HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ACTS ON COMMUNICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING EIGHT STATES VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS
Press Release
HR/CT/449
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ACTS ON COMMUNICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING EIGHT STATES VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS
19951227 GENEVA, 22 December (UN Information Service) -- During its fifty-fifth session, held at Geneva from 16 October to 3 November, the Human Rights Committee concluded examination of 14 communications from individuals alleging that their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been violated. The Committee considered those confidential communications in closed session.In six views adopted on the merits of the complaints, the Committee found that the facts revealed violations of articles of the Covenant by Colombia, Zambia, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica. The violations concerned the right to minimum guarantees in the determination of criminal charges, particularly the right to be tried without undue delay, the right to proper examination of witnesses and the right to have a sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. Provisions of the Covenant which prohibit torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, protect all persons deprived of their liberty and those guaranteeing the right to life and the right to freedom of expression were also found to have been violated. The Committee judged that two complaints, involving Jamaica and Spain, which were found admissible, revealed no violations of articles of the Covenant.
The Committee declared six other complaints, involving France, Canada, Spain and the Netherlands, to be inadmissible.
The 53-article International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force in 1976 and protects such rights as the right to self-determination, to life, liberty and the security of the person, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to equal treatment before the law. It also prohibits arbitrary detention, torture, slavery and forced labour, war propaganda and advocacy of racial and religious hatred.
The Committee examined the communications under the terms of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. Individuals claiming that their rights under the international treaty have been violated may invoke the Optional Protocol and involve the Committee once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Of the 132 States parties to the Covenant, only communications concerning the 87 States which have also ratified the Optional Protocol can be considered.
Views Adopted on Violations
In the case of Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia (Communication No. 563/1993), Ms. Bautista, a member of the 19 April Movement ("M-19"), was detained in Cali on 25 August 1986 by a military unit of the Third Brigade. She was kept incommunicado for three weeks and allegedly tortured during that period. Upon signing a statement that she had been well treated during her detention, she was released. On 30 August 1987, she was abducted, tortured and killed by eight men who were armed but dressed as civilians. The author of the communication is Federico Andreu, a Colombian lawyer, who was instructed by the family of the victim. Recapitulating the chronology of events after the discovery of the victim's body on 12 September 1987 and the activities of the various judicial bodies involved in the case, the Committee noted that more than seven years after the disappearance, no criminal proceedings had been instituted, nor had those responsible for Ms. Bautista's disappearance been identified, arrested or tried.
The Committee was of the view that the facts before it revealed a violation by Colombia of article 6, paragraph 1, on the right to life, and article 7, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Also, it violated article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention which guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person. In reference to article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Committee stressed that the State party was under an obligation to provide the family of Nydia Bautista with an appropriate remedy, which included damages and protection. It also urged Colombia to expedite the criminal proceedings leading to the prompt prosecution and conviction of the persons responsible for the abduction, torture and death of Nydia Bautista (CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993).
In the case of Bernard Lubuto v. Zambia (Communication No. 390/1990), the author was sentenced to death on 4 August 1983 for aggravated robbery, committed on 5 February 1980. On 10 February 1988, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The author claimed that the trial against him was unfair, since the judge accepted all evidence against him, although a careful examination would have shown discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses. He further claimed that the death sentence imposed on him was disproportionate, since no one was killed or wounded during the robbery.
The Committee considered that the period of eight years between the author's arrest and final decision of the Supreme Court, dismissing his appeal, was incompatible with the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), which is to be tried without undue delay. Moreover, article 6, paragraph 2, which states that "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes", was being violated by the State party. The Committee was of the view that Mr. Lubuto was entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), to an
- 3 - Press Release HR/CT/449 27 December 1995
appropriate and effective remedy, entailing a commutation of sentence (CCPR/C/55/D/390/1990/Rev.1).
As to the case of Lal Seerattan v. Trinidad and Tobago (Communication No. 434/1990), the author stated that he was arrested on 27 December 1982 and charged with murder the next day. He was tried in the High Court of Port-of-Spain between 6 and 11 March 1986, was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 9 March 1987. A warrant was issued for the execution of the author on 8 December 1992, but he was given a stay of execution pending the outcome of a constitutional motion. On 4 January 1994, he was informed that his death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment by order of the country's President. He had thus exhausted all domestic remedies.
However, the author claimed that his attorney did not represent him adequately and that, as a result, his trial was unfair. He further complained that his attorney simply abandoned the appeal, as he did not argue any grounds of appeal on his behalf. It was pointed out that there was a delay of more than three years between the author's arrest and the trial.
The Committee found that the delay in the trial had violated article 14, paragraph 3 (c) of the Covenant, which guarantees a trial without undue delay. In view of the fact that the author had spent over 10 years in prison, of which seven years and nine months were on death row, the Committee concluded that the State party should consider Mr. Seerattan's early release (CCPR/C/55/D/434/1990).
In the case of Lennon Stephens v. Jamaica (Communication No. 373/1989), the author, a Jamaican accused of murder and sentenced to death in 1984, was currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment. He claimed to be a victim of violations of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because of his seven year, 10 month detention on death row. Between conviction in February 1984 and his classification as a non-capital offender, he was confined to death row under deplorable conditions, facing the prospect of imminent execution. Such a prolonged period of detention under conditions of constant anxiety and "agony of suspense" amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant.
The Committee was of the view that Jamaica had violated articles 7, 9, paragraph 3, and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. It was also of the view that Mr. Stephens was entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), to an effective remedy, including compensation and further consideration of his case by the State party's Parole Board (CCPR/C/55/D/373/1989).
In the case of Osbourne Wright and Eric Harvey v. Jamaica (Communication No. 459/1991), the authors were charged with murder in December 1980. In July 1983, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury did not return a unanimous
- 4 - Press Release HR/CT/449 27 December 1995
verdict and a retrial was ordered. On 29 April 1988, the authors were found guilty and sentenced to death. Since all their appeals were dismissed, domestic remedies had been exhausted.
The authors claimed that they did not have a fair trial; the judge did not give proper instructions to the jury. They also alleged that the judge did not allow the defence to call a witness to prove the contents of the police station diary. The authors further complained that they were convicted some eight years after the incident. They claimed that they suffered from a lack of adequate legal representation throughout the entire judicial process.
The Committee found that Jamaica had violated article 14, paragraph 3 (b) (to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence), (c) (to be tried without undue delay) and (d) (to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person); and consequently of article 6 which affirms that every human being has the inherent right to life. It was of the view that both men were entitled to an effective remedy and, in the circumstances of the case, their release (CCPR/C/55/D/459/1991).
Concerning the case of Dennie Chaplin v. Jamaica (Communication No. 596/1994), the author was arrested on 3 July 1987, convicted of murder with his co-defendants, and sentenced to death on 15 December 1988. He claimed that he was submitted to ill-treatment by the investigating officer, in order that he would sign a confession, and that he was severely tortured by prison warders. He was held on death row for six years awaiting execution. It was also claimed that the trial judge in his summing-up misdirected the jury to the admissibility of the statement given by the author to the police.
While the Committee recognized that the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (d), were not violated, it held that the State party had violated article 10, paragraph 1 (all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person). It also concluded that the author was entitled to an effective remedy, including compensation (CCPR/C/55/D/596/1994).
Decisions on Non-violations
In the case of Lyndon Marriott v. Jamaica (Communication No. 519/1992), the author was arrested on 12 March 1987 and charged with murder. He was tried and found guilty as charged and sentenced to death on 16 December 1987. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in December 1992. The author contended that he was denied a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, that the judge failed to direct the jury properly on the issue of provocation and withdrew the issue of self-defence from it, that the foreman of the jury was an acquaintance of the deceased, and the that time spent on death row constituted cruel or degrading treatment.
- 5 - Press Release HR/CT/449 27 December 1995
The Committee found that the author's right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (article 14, paragraph 3 (b)) was not violated by the State party. It was of the view that the communication did not reveal a breach of any of the provisions of the Covenant (CCPR/C/55/D/519/1992).
In the case of Enrique Garcia Pons v. Spain (Communication No. 454/1991), the author was a Spanish civil servant. On 20 December 1986, he was appointed substitute for the District Judge of Badalon, a function which he performed until 16 October 1987. Following his nomination, he requested a change of status which the Ministry of Labour refused. Later in 1987, he was again appointed to the same post but the job was taken up by a new judge. The author filed claims for unemployment benefits at different courts, but he was denied. He therefore alleged to be a victim of denial of equality before the courts.
The Committee concluded that the facts before it did not reveal a violation by Spain of any provision of the Covenant (CCPR/C/55/D/454/1991).
Optional Protocol to Covenant
The Human Rights Committee is a body of 18 independent human rights experts charged with monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The first Optional Protocol to the Covenant enables it to consider communications from individuals claiming that their civil or political rights have been violated.
The following 87 States are parties to the first Optional Protocol: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia.
* *** *