Report No. 5 (2008) IACHR. Petition No. 1066-04 (Surinam)

• Report Number: 5
• Petition Number: 1066-04
• Year: 2008
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Respondent State: Surinam
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Swami Yogdev Roberts

REPORT Nº 5/08 PETITION 1066-04 INADMISSIBILITY SWAMI YOGDEV ROBERTS SURINAME M. 4, 2008 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 22, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human R.s (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition, known as Petition 1066-04, against the S. of Suriname by S.Y.R. (hereinafter “the petitioner”), a D. national residing in Suriname. 2. According to the petitioner, on M. 18, 2000, he won a court judgment against Mr. R.sing Ramthalhalsing and his company, NV R. (hereinafter, collectively “R.”). The lawsuit arose from R.’s alleged failure to repay loans borrowed from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that he has been unable to collect this judgment because an arson fire at the courthouse destroyed the records of the judgment. The petitioner claims that since the records were destroyed, he has been unable to either enforce the judgment or initiate new proceedings. The petitioner further claims that the S. is responsible for the facts that gave rise to his lawsuit, alleging that prominent political figures protected R. and that the S. failed to take action against R., to the detriment of the petitioner and other parties that had made loans to R.. 3. The allegations can be categorized into four distinct claims: 1) that the S. did not take actions to protect investors from becoming involved in a pyramid scheme; 2) that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the verdict issued in M. 2000; 3) claims related to the alleged loss of his court file in a fire; and 4) that the S. violated his rights in its response to the petition. B. upon the foregoing, the petitioner alleges violations of the American Convention on Human R.s (hereinafter “Convention”) Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect R.s); 2 (Domestic Legal Effects); 8(1) (R. to a Fair Trial); 23 (R. to Participate in Government); 24 (R. to Equal Protection); and 25 (R. to Judicial Protection). 4. T.S. denies the alleged violations and requests that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible based upon three grounds: 1) that the petition seeks fourth instance review of a decision adopted by Surinamese courts; 2) that the petition does not establish violations of the American Convention; and 3) failure to exhaust domestic remedies pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Convention, contending that no exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46(2) applies. 5. As set forth in this Report, having examined the positions of the S. and the petitioner on the question of admissibility, the Commission concludes that the petition is inadmissible due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 46(1) of the Convention. A., the IACHR decides to rule Petition 1066-04 inadmissible pursuant to Article 47 of the American Convention, to so notify the parties, and to include this report in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 6. On November 22, 2004, the Commission received Petition 1066-04 along with supporting documents. On April 13, 2005, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner regarding whether he had pursued domestic remedies. On April 16, 2005, and J. 23, 2005, the Commission received further communications from the petitioner to which the Commission responded by note of October 11, 2005. 7. On November 3, 2005, November 21, 2005, and November 28, 2005, the Commission received additional information sent by the petitioner in response to the Commission’s letter of October 11, 2005. On January 17, 2006, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner. The Commission received the petitioner’s reply on April 7, 2006. The Commission received additional information from the petitioner on May 17, 2006. 8. On J. 20, 2006, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the S., requesting that the S. reply within two months. 9. On November 8, 2006, the Commission received a communication from the S. requesting an extension of three months to reply to the Commission’s communication of J. 20, 2006. On December 18, 2006, pursuant to Article 30(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission denied the S.’s request. 10. On November 30, 2006, the Commission received further correspondence from the petitioner. The petitioner reiterated this communication via a note received by the Commission on M. 23, 2007. 11. On January 3, 2007, the Commission received the S.’s response to the petition. The Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the S.’s response to the petitioner on May 9, 2007 and requested that he submit his observations within one month. 12. On May 24, 2007, the Commission received an acknowledgement from the petitioner of its letter of May 9, 2007. The petitioner later submitted his observations on the S.’s submission by letter of J. 18, 2007. 13. On September 3, 27 and 28, 2007 the Commission received additional observations from the petitioner. The Commission received further communications from the petitioner on November 14, 2007. On December 5, 2007, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petitioner’s observations to the S., with a request for a response within one month. 14. On December 17, 2007, the S. requested information from the Commission, which the Commission transmitted to the S. by letters of December 20, 2007 and January 18, 2008. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioner 15. The petitioner alleges that in 1996, he made four separate loans to R.. The petitioner states that “many hundreds of investors” had also made loans to R.. According to the petitioner, R. stopped making payments on the loans in April 1997. 16. The petitioner alleges that the S. allowed the purported pyramid scheme to continue and did nothing to protect investors in the scheme. He alleges that R. was protected by political figures in exchange for money and favors and, in particular, that the former military leader of S.D.B. and former rebel leader R.B. had made loans to R.. M., the petitioner alleges that the then-President of S.J.W. received financial support from R.. The petitioner alleges that the Government failed to warn him of R.’s activities and the actions of the former President and others made it “almost impossible” for the judiciary to take action against R.. For the purpose of this report, these allegations will be collectively referred to as “claim 1.” 17. According to the petitioner, on J. 15, 1999, he presented a lawsuit against R. in the form of a “summary procedure,” which was apparently dismissed by J.J.v.N.. S., the petitioner states that on J. 2, 1999, he lodged a second summary procedure, which ended with an oral verdict given by J.J.v.N. on M. 16 or 18, 2000. The petitioner states that this verdict was in his favor, but also alleges that it violated his rights by purportedly reducing the interest rate on the money owed to him from 120% to 16%. This allegation will be referred to as “claim 2.” 18. The petitioner indicates that sometime after the M. 2000 verdict, a fire destroyed a court building, including the records of the petitioner’s lawsuit. The petitioner states that the entire file related to his case is missing. The petitioner states that on August 24, 2004, he brought a file with details about the case to the courthouse. The petitioner mentions that he has written letters to various court officials and to the President of Suriname about his case, with no result. 19. The petitioner alleges that the S. violated his rights by its alleged failure to store “all court documents in safe and fire free places.” This allegation along with other allegations related to the loss of his file will be referred to as “claim 3.” 20. With respect to attempts made to obtain a copy of the judgment in his case and domestic remedies sought, the petitioner indicates that on October 1, 2002, and October 29, 2004, he sent letters to the Court of Justice requesting that the Court provide him with the “findings of the summary proceedings” against R.. The petitioner indicates that on October 18, 2005, he sent a letter to the J.J.v.N., then President of the Court of Justice, regarding his case. A., he states that he sent letters on October 18 and 24, 2005, to the Minister of Justice and Police regarding his case. The petitioner claims that he received no response to his letters. 21. The petitioner claims that, although J.J. von Niesewand of the Court of Justice handed down the verdict of M. 2000, J.v.N. has refused to provide a written copy of the verdict. The petitioner stated in his communication of M. 17, 2006, that J. von Niesewand told him via a letter that, in the petitioner’s words, stated: “the (low) [sic] court is the appointed authority to give verdicts to the parties. I advise you to seriously consider to act according to the law and ask the court clark [sic] by means of a written request to give you the verdict ” 22. M., the petitioner alleges that, to his knowledge, there are no judicial remedies available to him in Suriname to obtain relief regarding claim three. He states that he has written letters to the “low court” and to the “high court” (the petitioner uses the latter term to refer to the Court of Justice) asking the courts to consider his case, but did not provide copies of these letters in an official language of the OAS. The petitioner alleges that his case against R. has not been heard within a reasonable time. 23. On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to claim three, the petitioner states: “Beside the ordinary court procedures there are no other domestic remedies available in sense [sic] of court procedures ” 24. The petitioner contends that, because the S. did not file a...