Report No. 60 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 353-07 (Guyana)

• Year: 2015
• Petition Number: 353-07
• Report Number: 60
• Respondent State: Guyana
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: KPP et al

REPORT No. 60/15

PETITION 353-07

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

KPP ET AL

GUYANA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156

Doc. 12

17 O. 2015

Original: English

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2046 held on O. 17, 2015
156 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 60/15, Petition 353-07. A.. KPP et al. Guyana. O. 17, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT 60/15

PETITION 353-07

ADMISSIBILITY

KPP ET AL

GUYANA

OCTOBER 17, 2015

1. SUMMARY

1. On M. 23, 2007 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Guyana (hereinafter "the S.") for alleged irregularities committed by different authorities in the custody and adoption proceedings that took place concerning child A between 2003 and 2011; the alleged arbitrary placement of the child A in an adoptive family outside her extended biological family, and the alleged failure to protect the child from abuses and ill treatment from the adoptive family.¹

2. The petitioner, who has requested that her identity be kept confidential, alleges that the S. is responsible for violating human rights recognized in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”), the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in relation to child A, the child’s biological parents, KPP and AW, and the child’s cousin, RB, and her husband, OU. The S. argues that the conduct of state authorities was oriented to protect the best interests of the child and that the matter should therefore be closed and the child should be allowed to live with her adoptive parents without interference.

3. Without prejudging the merits of the complaint, after examining the position of the petitioners, and pursuant to the requirements set forth in Articles 31 to 34 of its Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “IACHR Rules”), the Commission decides to declare the petition admissible with regards to the claims concerning: i) Articles I (right to personal security), V (right to protection of family life), VI (right to family and protection thereof), VII (right to protection for children), and XVIII (right to a fair trial) of the American Declaration with respect to child A; ii) Articles V (right to protection of family life), VI (right to family and protection thereof), and XVIII (right to a fair trial) of the American Declaration with respect to KPP and AW; and iii) Article XVIII (right to a fair trial) of the American Declaration with respect to RB and OU. The IACHR also decides to declare the petition inadmissible with respect to Articles II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), VIII (right to residence and movement) and XIX (right to nationality) of the American Declaration. In addition, the IACHR decides to publish this report and to include it in its annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S..

2. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Petition

4. The present petition was received by the Commission on M. 23, 2007. Additional information concerning this petition was received by the IACHR on M. 28, May 9, and N. 23, 2007. On J. 8, 2008, in accordance with the IACHR Rules, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition and additional information to the S. and requested its observations on the matter. This request was reiterated on May 30, 2008 and May 18, 2012. The S. responded to the Commission’s request on September 6, 2012, and its observations were transmitted to the petitioner by letter dated February 28, 2013. The petitioner submitted observations to S.’s response on A. 5, 2013. These observations were transmitted to the S. of Guyana on May 14, 2013.

Precautionary Measures

5. A request for precautionary measures was also registered in connection with this petition since the petitioner initially mentioned the existence of a “serious situation [that could] cause irreparable harm to [the child]” and requested “urgent attention and assistance” from the IACHR on this matter. On February 12, 2008, the IACHR granted precautionary measures on behalf of child A. Since then, both parties have provided the IACHR with updated information on this matter on several occasions.² The IACHR notes that, in its analysis of this petition, it will take into consideration information provided by both parties during the precautionary measures procedure.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the petitioners

6. The petitioner submits that RB and OU, who reside in Canada, tried to adopt child A, at the time a seven-year-old girl who is RB’s cousin and was living in an orphanage in Guyana, but were impeded from doing so by the G. S. in a process that would have violated their rights, as well as the rights of child A and other relatives.

7. The petitioner explains that, at an early age, child A was placed in the care of her great‑grandmother because her biological mother, KPP, following a separation from the father, was unable to support the girl on her own. The petitioner claims that the child’s mother made efforts to maintain contact with the girl even while the child was in the care of her great‑grandmother. H., once the great‑grandmother became ill and unable to take care of the child, the former brought the child to St. Ann’s Orphanage in Georgetown, Guyana, sometime in 2002, without informing the mother. Once KPP became aware of this situation she attempted to take her daughter out of the orphanage but was not allowed to do so by the Adoption Board and St. A.O..

8. The petitioner indicates that, in J. of 2003, through an authorized agency in Canada, an adoption procedure was initiated by RB and OU after they had been informed of the child’s situation by the child’s paternal aunt and after they had obtained the parents’ consent to adopt their daughter. Prior to filing this application, they had also contacted the Adoption Board and St. Ann’s Orphanage to express their interest in adopting child A and to inquire about her availability for adoption; having been informed that she was indeed available for adoption.

9. The petitioner submits that, in September of 2003, RB was informed by the Adoption Board that it had received another application to adopt child A, and that it had arranged a meeting to discuss this matter with the Chief Probation of Family and Social Welfare Officer, the Adoption Board, the biological parents, and the two applicants. The petitioner explains that RB and OU flew to Guyana for this meeting and that, at the meeting, the second applicant, MS, who was not related to the child, was told that the biological parents would only consent to RB and OU adopting their daughter, and was thus ordered to stop efforts to establish a relationship with the child. The petitioner claims that, by mid-O. of 2003, the Adoption Board had approved the application filed by RB and OU and had given them permission to approach the High Court of Guyana to legalize the adoption.

10. The petitioner explains that, while RB and OU were in Guyana throughout the month of O. 2003, S.B.F. (hereinafter “S.F.”), the person in charge of the orphanage, frequently, although somewhat reluctantly, allowed them to take the child out of the orphanage to spend time with them and they quickly bonded with the girl, who was very excited about the adoption. H., after RB and OU returned to Canada, Sister Fernandes would not allow them to have any contact with the child over the phone and refused to read to or give the girl letters that were sent by RB. S., the petitioner alleges that Sister Fernandes also prevented other members of the family from contacting child A and from bringing her toys, clothes and other essential items, even on special occasions. H., at the same time, Sister Fernandes allegedly encouraged and allowed the second adoptive applicant, MS, to visit the child and to take her out of the orphanage for short periods of time because S.F. favored MS and wanted her to adopt the girl.

11. The petitioner reports that, on N. 13, 2003, RB and OU filed their application to the High Court to legalize the adoption. The petitioner asserts that, in early December of 2003, C.J.C.S. (hereinafter “Justice Singh”) granted an order in favor of RB and OU to adopt child A and appointed the Adoption Board...