Irvine Reynolds v. Jamaica, Communication No. 587/1994,
U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/587/1994 (3 April 1997).
Irvine Reynolds v. Jamaica, Communication No.
587/1994, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/587/1994 (3 April 1997).
Distr. RESTRICTED [*] */
CCPR/C/59/D/587/1994
3 April 1997
Original: ENGLISH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Fifty-ninth session
24 March - 11 April 1997
VIEWS
Communication No. 587/1994
Submitted by: Irvine
Reynolds
[represented by Mr. A. R. Poulton]
Victim: The
author
State party:
Jamaica
Date of communication: 26 April 1994 (initial submission)
Date of adoption of Views: 3 April 1997
On 3 April 1997, the Human Rights Committee
adopted its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional
Protocol in respect of communication No. 587/1994. The text of the
Views is appended to the present document.
[ANNEX]
VWS587.59e cb
GE.97-
ANNEX*
Views of the Human Rights Committee under
article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Fifty-ninth
session -
concerning
Communication No. 587/1994
Submitted by: Irvine
Reynolds
[represented by Mr. A. R. Poulton]
Victim: The
author
State party:
Jamaica
Date of communication: 26 April 1994 (initial submission)
Date of decision on
admissibility: 6 July 1995
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 3 April
1997,
Having concluded its
consideration of communication No. 587/1994 submitted to the Human
Rights Committee on behalf of Mr. Irvine Reynolds under the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author
of the communication, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts the
following:
Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol
1. The author of the communication is Irvine
Reynolds1, a
Jamaican citizen at the time of submission of the communication
awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica.
The author=s death sentence was commuted on 13 March 1995, after his
offence had been reclassified as non-capital. Mr. Reynolds claims to
be a victim of violations by Jamaica of articles 6, 7, 10, paragraph
1, and 14, paragraphs 1, 3 and 5, of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by Mr. A. R.
Poulton.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 Irvine Reynolds was - together with a
co-defendant, Errol Johnson2 - convicted of the murder of
one Reginald Campbell and sentenced to death in the Clarendon Circuit
Court on 15 December 1983. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of
Appeal of Jamaica on 29 February 1988. The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his petition for special
leave to appeal on 9 July 1992.
2.2 At the trial, the case for the prosecution was
that on 31 October 1982 between 6 and 9 a.m., Reginald
Campbell was stabbed to death by Irvine Reynolds who had
ransacked his shop. During the trial, two witnesses testified that
they had seen Irvine Reynolds and Errol Johnson on the morning of 31
October 1982 near the shop of Mr. Campbell. Mr. Reynolds (but
not Mr. Johnson) was identified on 12 November 1992 by one
of the witnesses as the man standing outside the shop. The other
witness identified both defendants as the men having walked past the
shop. In a police search, cheques signed by Mr. Campbell were
found in Mr. Reynolds' room. In a statement made under caution, Errol
Johnson declared that he had seen Mr. Campbell lie bleeding on the
ground, and Mr. Reynolds aside with a knife in his hands. Mr.
Reynolds himself claimed in an unsworn statement from the dock that
he had an alibi.
The complaint
3.1 Counsel argues that the delay between the
trial and the appeal (51 months) amounts to a violation of
article 14, paragraphs 1, 3 and 5, of the Covenant. In this
connection, counsel refers to the Committee's Views in the author's
earlier communication No. 229/1987, where the Committee considered
the delay in the light of the admissibility of the communication, and
concluded that such delays as occurred in the pursuit of domestic
remedies were not attributable to the author or his counsel. In its
Views, however, the Committee did not address the issue on the
merits. Counsel argues that the delay between the author's conviction
and the Court of Appeal hearing was wholly attributable to the State
party. He refers to a letter from the Registrar of the Court of
Appeal, dated 14 July 1986, in which the Registrar confirmed that the
appeal was not ready for hearing as the Court of Appeal had not yet
received the transcript. Counsel argues that the failure to give the
author access to the trial transcript within a reasonable time
effectively denied him his right to have his conviction and sentence
reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
3.2 Counsel points out that the author has been on
death row since 15 December 1983 and that this delay would
render his execution cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, within
the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. In support of this
argument, counsel refers inter
alia to jurisprudence of the Privy Council
(Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan
v. Attorney General of Jamaica),
judgment of 2 November 1993).
3.3 The author states that he has repeatedly been
the victim of threats and beatings by warders at St. Catherine
District Prison, in violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1,
of the Covenant. On one occasion, on 9 July 1988, during a
search of the prison by warders, soldiers and police, the author was
allegedly beaten with guns and batons all over his body, stripped off
his clothes, and stabbed with a knife. On another occasion, on 4 May
1993, the author was allegedly kicked on his testicles by soldiers.
Although he suffered pain, he did not receive any medication.
Reference is made to the Standard Minimum Rules of the Treatment of
Prisoners and to a report by Amnesty International of December 1993
("Jamaica - Proposal for an Inquiry into Death and Ill-Treatment of
Prisoners").
3.4 It is finally argued that a death sentence
imposed after a trial in which provisions of the Covenant have been
violated constitutes a violation of article 6, paragraph 2, of the
Covenant, if no further appeal against the sentence is
possible.
3.5 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies, counsel affirms that the author has not applied to the
Supreme Court of Jamaica for constitutional redress, as a
constitutional motion would inevitably fail in light of the precedent
set by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of
D.D.P. v. Nasralla and Riley v. Attorney General of
Jamaica - where it was held that the
Jamaican constitution was intended to prevent the enactment of unjust
laws and not merely, as claimed by the victim, unfair treatment under
the law. In any case, it is argued, constitutional remedies are not
available to the author in practice, as he lacks the necessary funds
to secure legal representation. In this context, reference is made to
the established jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee.
3.6 As regards the author's claim of
ill-treatment, it is stated that, on 9 July 1988 and on 16 November
1993, the author and his legal representative asked the Ombudsman to
look into various allegations of beatings at the prison. Although the
Ombudsman replied that the incidents were being investigated, no
further reply has been received. In this context, it is argued that
the Office of the Ombudsman does not function efficiently and
therefore is not an effective remedy. Counsel submits that all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted.
The State party's observations on admissibility
and the author's comments thereon
4.1 By submission of 15 December 1994, the State
party argues that the communication is inadmissible for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It refers to the case of
Albert Huntley v. the Attorney General of
Jamaica before the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, which is a constitutional challenge to the
classification procedure under the Offences Against the Persons
(Amendment) Act. The State party argues that the outcome of that case
is relevant to the author's communication since it may affect the
classification of the author's offence as capital or non-capital
murder.
4.2 The State party submits that it will
investigate the author's allegations of ill-treatment in prison and
that it will forward the results of the investigation as soon as they
are available.
4.3 The State party rejects the argument that the
delay between trial and appeal constitutes a breach of article 14 of
the Covenant. In this connection, the State party argues that the
fact that the author had his case reviewed by the highest court in
Jamaica, the Privy Council, shows that it cannot be asserted that the
author's right to have his trial and conviction reviewed by a higher
tribunal has been violated.
5.1 In his comments on the State party's
submission, dated 21 March 1995, the author states that the
Privy Council judgment in Albert Huntley v.
the Attorney General of Jamaica3 has now been given and that
it does not affect the author's communication before the Committee.
The author argues that, since his offence has been classified as
capital, he is therefore entitled to allege violations of article
6.
5.2 As regards the delay between trial and appeal,
the author explains that it is the delay of 51 months itself which is
in violation of article 14, and that the fact that he had his case
reviewed by the Privy Council is irrelevant to his claim.
5.3 By further submission of 6 April 1995, the
author informs the Committee that following a Classification Review
on 13 March 1995, his offence has been reclassified as non-capital,
with the recommendation that he serve 15 years before being eligible
for parole. According to counsel, the author would be eligible for
parole in December 1998.
5.4 The author confirms that he wishes to pursue
his communication.
The Committee's admissibility
decision
6.1 At its 54th session, the Committee considered
the admissibility of the communication. As regards the author's claim
that the period of 51 months between trial and appeal hearing
constitutes a violation of article 14, the Committee noted that the
author's claims of unfair trial were already brought before the
Committee in his earlier communication4, upon which the Committee
had decided that the facts did not disclose a violation of any of the
provisions of the Covenant. The Committee considered therefore that
this claim was now inadmissible.
6.2 Consequently, the author's claim that the
imposition of the death sentence after an unfair trial constituted a
violation of article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, was also
inadmissible.
6.3 As regards the author's claim that his
prolonged detention on death row amounted to a violation of article 7
of the Covenant, the Committee recalled that although some national
courts of last resort had held that prolonged detention on death row
for a period of five years or more violated their constitutions or
laws,5 the
jurisprudence of this Committee remained that detention for any
specific period would not be a violation of article 7 of the Covenant
in the absence of some further compelling
circumstances.6 The Committee observed that the author had not
substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, any specific
circumstances of his case that would raise an issue under article 7
of the Covenant. This part of the communication was therefore
inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
6.4 The Committee considered that the author had
sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his claim
that he had been ill-treated in prison. It noted that the State party
had raised no objection to admissibility of the claim and that it had
stated that it would investigate the allegations.
7. Accordingly, on 6 July 1995, the Human Rights
Committee decided that the communication was admissible in so far as
it might raise issues under articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of
the Covenant, in respect of the alleged ill-treatment in
detention.
State party's submission on the merits and
counsel's comments thereon
8. By submission of 19 February 1996, the State
party comments that its undertaking that it will investigate the
matter does not constitute an admission as to the merits of the
allegation. The State party confirms that disturbances occurred on 8
July 19887
and 4 May 1993 at the prison, but adds that it is unable to address
the particular allegations of ill-treatment made by the author, but
that it would pursue the matter and inform the Committee as to the
results of its further inquiries.
9. In his comments on the State party's
submission, counsel for the author notes that the State party has not
provided the results of its investigations into the author's
allegations nor copies of his medical record. Counsel argues that the
acknowledgement of the disturbances on 8 July 19888 and 4 May 1993 is a
prima facie
admission of the truth of the matters alleged by the author.
Issues and proceedings before the
Committee
10.1 The Committee has considered the
communication in the light of all the information provided by the
parties. It notes with regret that, more than two years after
the allegations of ill-treatment were brought to the attention of the
State party, the State party has not furnished the results of its
investigations, but merely states that it was unable to address the
particular allegations of ill-treatment made by the author. In the
circumstances, due weight must be given to the author's allegations,
to the extent that they are substantiated.
10.2 The author has claimed that on 9 July 1988,
he was in his cell when soldiers and warders were conducting a
search. His cell was opened, and he was beaten up by three men with
guns and batons. Later, in the corridor he was stripped off his
clothes, beaten, stabbed and hit with a metal detector. A warder,
whom the author has mentioned by name, allegedly told the soldiers to
kill the author. The items the author had in his cell were destroyed,
and his clothes and sleeping mat were drenched with water. The author
was then locked away without receiving any medical treatment. He then
complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by letter of 9 July 1988,
to which he received no reply.
10.3 The author has alleged further incidents of
ill-treatment, and named the warders responsible. In particular, he
has claimed that on 4 May 1993, during a search, he was taken out of
his cell and kicked twice, once on his testicles, and that he was
denied painkillers or other medical treatment afterwards.
10.4 The Committee considers that, in absence of
any concrete information from the State party, the treatment as
described by the author constitutes treatment prohibited by article 7
of the Covenant, and is likewise in violation with the obligation
under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, to treat prisoners
with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person.
11. The Human Rights Committee, acting under
article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts
before it disclose a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of
the Covenant.
12. Under article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the
Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide an
effective remedy to the author, entailing compensation. The State
party must take measures to ensure that similar violations do not
occur in the future. In this context, the Committee wishes to
emphasize that investigations into allegations of ill-treatment
should be carried out expeditiously and without delay.
13. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State
party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the
competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a
violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of
the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure that all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and
enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the
Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days,
information about the measures taken to give effect to the
Committee's Views.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the
English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued
also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the annual report to
the General Assembly.]
-*-
__________
*/
Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.