Report No. 10 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 214-08 (Surinam)

Year2010
Petition Number214-08
Report Number10
Alleged VictimKoempai y otros
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Case TypeAdmissibility
Respondent StateSurinam
Report No. 10/10

8


REPORT Nº 10/10

PETITION 214-08

ADMISSIBILITY

KOEMPAI ET AL.

SURINAME

March 16, 2010


  1. SUMMARY


  1. On February 25, 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition from G.R. Sewcharan (the “petitioner”) against the Republic of Suriname (the “State” or “Suriname”), on behalf of 24 persons1 detained at the Duisburglaan Penal Institution, Paramaribo, Suriname (“Koempai et al.” or “the alleged victims”).


  1. According to the petition, the alleged victims have all been criminally convicted by the District Court of Suriname, sentenced to a prison term, and lodged an appeal. The petitioner claims that they have all have suffered violations of Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (the “American Convention”) because their appeals have not been heard within a reasonable amount of time. In particular, the petitioner alleges that in 21 of the 24 cases, none of the appeals lodged has been heard by the Court of Justice, and that the earliest appeal was lodged in 1998 and the latest in August 2006. The petition indicates that, in the three remaining cases, the appeals have been dealt with, but also after an allegedly long and unreasonable delay (between three and five years) in violation of the American Convention.


  1. The petitioners allege that the State is consequently responsible for violating the alleged victims’ rights under Articles 8 and 25, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. The petitioner submits that the legislation of Suriname provides no recourse for the alleged victims to exhaust, as there is no effective legal remedy to enforce the right to have an appeal heard within a reasonable period of time.


  1. The State admits that, due to an important backlog at the District Court, the delays in the processing of the alleged victims’ appeals represent an unreasonable period of time. However, the State argues that the petition is inadmissible because the alleged victims failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in place to guarantee the right to be tried within a reasonable time.


  1. In this report the IACHR examines the contentions of the parties on the question of admissibility and, without prejudging the merits of the matter, concludes that the case is admissible, inasmuch as it meets the requirements provided in Articles 31 to 34 of its Rules of Procedure. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR decides to notify the parties of its decision and to continue with its analysis of the merits as regards alleged violation of Articles 1, 2, 7(5), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, publish this report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.


  1. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION


  1. The IACHR received the petition on February 25, 2008, and the relevant annexes on February 27, 2008. By a communication dated February 28, 2008, the Inter-American Commission acknowledged receipt and subsequently requested additional information from the petitioner on April 16, 2008. In a communication received on May 27, 2008, the petitioner sent the information requested to the IACHR, which acknowledged receipt on June 4, 2008 and transmitted the pertinent parts of the received communications to the State on June 18, 2008, with a request that it submit its observations within two months.


  1. The State responded on August 15, 2008 and the Inter-American Commission transmitted this response to the petitioner on September 11, 2008, with a request that any additional observations be submitted within a month. The petitioners provided the IACHR with additional information on October 10, 2008 and April 30, 2009. This information was duly notified to the State,2 which transmitted additional observations on February 9 and July 2, 2009. The IACHR transmitted these observations to the petitioner, respectively on April 2, and July 8, 2009.


  1. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES


A. Position of the petitioners


  1. According to the petition, the alleged victims have all been criminally convicted by the District Court of Suriname, sentenced to prison terms ranging from five to twenty years, and were all detained in the remand prison of the Duisburglaan Penal Institution, Paramaribo, at the moment of presentation of the petition. The information indicates that the moments at which the alleged victims were arrested differ; similarly, the convictions and sentences of the alleged victims were imposed at various times, between 1998 and 2006. Hence, at the moment of presentation of the petition, the period of time elapsed since the convictions ranged from two to ten years. The petitioner emphasizes that neither the complexity of the cases nor the behavior of the alleged victims can justify this alleged undue delay.3 Consequently, he claims that the alleged victims have all suffered violations of their right to be tried within a reasonable period of time, under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.


  1. The petition further argues that the State is responsible for violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, as it has not brought its national legislation into conformity with Article 8 of the same instrument. Finally, a violation of Article 1 of the American Convention is alleged in connection with the right to be heard within a reasonable period of time. The petitioner states that although some of the alleged victims have suffered other human rights violations, in this petition, they wish to restrict the analysis to the right to adjudication within a reasonable time.


  1. The petitioner asserts that Suriname’s legislation does not contain remedies through which the alleged victims can compel the domestic courts to hear their appeals within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, he claims that there are no domestic remedies to exhaust to enforce the alleged victims’ right to have their appeal heard within a reasonable period of time, justifying an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as set forth in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention.


  1. At the moment of presentation of the petition, the petitioner indicated that three of the alleged victims had their appeal proceedings initiated,4 whereas the others were still waiting, despite repeated requests to the Clerk of the District Court5 (First instance) and the Court of Justice6 (Appeals Court). However, even for the alleged victims whose appeal was initiated or completed, the petitioner argues that their right to trial within a reasonable time was still violated, as one waited five years for his appeal to be decided, and the two others waited respectively four and six years for the proceedings in their appeals to begin; their appeals not having been decided as of the presentation of the petition.


  1. In further communications, the petitioner informed the Inter-American Commission that five of the alleged victims were released from detention,7 because, according to the petitioner, they demonstrated that, had the appeal taken place and the same sentence been re-imposed, they would already have been released under the procedures for release and conditional release. However, the petitioner rejects the State’s contention that any of these five persons was released because of the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time, and underscores that the decision to free them does not release the State from its obligation to guarantee their appeal within a reasonable time.


  1. In response to the State’s argument that domestic remedies are available and have not been exhausted, the petitioner submits the following:


    1. Article 28(1) of the Code of Criminal Proceedings is not relevant because it refers to proceedings that are instituted by the prosecution and discontinued without a judgment on guilt being rendered, which is not the case here;


    1. Article 259 of the Code of Criminal proceedings is not relevant because it provides that a hearing, at trial or on appeal, shall take place without interruption, but does not address the time period between the trial and the appeal;


    1. Although under Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, the Clerk of the District Court needs to provide the procedural documents to the Clerk of the Court of Justice as quickly as possible, for the case to be heard on appeal, and under Article 249 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, the President of the Court of Justice shall decide on the appeal’s hearing date within eight days upon reception of the said documents, these provisions do not attach any consequence to the default of following them and thus do not represent remedies that can be invoked by the alleged victims to guarantee the hearing of their appeal within a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT