Report No. 53 (2013) IACHR. Case No. 12.864 (Estados Unidos de America)

• Year: 2013
• Case Number: 12.864
• Report Number: 53
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Iván Teleguz
• Respondent State: United States

2

REPORT No. 53/13

CASE 12.864

MERITS

(PUBLICATION)

IVAN TELEGUZ

UNITED STATES ^

July 15, 2013

I. SUMMARY 1

II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 16/12 2

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 2

A. Position of the petitioners 2

1. Residual doubt as to guilt 3

2. Right to consular notification 3

3. Right to effective counsel 4

4. Prosecutorial misconduct 6

5. Right to Appeal and Procedural Bars 7

6. Method of execution 8

7. Unfair clemency review in Virginia 10

8. Death penalty in Virginia 10

B. Position of the State 11

IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS 11

A. Relevant legal framework 11

B. Relevant domestic case law 13

C. State and federal proceedings 14

V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 16

A. Preliminary matters 16

B. Right to a fair trial and right to due process of law (Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration) 18

1. Right to consular notification and assistance 18

2. Ineffective assistance of court-appointed counsel 19

3. Prosecutorial misconduct 22

4. Right to appeal and procedural bars 22

5. Clemency process in Virginia 25

C. Right to humane treatment during custody and not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment (Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration) 26

D. Right to life (Article I of the American Declaration) 27

VI. ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT Nº 74/12 29

VII. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30

VIII. PUBLICATION 31

REPORT No. 53/13

CASE 12.864

MERITS

(PUBLICATION)

IVAN TELEGUZ

UNITED STATES ^

July 15, 2013

I. SUMMARY

1. On November 2, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition and request for precautionary measures filed by Elizabeth Peiffer and Reprieve (“the petitioners”) against the United States of America (“the State” or “the United States”). The petition was lodged on behalf of Ivan Teleguz (“the alleged victim” or “Mr. Teleguz”) who is deprived of his liberty on death row in the state of Virginia.

2. The petitioners contend that Mr. Teleguz’s execution will result in an arbitrary deprivation of life. They contend, inter alia, that state officials failed to inform him of his right to consular notification; that he was denied the right to competent and effective counsel; and that prosecutors withheld crucial evidence and presented false testimony. They further claim that the appeals system does not satisfy international standards of fairness and due process; that lethal injection, as currently practiced in Virginia, will expose Mr. Teleguz to an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of a torturous death; and that the clemency system in Virginia does not meet the minimal requirements of fairness. The petitioners hold that those facts constitute violations of Articles I, XVIII, XXIV, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (“the American Declaration”). As of the date of approval of this report, the State has not submitted its observations.

3. On March 20, 2012, during its 144th regular sessions, the IACHR examined the contentions of the petitioners on the question of admissibility, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, decided to admit the claims in the present petition pertaining to Articles I, XVIII, XXIV, XXV (regarding the allegations of inhumane treatment related to the method of execution) and XXVI of the American Declaration; and to continue with the analysis of the merits of the case. It also resolved to publish Admissibility Report N° 16/12 and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. The matter was recorded as Case No. 12.864.

4. In the instant report, after analyzing the position of the petitioners, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the United States is responsible for violating Articles I (Right to life, liberty and personal security), XVIII (Right to a fair trial), XXIV (Right of petition), XXV (Right of protection from arbitrary arrest) and XXVI (Right to due process of law) of the American Declaration with respect to Ivan Teleguz. Consequently, should the State carry out the execution of Mr. Teleguz, it would also be committing a serious and irreparable violation of the basic right to life recognized by Article I of the American Declaration.

II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT No. 16/12

5. On April 2, 2012, the IACHR forwarded Admissibility Report No. 16/12 to the State and to the petitioners. In accordance with its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission set a deadline of three months for the petitioners to submit additional observations on the merits and, at the same time, made itself available to the parties with a view to initiating a possible friendly settlement of the matter.

6. On May 11, 2012, the petitioners submitted additional observations on the merits. On May 14, 2012, the IACHR forwarded the relevant parts to the State, and set a time period until June 29, 2012 to submit its observations, pursuant to Article 37(3) of the Rules of Procedure. No response was received from the State within the stipulated period.

Precautionary Measures

7. On December 22, 2011, the IACHR notified the State that precautionary measures had been granted on behalf of the alleged victim, and requested a stay of execution until such time as it should pronounce on the merits of the petition.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioners

8. The petitioners indicate that Mr. Teleguz was convicted and sentenced to death in 2006 on false and unreliable testimony according to which he solicited and paid for the murder of his former girlfriend Stephanie Sipe. According to the petitioners, the prosecution alleged that in 2001 Mr. Teleguz had hired Michael Hetrick and Edwin Gilkes to kill Ms. Sipe in order to avoid paying child support.

9. They claim that this case relied primarily on the testimony of Mr. Hetrick and Mr. Gilkes, the two people directly implicated in the murder, and on the testimony of Aleksey Safanov who claimed that Mr. Teleguz previously attempted to hire him to kill Ms. Sipe. The petitioners submit that the only evidence was testimony obtained by the prosecution in exchange for witness deals to avoid serious punishment and that two of the three witnesses against Mr. Teleguz have subsequently admitted that the crucial portions of their testimony were false.

10. The petitioners argue that Mr. Teleguz was not given strict and rigorous fair trial guarantees and that his execution will result in an arbitrary deprivation of life. In this respect, they claim that there is strong evidence of the alleged victim’s innocence; that state officials failed to inform him of his right to consular notification in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; that Mr. Teleguz was given incompetent counsel; that prosecutors withheld crucial evidence and presented false testimony; that the appeals system does not satisfy international standards of fairness and due process; that Mr. Teleguz is to be executed using an untested method which exposes him to an unacceptable and unnecessary risk of a torturous death; that the clemency system in Virginia does not meet the minimal requirements of fairness; and that the application of the death penalty in Virginia is arbitrary and notoriously inconsistent.

11. Finally, the petitioners point out that Mr. Teleguz is likely to be executed around September 2012. According to an affidavit submitted by Elizabeth Peiffer, co-petitioner and attorney appointed to represent Mr. Teleguz at post-conviction proceedings, his case is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and a final decision is expected from the Court sometime in July 2012. If the decision is adverse to Mr. Teleguz, it would mean, according to the petitioners, that the State of Virginia would schedule to execute him sometime around September 2012.

1. Residual doubt as to guilt

12. The petitioners submit that there is no evidence physically linking Mr. Teleguz to the crime, and that he was convicted largely on testimony that has now been retracted, discredited, or that could have been easily discredited by competent counsel at his initial trial. They submit, as evidence of Mr. Teleguz’ innocence, two affidavits of Mr. Gilkes in which he admits that he lied when he accused the alleged victim of paying him to kill Ms. Sipe.

13. The petitioners state that a more thorough investigation conducted post-conviction revealed a great deal of information that indicated that Mr....