Report No. 210 (2019) IACHR. Petition No. 1201-13 (Surinam)

Petition Number1201-13
Report Number210
Respondent StateSurinam
Case TypeAdmissibility
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Alleged VictimUrbian Burleson, Jules Goddard, Kenneth Amzink y Errol Harryson
Report No. 210/19
















REPORT No. 210/19

PETITION 1201-13

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY


URBIAN BURLESON, J.G., KENNETH AMZINK AND ERROL HARRYSON

SURINAME


OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 232

6 December 2019

Original: English



























Approved by the Commission on December 6, 2019 in San Salvador, El Salvador.







Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 210/19, Petition 1201-13. A.. U.B., J.G., K.A. and E.H.. Suriname. December 6, 2019.





www.cidh.org


I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner

Robert Karel Hewitt

Alleged victims

Urbian Burleson, J.G., K.A. and E.H.

Respondent S.

Suriname

Rights invoked

Articles 4, 8, and 27 (1) and (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights1

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR2

Filing of the petition

J. 26, 2013

Additional information received during initial review

October 28, 2013, February 9, 2016

N. of the petition

February 26, 2016

S.’s first response

December 26, 2017

Additional observations from the petitioner

January 4 and August 11, 2018

III. COMPETENCE

Ratione personae:

Yes

Ratione loci:

Yes

Ratione temporis:

Yes

Ratione materiae:

Yes, American Convention (deposit of instrument of ratification made on November 12, 1987)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata

No

Rights declared admissible

Article 4 (right to life), 5 (right to physical integrity), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1.1.

E. or exception to the exhaustion of remedies

Yes, under terms of Section VI

Timeliness of the petition

Yes, under terms of Section VI

V. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED FACTS

  1. The petitioner contends that on J. 13, 2012, the alleged victims were shot and killed by police officers in a suburb called T.L.F. in circumstances that amounted to extrajudicial execution. According to the petitioner, the alleged victims were unarmed and did not represent a threat to national security nor were they confronting the authorities at the time that they were killed.3 The petitioner bases these assertions on information that was supplied to him by family members of the deceased men as well as other unnamed persons. The petitioner further states that on the day after the killings, a press conference was held by the Minister of Justice, P. General and Chief of Police in which the use of lethal force was justified based on the purported criminal activities of the alleged victims.

  2. The petitioner states that on J. 18, he wrote to the P. General requesting a criminal investigation into the circumstances that led to the deaths of the alleged victims. According to the petitioner, the P. General responded on J.20 to say that a criminal investigation was underway. The petitioner complains that (a) up to November 2012 he had not received any updates about the investigation; and (b) that a reasonable time for completing the investigation had now elapsed. A., the petitioner states that he wrote to the C. of Justice of Suriname on November 26, 2012 on the assumption that this tribunal was the ultimate authority responsible for supervising the investigation. The petitioner affirms that he received a response from the C. of Justice on December 6, 2012 in which the C. stated that could not interfere with the investigation and that it was up to petitioner to follow up with the P. General. U., the petitioner complains that there has been undue delay in the investigation, and that in any event, the investigation has not been impartial. The petitioner also asserts that there are no available or effective domestic remedies to redress this status quo.

  3. According to the S., an investigation was initiated by the P. General in 2012, but that due to its complexity, the P. General later referred the investigation to the S.J. of Criminal Matters in 2013. The S. indicates that the Supervisory Judge ultimately closed the investigation on February 5, 2016, with a finding that there was no legal or evidential basis to prosecute any of the police officers involved in the killings of the alleged victims. Based on this finding, the S. affirms that the P. General declined to initiate any prosecutions. The S. also contends that the alleged victims were armed members of a criminal gang travelling in a vehicle, who were killed by the police when they attempted to evade apprehension. According to the S., the use of lethal force was justified and that this was ultimately the finding of the prosecutorial and judicial investigations into the killings. The S. concedes that the investigation took longer than “is common in other criminal cases”, but attributed this to the fact that “both the relatives of the deceased as well as the police officers deserved a fair hearing…”. T.S. emphasizes that the investigation process was conducted fairly and impartially in accordance with the laws of Suriname.

  4. The S. contends that the relatives of the deceased could have challenged the decision of the P. General by way of appeal to the C. of Justice but that they failed to do so. A., the S. concluded that there was a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

  1. The petitioner contends that apart from making a complaint to the P. General, there were no other effective domestic remedies available. The petitioner complains that the investigation by the S. lacked impartiality and that there was undue delay in completing the investigation. W.t.S. acknowledges that the investigation took longer than usual, it asserts that this was due to the complexity of the issues involved. The S. concludes that its investigation was conducted with due regard for the requirements of Surinamese law; and that in any event, it was open to the petitioner to appeal to the C. of Justice if he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation. In this respect, the S. contends that the petitioner failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

  2. The Commission has established that in situations related to possible violations of the right to life and humane treatment, the domestic remedies to be taken into account for the purposes of admissibility of the petition are those related to the investigation and punishment of those responsible, which are reflected in domestic legislation as crimes prosecuted ex officio.4. S. an investigation is the only adequate avenue to clarify the facts and impose appropriate criminal sanctions, in addition to enabling other means of financial compensation. In this regard, the Commission notes that the S. did, at the request of the petitioner, undertake an investigation following which it concluded that there was no basis to prosecute any of the state agents involved in the killing of the alleged victims. For the purpose of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission does not consider that the petitioner was obliged to appeal to the C. of...

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