Report No. 35 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 12.187 (Trinidad y Tobago)

• Petition Number: 12.187
• Report Number: 35
• Year: 2010
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Archive
• Alleged Victim: Peter Isaac
• Respondent State: Trinidad & Tobago

3

REPORT Nº 35/10

PETITION 12.187

DECISION TO ARCHIVE

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

March 16, 2010

ALLEGED VICTIM: Peter Isaac

PETITIONERS: INTERIGHTS

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Articles 5(2), 7(5), 8(1) and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention

BEGINNING OF PROCESSING: July 1, 1999

1. Position of the parties

1. The petitioners

1. On May 25, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition on behalf of Peter Isaac (“Mr. Isaac” or the “alleged victim”), an inmate at the Arouca Remand Prison in Trinidad & Tobago, presented by INTERIGHTS (the “petitioners”) The petitioners state that Mr. Isaac was tried and convicted for the offence of carnal knowledge on April 11, 1991 in the High Court of Trinidad & Tobago, having been previously arrested on June 16, 1983. As a consequence of the conviction, Mr. Isaac was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years, concomitantly with a sentence of corporal punishment (twenty “strokes”).

2. Mr. Isaac filed an appeal against conviction and sentence, but as of 1999, his appeal had not yet been heard. The petitioners also submit that efforts by Mr. Isaac to contact his trial lawyer have proven futile. They also submit that on one occasion, Mr. Isaac was informed by the Registrar of the High Court that his appeal had not even been listed for hearing and that his file “was anywhere”. The petitioners further submit that Mr. Isaac is precluded from exhausting domestic remedies because he has been unable to prosecute an appeal of his conviction and sentence, and that he is indigent. Also, the Constitution of the country does not guarantee a speedy trial, and corporal punishment is legal, thus precluding any possibility of a successful constitutional challenge. The petitioners also submit that given the ongoing nature of the violation, the petition is filed within a reasonable period of time.

3. With respect to the merits of their complaints, the petitioners contend that the State is responsible for violating Mr. Isaac’s right to a trial within a reasonable time and his right to an appeal, under respectively Articles 7(5), 8(1) and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights (the “American Convention”). The petitioners submit that the delay of eight years before the hearing of Mr. Isaac’s appeal is extremely prejudicial and the altogether period of sixteen years since his arrest violates both his right to be tried within a reasonable time and his right to an appeal. According to the...