuring compensation of the damages suffered by the victim.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Compensate Mr. Diógenes Mendoza Bravo with a lump sum payment of three hundred thousand United States dollars (US $300,000).
2. To the extent possible, bring both civil and criminal proceedings and to pursue administrative sanctions against those persons who, in the course of their official duties or by taking advantage of their position, are presumed to have participated in the alleged violation. The Office of the Attorney General will make available to the Public Prosecutor all documentation needed to initiate investigations that could lead to the punishment of the parties responsible for the violations in question. Likewise, it will encourage the competent judicial organs and other public or private entities to provide any legal evidence that may contribute to establishing responsibility for the violations. Any prosecution that may ensue will be carried out in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework of Ecuador.
325. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
326. Considering the compensatory payment effected, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the points of the friendly settlement agreement.
CASE 12.028, Report N° 47/01, Donnason Knights (Grenada)
327. In Report N° 47/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission concluded the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Knights to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Knights’ with an effective right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Knights' rights under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, because of Mr. Knights’ conditions of detention; and d) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to him to pursue a Constitutional Motion.
328. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant Mr. Knights an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
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 American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the American Convention in respect of the victim’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
329. The State has not reported the Commission as to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 47/01. On December 23, 2002, the petitioner wrote to the Commission and reported of the following: On May 2001, Anslem B. Clouden, Attorney-at-Law had written to the Attorney General of Grenada requesting adoption of the necessary measures in compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. To date, as far as we are aware, there has been no response from the Attorney General, and Mr. Knights remains on death row, and we are unaware of any legislative measures, or any measures being adopted in relation to conditions of detention. In March 2002, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered landmark decisions in 3 cases, Patrick Reyes, Peter Hughes & Bertil Fox. They declared that the mandatory death penalty imposed on all those convicted of murder in the Eastern Caribbean and Belize is unconstitutional. The effect of this decision means that Mr. Knights’ sentence will have to be reviewed as he was automatically sentenced to death upon conviction. Mr. Knights will now have an opportunity to place before the courts mitigating circumstances as to why the death penalty may not be appropriate in his case. Whilst the adoption of new legislative measures were as a result of the appeal to the Privy Council in the trilogy of cases mentioned above, and, not as a result of the Commission’s recommendations in this case, the views of the Commission in relation to the mandatory issue were an important aspect of the arguments before the courts. The Commission’s recommendations, and its decisions have played an instrumental role in these decisions.” Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of Grenada has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.
330. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 47/01, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
331. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 12.028 (Donnason Knights), reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
332. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death; they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
333. The petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
334. On November 2, 2007, the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 47/01. The Commission has not received responses from either party.
335. The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending
CASE 11.765, Report N° 55/02, Paul Lallion (Grenada)336. In Report N° 55/02 dated October 21, 2003, the IACHR concluded that the State of Grenada was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Lallion to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Lallion with an effective remedy to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, because of its failure to respect Mr. Lallion's right to physical, mental, and moral integrity by confining him in inhumane conditions of detention; d) for violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to Mr. Lallion to pursue a Constitutional Motion; and e) violating Mr. Lallion's right to personal liberty as provided by Article 7(2), 7(4), and 7(5) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention by failing to protect his right to personal liberty, and to be brought promptly before a judicial officer.
337. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant Mr. Lallion an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
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 American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
6. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to personal liberty under Article 7(2), Article 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion is given effect in Grenada.
338. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
339. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 55/02, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
340. By letters of January 10, 2005, the petitioners in Case 11.765 (Paul Lallion), reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
341. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death; they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
342. The petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To date the Commission has not received any information from the State.
343. On November 2, 2007, the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 55/02. The Commission has not received responses from either party.
344. The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending
CASE 12.158, Report N° 56/02 Benedict Jacob (Grenada)
345.
In Report N° 56/02 dated October 21, 2003, the Commission concluded that
the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under
Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of
Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Jacob to a
mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Article
4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1)
of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Jacob with an
effective remedy to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of
sentence; c) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Article 5(1) of the
American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of
the American Convention, because of its failure to respect Mr. Jacob's
rights to physical, mental, and moral integrity by confining him in
inhumane conditions of detention; and d) violating Mr. Jacob's rights
under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a
violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal
aid available to him to pursue a Constitutional Motion.
346. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant Mr. Jacob an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
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 American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Jacob’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
347. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
348. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 56/02, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
349. By letters of January 10, 2005, the petitioners in Case 12.158 (Benedict Jacob) reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
350. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, as they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
351. Finally, the petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
352. On November 2, 2007, the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 55/02. The Commission has not received responses from either party.
353. The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
