Hilaire v Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Derecho Internacional
• Date: 21 June 2002
• Court: Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

(Canado Trindade, President; Abreu-Burelli, Vice-President; Salgado-Pesantes, Jackman, Garca-Ramrez and de Roux-Rengifo, Judges)2

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin and Others

and

Trinidad and Tobago1

Human rights Right to life Capital punishment Whether prohibited by American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Limitations Procedure to be followed Requirement to take account of individual circumstances Mandatory death penalty incompatible with the Convention Access to court for challenges to death penalty Due process Right to apply for commutation of sentence Procedure to be followed

Human rights Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment Prison conditions Death row prisoners Conditions of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment American Convention on Human Rights, 1969

Human rights Due process Requirements of fair trial Capital case Requirement of legal assistance

International tribunals Provisional measures of protection Court ordering stay of execution Person concerned executed in defiance of provisional measures

Relationship of international law and municipal law Treaties American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Requirement that State ensure municipal law effectively guarantees Convention rights Existence of law which contravenes such rights a breach of the Convention

Summary: The facts:The petitioners were thirty-two persons convicted of murder by the courts of Trinidad and Tobago (the State). Under the

Offences against the Person Act 1925 (the Act), the death sentence was mandatory in murder cases, although there was a process by which petitions for clemency could be considered, following sentence, by an Advisory Committee. The Constitution did not permit a constitutional challenge to the Act. The petitioners complained that the mandatory nature of the penalty, the nature of the procedures for seeking clemency, the procedures at trial, the lack of legal aid for various forms of procedure, the conditions of their detention and the length of time which had elapsed since sentence was passed violated their rights under the American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 (the Convention)

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was the final court of appeal, ordered that all executions should be stayed pending the decision of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The State nevertheless executed one of the petitioners notwithstanding the existence of provisional measures in his case.

Held:The petitioners' rights under the Convention had been violated.

(1) The Convention did not prohibit the death penalty as such in those States which had not abolished it. Nevertheless, Article 43 did impose limitations upon its scope and application. In particular:

(a) the imposition or application of the sentence was subject to procedural requirements which had to be strictly observed and reviewed;

(b) the application of the death penalty was to be confined to the most serious common crimes; and

(c) certain considerations involving the person of the defendant, which might bar the imposition or application of the death penalty, had to be taken into account (paras. 85100).

(2) The Act violated these limitations because it authorized a court to convict of murder on the sole basis of the categorization of the crime and without regard to the circumstances of the defendant or the specific offence and the mandatory death penalty precluded a court from taking account of the individual circumstances of the defendant. Accordingly, there was a violation of Article 4 (paras. 1019).

(3) The execution of the petitioner R was an arbitrary deprivation of life which was aggravated by the fact that the Court had indicated provisional measures of protection calling on the State to stay the execution pending resolution of his petition (paras. 190200).

(4) Under Article 2 of the Convention4 a State was required to ensure that its domestic law included such measures as were necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Act violated this provision (paras. 11018).

(5) The State had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention,5 taken together with Article 1, because the lack of legal aid meant that there was no effective remedy (paras. 11952).

(6) The State's domestic law did not sufficiently guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable time, contrary to Articles 76 and 8 taken together with Articles 1 and 2 (paras. 11952).

(7) The conditions of detention experienced by the petitioners had constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 5,7 taken together with Article 1 of the Convention (paras. 15372).

(8) The State had violated the right of the petitioners under Article 4(6) of the Convention, taken together with Articles 1 and 8, to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, because the procedure for seeking clemency lacked transparency and sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to participate (paras. 17389).

(9) The State should refrain from application of the Act, order new trials in the cases of the petitioners, modify its law and prison conditions to bring them into line with accepted standards, ensure that the classification of a killing as murder and the level of sentence imposed took account of individual circumstances and refrain, in any event, from executing any of the petitioners, irrespective of the outcome of the new trials (paras. 21122).

Per Judge Canado Trindade (concurring): (1) Given the transcendental importance of the issue considered in this landmark judgment, it was appropriate to present some personal reflections concerning the arbitrary and premeditated deprivation of life (paras. 137).

(2) Convention rights were not affected by the State's denouncement of the Convention since the Convention merely articulated existing norms of international customary law. In light of its international obligations and the established international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, the State had to fulfil, in good faith, the judgment's obligations (paras. 3843).

Per Judge Garca Ramrez (concurring): (1) The most relevant and complex issue was the incompatibility of the Act with the Convention. The State offended the Convention by failing to respect the restrictions on the death penalty in the Act (paras. 117).

(2) With respect to the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the State was directly and wholly answerable for the situation of its prisoners as guarantor of their rights. Severe restrictions implied by imprisonment had their limits, beyond which they became cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. That a person had not yet been convicted had to be reflected in detention conditions (paras. 1819).

Per Judge de Roux-Rengifo (concurring): The legal crux centred on Article 4(2) of the Convention, the violation of which rendered the death penalty arbitrary and led to the infringement of Article 4(1). Had the relationships between the provisions been explicitly addressed, the declaration would have been that the State had violated Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(2), both in conjunction with Article 2 (pp. 41314).

The Judgment and Separate Opinions are set out as follows:

Judgment	paras.
I. Introduction of the Case	111
II. Jurisdiction of the Court	1220
III. Proceedings Before the Commission	215
IV. Provisional Measures	2633
V Proceedings Before the Court	3459
VI. Facts Set Forth	60
VII. Evidence	6183
a) Documentary Evidence	706
b) Expert Evidence	77
c) Assessment of the Evidence	7883
VIII. Proven Facts	84
IX. Violation of Article 4(1) and 4(2) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention (Mandatory Death Penalty)	85118
X. Violation of Articles 7(5), 8, and 25 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention (Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time, Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection)	11952
XI. Violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Detention Conditions)	15372
XII. Violation of Articles 4(6) and 8 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Amnesty, Pardon or Commutation of Sentence)	17389
XIII. Violation of Article 4 of the American Convention (Non-compliance with the Provisional Measures Ordered by the Court with Respect to Joey Ramiah, Case No 12, 129)	190200
XIV Reparations (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention)	20122
XV Operative Paragraphs	223
Concurring Opinion of Judge Canado Trindade	p. 381
Concurring Separate Opinion of Judge Garca-Ramrez	p. 399
Concurring Opinion of Judge de Roux-Rengifo	p. 413

The following is the text of the Judgment of the Court:1

I

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE

1. The present Case is the result of a joinder of the Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. Cases,2 that were submitted to the Court separately by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the Inter-American Commission or the Commission) against the State of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter the State or Trinidad and Tobago) on May 25, 1999, February 22, 2000, and October 5, 2000, respectively.

2. The Commission's Applications are based on petitions numbered 11,816 (Haniff Hilaire), 11,787 (George Constantine), 11,814 (Wenceslaus James), 11,840 (Denny Baptiste), 11,851 (Clarence Charles), 11,853 (Keiron Thomas), 11,855 (Anthony Garcia), 12,005 (Wilson Prince), 12,021 (Darrin Roger Thomas), 12,042 (Mervyn Edmund), 12,043 (Samuel Winchester), 12,052 (Martin Reid), 12,072 (Rodney Davis), 12,073 (Gangadeen Tahaloo), 12,075 (Noel Seepersad), 12,076 (Wayne Matthews), 12,082 (Alfred Frederick), 12,093 (Natasha De Leon), 12,111 (Vijay Mungroo), 12,112 (Phillip Chotalal), 12,129 (Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah), 12,137 (Nigel Mark), 12,140 (Wilberforce Bernard), 12,141 (Steve Mungroo), 12,148 (Peter Benjamin), 12,149 (Krishendath Seepersad), 12,151 (Allan Phillip), 12,152 (Narine Sooklal), 12,153 (Amir Mowlah), 12,156...