Report No. 1 (2006) IACHR. Case No. 12.264 (Guyana)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2006
• Case Number: 12.264
• Report Number: 1
• Case Type: Merits
• Respondent State: Guyana
• Alleged Victim: Franz Britton, Guyana

REPORT Nº 1/06; CASE 12.264 PUBLICATION FRANZ BRITTON GUYANA February 28, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. This Report concerns a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ("the Commission") by letter dated March 21, 2000, by I.K.C., Chairman for Economic Empowerment, Guyana, ("the petitioner”) against the State of Guyana (“the State” or “Guyana”), on behalf of Mr. F.B., a.k.a. Collie Wills ("Mr. Britton"). The petitioner alleges that the State has violated the rights of Mr. B. as set forth in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man ("the Declaration"). According to the petitioner, M.B., a G. national and father of three children, was first arrested on January 19, 1999, by police officers at Cove and John Police Station, East Coast Demerara, Guyana. Mr. B. was then released on January 23, 1999. The petitioner claims that Mr. Britton was asked to report on January 25, 1999 to that same police station where he was re-arrested by a police division known as the Quick Reaction Group or the “Black Clothes”. According to the petitioner, the “Black Clothes” division is “a unit that functions as a death squad.” The petitioner states that Mr. Britton was last seen being forced by police officers into a car. The petitioner reports that Mr. Britton has not been seen since his re-arrest on January 25, 1999, and that his whereabouts are unknown, despite multiple inquiries made of the S.. The petitioner further alleges that the State has not furnished any information about the whereabouts of Mr. Britton despite these inquiries. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner claims that the State has violated the human rights of Mr. B. guaranteed by the provisions of Articles II (the right to equality before the law), XI (the right to the preservation of health and well-being) XVIII, (the right to a fair trial), XXV (the right to protection from arbitrary arrest), and XXVI (the right to due process of law) of the D.. 2. Up to the date of this report, the Commission has received no response from the S. to its requests for information. 3. In Report 80/01 adopted by the Commission on October 10, 2001 during its 113th regular period of sessions, the Commission decided to admit the petition and to continue with the analysis of the merits of his case. As set forth in the present report, having examined the information and arguments concerning the merits of the petition, the Commission has concluded that the State is responsible for violating Mr. Britton’s rights under the Declaration, including Article I (right to life, liberty, and personal security), Article XVIII (right to a fair trial), Article XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest) and Article XXVI (right to due process). 4. B. upon these conclusions the Commission recommends that the State inform the relatives of Mr. B. of his whereabouts and fate and conduct a thorough investigation to identify the persons responsible and criminally prosecute them. The Commission also recommends that the State adopt the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such a disappearance. F., the Commission recommends that the State of Guyana provide reparations for the relatives of F.B. including moral damages in compensation for the suffering occasioned by Mr. Britton’s disappearance. II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO ADMISSIBILITY REPORT 80/01 5. In Report 80/01, adopted by the Commission on October 10, 2001, during its 113th regular period of sessions the Commission declared that Mr. Cush’s petition was admissible with respect to Articles II, XI, XVIII, XXV and XXVI and that it would continue with the analysis of the merits of the claims. Report 80/01 was transmitted to the S. and petitioner by note dated October 22, 2001. 6. By note of December 26, 2002, the Commission requested the State to submit observations on the merits of the case within two months of the request, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Commission reiterated that request to the State by communications of J. 30, 2004 and October 5, 2004. Up to the date of this report, the Commission has received no response to these communications to the S.. III. ANALYSIS A. Findings 7. The Commission notes that the State has not disputed the petitioner’s allegation that Mr. Britton was abducted and ‘disappeared’ by State agents. In this respect, the Commission has received no information or observations from the S. with respect to the petitioner’s petition, despite repeated requests. A., the Commission invokes Article 39 of its Rules of Procedure, which provides that: The facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been transmitted to the Government in reference shall be presumed to be true if, during the time period set by the Commission, the Government has not provided the pertinent information requested, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion. 8. The Commission notes that the State at no time has responded to the petitioner’s allegations or questioned the petition’s admissibility. While the Commission acknowledged that the State is not a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission is authorized under Article 20 b. of its Statute “ .to address the government of any member state not a Party to the Convention for information deemed pertinent by this Commission, and to make recommendations to it, when it finds this appropriate, in order to bring about more effective observance of fundamental human rights”. 9. The IACHR also considers 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 S.'s jurisdiction unless it has the cooperation of that State. 10. 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." The Commission therefore reminds the State of Guyana 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. 11. B. on the record before it, the Commission presumes the facts alleged in the petition to be true, and is satisfied that there is no other evidence that could lead to any other conclusion. In this respect, the Commission presumes that the State effectuated the abduction and disappearance of Mr. B., having regard to the uncontested evidence before the Commission that: (a) Mr. B. was first arrested on January 19, 1999, by police officers at Cove and John Police Station, East Coast Demerara, Guyana, a local police Station and was released on January 23, 1999. (b) Mr. B. was asked to report on January 25, 1999 to that same police station where he was re-arrested by a police division known as the Quick Reaction Group or the “Black Clothes”, and that he was last seen being forced by police officers into a car silver/gray car, license plate number PGG 3412 and taken to the Brickdam police station in Georgetown, Guyana. (c) Mr. Britton's relatives including his mother, Ms. I.W. have received no information from the State about the whereabouts of Mr. Britton, despite multiple inquiries made of the police and other State officials. (d) Mr. B. has not been seen since his re-arrest on January 25, 1999 and that his whereabouts remain unknown. B. Application and interpretation of the American Declaration 12. The Petitioner in the present case has alleged that the State of Guyana is responsible for violations of the rights of F.B. under Articles II, XI, XVIII, XXV, and XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. As has been well established by inter-American jurisprudence, the A.D. constitutes a source of international legal obligation for all member states of the Organization of American States, including Guyana. M., the Commission is empowered under Article 20 of its Statute and Articles 49 and 50 of its Rules of Procedure to receive and examine any petition that contains a denunciation of alleged violations of the human rights set forth in the American Declaration in relation to OAS member states that are not parties to the American Convention. 13. According to the jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system, the provisions of its governing instruments, including the American Declaration, should be interpreted and applied in context of developments in the field of international human rights law since those instruments were first composed and with due regard to other relevant rules of international law applicable to member states against which complaints of human rights violations are properly lodged. 14. In particular, the organs of the inter-American system have previously held that developments in the corpus of international human rights law relevant to interpreting and applying the American Declaration may be drawn from the provisions of other prevailing international and regional human rights instruments. This includes the American Convention on Human...