HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE RELEASES FINDINGS ON INDIVIDUAL CASES

HR/CT/98/47
9 December 1998





The Human Rights Committee has released its findings concerning nine individual complaints brought before it during its sixty-third session last July, finding some States parties have violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by allowing, among other things, long periods of pre-trial detention, ill-treatment of prisoners and inhumane conditions for prisoners on death row.

The Committee found violations in seven of the individual complaints, and no violations in two others. One complaint was declared inadmissible. The cases were discussed in closed meetings over the course of the Committee’s summer session, from 13 to 31 July 1998, and arose from complaints filed by citizens of States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

The Optional Protocol allows communications from persons claiming their rights under the treaty have been violated and all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Such complaints may be filed only against States which have ratified the Optional Protocol. Only 92 of the 140 States parties to the Covenant have done so.

Among its rulings, the Committee found that a Jamaican citizen had been ill-treated in prison and detained for 29 months before his trial, both counts violating the Covenant. The Committee said Jamaica was obligated to offer the citizen an effective remedy, including compensation.

A second Jamaican involved in the same murder was also found to have been ill-treated in police detention. The Committee said the delay of 29 months between arrest and trial were also a violation, as were the conditions of his detention while on death row. The Committee said Jamaica was obligated to offer the prisoner an effective remedy, including compensation.

The panel found a violation of the Covenant in Jamaica in a third case where a Jamaican citizen had to wait 30 months to be tried and was ill-treated by warders. The Committee said Jamaica was under an obligation to provide the prisoner with an effective remedy, including compensation and commutation of his death sentence.

The Committee found Trinidad and Tobago was not guilty of any violations in a complaint by nine Trinidadians on death row for murdering four members of a family. The Committee found no violations regarding, among other things, claims that the authors did not receive a fair trial because of pre-trial publicity and the process of jury selection.

A complaint by three single Dutch citizens living in the Netherlands that they were victims of discrimination because they had to pay an income-related contribution towards the costs of hospitalization, whereas married persons or persons who cohabited and of whom the partner was not also hospitalized only paid a minimal non-income-related contribution was also dismissed by the Committee.

The 53-article Covenant entered into force in 1976 and protects such rights as the right to self-determination, to life, liberty, and security of 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 or religious hatred.

The views adopted by the Committee, as well as its inadmissibility decision, are summarized below. The full texts of these actions are available upon request from the Support Services Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, or from the New York liaison office at United Nations Headquarters.

Views Adopted

The Committee said that a Jamaican citizen, Junior Leslie, whose death sentence for murder by a court in Jamaica was commuted to life imprisonment in early 1995, had been ill-treated in prison and had been detained for 29 months before his trial, both counts violating the Covenant. The Committee said the State party was under an obligation to provide Mr. Leslie with an effective remedy, including compensation, and was under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future (Communication No. 564/1993).

In the same case in Jamaica, Anthony Finn, a Jamaican citizen, was also found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death. The Committee found that Mr. Finn had been ill-treated while in police detention and that the conditions of his detention while on death row were a violation of the Covenant. The delay of 29 months between arrest and trial were also a violation, it was stated. The Committee concluded that the State party was under an obligation to provide Mr. Finn with an effective remedy, including compensation. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future. Mr. Finn’s death sentence was commuted in early 1995 (Communication No. 617/1995).

The Committee said that Everton Morrison, a Jamaican citizen on death row in Jamaica, was entitled to compensation. Mr. Morrison was convicted and sentenced to death in 1990 for murder, and while under arrest, was accused and convicted of a second murder. The Committee found the State party had violated the Covenant when the author was not informed of the charges against him until three or four weeks after his arrest; when he was not promptly charged and brought before a judge or judicial officer in the second murder case; when he had to wait 30 months to be tried for the second case; and when he was ill-treated by warders in two specific incidents. The Committee said the State party was under the obligation to provide Mr. Morrison with an effective remedy, including compensation and commutation. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future. The author of the complaint was currently on death row. There were dissenting opinions by five of the Committee’s experts expressed in the communication (Communication No. 635/1995).

Concerning the case of Beresford Whyte, a Jamaican, sentenced to death by a court in Jamaica for murder, the Committee found he was entitled to commutation and compensation. The Committee said the State party had violated the Covenant when the author was not brought before a judge for three weeks after his arrest; when he was held in pre-trial detention for three years; when he was kept in a very small cell with seven other men, and had to sleep on a piece of cardboard; when he was not provided with treatment for his allergies; when he did not receive medical attention for his injuries after being beaten; and when he was held in what was described as inhumane and degrading conditions of detention on death row. The Committee said Mr. Whyte should be provided with an effective remedy, including commutation and compensation. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future. There were two dissenting individual opinions by Committee experts (Communication No. 732/1997).

Andrew Perkins, a Jamaican citizen on death row in a prison in Jamaica after being convicted of murder, was entitled to compensation and commutation of his death sentence, the Committee said. It stated that since the State party had failed to address the author’s claim that he was kept in deplorable conditions of detention during his 15-month-long pre-trial detention, due weight must be given to the allegations to the extent that they were substantiated. This constituted a violation by the State party of the Covenant, as did the extended pre-trial detention period. The Committee also said the author had claimed that since his conviction, he had been held in a very small cell with only a sponge to sleep on and a bucket as a toilet. Furthermore, he said was being bullied by warders. The State party had remained silent on this issue, which was a violation of the Covenant. The
Committee concluded that the State party was under an obligation to provide Mr. Perkins with an effective remedy, entailing compensation and commutation of his death sentence. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future (Communication No. 733/1997).

The Committee said Silbert Daley, a Jamaican citizen on death row in a prison in Jamaica after being convicted of murder, should be provided with an effective remedy, including commutation, compensation and early release. The Committee said the fact that the author was not brought before a judge or judicial officer and was not charged until after six weeks of detention could not be deemed compatible with the requirements of the Covenant. It said that in the absence of a reply from the State party about the author’s claims that he was beaten up by policemen after his arrest and that he was kept in deplorable conditions of detention before his trial, due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations and the Committee found the beatings and conditions of pre-trial detention a violation. A delay of two years and seven months between the author’s first conviction and the hearing of his appeal was another violation. The conditions of detention, including lack of sanitation, light, ventilation and bedding, were also a violation as they violated his right to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of his person. The Committee also said the final sentence was passed without the guarantee of a proper defence at appeal, which was another violation of the Covenant. The Committee concluded that the State party should provide Mr. Daley with an effective remedy, including commutation, compensation and early release. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future (Communication No. 750/1997).

The Committee said that Clive Smart, a Trinidadian citizen on death row in Trinidad and Tobago for murder, should be provided with an effective remedy, including commutation and compensation. The Committee said that a period of over two years between the time when the author was arrested and his trial was set to begin was a violation of the Covenant. It concluded that the State party was under an obligation to provide Mr. Smart with an effective remedy, including commutation and compensation. The State party was also under an obligation to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future (Communication No. 672/1995).

Concerning the case of nine Trinidadian nationals on death row in Trinidad and Tobago for murdering four members of a family, the Committee concluded that the facts before it did not reveal a breach of any of the provisions of the Covenant. Nankissoon Boodram (Dole Chadee), Joel Ramsingh, Joey Ramiah, Ramkalawan Singh, Russell Sankeralli, Bhagwandeen Singh, Clive Thomas, Robin Gopaul and Stephen Eversley, were convicted and sentenced to death in September 1996 and their appeals were dismissed in May 1997. The Committee said the authors’ claims concerning the conduct of the trial by the judge, the admittance of evidence, his treatment of the prosecution’s final address, and his instructions to the jury were not admissible because it believed that it was for the appellate Courts of States parties to review the admissibility of evidence and the specific instructions to the jury by the trial judge, unless it could be ascertained that the instructions to the jury or the conduct of the trial were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee found no violations concerning claims that the authors did not receive a fair trial because of pre-trial publicity and the process of jury selection. It also dismissed additional claims that the authors’ appeal had been expedited in order to ensure their execution and that their conditions of detention were a violation. There were dissenting opinions from some Committee members concerning the quality of the water provided in jail, conditions on death row and conditions for a fair trial (Communication No. 813/1998).

In a complaint brought against the Netherlands by three Dutch citizens, the Committee found that the State party was not in any violation. J. Snijders, A.A. Willemen and Ch. C. M. Van der Wouw, who were single, said they were victims of discrimination because they had to pay an income-related contribution towards the costs of hospitalization, whereas married persons or persons who cohabited and of whom the partner was not also hospitalized only paid a minimal non-income-related contribution. They argued that the distinction was not based on reasonable and objective criteria and could have a demoralizing effect on the patient. The Committee concluded that the requirement that individuals, when benefiting from the insurance scheme, pay a personal contribution towards the costs of residential care was not in violation of the principle of equality before the law (Communication No. 651/1995).

Decisions on Inadmissibility

The Committee declared inadmissible a complaint by a Jamaican citizen, against Jamaica in which he claimed that he had not received a fair trial and that his detention on death row for over six years amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. He also said he was not properly represented by his legal aid counsel. The complainant was convicted with three co-defendants for murder in January 1989 and they were sentenced to death. In May 1990, he gave notice of application for leave to appeal, but in March 1992, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of all four defendants. The complainant said he did not petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave of appeal because he was advised there was no likelihood it would be successful. The Committee considered that the author had exhausted domestic remedies. But concerning his complaint of not having a fair trial, the Committee said he was found guilty by the jury who heard and assessed the evidence against him, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal, so his claim was unfounded. Concerning his other claim, the Committee said detention on death row for any specific period of time did not constitute a violation of the Covenant in the absence of further compelling circumstances, therefore, the claim was inadmissible. It also dismissed his claim that he was not properly represented by his legal aid counsel. In conclusion, the Committee declared the communication inadmissible. The author’s death sentence was commuted in June 1998. (Communication No. 611/1995).