Report No. 109 (1999) IACHR. Case No. 10.951 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Case Number: 10.951
• Report Number: 109
• Year: 1999
• Respondent State: United States
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Coard y otros

REPORT Nº 109/99; CASE 10.951; COARD ET AL.; UNITED STATES1; September 29, 1999 I. SUMMARY A. The Petition 1. The petition on behalf of the seventeen claimants was filed before the C.ission on J. 25, 1991, and processed in accordance with its Regulations. As a general matter, the petitioners alleged that the military action led by the armed forces of the United S.s of America (hereinafter "United S.s" or "S.") in Grenada in October of 1983 violated a series of international norms regulating the use of force by states. With regard to their specific situation, they alleged having been detained by United S.s forces in the first days of the military operation, held incommunicado for many days, and mistreated. They contended that the United S.s corrupted the G. judicial system by influencing the selection of judicial personnel prior to their trial, financing the judiciary during their trial, and turning over testimonial and documentary evidence to G. authorities, thereby depriving them of their right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. The petitioners claimed that the United S.s violated its obligations under the American D. of the Rights and Duties of Man, specifically: A.icle I, the right to life, liberty and personal security; A.icle II, the right to equality before the law; A.icle XXV, the right to protection from arbitrary arrest; A.X., the right to recognition of juridical personality and civil rights; A.icle XVIII, the right to a fair trial; and A.icle XXVI, the right to due process of law. B.B. 2. On October 19, 1983, the Prime Minister of Grenada, Maurice B., and a number of associates were murdered pursuant to a power struggle within the New Jewel Movement, the ruling political party since 1979. Following the violent overthrow of the B. administration, the rival faction within the New Jewel Movement established a Revolutionary Military Council. On October 25, 1983, United S.s and Caribbean armed forces invaded Grenada, deposing the revolutionary government. 3. During the first days of the military operation, a number of individuals, including the seventeen petitioners -- C.B., L.R., C.S., H.A., B.C., L.J., Leon Cornwall, John Anthony Ventour, D.B., E.L., C.M., S.S., Phyllis C., C.P., V.J., C.R. and A.M. – were arrested and detained by United S.s forces. 4. United S.s forces turned the petitioners over to G. authorities at R.H. Prison on or about November 5, 1983. T., the petitioners were tried and convicted of bearing responsibility for the October 19, 1983 murder of B. and others. F. of the seventeen were sentenced to death, while the remaining three were sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The death sentences were commuted to sentences of life in prison in 1991, pursuant to the appeals for clemency, including by the IACHR.2 C.O. of Proceedings 5. T.S. contested the admissibility of the case before the C.ission, asserting that the petitioners’ factual allegations were incorrect and/or unsupported, that it was not the proper respondent, and that the C.ission lacked the competence to examine the legal validity of its military actions in Grenada as this fell beyond the scope of its mandate, particularly with regard to a non-party to the American Convention. 6. The C.ission adopted admissibility Report 14/94 on February 7, 1994, finding the claims concerning the arrest and detention of the petitioners admissible, and the other claims inadmissible. Pursuant to its consideration of additional submissions from the parties, the C.ission adopted confidential Report 13/95 on September 21, 1995, setting forth its findings and recommendations. That report was transmitted to the S. on September 26, 1995. On December 27, 1995, the S. requested that the C.ission reconsider its report. Having considered that request, as well as the additional information it deemed necessary to gather before finalizing its analysis, the C.ission modified certain portions of that report, and approved the adoption of its final report. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION A. Initial Proceedings 7. The petitioners' initial complaint of J. 25, 1991 was supplemented with additional information on August 4, 1991. Case 10.951 was opened, and the pertinent parts of the petition transmitted to the S. on October 1, 1991, with information in response requested within 90 days. A brief "interim response" was filed on October 22, 1991. The petitioners' response thereto was filed on October 31, 1991, and submitted to the Government on November 26, 1991. The petitioners submitted additional information on February 14, 1992, which was transmitted to the S. on M. 3, 1992, with a response requested within 60 days. The C.ission reiterated this request on J. 27, 1992. 8. The United S.s filed its substantive response to the petition on September 10, 1992, limited to contesting the admissibility of the case. On October 20, 1992, the C.ission invited both parties to present their views on the issue of admissibility before its next period of sessions. The petitioners provided brief observations on the S.’s response on January 27, 1993, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the S. on February 10, 1993. Both parties appeared before the C.ission to express their views on admissibility during a hearing held on February 25, 1993. By a note of A. 16, 1993, the C.ission requested that the United S.s Government furnish information on the substantive aspects of the case within 60 days. This request was reiterated on J. 21, 1993. B. Admissibility Report 14/94 9. The C.ission adopted Report 14/94 concerning the admissibility of the case on February 7, 1994. With respect to its jurisdiction, the C.ission reiterated that the American D. is a source of international obligation for members states not party to the American Convention, and that its Statute authorizes it to examine complaints under the D. and requires it to pay special attention to certain core rights. As the petitioners had submitted claims alleging the violation of rights protected under the D., the C.ission declared that those that met the applicable requirements would be examined. The C.ission found no procedural bar to admissibility. 10. With respect to the factual and legal foundation laid in support of the petitioners’ allegations, the C.ission determined that the petitioners had alleged or shown "a sufficient causal nexus on which to base considerations of possible violations" "only as to the claims concerning their arrest, and presumed detention incommunicado" in United S.s custody. The C.ission admitted those claims for consideration, and declared that the other claims raised by the petitioners were inadmissible. The report was approved for transmission to the parties, with the recommendation that the S. submit information on the merits of the claims deemed admissible within 90 days. 11. In accordance with those findings, the remainder of the present report deals only with the allegations found admissible. C.P. on the Merits 12. Report 14/94 was transmitted to the S. on February 11, 1994. The request that it provide information on the merits of the pending claims was reiterated on May 10, 1994, and again on September 29, 1994. The United S.s provided information on the merits on October 19, 1994. This information was transmitted to the petitioners for their observations on November 29, 1994. 13. The petitioners' response was received on January 17, 1995. They reiterated previously stated positions, and raised further assertions only with respect to issues beyond the scope of the pending claims. The pertinent parts of this submission were transmitted to the S. by means of a note dated M. 20, 1995. 14. On February 8, 1995, the C.ission informed the S. that it would be disposed to facilitate a friendly settlement if the latter wished to invoke this procedure. This measure was taken at the C.ission's initiative; as indicated by A.icle 52 of the C.ission’s Regulations, it is not required in the processing of cases concerning non-parties to the American Convention. This communication was not acknowledged. 15. Pursuant to A.icle 53 of its Regulations, the C.ission adopted Report 13/95 on September 21, 1995. The report was transmitted to the S. on September 26, 1995, with a request that it inform the C.ission within three months of the measures taken to comply with the recommendations set forth to resolve the violations established. 16. By means of a note dated December 27, 1995, the United S.s submitted its response to Report 13/95, requesting that the C.ission reconsider its findings and recommendations. That request, and the final proceedings pursuant thereto are described in section IV of the present report. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. The Position of the Petitioners 17. In their initial complaint, the petitioners claimed that: United S.s forces arrested them during the period in which it consolidated control over Grenada; that they were held incommunicado for many days; and that months passed before they were taken before a magistrate, or allowed to consult with counsel. "During this period petitioners were threatened, interrogated, beaten, deprived of sleep and food and constantly harassed." 18. The petitioners alleged that their whereabouts were kept secret, and that requests by lawyers and others to meet with them were rejected. They alleged that, more than a week after the invasion, the commanding officer for United S.s armed forces in Grenada, A.J.M., III, denied knowledge of the whereabouts of petitioners H.A.a.B.C. to a group of United S.s Congressmen, when in fact the two men were confined aboard a ship under his command. 19. The petitioners alleged that United S.s forces subjected them to threats and physical abuse. The supplemental petition of August 4, 1991 indicated that petitioner Leon Cornwall had attested at trial, before...