I United Nations
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405190101900105 |
| Date | 01 March 2001 |
| Published date | 01 March 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Part
B:
Human
Rights News
I UNITED NATIONS
Ineke Boerefijn
A. The
Human
Rights Committee
The Human Rights Committee held its 68th session from 13-31 March 2000 in New York.
Most
of
the case law from that session was included in NQHR 18 (3). Three more cases
have recently been made available on the Internet. These communications, numbers
625/1995, 711/1996 and 756/1997, are included in the present contribution. The
Committee's 69th and 70th sessions were both held in Geneva, from 10-28 July 2000 and
16 October - 3 November 2000, respectively. The case law
of
the 70lh session will be
included in the next NQHR.
During its 70th session the Committee considered reports from Argentina, Denmark,
Gabon, Peru and Trinidad and Tobago. The Committee decided that it would draft a
general comment to be submitted as its contribution to the forthcoming World Conference
against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which will
be held in South Africa in 2001. The Committee continued its discussion of a new general
comment on Article 4. During the session, the Committee held an informal meeting with
States parties to the Covenant, aimed at improving the country reporting process and
avoiding duplication of the work of the six human rights treaty bodies.
Communication No. 625/1995, Michael Freemantle vs Jamaica, views
of
24 March 2000
(Violation
of
Articles 7 and 10(1), violation of Article 9(3), no violation of Article 9(2)
and (4); claim concerning Article 14(1) inadmissible under Article 2 OP)
On 1 September 1985, Michael Freemantle was arrested and placed in custody; four
days later, he was charged with murder. He claims to be the victim of a violation by
Jamaica
of
Articles 7, 9(2)-(4), 10(1) and 14(1) and (2). The State party did not submit
any information prior to the decision on admissibility. According to the Committee the
allegations under Article 14 (the right to a fair hearing) related to the evaluation of facts
and evidence in the case by the trial judge and the jury. The Committee recalled that it
Was
generally for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant and not for the
Committee to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it could be
ascertained that the evaluation of evidence and the instructions to the jury were clearly
arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial
of
justice. The author had not substantiated
this claim, and this part of the communication was declared inadmissible under Article 2
OP. The other claims were declared admissible.
With regard to Articles 7 and 10(1) the author submitted that on 28 May 1990, he and
other inmates broke out of their cells because they had not been allowed to exercise and
slop up. The disturbances spread to other parts
of
the prison. Inmates were asked to return
to the cells and complied, but subsequently, warders took the author from his cell, took
off
his clothes, searched him and started to beat him with a piece of metal. He sustained
injuries to head, knee, stomach and eyes, having been beaten for about five minutes. He
Was
then left in his cell unattended, without medical attention. Only at midnight was he
taken to the hospital for treatment; he received stitches to the head and was discharged. It
is submitted that after the event he continued to be subjected to constant verbal
intimidation and abuse. On 16 June 1990, the Jamaica Council for Human Rights wrote to
Netherlands
Quarterly
of
Human
Rights,
Vol.
1911,63-100,2001.
©Netherlands Institute
of
Human
Rights
(SlM).
Printedin the
Netherlands.
63
NQHR 112001
London counsel, noting that the author was 'badly battered as a result
of
the disturbances
in the prison at the end of last month', and submitted acomplaint before the Jamaican
authorities on the author's behalf. According to the Committee, the allegations submitted
by the author were very precise. It noted the State party's information, that an enquiry had
taken place and that the author gave evidence at that enquiry. It also noted the information
provided whereby the State party contended that at the interview with the author, he had
been unable to provide sufficient information on the names
of
the persons who had beaten
him and those names that he had provided were
of
persons who either no longer worked
in the prison or had retired. The State party, consequently, considered that no meaningful
investigation could be carried out. The Committee considered that the fact that the
perpetrators no longer worked in the prison, in no way absolved the State party from its
obligations to ensure the enjoyment
of
Covenant rights. The Committee noted that no
investigation was undertaken by the State party in 1990 after the Jamaica Council for
Human Rights had submitted acomplaint to the authorities on the author's behalf.
According to the Committee, in the absence
of
any refutation by the State party, due
weight should be given to the author's allegations. It stated that in these circumstances the
author's right not to be subjected to degrading treatment but to be treated with humanity
and with respect for the inherent dignity
of
the human person were not respected in
violation
of
Articles 7 and 10(1).
The author's other claim under Article 1
O(
1) concerned the conditions
of
detention on
death row. The author claimed that he was confined to a 2 metre square cell for twenty-
two hours each day, and remained isolated from other men for most
of
the day. He spent
most
of
his waking hours in enforced darkness and had little to keep him occupied. He
was not permitted to work or to undertake education. The Committee noted that the
allegations were very specific. The State party had not refuted these specific allegations.
In these circumstances, the Committee found that confining the author under such
circumstances constitutes aviolation
of
Article 10(1).
The author claimed aviolation
of
Article 9(3) since there was a delay
of
4 days
between the time
of
his arrest and the time when he was brought before ajudicial
authority. The Committee noted that the State party had not addressed this issue
specifically but simply pointed out in general terms that the author was aware
of
the
reasons for his arrest. The Committee reiterated its position that the delay between the
arrest
of
an accused and the time before he is brought before ajudicial authority should
not exceed a few days. In the absence
of
ajustification for a delay
of
four days before
bringing the author to a judicial authority the Committee found that this delay constituted
aviolation
of
Article 9(3)
of
the Covenant.
The author also claimed aviolation
of
Article 9(2) and (4), since he was not promptly
informed
of
the charges against him at the time
of
his arrest. Counsel contended that the
author was not informed
of
the charges against him until four days after his arrest. The
Committee noted the State party's contention that the author was aware
of
the reasons for
his arrest in general terms even
if
the formal charges for murder were only laid against
him four days after his arrest. It also noted information provided by counsel where in an
affidavit signed by the author on 4 May 1988, he stated he was arrested and charged with
murder on 1 September 1985. Furthermore, the Committee noted that this issue was not
brought to the attention
of
the courts in Jamaica. On the basis
of
the information before it
the Committee concluded that the author was aware
of
the reasons for his arrest and
consequently there had been no violation
of
the Covenant in this respect. The Committee
found no facts that substantiated a violation
of
Article 9(4).
64
To continue reading
Request your trial