Report No. 28 (2009) IACHR. Case No. 12.269 (Trinidad y Tobago)

• Case Number: 12.269
• Year: 2009
• Report Number: 28
• Respondent State: Trinidad & Tobago
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Dexter Lendore

REPORT Nº 28/09 MERITS (PUBLICATION) CASE 12.269 DEXTER LENDORE TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO M. 20, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On September 15, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission”) received a petition from Collyer-Bristow, a firm of Solicitors in London, United Kingdom (the “petitioners”) against the Government of T. and Tobago (the “S.” or “T. and Tobago”). The petition was presented on behalf of Mr. D.L., who had previously been detained on death row at the state prison, 103a F.S., Port of Spain, T.a.T.. The petition also indicates that on May 4, 1998, Mr. L.’s sentence was commuted to seventy-five years imprisonment with hard labor. 2. The petition alleges that the S. is responsible for violations of Mr. L.’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (the “American Convention” It is stated in particular that the conditions prevailing at Mr. L.’s detention, prior to his committal and trial and after his conviction, as well as the length of time that M.L. was held in custody prior to his trial and the time spent as a death row inmate awaiting his execution, violated Article 5 of the American Convention. The petitioners also claim that the S. is responsible for violations of Mr. L.’s right to a fair trial under Article 8 of the Convention, as a result of the trial judge’s failure to order separate trials of Mr. L. and his co-defendants, alleged misdirections by the trial judge, inadequate legal representation provided to Mr. L., and the lack of effective recourse on appeal against the trial judge’s misdirections by the invocation of a statutory provision. 3. The S. did not provide any observations on the merits of the petition. 4. In Report 21/05 dated February 25, 2005, the IACHR decided to admit Mr. L.’s petition and to continue with the analysis of the merits of his case. As set forth in the present Report, having examined the information and arguments concerning the merits of the petition, the Inter-American Commission has concluded that the S. is responsible for violating Mr. L.’s rights under Articles 1(1), 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and A.X., XXV and XXVI of the American D. of the Rights and Duties of Man (“American D.”). 5. B. upon these conclusions, the IACHR has recommended that the S. grant Mr. L. an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with due process protections prescribed under Article 8 of the American Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, his release, as well as compensation. The Inter-American Commission has further recommended that the S. take the legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure Mr. L.’s right to humane treatment in relation to his conditions of detention and that the right to a fair hearing and the right to judicial protection are given effect in T. and Tobago in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.; II PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO ADMISSIBILITY REPORT 21/05 6. n Report Nº 21/05 adopted on February 25, 2005, the IACHR declared that Mr. L.’s petition was admissible in respect of Articles 1(1), 2, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and A.X., XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of the American D., and that it would continue with its analysis of the merits of these claims. Report 21/05 was transmitted to the S. and to the Petitioners by note dated M. 17, 2005. In the same notes, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Inter-American Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the IACHR requested that the Petitioners provide any additional observations that they may have on the merits of the case within a period of two months. P. to Article 38(2) of its Rules, the Inter-American Commission also placed itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter and requested that the parties inform the IACHR expeditiously whether they were interested in pursuing a friendly settlement of the case. 7. On M. 23, 2005 the Inter-American Commission received a communication from the Petitioners responding to the IACHR’s M. 17, 2005 request for information. On M. 24, 2005, the pertinent parts of the Petitioner’s submissions were transmitted to the S., and the Inter-American Commission requested that the Republic of T. and Tobago submit any additional observations that it may have on the merits of the Petitioners’ petition within a period of two months, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the IACHR’s Rules. 8. As of the date of the present report, the Inter-American Commission had not received any observations from the S. on the merits of the petition. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. The petition states that on December 8, 1993, D.L., together with his co-defendants A.A.P.D. and K.L., was convicted of the September 10, 1989 murder of L.S. and sentenced to death. The petition also states that on May 4, 1998, Mr. L.’s death sentence was commuted to 75 years with hard labor. 10. It was found by the Courts that the three co-Defendants took part in a joint unlawful enterprise to rob the deceased knowing that one of them, Andrew Andy Paul Douglas, was armed with a gun, that Mr. Douglas intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and in fact caused Mr. Sookdad’s death, and that Mr. L. and Mr. Ling must have foreseen the consequences. 11. With respect to the merits of their complaints against the S., the Petitioners claim that the S. is responsible for violations of Mr. L.’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the American Convention based upon the following grounds. 1. Article 5 of the American Convention 12. According to the Petitioners, the physical conditions of Mr. L.’s detention during the course of his criminal proceedings have violated Article 5(1) and (2) of the American Convention. In particular, the Petitioners claim that following Mr. L.’s arrest in 1989, he was placed in a 9” x 6” cell at the S. Prison in Port of Spain with an average of 10 other prisoners, who shared a single plastic bucket for use as a toilet and were forced to defecate and urinate in the cell itself. Mr. L. was also forced to sleep on the floor and spent 23 hours of the day in these conditions. From his committal in J. 1991 to his conviction and sentence on December 8, 1993, M.L. is alleged to have been held in similar conditions at Golden Grove Prison, A., where he shared a cell with 5 to 7 inmates at a time. Further, the petition indicates that Mr. L. spent 4 ½ years on “death row” awaiting his execution, before his sentence was commuted to 75 years hard labor on May 4, 1998. 13. Since the commutation of his sentence, M.L. is alleged to have shared a cell at the S. Prison in Port of Spain with 10 other inmates, with one slop bucket shared by all inmates that regularly overflows, resulting in grossly unhygienic conditions. The Petitioners also state that Mr. L. has regularly sought and been denied adequate medical care in prison. In particular, the Petitioners indicate that Mr. L. has seen the prison doctor only 2 or 3 times per year despite constant complaints as to the state of his eyes and back. According to the Petitioners’ M. 23, 2005 observations, M.L. continues to be detained on Death row at S. Prison, Port of Spain serving a sentence of 75 years imprisonment with hard labor as a result of the commutation of the death sentence imposed on him at his trial. 14. The Petitioners further claim that the inordinate length of time that Mr. L. spent in detention between 1989 and 1993 awaiting trial, in addition to his 4 ½ years on Death row between December 8, 1993 until May 4, 1998 awaiting his execution, both contravene Article 5 (1) and (2) of the American Convention. 15. In support of their claims, the Petitioners refer to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Henfield v. A-G of the Bahamas in which that Court found a 3 ½ year delay following conviction and sentence of death amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment. 16. F., the petitioners submit that the S.’s step in commuting Mr. L.’s sentence in no way remedies its clear breach of Article 5(2) as to delay and conditions of detention. 2. Article 8 of the American Convention 17. The petition alleges that the S. failed to promptly provide M.L. with legal counsel, and that when he was eventually provided with legal counsel appointed by the S.’s Legal Aid Authority, his representation at both trial and appeal was inadequate in contravention of Article 8(2)(c) and (e) of the American Convention. In particular, according to the Petitioners, Mr. L. did not see a lawyer until 10 days after his arrest at his preliminary hearing. The petitioners also state that at no stage prior to Mr. L.’s trial did his counsel hold a conference with him, and that his first conference with his lawyer took place on the seventh day of the trial and lasted 20 minutes. It is similarly alleged that Mr. L. had no opportunity to consult with his S.-appointed appeal attorney. 18. The petitioners also claim that the S. is responsible for violations of Mr. L.s rights under Article 8(1) and (2) of the American Convention for the reason that the trial judge failed to order separate trials for Mr. L. and his co-defendant in circumstances where their defenses might have been prejudicial to each other. In particular, the Petitioners indicate that following their arrests the three co-defendants gave unsworn written statements in the presence of the police and a justice of the peace concerning their versions of events surrounding the crime. The Petitioners appear to assert in this respect that the reliance upon these statements by the Prosecution as well as Mr. L.s co-defendant, Mr. Douglas, caused severe prejudice to Mr. L. by permitting...