REPORT
Nº 129/01 CASE
12.389 JEAN
MICHEL RICHARDSON HAITI December
3, 2001 I. SUMMARY 1.
On September 21, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a
petition lodged by Mr. Jean Michel Richardson (hereinafter the
“petitioner”) against the Republic of Haiti (hereinafter “the
State” or “Haiti”), the facts of which characterize alleged
violations of his rights to personal liberty (Article 7), a fair trial
(Article 8), and judicial protection (Article 25), in connection with the
State’s generic duty to respect and ensure the rights (Article 1(1))
established in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the
“Convention” or the “American Convention”). 2.
The petitioner claims that on February 8, 1998 he was arbitrarily
detained by members of the police in Jean Rabel, a municipality in the
Department of Nord Ouest under the jurisdiction of Port de Paix, and taken
to the Petion Ville prison, where he remains, never having been brought
before judges with jurisdiction over such matters. He further alleges that
as a result of several petitions lodged in the domestic jurisdiction, the
competent judicial authority ordered his release on June 1, 1998; however
that order has not been executed to date. 3.
The State has not presented a reply to the petitioner’s
allegations and has not questioned the petition’s admissibility. 4.
The IACHR, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the
American Convention, decides to admit the petition as regards potential
violations of Articles 1(1), 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention and
to begin proceedings on the merits of the case. It further decides to
notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in
its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE
COMMISSION 5.
On September 21, 2000, Mr. Richardson lodged a petition with the
IACHR. On November 10, 2000, the Commission transmitted the petition to
the State and requested information within 30 days, pursuant to Article 30
of the Regulations in effect at that time. On November 16, 2000, the State
acknowledged receipt of the Commission’s November 10
letter. On December 1, 2000, the IACHR received additional
information from the petitioner, including: (1) a copy of the habeas
corpus appeal for his release; (2) a copy of the order from Dean
Leonard of Port de Paix indicating that he was not competent to decide on
Mr. Richardson’s release; (3) a copy of the Court of Appeals decision
not to grant Mr. Richardson his freedom, taking into account the findings
of the Court of Port de Paix; and (4) a signed copy of a document
from the former Government commissioner of Port de Paix on his
imprisonment. On April 11, 2001, the petitioner presented additional
information on the case: a letter from Government commissioner Josue
Pierre Louis, dated February 15, 2001, requesting that the chief of the
National Prison Administration (APENA) release Jean Michel Richardson in
virtue of the order issued on June 1, 1998 and several local
communiqués on Mr. Richardson’s release. 6.
On June 12, 2001, the IACHR gave the State a copy of the
petitioner’s letter and the annexes and reiterated its request for
information by transmitting a copy of the petitioner’s past letters. On
September 12, 2001 (received on September 24), the State reported merely
that it had received the Commission’s June 12 letter on August 2, 2001.
On September 27, 2001, the Commission informed the State that it was still
awaiting the information it had requested. On October 29, 2001, the
petitioner submitted a new letter reiterating that he remained in
detention, despite the orders to release him and the steps he had taken
before different government agents. At the time this report was
considered, the State had acknowledged receipt of the Commission’s
letters, but had not provided any information on this petition. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A.
The petitioner 7.
The petitioner alleges that on February 8, 1998 he was arbitrarily
detained by members of the police in Jean Rabel, a municipality in the
Department of Nord Ouest under the jurisdiction of Port de Paix, and taken
to the Petion Ville prison, where he remains, never having been brought
before the competent judges. 8.
Mr. Richardson claims that he has taken the following recourses
under domestic jurisdiction: firstly, he filed suit with the Civil Court
of First Instance in Port-au-Prince; on June 1, 1998 the judge declared
Mr. Richardson’s arrest and prolonged detention to be illegal, ordered
his immediate release, and ordered the Office of the Attorney General to
execute that decision. According to the petitioner, the release order was
not executed, because it requires the Government commissioner’s
authorization. 9.
Secondly, he turned to the Civil Court of First Instance in Port
de Paix, which in a July 28, 1999 judgment found that it was not the
competent jurisdiction to examine his case. He appealed that decision to
the Court of Appeals of Gonaïves, which in a January 24, 2000 judgment
confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Port de Paix. On
February 15, 2001, the Government commissioner for the jurisdiction of
Port-au-Prince called on the chief of the National Prison Administration (APENA)
in Petion Ville to release Mr. Richardson in virtue of the order issued on
June 1, 1998. The petitioner alleges that despite the domestic
proceedings, in which a court of first instance ordered his immediate
release, he remains in prison and has not had the right to a trial. B.
The State 10.
The State has not responded to the petitioner’s allegations and has not
questioned the admissibility of this petition. IV. ANALYSIS
OF ADMISSIBILITY A.
Preliminary questions 11.
The IACHR notes that the State has merely reported that it received the
Commission’s letters dated November 10, 2000 and June 12, 2001. At no
time has it responded to the petitioner’s allegations or questioned the
petition’s admissibility. The IACHR would like to stress that Haiti
undertook various international obligations through the American
Convention on Human Rights, including those provided for in Article
48(1)(a) of the Convention, which stipulates that: "[w]hen
the Commission receives a petition or communication (…) (a) it
shall request information from the government of the state indicated as
being responsible for the alleged violations (…) This
information shall be submitted within a reasonable period (…).
(e) The Commission may request the
states concerned to furnish any pertinent information." The
Convention, therefore, requires States to provide the information
requested by the Commission in the processing of an individual case. 12.
The IACHR feels it must also indicate that the information requested by
the Commission is information that would enable it to reach a decision in
a case submitted to it. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has
indicated that cooperation by the States is an essential obligation in
international proceedings in the inter-American system: In
contrast to domestic criminal law, in proceedings to determine human
rights violations the State cannot rely on the defense that the
complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained
without the State's cooperation. The
State controls the means to verify acts occurring within its territory.
Although the Commission has investigatory powers, it cannot exercise them
within a State's jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State.[1][2]
13.
The IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have also indicated
that “the silence of the accused or elusive or ambiguous answers on its
part may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the truth of the
allegations, so long as the contrary is not indicated by the record or is
not compelled as a matter of law."[3]
The Commission therefore reminds Haiti that it has a duty to cooperate
with the organs in the inter-American human rights system, for optimal
fulfillment of its functions to protect human rights. B.
Competence
ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione
materiae of the Commission 14.
The petitioner is authorized under Article 44 of the Convention to lodge a
complaint with the IACHR. The petition names as the alleged victim one
individual whose rights Haiti undertook to respect and ensure pursuant to
the American Convention.[4]
Regarding the State, the Commission notes that Haiti has been a State
Party to the Convention since September 27, 1977, when it deposited the
respective instrument of accession. The Commission is therefore competent ratione
personae to examine the petition. 15.
The Commission is competent ratione
loci to hear the petition, because it alleges the violation of rights
protected by the American Convention within the territory of a State Party
to the Convention. The IACHR is competent ratione
temporis, because the obligation to respect and ensure the rights
protected under the Convention was already in effect in the State on the
date of the events alleged in the petition. Finally, the Commission is
competent ratione materiae,
because the petition denounces events related to human rights protected by
the American Convention, such as the right to personal liberty (Article
7), a fair trial (Article 8), and judicial protection (Article 25). C.
Other admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 16.
Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention stipulates that admission
of a petition shall be subject to the requirement "that
the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in
accordance with generally recognized principles of international law."
The Convention’s preamble states that the IACHR grants “international
protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the
protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.”[5]
The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies allows States to resolve the
problem in their domestic legal system before facing international
proceedings, which is legally sufficient in the international human rights
jurisdiction. 17.
In this case the State did not argue the failure to exhaust domestic
remedies and so a tacit waiver of the objection of non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies is presumed.[6] 18.
In this regard, the Inter-American Court has stated that, “the objection
asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be
made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make
it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.”[7]
The IACHR concludes that this requirement was met. b. Filing deadline 19.
Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention stipulates that the petition must be
lodged within a period of six months
from the date on which the victim was notified of the final judgment
exhausting domestic remedies. In the petition in question, the IACHR has
established the State’s tacit waiver of its right to invoke the failure
to exhaust domestic remedies; therefore, the requirement set forth in
Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention does not apply. However, the
requirement in the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies is separate
from the requirement to present the petition within six months of the
ruling that exhausts those remedies. The Commission must therefore
determine whether or not the petition was presented within a reasonable
time frame. In that regard, the IACHR observes that the petitioner
indicated that he was detained on February 8, 1998 and that on two
occasions authorities issued orders to release him that have not been
executed. Specifically, there was the February 15, 2001 letter from the
Government commissioner that referred to the order issued on June 1, 1998.
The IACHR notes that the original petition was lodged on September 21,
2000. In light of the particular circumstances of this petition, the IACHR
feels that it was presented within a reasonable time frame. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 20.
Neither party has claimed that the subject of this petition is pending in
another international proceeding for settlement or that it is
substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by
another international organization. The Commission therefore feels
that the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the
Convention have been met. d. Characterization of the events 21.
In this case, the petitioner did not invoke any specific standards in the
American Convention, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of
Man, or any other applicable international instrument. Neither the
Convention nor the Rules of Procedure require petitioners to specify which
Articles they feel were violated. In this regard, Articles 46 and 47 of
the American Convention lay out the requirements for the admission of
petitions; those requirements do not include specifying which Articles the
petitioner alleges were violated. Moreover, Article 32 of the
Commission’s Regulations that were in effect at the time the initial
petition was lodged lists the elements that a petition must contain when
it is presented. Article 32(c) of those Regulations provides for the
possibility that "no specific reference is made to the article(s)
alleged to have been violated." Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure
that took effect May 1, 2001 indicates that one requirement for petitions
to be considered is that they must contain, inter
alia: "(d) an account of the act or situation that is denounced,
specifying the place and date of the alleged violations." It does not
however require petitioners to specify which Articles allegedly were
violated through the denounced events. 22.
The Commission feels that the original petition
and the additional information provided contain all the facts that could
be relevant to arrive at a legal decision.[8]
The petitioner’s claims regarding his alleged illegal detention, as well
as the failure to have him appear before a competent judge and to execute
the order to release him, if proven, could characterize violations of the
rights to personal liberty (Article 7), a fair trial (Article 8), and
judicial protection (Article 25) enshrined in the American Convention.
The Commission therefore finds that the petition cannot be rejected,
pursuant to the provisions of Articles 47(b) and (c) of the Convention. V.
CONCLUSIONS 23.
Upon examining this case, the Commission concludes that it is
competent to hear the case and that the petitioner’s allegations
regarding violations of his rights enshrined in Articles 7, 8, and 25 of
the American Convention are admissible pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of
the Convention. The Commission further decides to notify the parties of
this decision and to publish it and include it in its Annual Report to the
OAS General Assembly. 24.
Based on the foregoing de
facto and de jure arguments, THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1.
To declare this
petition admissible in relation to the alleged violation of the rights
enshrined in Articles 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, pursuant to
Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. 2.
To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue to examine the merits of the case. 4.
To publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report
to the OAS General Assembly. Done
and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, in Washington, D.C., on the third of December, 2001.
(Signed:) Claudio Grossman, President; Juan Méndez, First Vice-President; Marta Altolaguirre, Second Vice-President; Commissioners Hélio
Bicudo, Robert K. Goldman, Peter
Laurie, and Julio Prado Vallejo. [ Table
of Contents | Previous | Next ]
[1] Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez
case, Judgment of July 29, 1988,
para. 135 and 136. [2] IACHR, Report Nº
28/96, Case 11.297, Guatemala, October 16,
1996, para. 43. [3]
Velásquez
Rodríguez case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 138.
IACHR, Report Nº 28/96,
Case 11.297, Guatemala, October
16,
1996, para. 45. [4] The IACHR has previously defined a “victim” to be every person
protected by the Convention as established generically in Article 1(1)
in accordance with the regulations establishing the rights and
freedoms specifically recognized therein. See:
1998 Annual Report. Report No. 39/99, Mevopal Petition, Argentina.
para. 16. [5]
See: Second paragraph in fine of the Preamble to the American Convention. [6] See
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez
case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para.
88. See also: IACHR Report Nº 30/96, Case 10.897,
Guatemala, October 16,
1996, para. 35
and Report Nº 53/96, Case
8074, Guatemala, December 6,
1996. 1996 Annual Report of the IACHR. And Report Nº 25/94, Case 10.508,
Guatemala, September 22,
1994, page. 52. 1994 Annual
Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. [7] Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June
26,
1987, Series C, Nº
1, para. 8; Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales
case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June
26,
1987, Series C, No.
2, para. 87; Gangaram Panday case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December
4,
1991, Series C, Nº
12, para. 38; and Loayza
Tamayo case, Preliminary Objections,
Judgment of January 31,
1996, Series C, Nº
25, para. 40. [8]
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Hilaire case, Judgment of
September 1, 2001, para 40.
|