|
|
|
Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR (Continuation)
CASE 10.855, Report N° 100/05, Pedro García Chuc (Guatemala)
414. The case record shows that in the early hours of March 5, 1991, several members of the State security forces detained Mr. Pedro García Chuc at kilometer 135 of the Occidente road in the municipality of Sololá, in Sololá Department. Two days later, Mr. Pedro García Chuc’s corpse, which had sustained several bullet wounds, was found in the same spot where he was detained. It is assumed that the extrajudicial execution was due to his activities as President of the Cooperativa San Juan Argueta R.L., as well as his active participation in efforts to secure benefits for his community. On April 2, 1991, the Commission received a petition filed against the Guatemalan State by the family of Pedro García Chuc, alleging violation of Pedro José García Chuc’s right to life. Filed by the victim’s next-of-kin, the petition was one of 46 petitions that the Commission received between 1990 and 1991, wherein the State was denounced for the extrajudicial execution of a total of 71 men, women and children, one of whom was Mr. García Chuc. Once the cases were processed with the IACHR, the latter decided, pursuant to Article 40 of its Rules of Procedure, to join the cases and decide them as a group.
415. On February 24, 2000, the Commission adopted Report N° 5/00, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, in which it found that Guatemala’s international responsibility had been engaged by the arbitrary execution of the victims whose cases were reported, involving violations of the rights to life, to a fair trial, to judicial protection and other rights all recognized in the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the Guatemalan State that:
1. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in the cases of the victims named in section VII, and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Guatemalan law.
2. Adopt the measures necessary for the family members of the victims identified in paragraph 289 to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.
416. The Guatemalan State issued a formal declaration on April 13, 2000, in which it acknowledged its international responsibility for noncompliance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, acknowledged the version of the events that appeared in Commission Report N° 5/00, and pledged to pay just compensation to the victims’ next-of-kin, based on the established principles and criteria within the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. It also pledged to push the investigations into the facts and, to the extent possible, to bring those responsible to trial. Finally, it pledged to report the progress it made toward fulfillment of its obligations. Published that same day was Report N° 39/00, which contained both Report N° 5/00 and the formal commitment, undertaken by the Guatemalan State.
417. On February 18, 2005, the State and the petitioners signed an “AGREEMENT CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN CASE 10,855 PEDRO JOSE GARCÍA CHUC” and on July 19, 2005, signed a reparations agreement.
418. On November 5, 2007, the Commission asked the parties to provide up-to-date information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. On November 29, 2007, the petitioners reported that the State of Guatemala had “made significant progress in implementing the commitments acquired in connection with this case.” They noted, however, that the following commitments assumed by the State under the agreement signed by the parties were still pending compliance: (1) providing a building in usufruct; (2) providing the García Yax and García Chic families with technical training; (3) investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those guilty of Pedro José García Chuc’s extrajudicial killing. In turn, on December 5, 2007, the State reported that it was still working to implement the pending obligations.
419. The IACHR concludes that the recommendations formulated in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially carried out.
CASE 11.171, Report N° 69/06, Tomas Lares Cipriano (Guatemala)
420. In Report N° 69/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the State of Guatemala was responsible for: a) violating the human right to life established under Article 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, on account of the extrajudicial execution of Tomás Lares Cipriano by State agents on April 3, 1993; b) violating the human rights to humane treatment, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, provided for in Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of same, as a result of the events that took place on April 3, 1993 and the ensuing consequence of impunity, with prejudice to Tomás Lares Cipriano, and his family members; and, c) consequently, the State has not complied with its duty to respect human rights and guarantees provided for in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.
421. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State of Guatemala:
1. To carry out a complete, impartial and effective investigation of the events reported, to judge and punish all those responsible, either as abettors or perpetrators, for human rights violations with prejudice to Tomás Lares Cipriano and his family members.
2. To make reparation for the violation of the aforementioned rights as established in paragraph 128 of this report.
3. To effectively prevent the resurgence and reorganization of the Civil Self-defense Patrols.
4. To adopt the necessary measures to avoid similar events in the future, pursuant to the duty of prevention and guarantee of fundamental human rights, recognized by the American Convention.
422. On November 1, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the recommendations issued in this case. On December 11, 2007, the State reported that it had met with Mr. Juan Lares Ambrosio, the victim’s eldest son, and informed him of the recommendations issued by the IACHR in Report N° 69/06, with a view to reaching an agreement for compliance with those recommendations; no such agreement was reached, however. The State noted that the absence of an agreement hindered implementation of the recommendations adopted in this case and reiterated its willingness to comply with them.
423. Since the State has reiterated its intent to comply with the recommendations issued in this case, the Commission notes that the recommendations described in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Report N° 69/06 can and must be implemented by the State, even without the participation of the victim’s family or their acquiescence. Regarding the recommendation contained in paragraph 2 of the report, the State is urged to create a special fund for compensating the victim’s next-of-kin in the event that, in the future, they agree to accept redress. The Commission applauds the State’s efforts to implement the recommendations and it will continue to monitor compliance therewith.
CASE 12.264, Report N° 1/06, Franz Britton (Guayana)
424. In Report N° 78/02, dated December 27, 2002, the Commission concluded that agents of the State security forces abducted and/or detained Franz Britton and that during the following six years his whereabouts have not been identified and that, as a result, Guyana violated the rights of Franz Britton to life, liberty, personal liberty, judicial protection, arbitrary arrest and due process of law, all recognized, respectively, in Articles I, XVIII, XXV, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration.
425. The Commission issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Carry out a serious, impartial and effective investigation by means of the competent organs, to establish the whereabouts of Franz Britton and to identify those responsible for his detention-disappearance, and, by means of appropriate criminal proceedings, to punish those responsible for such grave acts in accordance with the law.
2. Adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to prevent the recurrence of such events and provide, in all cases, the required due process and effective means of establishing the whereabouts and fate of anyone held in State custody.
3. Adopt measures to make full reparation for the proven violations, including taking steps to locate the remains of Franz Britton and to inform the family of their whereabouts; making the arrangements necessary to facilitate the wishes of his family as to an appropriate final resting place; and providing reparations for the relatives of Franz Britton including moral and material damages in compensation for the suffering occasioned by Mr. Britton’s disappearance and not knowing his fate.
426. On November 2, 2007 the Commission requested up-to-date information from the State and the petitioner regarding the compliance with the recommendations issued in this case. The Commission did not receive a response within the specified timeframe from either party.
427. Based on the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the recommendations is pending.
CASE 11.335, Report N° 78/02, Guy Malary (Haiti)
428. In Report N° 78/02 of December 27, 2002, the IACHR concluded that: a) the Haitian State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Guy Malary; b) the Haitian State violated the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next-of-kin of Mr. Guy Malary; and c) that these violations of human rights involves that the Haitian State breached the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of the above-cited international instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Guy Malary and his next-of-kin.
429. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Carry out a full, prompt, impartial, and effective investigation within the Haitian ordinary criminal jurisdiction in order to establish the responsibility of the authors of the violation of the right to life of Mr. Guy Malary and punish all those responsible.
2. Provide full reparation to the next-of-kin of the victim, inter alia, the payment of just compensation.
3. Adopt the measures necessary to carry out programs targeting the competent judicial authorities responsible for judicial investigations and auxiliary proceedings, in order for them to conduct criminal proceedings in the accordance with international instruments on human rights.
430. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 78/02.
431. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the Commission’s recommendations is pending.
CASES 11.826, 11.843, 11.846 and 11.847, Report N° 49/01, Leroy Lamey, Kevin Mykoo, Milton Montique and Dalton Daley (Jamaica)
432. In Report N° 49/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.826 (Leroy Lamey), 11.843 (Kevin Mykoo), 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing these victims to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.826 (Leroy Lamey), 11.843 (Kevin Mykoo), 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to provide these victims with an effective right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.843 (Kevin Mykoo), 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Article 7(5) and 7(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to promptly bring the victims before a judge following their arrests, and by failing to ensure their recourse without delay to a competent court to determine the lawfulness of their detention; d) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the delays in trying the victims; e) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.826 (Leroy Lamey), 11.843 (Kevin Mykoo), 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the victims' conditions of detention: f) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by denying the victims access to legal counsel for prolonged periods following their arrests; and g) violating the rights of the victims in Case Nos. 11.826 (Leroy Lamey), 11.843 (Kevin Mykoo), 11.846 (Milton Montique) and 11.847 (Dalton Daley) under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to these victims to pursue Constitutional Motions.
433. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant the victims an effective remedy which included commutation of their death sentences 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, in particular 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 Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the victims’ rights to humane treatment under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, particularly in relation to their conditions of detention, are given effect in Jamaica.
5. 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.
434. By note dated January 22, 2007, the State informed the Commission that by virtue of the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt & Morgan v. the Attorney General of Jamaica [1993], in any instance where the period between a sentence of death and the time of execution exceeds five years, the carrying out of that execution will be presumed to be inhuman and degrading punishment and therefore inconsistent with Jamaican law. Consequently, as a matter of course, death row convicts will have their sentence of death automatically commuted to life imprisonment, once the sentence has not been effected within a five-year period after sentence. Furthermore, the State expressed that it regarded the first recommendation as “vague and incoherent” considering that the Commission has not set out the purpose for compensation or the underlying principles on which this compensatory package should be based. According to the State, if the Commission’s argument is that compensation is due because the State has not provided an effective remedy in death penalty cases, this point is unfounded because as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson v. R [2004] the mandatory death penalty was declared unconstitutional and that the law was revised. Therefore, the State would only contemplate compensation for those persons given a mandatory sentence of death after the ruling in Lambert Watson, because to do otherwise, would be to apply the law retroactively.
435. Concerning the second recommendation, the State informed that it had adopted legislative measures to ensure that the mandatory death penalty is not imposed with amendments to the Offences Against the Persons Act 1992, the Parole Act 1978, the Criminal Justice [Reform] Act of 1978 and the Gun Court Act 1974, pursuant to the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2005 and the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2006. Specifically, the State indicated that the present legislation effectively discarded the two-classification of murder into categories of capital murder, which attracted an automatic and obligatory sentence, and non-capital murder, and, therefore, the sentence of death is now optional for all cases in which previously involved mandatory death sentences. In this regard, the State indicated that the court is mandated, before passing sentence, to hear submissions, representations and evidence from the prosecution and the defense in relation to the issue of the sentence to be passed. In addition, the State of Jamaica informed that whenever a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, the court has the duty to specify the period of imprisonment that should be served before the offender is eligible for parole. The State similarly indicated that provisions have been made for a review of all mandatory sentences of death previously imposed under the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 1992 and that a result, sentences have been quashed and a judicial determination has been made, or is to be made, as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed for each convict.
436. With regard to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State informed that the Governor General is empowered under Section 90 of the Jamaican Constitution to grant pardon to any person convicted of any offence, grant respite to any person either indefinitely or for a specified period from the execution of any punishment imposed on that person, or, to substitute a less severe form of punishment for that imposed on any person. The Governor General acts in this on the recommendation of the Jamaican Privy Council under Section 91 of the Constitution. The State referred that the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. The Attorney General of Jamaica [2000], regarding fair and proper procedures for the grant of mercy, has become part of Jamaican law, individuals are given notice of hearings and the opportunity to present submissions on their behalf. The State also pointed out that by virtue of the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2005, there is no longer a mandatory sentence of death in Jamaica and that judicial consideration of submissions, representation and evidence, as to the appropriateness of the sentence to be passed, is required in all circumstances where a sentence of death may be imposed. Furthermore, the State indicated that persons sentenced to death in Jamaica have always enjoyed a right of appeal against sentence, which is evidenced by the several death row cases that have gone before the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Appeal from a sentence of death can and has led to either confirmation or to a quashing of the sentence and the substitution of a more appropriate sentence. According to the State, it effectively guarantees persons condemned to death the right to seek a review of their sentence which can lead to the commutation of their sentence.
437. In respect of the Commission’s fourth recommendation, the State pointed out that Leroy Lamey, Kevin Mykoo, Milton Montique and Dalton Daley are inmates that have benefited under the Lambert Watson v. Jamaica [2004]. The State indicated that as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson decision, all persons on “death row” were removed from “death row” and placed within general prison population, pending the outcome of the hearings as to the appropriateness of the death sentence previously imposed mandatorily. Furthermore, the State indicated that generally, the conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment and that the Inspectorate Unit of the Jamaican Correctional Services continues to monitor conformity to the requisite standards of order, cleanliness and adequacy of space, bedding, ventilation and lighting in all correctional facilities and where necessary the Unit makes recommendations for systematic improvements.
438. Finally, concerning the fifth recommendation, the State indicated that it retained the view that judicial protections and fair hearing procedures are effectively guaranteed under the laws of Jamaica. As to the provision of legal aid assistance to persons wishing to bring Constitutional Motions, the State expressed it is not adverse to giving consideration to such a course of action but maintained, however, that this is not a requirement of Article 8 of the Convention.
439. The Commission points out that in its 2004 and 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, the Commission stated there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s first, second, and third recommendations. The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information. Based upon the latest information presented by the State, the Commission now considers that there has been compliance with the Commission’s second recommendation with the adoption of legislative measures to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law. With respect to the remaining recommendations, however, the Commission notes that the latest communication presented by the State of Jamaica, for the most part, reiterates the information provided in its previous response considered by the Commission in its 2004 Annual Report.
440. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.069, Report N° 50/01, Damion Thomas (Jamaica)441. In Report N° 50/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for failing to respect the physical, mental and moral integrity of Damion Thomas and, in all of the circumstances, subjecting Damion Thomas to cruel or inhuman punishment or treatment, contrary to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, all in conjunction with violations of the State's obligations under Article 1(1) of the Convention.
442. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included compensation.
2. Conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the facts of the pertinent incidents denounced by the Petitioners in order to determine and attribute responsibility to those accountable for the violations concerned and undertake appropriate remedial measures.
3. Review its practices and procedures to ensure that officials involved in the incarceration and supervision of persons imprisoned in Jamaica are provided with appropriate training concerning the standards of humane treatment of such persons, including restrictions on the use of force against such persons.
4. Review its practices and procedures to ensure that complaints made by prisoners concerning alleged mistreatment by prison officials and other conditions of their detention are properly investigated and resolved.
443. In a letter dated December 21, 2006, Mr. Damion Thomas’ representatives indicated that, based upon information available to them and to the best of their knowledge, the State of Jamaica had not taken any steps to comply with the four recommendations contained in Report N° 50/01. By note dated January 22, 2007, the State indicated that it regarded the first recommendation as “vague and incoherent” considering that the Commission has not set out the purpose for compensation or the underlying principles on which this compensatory package should be based. As to the second recommendation, the State indicated that it had taken the initiative to bring the matter concerning Mr. Damion Thomas to the attention of the Office of the Public Defender, the one empowered under Jamaican law to receive and investigate complaints from inmates. With regard to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State indicated that the Inspectorate Unit of the Correctional Services Department periodically undertakes awareness training exercises for all Correctional Officers to raise awareness of the standards of humane treatment set by the United Nations, international treaties and Jamaican law. Concerning the fourth recommendation, the State informed that periodic reviews of various internal and external prisoner complaints mechanisms continue to be a part of the agenda of the Jamaican Correctional services. The mechanisms include internal investigations of complaints by the superintendent of Correctional Services and the Inspectorate Unit of the correctional services.
444. In its 2004, 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, the Commission indicated that based upon the information available, there had been partial compliance with the third and fourth recommendations transcribed above. The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on December 21, 2006, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information. The Commission notes that the latest communication presented by the State of Jamaica, for the most part, is a reiteration of the information provided in its previous response considered by the Commission in its 2004 Annual Report.
445. The Commission considers that there has been partial compliance with the recommendations.
CASE 12.183, Report N° 127/01, Joseph Thomas (Jamaica)446. In Report N° 127/01, dated December 3, 2001, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Thomas' rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by sentencing him to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Thomas' rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Thomas with an effective right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Thomas' rights under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of his conditions of detention; and d) violating Mr. Thomas' rights under Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the manner in which the judge instructed the jury during Mr. Thomas' trial.
447. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included a re-trial in accordance with the due process protections prescribed under Article 8 of the Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, his release, and compensation.
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 right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victim is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.
448. By communication dated January 22, 2007, the State expressed its reservation with the recommendation that Mr. Joseph Thomas be granted an effective remedy which includes a re-trial or in the alternative, his release and compensation. In this regard, the State indicated that after Mr. Joseph Thomas’ first trial leading to his conviction, the case was brought before the Jamaican Court of Appeal and also before the Jamaican Privy Council Mercy Committee. According to the State, at both appellate hearings Mr. Thomas raised the issue of the judge’s conduct at the summing up and the failure to hold an identification parade, and that Mr. Joseph Thomas was unsuccessful on both occasions. Given this situation, the State indicated that it can grant no further remedies to Mr. Joseph Thomas through the courts nor grant him compensation without a judicial order.
449. Concerning the second recommendation transcribed above, the State of Jamaica indicated it had adopted legislative measures to ensure that the mandatory death penalty is not imposed with amendments to the Offences Against the Persons Act 1992, the Parole Act 1978, the Criminal Justice [Reform] Act of 1978 and the Gun Court Act 1974, pursuant to the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2005 and the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2006. Specifically, the State informed the Commission that the pre-existing legislation classified all cases of murder into categories of capital murder, which attracted an automatic and obligatory sentence, and non-capital murder. The present legislative effectively discarded this two-tiered classification of murder and, therefore, the sentence of death is now optional for all cases in which previously involved mandatory death sentences. In this regard, the State indicated that the court is mandated, before passing sentence, to hear submissions, representations and evidence from the prosecution and the defense in relation to the issue of the sentence to be passed. In addition, the State informed that whenever a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, the court has the duty to specify the period of imprisonment that should be served before the offender is eligible for parole. The State similarly indicated that provisions has been made for a review of all mandatory sentences of death previously imposed under the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 1992 and that a result, these sentences have been quashed and a judicial determination has been made, or is to be made, as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed for each convict.
450. With regard to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State informed that the Governor General is empowered under Section 90 of the Jamaican Constitution to grant pardon to any person convicted of any offence, grant respite to any person either indefinitely or for a specified period from the execution of any punishment imposed on that person, or, to substitute a less severe form of punishment for that imposed on any person. The Governor General acts in this on the recommendation of the Jamaican Privy Council under Section 91 of the Constitution. The State referred that the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. The Attorney General of Jamaica (2000), regarding fair and proper procedures for the grant of mercy, has become part of Jamaican law, individuals are given notice of hearings and the opportunity to present submissions on their behalf. According to the State, it effectively guarantees persons condemned to death the right to seek a review of their sentence which can lead to the commutation of their sentence.
451. Concerning the fourth recommendation, the State pointed out that Mr. Joseph Thomas is one of the inmates to benefit under the Lambert Watson v. Jamaica [2004]. The State indicated that as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson decision, all persons on “death row” were removed from “death row” and placed within general prison population, pending the outcome of the hearings as to the appropriateness of the death sentence previously imposed mandatorily. The State similarly referred that by virtue of the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt & Morgan v. the Attorney General of Jamaica [1993], in any instance where the period between a sentence of death and the time of execution exceeds five years, the carrying out of that execution will be presumed to be inhuman and degrading punishment and therefore inconsistent with Jamaican law. Consequently, as a matter of course, death row convicts will have their sentence of death automatically commuted to life imprisonment, once the sentence has not been effected within a five-year period after sentence. Finally, the State indicated that generally, the conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment and that the Inspectorate Unit of the Jamaican Correctional Services continues to monitor conformity to the requisite standards of order, cleanliness and adequacy of space, bedding, ventilation and lighting in all correctional facilities and where necessary the Unit makes recommendations for systematic improvements.
452. In its 2004 and 2006 Annual Report, the Commission stated there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s second and third recommendations in Report N° 127/01. The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information. Based upon the latest information presented by the State, the Commission now considers that there has been compliance with the Commission’s second recommendation with the adoption of legislative measures to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law. With respect to the remaining recommendations, however, the Commission notes that the latest communication presented by the State of Jamaica, for the most part, reiterates the information provided in its previous response considered by the Commission in its 2004 Annual Report.
453. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.275, Report N° 58/02, Denton Aitken (Jamaica)
454. In Report N° 58/02 dated October 21, 2002, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the Convention in respect of Mr. Aitken, in conjunction with violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by sentencing him to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Article 4(6) of the Convention in respect of Mr. Aitken, in conjunction with violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by failing to provide him with an effective right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention in respect of Mr. Aitken, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of his conditions of detention; and d) violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in respect of Mr. Aitken, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by reason of the denial to Mr. Aitken 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.
455. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant Mr. Aitken 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 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 right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which Mr. Aitken is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.
5. 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.
456. By note dated January 22, 2007, the State of Jamaica indicated that by virtue of the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt & Morgan v. the Attorney General of Jamaica [1993], in any instance where the period between a sentence of death and the time of execution exceeds five years, the carrying out of that execution will be presumed to be inhuman and degrading punishment and therefore inconsistent with Jamaican law. Consequently, as a matter of course, death row convicts will have their sentence of death automatically commuted to life imprisonment, once the sentence has not been effected within a five-year period after sentence. Furthermore, the State expressed that it regarded the first recommendation that compensation be granted to Denton Aitken, as “vague and incoherent” because the Commission has not set out the purpose for compensation or the underlying principles on which this compensatory package should be based. According to the State, if the Commission’s argument is that compensation is due because the State has not provided an effective remedy in death penalty cases, this point is founded on a false premise because as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson v. Jamaica [2004], the mandatory death penalty was declared unconstitutional in Jamaica and that the law of Jamaica was revised. Therefore, the State would only contemplate compensation for those persons given a mandatory sentence of death after the ruling in Lambert Waston, because to do otherwise, would be to apply the law retroactively.
457. Concerning the second recommendation transcribed above, the State of Jamaica indicated that it had adopted legislative measures to ensure that the mandatory death penalty is not imposed with amendments to the Offences Against the Persons Act 1992, the Parole Act 1978, the Criminal Justice [Reform] Act of 1978 and the Gun Court Act 1974, pursuant to the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2005 and the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2006. Specifically, the State informed the Commission that the pre-existing legislation classified all cases of murder into categories of capital murder, which attracted an automatic and obligatory sentence, and non-capital murder. The present legislative effectively discarded this two-tiered classification of murder and, therefore, the sentence of death is now optional for all cases in which previously involved mandatory death sentences. In this regard, the State indicated that the court is mandated, before passing sentence, to hear submissions, representations and evidence from the prosecution and the defense in relation to the issue of the sentence to be passed. In addition, the State informed that whenever a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, the court has the duty to specify the period of imprisonment that should be served before the offender is eligible for parole. The State similarly indicated that provisions have been made for a review of all mandatory sentences of death previously imposed under the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 1992 and that a result, sentences have been quashed and a judicial determination has been made, or is to be made, as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed for each convict.
458. With regard to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State informed that, pursuant to a recommendation of the Jamaican Privy Council under Section 91 of the Constitution, the Governor General is empowered under Section 90 of the Jamaican Constitution to grant pardon to any person convicted of any offence, grant respite to any person either indefinitely or for a specified period from the execution of any punishment imposed on that person, or, to substitute a less severe form of punishment for that imposed on any person. The State referred that the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Neville Lewis v. The Attorney General of Jamaica (2000), regarding fair and proper procedures for the grant of mercy, has become part of Jamaican law, individuals are given notice of hearings and the opportunity to present submissions on their behalf. According to the State, it effectively guarantees persons condemned to death the right to seek a review of their sentence which can lead to the commutation of their sentence.
459. With respect to the Commission’s fourth recommendation, the State indicated that by virtue of the Lambert Watson decision, all persons on “death row” were removed from “death row” and placed within general prison population, pending the outcome of the hearings as to the appropriateness of the death sentence previously imposed mandatorily. The State also indicated that generally, the conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment and that the Inspectorate Unit of the Jamaican Correctional Services continues to monitor conformity to the requisite standards of order, cleanliness and adequacy of space, bedding, ventilation and lighting in all correctional facilities and where necessary the Unit makes recommendations for systematic improvements.
460. Concerning the fifth recommendation, the State indicated that it retained the view that judicial protections and fair hearing procedures are effectively guaranteed under the laws of Jamaica. With regard to the provision of legal aid assistance to persons wishing to bring Constitutional Motions, the State expressed it is not adverse to giving consideration to such a course of action but maintained, however, that this is not a requirement of Article 8 of the Convention.
461. In its 2004 and 2005 Annual Report, the Commission stated that there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s first, second, and third recommendations in Report N° 58/02.The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information. Based upon the latest information presented by the State, the Commission now considers that there has been compliance with the Commission’s second recommendation with the adoption of legislative measures to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law. With respect to the remaining recommendations, the Commission notes that the latest communication presented by the State of Jamaica, for the most part, reiterates the information provided in its previous response considered by the Commission in its 2004 Annual Report.
462. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.347, Report N° 76/02, Dave Sewell (Jamaica)
463. In Report N° 76/02 dated December 27, 2003, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) 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; b) 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; c) 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; and d) 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.
464. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
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.
465. By note dated January 22, 2007, the State informed the Commission that by virtue of the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt & Morgan v. the Attorney General of Jamaica [1993], in any instance where the period between a sentence of death and the time of execution exceeds five years, the carrying out of that execution will be presumed to be inhuman and degrading punishment and therefore inconsistent with Jamaican law. Consequently, as a matter of course, death row convicts will have their sentence of death automatically commuted to life imprisonment, once the sentence has not been effected within a five-year period after sentence. Furthermore, the State expressed that it regarded the first recommendation that compensation be granted to Mr. Sewell, as vague and incoherent because the Commission has not set out the purpose for compensation or the underlying principles on which this compensatory package should be based. According to the State, if the Commission’s argument is that compensation is due because the State has not provided an effective remedy in death penalty cases, this point is founded on a false premise because as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson v. Jamaica [2005] 1 A.C. 472, the mandatory death penalty was been declared unconstitutional in Jamaica and that the law of Jamaica was revised. Therefore, the State would only contemplate compensation for those persons given a mandatory sentence of death after the ruling in Lambert Waston, because to do otherwise, would be to apply the law retroactively.
466. Concerning the second recommendation transcribed above, the State of Jamaica indicated that it had adopted legislative measures to ensure that the mandatory death penalty is not imposed with amendments to the Offences Against the Persons Act 1992, the Parole Act 1978, the Criminal Justice [Reform] Act of 1978 and the Gun Court Act 1974, pursuant to the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2005 and the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 2006. Specifically, the State informed the Commission that the pre-existing legislation classified all cases of murder into categories of capital murder, which attracted an automatic and obligatory sentence, and non-capital murder. The present legislative change effectively discarded this two-tiered classification of murder and, therefore, the sentence of death is now optional for all cases in which previously involved mandatory death sentences. In this regard, the State indicated that the court is mandated, before passing sentence, to hear submissions, representations and evidence from the prosecution and the defense in relation to the issue of the sentence to be passed. In addition, the State informed that whenever a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, the court has the duty to specify the period of imprisonment that should be served before the offender is eligible for parole. The State similarly indicated that provisions have been made for a review of all mandatory sentences of death previously imposed under the Offences Against the Persons (Amendment) Act 1992 and that a result, sentences have been quashed and a judicial determination has been made, or is to be made, as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed for each convict.
467. With regard to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State pointed out that Mr. Sewell is one of the inmates to benefit under the Lambert Watson v. Jamaica [2005] 1 A.C. 472 decision. The State indicated that as a result of the decision in Lambert Watson decision, all persons on “death row” were removed from “death row” and placed within general prison population, pending the outcome of the hearings as to the appropriateness of the death sentence previously imposed mandatorily. The State similarly referred that by virtue of the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt & Morgan v. the Attorney General of Jamaica [1993], in any instance where the period between a sentence of death and the time of execution exceeds five years, the carrying out of that execution will be presumed to be inhuman and degrading punishment and therefore inconsistent with Jamaican law. Consequently, as a matter of course, death row convicts will have their sentence of death automatically commuted to life imprisonment, once the sentence has not been effected within a five-year period after sentence. Finally, the State indicated that generally, the conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment and that the Inspectorate Unit of the Jamaican Correctional Services continues to monitor conformity to the requisite standards of order, cleanliness and adequacy of space, bedding, ventilation and lighting in all correctional facilities and where necessary the Unit makes recommendations for systematic improvements.
468. Finally, concerning the fourth recommendation, the State indicated that it retained the view that judicial protections and fair hearing procedures are effectively guaranteed under the laws of Jamaica. As to the provision of legal aid assistance to persons wishing to bring Constitutional Motions, the State expressed it is not adverse to giving consideration to such a course of action but maintained, however, that this is not a requirement of Article 8 of the Convention.
469. In its 2004 and 2005 Annual Report, the Commission stated that there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s first and second recommendations in Report N° 76/02.The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information. Based upon the latest information presented by the State, the Commission considers that the adoption of legislative measures to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law has led to compliance with the Commission’s second recommendation. With respect to the remaining recommendations, however, the Commission notes that the latest communication presented by the State of Jamaica does not provide new information on compliance, but instead reiterates the information provided in it previous response that was considered by the Commission in its 2004 Annual Report.
470. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.417, Report N° 41/04, Whitley Myrie (Jamaica)
471. In Report N° 41/04 of October 12, 2004, the IACHR concluded the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Myrie’s rights under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, because of his conditions of detention; b) violating Mr. Myrie’s rights under Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, due to the trial judge’s failure to ensure that the jury was not present during the voir dire on Mr. Myrie’s statement, and the trial judge’s failure to postpone the trial when Mr. Myrie’s counsel was not present and thereby denying Mr. Myrie full due process during his trial; c) violating Mr. Myrie’s rights under Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to provide him with the assistance of competent and effective counsel during his trial; and d) violating Mr. Myrie’s rights under Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Myrie with effective access to a Constitutional Motion for the protection of his fundamental rights.
472. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant Mr. Myrie an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with the due process protections prescribed under Article 8 of the Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, his release, and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that Mr. Myrie’s conditions of detention comply with international standards of humane treatment under Article 5 of the American Convention and other pertinent instruments, as articulated in the present report.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention and the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
473. By note dated January 22, 2007, the State expressed its reservation with the recommendation that Mr. Myrie be granted an effective remedy which includes a re-trial or in the alternative, his release and compensation. In this regard, the State indicated that after Mr. Myrie’s first trial leading to his conviction, the case was brought before the Jamaican Court of Appeal where Mr. Myrie was successful in having his sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment. Given this situation, the State indicated that it can grant no further remedies to Mr. Myrie through the courts nor grant him compensation without a judicial order. Furthermore, according to the State, the recommendation for compensation is vague and incoherent because the Commission has not set out the purpose for compensation or the underlying principles on which this compensatory package should be based. Concerning the Commission’s second recommendation transcribed above, the State indicated that generally, the conditions of detention comply with the standards of humane treatment and that the Inspectorate Unit of the Jamaican Correctional Services continues to monitor conformity to the requisite standards of order, cleanliness and adequacy of space, bedding, ventilation and lighting in all correctional facilities and where necessary the Unit makes recommendations for systematic improvements. With regard to the third recommendation, the State indicated that it retained the view that judicial protections and fair hearing procedures are effectively guaranteed under the laws of Jamaica. As to the provision of legal aid assistance to persons wishing to bring Constitutional Motions, the State expressed it is not adverse to giving consideration to such a course of action but maintained, however, that this is not a requirement of Article 8 of the Convention.The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information.
474.
The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the
recommendations of Report 41/04 remains pending. CASE 12.418, Report N° 92/05, Michael Gayle (Jamaica)
475. In Report N° 92/05, issued on October 24, 2005, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Gayle’s right to life under Article 4 of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, because of his unlawful killing at the hands of members of the Jamaican security forces; b) violating Mr. Gayle’s right not to be subjected to torture and other inhumane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, because of the assault perpetrated upon him by State agents and its effects, which led to his death; c) violating Mr. Gayle’s right to personal liberty under Article 7 of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, because of his unlawful detention and arrest on false charges; and d) violating Mr. Gayle’s rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with violations of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to undertake a prompt, effective, impartial and independent investigation into human rights violations committed against Mr. Gayle and to prosecute and punish those responsible.
476. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Grant an effective remedy, which includes the payment of compensation for moral damages suffered by Michael Gayle’s mother and next-of-kin, Jenny Cameron, and a public apology by the State to the family of Michael Gayle.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation into the human rights violations committed against Mr. Gayle, for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and punishing all the persons who may be responsible for those violations.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to prevent future violations of the nature committed against Mr. Gayle, including training for members of Jamaican security forces in international standards for the use of force and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, summary executions and arbitrary detention, and undertaking appropriate reforms to the procedures for investigating and prosecuting deprivations of life committed by members of Jamaica’s security forces to ensure that they are thorough, prompt and impartial, in accordance with the findings in the present report. In this respect, the Commission specifically recommends that the State review and strengthen the Public Police Complaints Authority in order to ensure that it is capable of effectively and independently investigating human rights abuses committed by members of the Jamaican security forces.
477. In communication dated December 29, 2006, the State indicated that compensation had already been paid to Michael Gayle’s mother and next-of-kin, Jenny Cameron, and did not accept the Commission’s recommendation that the matter of compensation be “revisited between the parties.” The State specified that the matter was settled by arm’s length negotiations, the sum offered was in keeping with Jamaican precedents and rules, and it was accepted by Ms. Cameron when she had the opportunity to challenge it. In addition, the State informed the Commission that a public apology was given by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and was published in full in the Sunday Herald, March 14-20, 2004, under the heading “The Michael Gayle Case,” and reported with substantial quotation in the Daily Gleaner, dated March 11, 2004, under the heading “Government ‘regrets’ Michael Gayle’s Death.” Again the State did not agree with the Commission’s recommendation that this matter be “revisited between the parties.” With regard to recommendation No. 2 transcribed above, the State informed the IACHR that thorough and impartial investigations were carried out in the Michael Gayle case. Additionally, the State indicated that training of members of the security forces is sufficient and appropriate to bring those members up to international standards and that it has in place appropriate procedures for the pursuit of against members of the security forces for wrongful killing, though there are significant concerning the garnering and safeguarding of evidence in some cases. With respect to the strengthening of the Public Police Authority, the State informed that draft legislation concerning the creation of an investigative agency independent of the police force that will investigate matters concerning police abuse and related accusations brought against representatives is currently being discussed in various Ministries of Government. In a letter dated January 9, 2007, the Petitioners informed the Commission that the State had not taken any steps to comply with the Commission’s recommendation transcribed above. The Commission notes that the last information from the parties following its request for details on compliance with its recommendations was received on January 22, 2007, and that since then it has received no more up-to-date information.
478. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.447, Report N° 61/06, Derrick Tracey (Jamaica)
479. In Report N° 61/06, adopted on July 20, 2006, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violations of Mr. Tracey’s right to counsel and his right to obtain the appearance of persons who may throw light on the facts contrary to Article 8(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, in connection with the use of his statement against him at trial; b) violating Mr. Tracey’s right to a fair trial under Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, due to the inadequate time and means provide to Mr. Tracey and his attorney to prepare his defense; and c) violations of Mr. Tracey’s right to a fair trial and his right to judicial protection under Article 8(2)(e) and (h) and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, due to the State’s failure to provide Mr. Tracey with legal counsel to appeal his judgment to a higher court.
480. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State of Jamaica:
1. Grant an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial of the charges against Mr. Tracey in accordance with the fair trial protections under the American Convention.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that indigent criminal defendants are afforded their right to legal counsel in accordance with Article 8.2.e of the American Convention, in circumstances in which legal representation is necessary to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that any confession of guilt by an accused is valid only if it is given in an environment free from coercion of any kind, in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Convention.
481.
The parties have provided the Commission with no up-to-date information
regarding compliance with its recommendations set out in Report 61/06.
In light of the available information, the Commission holds that
compliance with its recommendations is still pending. [TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
