Report No. 353 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 2186-13 (Jamaica)

• Year: 2020
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Respondent State: Jamaica
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 353/20

PETITION 2186-13

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

LANCE ZAB AND FAMILY

JAMAICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 371

24 N. 2020

Original: English

Approved electronically by the Commission on N. 24, 2020.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 353/20, Petition 2186-13. A.. Lance Z. and family. Jamaica. N. 24, 2020.

www.cidh.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	International Human Rights Center - Loyola Law School (IHRC) and Jamaicans For Justice
:	Lance Z. and family
Respondent S.:	Jamaica1
Rights invoked:	Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 25 (judicial protection), 19 (right of the child) of the American Convention on Human Rights2, all in relation to articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights), and 2 (domestic legal effect) of the same instrument

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR3

Filing of the petition:	May 19, 2013
N. of the petition to the S.:	December 7, 2018
S.’s first response:	April 8, 2019
Additional observations from the petitioner:	April 18, N. 12, 2019 and May 5, 2020
Additional observations from the S.:	August 12, 2020

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., American Convention (ratification of the American Convention August 7, 1978)

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	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 19 (right of the child), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in relation to articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of the same instrument
E. of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Exception set forth in Article 46.2(a) and (c) of the Convention applies
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., in terms of Section VI

V. ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petitioners denounce the extrajudicial execution of alleged victim L.Z., a 14-year-old boy who was shot and killed, without justification, by members of the Jamaican police on August 28, 2007 near his home in Kingston. The petitioners also argue the failure of the S. to carry out a proper, timely and diligent investigation into the killing of the alleged victim; to prosecute those responsible; and to provide adequate reparations to his family. T. allege a widespread pattern of extrajudicial executions by security force members in Jamaica and structural defects in the criminal investigation of these crimes, resulting in virtually absolute impunity.

2. The petitioners indicate that the alleged victim was a homeless student at Seaward All-Age and Junior High School whose mother had died when he was nine months old. His grandmother cared for him after his mother’s death, but at the time of his extrajudicial execution, he lived alone in a room made of pallet pieces, which measured approximately four-feet wide to four-feet high. On the wall of the structure, he posted pictures of musician B.M. and a plaque bearing a tribute to his mother. According to the petitioners, the community regarded the alleged victim as a quiet boy who caused no trouble, and his death was a shock to them4. The petitioners submit that contrary to eyewitness accounts, police officers held that the alleged victim was killed during a shootout with gunmen who managed to escape. The alleged victim was purportedly among the group of gunmen, and was later discovered with gunshot wounds to his upper body.

3. W. officers claim to have found a gun belonging to the alleged victim on the scene of the shootout, residents of the community refute the police account. O. eyewitnesses indicate that on the afternoon of August 28, 2007, the alleged victim was standing in a yard with a friend eating cornbread and drinking juice when at least four police officers from a neighboring station in Bayside drove up; his friend ran away, but the alleged victim stayed behind. W. two of the officers held the gate to the yard, the others ran directly toward the alleged victim and shot him. The child fell to the ground in pain and cried pleading for his life: "A no mi, please don't kill me." Despites his begging, the officers dragged him to the road and leaned him against a car. T. then shot the boy twice, then lifted him by the throat and fired a final shot to his head. S., an agitated crowd gathered around the scene of the shooting and the police officers fired shots to disperse them. The alleged victim’s aunt was among those unable to reach the scene because of the officers' shots. The four officers then picked the spent shells up from the ground and removed the body from the scene of the killing. The alleged victim was later pronounced dead at the Spanish Town Hospital. After the officers took his body away, the alleged victim’s cousin collected pieces of the boy’s skull and brain tissue and buried them. The cousin also reported that he provided pieces of the alleged victim’s shattered skull to the Bureau of Special Investigation (BSI)5. The petitioners emphasize that Jamaican security agents have a practice of treating shooting victims inhumanely and removing the bodies before an investigatory team arrives; tossing or throwing them in the back of police vehicles; and routinely refusing to give families information about the location to which the bodies of their loved ones are being taken. The petitioners consider that the rough, irreverent manner in which the police handled the alleged victim’s body caused additional suffering, which amounts to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and exacerbates the suffering and abuse of his next of kin.

4. With regard to the investigation, the petitioners assert that the S. has failed to conduct a proper and diligent investigation. On September 27, 2007 a full month after the extrajudicial, an autopsy of the alleged victim was conducted at the Spanish Town Hospital Morgue. T. further submit that the autopsy lasted only 38 minutes; that the signature of the officer who performed that autopsy is illegible; that there is no information about the position the officer held at the time; and that entire pages of the post mortem report are left blank, leaving out information such as whether and what forensic tests were taken and which crime scene data was available. The post mortem report indicates that the alleged victim was severely bruised and bloody at the time of his death; there were multiple complex, compound fractures to his skull, and a large five by ten centimeter wide cavity near the top of his head. The report also states that little brain tissue was left in his skull, though some of it was on his hair and face; it shows multiple gunshot wounds in his chest and arms in addition to the wounds to his head; it also mentions that his face, eyes and lips were swollen and that he had large abrasions and bruises on his shins and back. The petitioners consider that these injuries are all consistent with the eyewitness accounts of the police shooting and hitting the alleged victim multiple times, then beating and dragging him before fatally shooting him in the head. At the time, no information was provided with regard to the use of the body parts his cousin provided to the BSI. The petitioners indicate that they repeatedly requested information regarding the investigation but that they received no response.

5. The petitioners further inform that on January 15, 2010 the BSI referred the case to the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP). From February 9, 2011 to October 5, 2012, the petitioners requested information about the status of the case at least six times. The only response received from the DPP Director was that matters were being processed and that they would be contacted as soon as the exercise was completed.

6. A., the petitioners point to a widespread pattern of extrajudicial executions in Jamaica and structural defects in the respective criminal investigations, which results in virtually absolute impunity.6 T. further denounce the use of tactics such as intimidation of witnesses, premature moving of bodies and loss or interference with vital forensic and ballistic evidences after a shooting as some of the causes for the delay and obstruction of investigations and proceedings. T. argue that the failure of the S. to investigate, prosecute and punish these crimes is the result of a judicial system that operates together to shield police from accountability, leading to an injustice. As was illustrated in the prior paragraphs, the petitioners deem that such defects have been present in the instant case from the very beginning, as the Jamaican security forces removed evidence from the crime scene; made false statements about the events surrounding the alleged victim´s death; and unduly delayed the investigation into the events. The petitioners consider that the fact that the matter is still pending in the courts of Jamaica constitutes sufficient evidence that there has been no reasonable progress in this case.

7. For its part, the S. contends that the petition is inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and that the petitioners have not established prima facie violations of that treaty....