OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76
ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION Nº 20/89 CASE 10.118 SURINAME September 27, 1989 HAVING
SEEN: 1. The petition
received by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on October 8, 1987,
according to which: Ronald
Otmar Jacob Sampi was arrested in Brokopondo on June 19, 1987, by the Army of
Suriname. Later he was forced to dig his own grave at Berg-en-Dal and then shot
by the soldiers. This is a violation of the right to life. There was no due
process. 2. The
transmission of that complaint to the Government of Suriname in the note of
October 30, 1987, requesting it to provide such information as it deemed
pertinent, as well as any information that would make it possible to ascertain
whether, in this case, the remedies of domestic law had been exhausted. 3. A copy of the
same note and the pertinent parts of the complaint were also sent to the Mission
of the Government of Suriname to the Organization of American States on the same
date. 4. The
communication of October 30, 1987, to the Government of Suriname was repeated on
February 9, 1988. 5. The repetition
of the request for information made in the note of February 9, 1988, informing
the Government of Suriname that should such information not be provided within a
period of thirty (30) days, pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulations, the facts
reported would be considered to be true. CONSIDERING:
a. That the
Government of Suriname did not reply to the request for information made by the
Commission concerning this case despite an expressed written reminder. b. That a
Resolution was adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March
24, 1988, Resolution N´ 4/88, and duly sent to the Government of Suriname on
March 30, 1988, granting a 60 day period to inform the Commission of measures
taken to implement this Resolution. c. That the
Resolution was based on Article 42 of the Commission’s Regulations which
provides: Article
42. Presumption
The
facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been transmitted to
the government of the State in reference shall be presumed to be true if, during
the maximum period set by the Commission under the provisions of Article 34
paragraph 5, the government has not provided the pertinent information, as long
as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion. d. That the
Government of Suriname thereafter sent a note dated May 19, 1988, to the
Commission regarding the Resolution which stated in pertinent part: The
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Suriname to the Organization of
American States presents his compliments to the Executive Secretary of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and upon instructions received from
the Government of Suriname has the honour to inform the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights with reference to the Resolutions concerning cases N´
9778, 10.116, 10.117, 10.118, 10.119, and 10.124 the following: The
Government of the Republic of Suriname has taken due note of the contents of
aforementioned Resolutions and will seriously endeavour to act upon the
recommendations contained therein. Mindful
of the gravity of the cases cited, the Government intends to carry out a further
investigation into those cases. The
Government is aware, however, that a thorough investigation of alleged
violations of human rights, which would have occurred during the internal
conflict since July 1986, is a most difficult and time consuming exercise. The
Government is nevertheless determined to do everything within its power to serve
the cause of justice. The
Government also intends to carry out its obligations with respect to all victims
of human rights abuses. e. The Commission,
thereafter in reply to this note, advised the Government on June 9, 1988, inter
alia: On
behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I am pleased to respond
to your note of May 1988, in which you inform the Commission that Your
Excellency’s Government intends to seriously endeavor to act upon the
recommendations contained in the Resolutions steaming from Cases 9778, 10.116,
10.117, 10.118, 10.119, and 10.124. Moreover, Your Excellency’s statement that
the Government intends to carry out a thorough investigation into those cases in
order to serve the cause of justice is most heartening. Because
the Commission will be meeting in September of this year and will necessarily
have to decide whether to include those Resolutions in its 1987-88 Annual
Report, it is very important that the Commission be advised in a timely way of
the actions taken by Your Excellency’s Government with respect to said cases. f. That the
Government, on August 19, 1988, sent the following note to the Commission
concerning this case: The
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Suriname to the Organization of
American States presents his compliments to the Executive Secretary of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and with reference to the latter’s
notes concerning Cases 10.115, 10.117, 10.118, 10.119, 10.124, 9820, as well as
to the note dated May 19, 1988, has the honour, upon instructions received from
the Government of Suriname to further communicate the following. An
inquiry at the proper judicial authorities into the abovementioned cases
revealed that no complaints have been filed. Since the Office of the Public
Prosecutor has no knowledge of abovementioned cases, it is not possible to
provide satisfactory answers to the questions submitted by the Commission. The
information as contained in the notes of the Commission is however not
sufficient to enable the Office of the Public Prosecutor to make thorough
inquiries into these cases. The Government of Suriname would therefore
appreciate being provided with any additional information, which the Commission
might have at its disposal and which might facilitate such investigations.
Needless to say that this information will be dealt with in the strictest
confidence. Nevertheless
the Office of the Public Prosecutor is attempting to gather information, in
order to investigate these alleged violations. In this respect the Government of
Suriname would like to state that the continuation of the hostilities in the
area, where the alleged violations occurred, is not conducive to an
investigation. g. That despite
the assurances provided in the foregoing notes, no further investigation has
been conducted and no further information has been provided to the Commission by
the Government on this case. h. That the
Commission thereafter received testimony regarding this and similar cases during
its on-site visit to Suriname in December of 1988, and that the testimony
effectively corroborates the original complaint with respect to the modus
operandi of Army troops in terms of their aggression against Maroons in
Suriname in the geographical area and time frame in question. i. That the
Commission was told by the Acting Attorney General of Suriname, during its
December 1988 on-site visit, that the Government was unable to investigate this
matter. j. That the
Commission is satisfied that the Government has failed to make a good faith
effort to investigate the allegations in this case and to punish those
responsible for its occurrence. k. That it was
impossible for the complainants to exhaust domestic remedies in this matter
since the authorities that would have been responsible for the investigation,
namely the military police, form part of the military establishment accused of
the violations in question, and that it can reasonably be deduced that the
inaction of military in this and other cases clearly demonstrates an
unwillingness to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the
violations. THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES: 1. To determine to
be true the facts denounced in the communication of October 8, 1987, concerning
the killing of Mr. Ronald Otmar Jacob Sampi, on June 19, 1987, in Brokopondo,
Suriname. 2. To declare that
this constitutes a very serious violation of the right to life (Article I) of
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, although it occurred
prior to the taking of office by the democratically elected civilian Government.
3. To insist that
the Government of Suriname proceed, as soon as possible, to carry out an
investigation of the event and punish those responsible therefor with the most
severe penalties established in its domestic legislation. 4. To declare that
the relatives of the victim are entitled to fair compensation, according to law,
whereby the Government is responsible for said compensation. 5. To publish this
Resolution in its next Annual Report. 6. To transmit
this Resolution to the Government of Suriname and the petitioner.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |