Report No. 104 (2006) IACHR. Petition No. 4593-02 (Panamá)

• Year: 2006
• Petition Number: 4593-02
• Report Number: 104
• Respondent State: Panamá
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Peter Anthony Byrne

REPORT Nº 104/06 PETITION 4593-02 INADMISSIBILITY PETER ANTHONY BYRNE PANAMA October 21, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 17, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by Edna Ramos Chue (hereinafter “the petitioner”) in which she alleged that the State of Panama (hereinafter “the State”) violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) with respect to Peter Anthony Byrne. 2. The petitioners report that on July 30, 1999, Peter Anthony Byrne, a citizen of Ireland, murdered his friend Maxim Conroy, another Irish citizen, in Panama. The complaint states that several expert reports established that, at the time of the incident, Mr. Byrne was suffering an episode of acute paranoid psychosis. However, according to the petitioners, these reports were not properly assessed by the jury that convicted Mr. Byrne or by the Second Superior Court of the Judicial District that ruled the incident aggravated homicide and imposed a sentence of twenty years in prison. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled that Mr. Byrne was competent to stand trial for the crime. In addition, they claim that the right of defense was obstructed – an allegation that, if true, would constitute the violation of various procedural guarantees. 3. The State argues that Mr. Byrne’s procedural guarantees were upheld and that, because of his status as a foreigner, the greatest possible flexibility in the proceedings and in the evidence were allowed. In particular, the State says that the attorney-general’s office and the Supreme Court acted within their spheres of competence and with strict respect for sound reasoning in assessing the evidence, finding that there were contradictions between the expert reports, which meant it was impossible to establish Mr. Byrne’s competence to stand trial with certainty. It further states that the attorney-general’s office did not refuse to conduct evidentiary formalities on behalf of the accused and that the denial of some of the evidence was intended to protect the proceedings from potential delays. As regards the alleged harassment targeting the defense attorney, it is claimed that the petitioner acted unethically by contacting two of the witnesses by telephone, before the hearing, urging them to declare that Mr. Byrne suffered from mental problems. The State also accuses the petitioner of procedural bad faith in the handling of some of the evidence. 4. After examining the positions of the parties in accordance with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 46 of the American Convention, the Commission, in compliance with Article 47(b), decides to declare the case inadmissible because it fails to state facts that could tend to establish a violation of rights protected by this Convention. Consequently, the Commission decides to notify this decision to the parties, to publish this Report on Inadmissibility, and to include it in its Annual Report. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION A Petition 5. The Commission received the original petition on December 17, 2002, and recorded it as No. P-4593/02. On June 17, 2003, the Commission asked the petitioner for information regarding the notification of the Supreme Court’s final decision and regarding the judicial decisions reached during the criminal proceedings. On December 3, 2003, the Commission conveyed the petition to the Government of Panama, in compliance with Article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure, and asked it to reply within the following two months. On February 27, 2004, the State submitted its reply to the complaint. On March 23, 2004, the Commission conveyed the Panamanian State’s reply to the petitioner. On April 23, 2004, the Commission received comments from the petitioner relating to the State’s reply. On April 28, 2004, the Commission forwarded those comments and the State gave its response to them in a written submission received on July 6, 2004. On January 9, 2006, the Commission asked the petitioner for information on Mr. Byrne’s current situation, and the corresponding information was received on January 24, 2006. B. Request for information and request for precautionary measures 6. On October 27, 2000, the Commission received information about Peter Byrne’s situation during his first months in detention. Mr. Byrne had been held, since September 22, 2000, at the El Renacer detention center. After a psychological evaluation carried out separately by two physicians, it was recommended that, on account of his depressive state and suicide risk, Mr. Byrne be taken to a psychiatric hospital. For this reason, on November 30, 2000, the Commission asked the State to furnish information on the case. In December 2000 Mr. Byrne was transferred to the National Psychiatric Hospital. 7. On May 10, 2004, following Mr. Byrne’s conviction, the petitioner lodged a request for precautionary measures whereby the Inter-American Commission would instruct the Panamanian Government to place Peter Anthony Byrne in a specialized mental health facility. When the request was made, Mr. Byrne was still being held at the Panama City Psychiatric Hospital, as had been ordered by the Supreme Court in its judgment of May 22, 2002, in which it upheld the 20-year prison sentence imposed on Mr. Byrne. However, the Court ordered that for the first two years of his sentence, Mr. Byrne was to be kept at that hospital and that, at the end of that period, he would serve out his prison term at the “prison facility of the Republic of Panama deemed appropriate.” The request for precautionary measures was intended to prevent Mr. Byrne’s transfer to a prison unable to safeguard his mental integrity and various other rights. 8. Under the terms of the Strasbourg Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Peter Byrne’s defense team requested his transfer to Ireland. He was duly transferred on June 19, 2004. Mr. Byrne is currently being held at Midlands Prison in Ireland and his family report that his detention conditions are reasonable. His medical treatment is ongoing, and he receives 10 mg of Olaznpine (Zyprexa) per day. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 9. The petitioners claim that on July 28, 1999, Mr. Peter Anthony Byrne, an Irish citizen with a Ph.D. in industrial mechanical engineering, arrived in Panama from the United States. In that country he had organized a meeting of the Board of the Society of Mechanical Engineers. According to witnesses, Peter Byrne behaved normally throughout the conference, except for the final day, when he said he was hearing voices and began to interpret everything he saw or heard in an exaggerated fashion. 10. Mr. Byrne went to Panama at the invitation of his childhood friend Maxim Conroy. According to the petitioners, upon arriving in Panama, Mr. Byrne began to give signs of an alteration in his thoughts and emotions. The petition states that Mr. Conroy had expressed an inclination to have Mr. Byrne hospitalized; he feared, however, that doing so would cause Mr. Byrne to lose his job as a university lecturer. 11. The petitioner states that on July 29, 1999, Mr. Byrne tried to leave the country but was unable to do so because he could not get the right tickets. On July 30, 1999, two days after arriving in Panama, the petitioners report that Mr. Byrne’s state was notably altered, shouting that he was being followed and that people wanted to kill him. That night, Mr. Byrne murdered his friend Maxim Conroy by stabbing him 16 times, according to the petitioners, “in the conviction that Max was conspiring to kill him.” After doing so, Mr. Byrne bathed, changed his clothes, and tried to leave the building; he was, however, stopped by the doorman at the victim’s building and later detained by the authorities. 12. The petitioners claim that the psychiatric exams carried out by the Forensic Medical Institute of the Public Prosecution Service, at the request of the attorney-general’s office and the defense team, agreed that at the time of the incident, Mr. Byrne was undergoing an acute paranoid psychotic episode which, under Article 24 of the Criminal Code of Panama, is grounds for ineligibility for prosecution. According to the petitioners, an acute paranoid psychotic episode is a kind of “temporary mental instability” that reduces or suppresses the victim’s ability to understand the illegality of his behavior. They also note that they submitted as evidence information on Mr. Byrne’s family history of schizophrenia. 13. Mr. Byrne was held for approximately four months and, after several requests, was admitted to Panama City’s Hospital América to receive medical treatment. Later, he was detained in an apartment rented by his family. On February 24, 2000, in assessing the committal proceedings, the Second Superior Court of the First Judicial District ordered a definitive dismissal in Peter Byrne’s favor. The imposition of curative security measures was ordered, and he was ruled ineligible for prosecution. 14. The Second Superior Prosecutor of the First Judicial District filed an appeal against that decision and the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision on July 27, 2000. The Supreme Court determined that the mental stability had not been conclusively established and that there were contradictions between the reports submitted by the psychiatrists, on account of which it had to rule that he was criminally liable. The order was then given for the commencement of criminal proceedings against Mr. Byrne, and for his immediate placement in preventive custody. On December 15, 2000, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the alleged victim to the National Psychiatric Hospital. On August 13, 2001, a...