|
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66
doc.21 rev. 1
2 October 1985
Original: English
SECOND REPORT ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN SURINAME
CHAPTER IV
RIGHT
TO HUMANE TREATMENT
A
Applicable International Law
The
relevant provisions of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
are:
Article
I. Every
human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
Article
XXI. Every person has
the right to assemble peaceably with others in a formal public meeting or an
informal gathering, in connection with matters of common interest of any nature.
Article
3. Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article
5. No
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Article
7. No
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one
shall be subjected without his free conse3nt to medical or scientific
experimentation.
Finally,
it must be emphasized that the right to humane treatment is non-derogable even
during a state of emergency.
B.
Applicable Domestic Law
General
Decree A-11, Article 3: The right
to physical, moral and psychic integrity. No
one shall be subject to torture or degrading or inhumane treatment or
punishment.
C.
General Considerations
Since
the coup d’etat of 1980 various groups and individuals, both inside and
outside of Suriname, have been contending for power.
Their efforts have taken different forms ranging from trying to
ingratiate oneself with the military authorities, to peaceful protest to
counter-coup attempts. This
situation originates in the fact that there is no legal avenue that allows all
sectors of society to participate in the political life of the country and any
effort to participate is considered a threat to state security.
Once
he constitutional order had been toppled, a new (albeit changing)
order was brought into being by force and is currently maintained by
force.
In
such an atmosphere, then, it is not surprising that “political” crimes,
defined vaguely as attempts against state security should be dealt with in a
special way. As a matter of fact,
in 1984 prison terms for such offenses were increased from a maximum of 5 years
imprisonment of terms of 10-20 years.
The
1983 Report of the IACHR documented the summary execution of fifteen persons who
in different ways threatened or were perceived to be threats against the
military authorities in Suriname.
Since
1983 there have been fewer denunciations of violations of the right to life in
Suriname.
Rather
persons accused of political crimes are arrested without warrants, held incommunicado
for different lengths of time, frequently tortured, at times forced to confess
in writing and on the public television station, denied food, sleep, medical
attention and sometimes brought before civilian courts for trial after a
prolonged period of detention. Due
process aspects of these cases were discussed in Chapter III.
The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has documented a number of such cases.
Many of the victims of torture in Suriname asked that their names not be
used in this report either because they feared reprisals against themselves or
against family members.
Nevertheless,
the Commission is at liberty to cite the following cases:
There
is evidence of torture of two prisoners interviewed by the special commission in
January, 1985 at Santo Boma Penitentiary. They
were Mohamend Liatief Mangal and Mohamed Rafiek Bharos.
Both had been tortured at military police installations.
Another
case of torture is that of a Mr. Somohardjo, a former supporter of the
Government and now an admitted opponent of the regime.
During this nine months of detention he was so severely beaten that he
almost died. Mr. Somohardjo managed
to escape the country by slipping away during the funeral of his grandmother in
December 7, 1982.
An
extremely important case of inhumane treatment is Case No. 9265 which deals with
the detentions and torture of eleven persons.
Since the evidence of physical obuse in all of these cases is
overwhelming, the Commission decided to include it in extenso in this
Report. What follows are the texts
of Resolution 1/85 and Resolution 1/85 (bis).
RESOLUTION
No. 1/85
CASE
No. 9265 SURINAME
July
1st. 1985
BACKGROUND
1.
On December 6, 1983 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
received the following complaint and forwarded it to the Government of the
republic of Suriname for its observations:
“We
have received the names of the following people reportedly arrested during the
past two weeks and detained at Fort Zeelandia Military Police headquarters:
Iwan
Rajwinderpersad Gobardhan, aged 27.
Omprakash
(Oemperkash) Gobardhan, aged 24, Dutch citizen.
Krishnapersad
Gobardhan, aged 21, reportedly badly beaten; present at the
arrest
of his brother-in law (below).
Ramlall
Bekaroe, aged 27, brother-in-law of above brothers.
Harden
kasi, aged 21.
Mrs.
Ch. Doerga, aged 40 arrested on 27 November at Nickerie.
K.P.
Doerga, aged 24, arrested on 27 November at Nickerie.
Parents
of Mrs. Doerga, above; mother reported to suffer from diabetes and may die if
she does not receive medications.
Mr.
Alibux (not Prime Minister).
Radiksjoen
(spelling uncertain).
Austen,
businessman.
Linveld.
On 29 November 1983 the Suriname authorities announced that they had
arrested ten people during the previous week on suspicion of plotting a coup
against the Government. They are
reportedly being held for questioning at Fort Zeelandia Military headquarters.
Other reports allege that up to 69 people mainly from the Indian
(Hindustani) community have been arrested during this period.
We have received reports that some of those arrested have been beaten
while in custody.
A further report was received from a refugee arriving in Holland that for
the past 2-3 weeks four bodies were kept under military guard in the Paramaribo
mortuary. Bodies rumoured to
include Imro Themen and Henk Essed (leader of People’s Militia, dismissed
three weeks ago).
Two of those arrested –Omprakash Gobardhan and Linveld above- appeared
on Suriname television on 29 November at a press conference given by the Deputy
Commander of the Military Police, Sergeant Major Zeeuw.
The two men ‘confessed’ to their involvement in the attempted coup.
The Government has accused those involved of having distributed
anti-government leaflets and of setting fire to Government buildings, reportedly
in preparation for an invasion by mercenaries.
We are concerned for the safety of those in custody, in view of the past
treatment of people arrested on suspicion of plotting coups in Suriname.
We urge the Government to grant those detained protection of right to
life and humane treatment”.
2.
On March 20, 1984 the Commission received the following response from the
Government of Suriname and forwarded it to the complainant for this
observations:
“According
to information from the Attorney-General to the Court of Justice in Suriname,
the accused persons referred to in the appendix were brought up before the
chief-Prosecutor, Mr. A.I. Ramnewash LI.D., by the Military Police on 10
December 1983. In respect of the
accused I. Bissumbar and H. Kasie,
an order for their release was issued when they were brought in for the second
hearing on 20 December 1983. On
January 3, 1984 the case was referred to the examining magistrate for a
preliminary judicial examination.
In
regard to the rumour that there would be bodies placed under military guard, in
respect of which the names of Messrs. Imro Themen and Henk Essed have been
mentioned, we wish to comment as follows: Mr. Imro Themen is at present a civil
servant employed at the Ministry of General Affairs, while Mr. Henk Essed was
recently on vacation in the United States of America.
The
Government of Suriname deplores the fact that your Commission is being supplied
with incomplete and incorrect information, and cannot resist the impression that
insinuations in this respect are made on purpose, evidently with the intention
to discredit our country with your organization.
We take the most definite exception to this.
We
assure you that the Government of Suriname endeavours to give full substance to
Resolution NO. AG/Res. 666 (XIII-O/83) which was adopted at the Seventh Plenary
Session of the thirteenth General Meeting of the OAS in November 18, 1983.”
3.
Subsequently the following additional information was received and
transmitted to the Government for its comments:
“Arrest
of Political Opponents on 24 November 1983:
Names:
1.
Gobardhan, Iwan Rajinderpersad. Born on 22 November 1956.
2.
Gobardhan, Omprakas. Born on 5 August 1960.
3.
Gobardhan, Krishnapersad. Born on 22 April 1962.
4.
Bekaroe, Ramlall. Born on 16 December 1950.
5.
Kasi, Harden. Born on 12 October 1962.
6.
Doerga, Lila.
7.
Doerga, Krishna.
8.
Lindveld, Karel.
9.
Oudsten.
On
24 November 1983 these Surinamese citizens were arrested and transported to Fort
Zeelandia by armed men in civilian clothes.
This was kept secret. Even
when relatives went to the military police they denied having arrested the
above-mentioned people.
In
December 1983 Omprakash Gobardhan and Lindveld were interrogated on TV in the
presence of the press including the Dutch media.
Only
military Police Commander Liew Yen Tair put a few questions to the prisoners,
who had to answer with a yes or no. The
press was not allowed to ask questions. On
the film the expression of fear and terror could be seen clearly on their faces.
In this ‘show’ the Council was accused of destabilizing activities in
Suriname and sending mercenaries to Suriname.
However, all persons who had been arrested had Surinamese nationality.
Mrs.
Lila Doerga is a diabetic but she could not take any medicine.
In
February, the prsiners were put under custody of the civil police.
It is reported that in the meantime Karsi, Lila Doerga and Krishna Doerga
have been released.
The
others prisoners are still held. Most
probably they will appear before the court on June 14, 1984.”
4.
On July 27, 1984 the Commission received the further observations of the
Government of Suriname. The
pertinent parts of the observations read as follows:
Referring
to Your letter of July 5, 1984, Case 9265, I have the honour to inform You as
follows:
Case
9265 refers to the persons mentioned in the list enclosed with Your letter of
June 19, 1984 being the following:
1.
Gobardhan, Iwan Rajinderpersad.
2.
Gobardhan, Omprakas.
3.
Gobardhan, Krishnapersad.
4.
Bekaroe, Ramlall.
5.
Kasi, Harden.
6.
Doerga, Lila.
7.
Doerga, Krishna.
8.
Lindveld, Karel.
9.
Oudsten.
Acting
upon instructions of my Government, I submit to You information about the
following persons:
Mr.
Harden Kasi, Mrs. Lila Doerga, Mr. Krishna Doerga, and mr. R. Oudsten were not
prosecuted and have been released.
Mr.
Iwan R. Gobardhan was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months, with reduction of the
time of his pre-trial detention.
Mr.
O. Gobardhan was sentenced to 2 years with reduction of the time of his
pre-trial detention.
Mr.
Ramlall Bekaroe was sentenced to 1 year with reduction of the time of his
pre-trial detention.
Mr.
Karel Lindveld was sentenced by the judge in the first circuit (kanton) to 1
year and by the judge in the third circuit (kanton) to 2 years.
In both cases his time was reduced with the time of this pre-trial
detention.
In
case Your Secretariat would like to receive a copy of the above-mentioned
judiciary decisions, please feel free to notify us.
5.
Subsequently, on November 5, 1984 the Government of Suriname sent
photostatic copies of the sentences handed down by the Court on Messrs.
Krisnapersad Gobardhan, Iwan Gobardhan, and Karel Lindveld.
6.
On January 9, 1985 a special commission of the IACHR interviewed certain
eyewitnesses to the detention of the subjects of this case and heard testimony
to the effect that they were tortured at the outset of their incarceration, in
some cases lasting several months, and effectively denied legal counsel until
the day before their trials in July of 1984, more than seven months after their
arrest. The tortures included
severe beatings over their entire bodies including their sex organs.
These usually took place at night
either in Fort Zeelandia or Membre Boekoe Kazerne.
Specific mistreatment also included the placing of a chair leg on the
victim’s outstretched hand while the torturer jumped on the chair.
Another technique consisted of forcing the prisoner to drink a liquid
that burned the drinker’s throat. The torture also included punches, kicks and
beatings with clubs and rifle butts. The
Commission saw evidence on a number of the victims of broken teeth, noses, legs,
collarbones and assorted scars. One had been tied to a car and dragged.
Several had been forced to sign confessions.
Psychological
torture included the firing of machine guns at the victims’ feet.
Threats were also made against the wives, mothers and other relatives of
the victims. On one occasion
several of the victims were forced to lie in freshly dug graves in a local
cemetery and threatened with summary execution.
One of the victims was subject to an attempted homosexual rape by a
military policeman.
7.
On January 16, 1985 the special Commission of the IACHR visited Santo
Boma Penitentiary outside of Paramaribo. There it interviewed a number of
prisoners including four who are the subjects of this case.
8.
The Commission has verified that most of the subjects of this case have
been released.
9.
From independent eyewitnesses the Commission received testimony that the
torturers included the following Surinamese military personnel:
|
Lt.
Paul Baghwandas
|
Esajas
|
Shamrai
|
|
Sgt.
Major Marcel Zeeuw
|
Capt.
Leeflang
|
Vanenburg
|
|
Rosendaal
|
Rupert
Christoffel
|
Hak
|
|
Guno
Mahadew
|
Linscheer
|
Cladebar
|
|
Tolud
|
Paccothi
|
Jesserum
|
10.
The special commission of the IACHR met with certain military authorities
during its on-site visit in Suriname and discussed these accusations of torture
and denial of due process. Colonel Liew Yen Tair and Sgt. Major Zeeuw denied the
allegations of torture and stated that the decree laws in force under the state
of siege permit prolonged detention without judicial warrant and without benefit
of counsel by the military police. As
to the injuries reported by the victims, the officers indicated that these
occurred because the subjects had resisted arrest.
CONSIDERING:
1.
That the Government of Suriname has made no response to the Commission
regarding the alleged beatings and torture of the subjects of this case.
2.
That the decree laws currently in force in Suriname that deal with due
process of law prima facie violate this non-derogable right.
3.
That the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man to which
the Government of Suriname is bound as a member state of the Organization of
American States, inter alia, provides:
Article
I. Every
human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
Article
XVIII. Every person may resort to
the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights.
There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure
whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his
prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.
Article
XXV. No person may be
deprived of this liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures
established by pre-existing law.
Every
individual who has been deprived of this liberty has the right to have the
legality of this detention ascertained without delay by a court, and the right
to be tried without undue delay, or otherwise to be released.
He also has the right to humane treatment during the time he is in
custody.
Article
XXVI. Every accused person is
presumed to be innocent until proved guilty.
Every
person accused of an offense has the right to be given an impartial and public
hearing, an to be tried by courts previously established in accordance with
pre-existing laws, and not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.
4.
That the oral testimony of the various non-military eye-witnesses
interviewed by the Commission regarding the torture of the subjects of this case
and the denial of due process coincide in their essential aspects and
corroborate the original complaint and are deemed to be credible by the
Commission.
5.
That the physical evidence viewed by the Commission in Suriname and
abroad bearing on the allegations under consideration tend to corroborate the
original complaint insofar as torture and denial of due process are concerned.
6.
That the denial of said allegations by the military authorities cited
above is deemed by the Commission to be unpersuasive.
THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
RESOLVES:
1.
To declare that the Government of Suriname violated the human rights of
the subjects of this case notwithstanding the fact that some were ultimately
released from custody.
2.
To observe that the violations in question consist in the practice of
torture and the denial of due process as provided for in Articles I, XVIII, XXV
and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
3. To
recommend to the Government of Suriname that it immediately commence an
exhaustive investigation into the circumstances of this case and duly prosecute
and punish those persons responsible for the human rights violations cited
herein.
4.
To recommend that the Government of Suriname send said report to the
IACHR within 60 days of the date of this Resolution.
5.
To publish this Resolution in its next Annual Report to the General
Assembly of the Organization of American States in the event that the
recommendations cited in this Resolution are not satisfactorily implemented.
RESOLUTION
1/85 (bis)
CASE
NO. 9265 (SURINAME)
October
2, 1985
(Decision
on a Request for Reconsideration)
BACKGROUND:
1. On
July 1, 1985 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights adopted Resolution
1/85 regarding Case No. 9265 of Suriname.
2. In
doing so the Commission resolved to include this Resolution in both its Annual
Report for 1984-85 as well as its second country Report on the Human Rights
Situation in Suriname.
3. The
Commission, in Resolution 1/85, concluded that the Government of Suriname
violated the human rights of the subjects of that case, specifically with regard
to their having been tortured and in that they were denied due process,
notwithstanding the fact that some of the subjects had been released from
custody.
4. Resolution
1/85 recommended that the Government of Suriname investigate the human rights
violations in question and duly prosecute and punish those persons responsible
for the violations.
5. Resolution
1/85 was then sent to the Government of Suriname with the request that the
Government inform the Commission within 60 days of the measures it had taken to
implement the above-mentioned recommendation.
6. On
September 11, 1985 the Government of Suriname responded to Resolution 1/85
noting the following:
a.
That the Government had promptly answered the original complaint;
b.
That the Government had subsequently sent photostatic copies of the
sentences handed down on several of the subjects of this case;
c.
That the special commission of the IACHR during its on-site visit in
January of 1985 had been able to verify that the majority of the subjects of
this case had been released from custody;
d.
That the Government of Suriname only learned of the allegations of
torture in this case when it received Resolution 1/85;
e.
That the Government of Suriname only learned that the special commission
of the IACHR had interviewed certain representatives of the military authorities
during its in-situ visit and that the latter had denied the allegations
regarding torture;
f.
That the National Institute of Human Rights is presently carrying out an
investigation of these allegations “which investigation has so far produced
additional information that is of importance in the final evaluation of Case
9265.”;
g.
That on the basis of these factor the Government of Suriname asked that
Resolution 1/85 be reconsidered by the Commission as being “premature.”
CONSIDERING:
1.
That the events that gave rise to this case occurred in the month of
November, 1983;
2.
That in the original complaint sent to the Government of Suriname on
December 6, 1983 the pertinent parts included the following sentence: “We have
received reports that some of those arrested have been beaten while in
custody.”, and that such a statement clearly put the Government of
Suriname on notice that allegations of torture were part of the complaint;
3.
That the Government of Suriname has not provided the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights with proofs that would allow it to rescind its
resolution regarding the practice of torture and the denial of due process;
4.
That the evidence and testimony obtained by the Commission before, during
and after its on-site visit to Suriname overwhelmingly corroborates the
allegations of human rights violations in this case concerning both torture and
the denial of due process.
THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,
THEREFORE
RESOLVES:
1.
To confirm Resolution 1/85 in all its parts; and
2.
To order the publication of this Resolution along with Resolution 1/85 in
both its second country Report on the Human Rights Situation in Suriname as well
as in its Annual Report for 1984-85.
In
any discussion of torture in Suriname, a distinction must be made between physical
treatment received by detainees in such military installations as Fort Zeelandia
and Member Boeko Kazerne and that accorded to prisoners in regular state
penitentiaries, such as Santo Boma Prison.
It should be noted that the special commission was not able to visit a
number of detention centers in Suriname simply because of time limitations.
These include both formal jails as well as military camps.
Those not visited include ones at Leylydorp, Niewe Haven, Keizerstraat,
Geyeralyt and Nickerie.
Political
prisoners, prior to trial and sentencing, are held in military installations in
different parts of the country sometimes for short periods of time, and
sometimes for many months. One
notorious detention center currently being renovated is called the “Devil”
at Fort Zeelandia. During the
Commission’s on-site visit the special commission toured the Devil, as well as
the brig at Fort Zeelandia presently used for holding both civilian and military
prisoners charged with political as well as common crimes.
In the best of circumstances the Devil is littler more than a brick
dungeon with approximately six cells. The
temporary brig now in use is badly over-crowded, filthy, with only the most
primitive facilities. Prisoners
often sleep on pallets on the floor. There
is virtually no space for recreation.
The
Santo Boma Penitentiary, on the other hand, is a truly model facility.
It houses men, women and juveniles.
For the latter, regular
school classes are provided. Trades
are taught to all prisoners interested in bettering themselves.
Santo Boma has excellent recreational facilities.
Prisoners can receive books, magazines and newspapers.
There is a library. They can
practice their respective religions. A
staff psychiatrist is available for counseling and therapy.
Moreover,
the guards and administrative authorities at the Santo Boma Penitentiary are
well prepared educationally for their jobs.
Ongoing classes in penology, sociology and law are required for staff
members.
The
treatment accorded to prisoners at Santo Boma Penitentiary stands in sharp
contrast with that meted out to prisoners accused of “political” crimes
during the time they are in the custody of the military police.
[
Table
of Contents | Previous | Next ]
|
