Report No. 12 (2014) IACHR. Case No. 12.231 (Bahamas)

• Case Number: 12.231
• Year: 2014
• Report Number: 12
• Respondent State: Bahamas
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Peter Cash

REPORT No. 12/14

CASE 12.231

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

PETER CASH

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.150

Doc. 16

2 A.2.014

Original: English

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 1976 held on A.2., 2014
150 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 12.231, C. 12.231. Merits (Publication). P.C.. C. of the B.. A.2., 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 12/14

CASE 12.231

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

PETER CASH

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
A.2., 2014

INDEX

I.SUMMARY 4

II.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4

III.POSITION OF THE PARTIES ON ADMISSIBILITY OF PETITION 5

A.Petitioner’s Position 5

1.Background 5

2.Petitioners’ position on admissibility 7

B.S.’s Position on Admissibility 7

IV.ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY 7

A.Competence of the Commission 7

B.Other Grounds of Admissibility 8

1.Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 8

2.Timeliness of the Petition 9

3.D. of Procedures 9

4.Colorable Claim 10

C.Petitioners’ Position on the Merits 10

1.A. I, II, and XXVI of the D. - The M. Death Penalty 10

2.A. XXVI, II, and XVIII - The Prerogative of Mercy 10

3.A. I, XXV, and XXVI – Alleged Involuntary Confessions; R. to Humane Treatment/Not to Be Tortured 11

4.A. XVIII and XXVI - R. to a Fair and Impartial Trial 11

5.Article XXV - R. to Be Tried Without Undue Delay 12

6.Article XVIII - R. to a Fair Trial; Access to the Courts 12

7.A. XI, XXV, XXVI - Inhumane Conditions of Detention 12

D.S.'s Position 12

V.ANALYSIS 12

A.The Merits 12

1.S. of Review 12

2.P. of Facts 13

B.Application and Interpretation of the A.D. of the R.s and Duties of Man 13

1.Alleged Violations of the A.D. 14

2.A. I, II, XVIII, XXIV, XXVI - The M. Death Penalty and Pardon/Commutation Process 15

VI.ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS 19

A.Alleged violations of Due Process: Alleged Involuntary Confession; Treatment of Confession by Trial Judge (in third trial) and Court of Appeal of T.B.; Undue Delay in Trying Cash 19

1.A. XVIII, XXVI - R. to a Fair and Impartial Trial/right to physical integrity 19

VII.TORTURE 23

A.Article XXV of the D. - R. to be Tried Without Undue Delay 24

B.A. XI, XXV, and XXVI - Conditions of Detention 26

C.A. XVII, XVIII, and XXVI of the D. - Unavailability of Legal Aid for Constitutional Motions 26

VIII.ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT Nº 70/06 27

IX.FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28

X.PUBLICATION 30

REPORT No. 12/14

CASE 12.231

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

PETER CASH

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
A.2., 2014

I.SUMMARY

1. On O. 18, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human R.s (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or “the IACHR”) received a petition from B.C., solicitors in London, The United Kingdom (hereinafter "the Petitioners") against The C. of T.B. (hereinafter "The B." or "the S."). The petition was filed on behalf of P.C., (“Mr. Cash” or “Cash”) a B. citizen who is under sentence of death at the Fox Hill Prison in T.B., following conviction for the murder of Joyce Elaine Adderley. Mr. Cash was convicted primarily on the strength of confession evidence.

2. In their petition, the Petitioners have alleged that the S. violated Mr. Cash’s rights under A. I, II, XI, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the A.D. on the R.s and Duties of Man (“the A.D.” or “the D.”). M. particularly, the Petitioners alleged that these rights were violated by: the imposition of a mandatory death penalty; the torture/ill-treatment by S. officials; inhumane detention conditions; and the failure to accord Mr. Cash certain due process guarantees during the domestic criminal proceedings against him. To date the S. has not presented any arguments on the admissibility or merits of the petition.

3. On O. 16, 2006, during its 126th regular sessions, the IACHR examined the contentions of the petitioners on the question of admissibility and merits, and concluded in Preliminary Report No. 70/06 that the claims brought on behalf of P.C. were admissible and that the C. of T.B. was responsible for violating A. I (Right to life, liberty and personal security), II (R. to equality before the law), XVIII (R. to a fair trial), XXIV (R. of petition), XXV (R. of protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (R. to due process of law) of the American D. with respect to P.C.. In the instant final report the Inter-American Commission, in view of the available information, decides to reiterate its conclusions and recommendations.

II.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. Mr. Cash's petition was presented to the Commission on O. 18, 1999, which included a request for precautionary measures. The Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the S. and requested its observations, within 90 days, with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the claims raised in the petition. The Commission also requested that the S. “take the measures necessary to stay Mr. Cash's execution pending an investigation by the Commission of the alleged facts”.

5. In letters dated A. 06 and September 14, 2000, the Commission reiterated its request to the S. for information on the petition. The Commission also requested that the S. take whatever measures it deemed necessary to provide the Commission with the relevant information pertaining to the case within 30 days of receipt.

6. On O. 2, 2000, the Commission received additional observations from the Petitioners to correct information in the petition relating to the number of times that Mr. Cash had been tried for murder in the B. courts. The pertinent parts of this information were forwarded to the S. by notes of O. 06 and 10, 2000, with a request for a response within 30 days. By notes of O. 17 and 24, 2000, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commission's communications of O. 06 and 10, 2000.

7. On December 12, 2000, the Petitioners informed the Commission that they had lodged a second petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (hereinafter “JCPC” or “Privy Council”) on behalf of Mr. Cash on O. 02, 2000. On A. 05, 2001, the Petitioners informed the Commission that this petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council was heard and dismissed on M. 22, 2001.

8. On August 20, 2001, the Commission wrote the parties, informing them that it was placing itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the case pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Commission also requested that the parties provide a response to its offer within seven days of receipt of the communication. The Commission has not received a response from either party to its offer.

9. By letter of February 28, 2002, the Petitioners reconfirmed that Mr. Cash had been tried three times by the B. courts in August 1996, November-December 1996 and O.-November 1997.

10. On May 22, 2002, the Commission wrote to both parties informing them that pursuant to Article 37(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, it had decided to defer the treatment of admissibility until the decision on the merits and requested that the Petitioners submit their additional observations on the merits of the case within a period of two months from the date of the letter.

11. On J. 11, 2002, the Petitioners requested a two month...