Report No. 69 (2007) IACHR. Petition No. 1145-03 (Surinam)

• Year: 2007
• Petition Number: 1145-03
• Report Number: 69
• Respondent State: Surinam
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Stanley Johan Wilfried Brug

REPORT Nº 69/07 PETITION 1145-03 INADMISSIBILITY STANLEY JOHAN WILFRIED BRUG SURINAME J. 27, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition, from Mr. Stanley Johan Wilfried Brug (hereinafter “the P.” or “M.B.” or “Brug”), a national of the Republic of Suriname (“Suriname” or “the S.”). 2. The P.’s claim arises out of a judgment debt that he has been unable to enforce against the estate of a deceased defendant in the Suriname courts. The petitioner claims he has been unable to enforce this judgment debt against to judicial interference and/or a failure of due process in the Suriname justice system. In this regard, the P. alleges that in or about 2003, after more than 15 years of litigation, J.V. of the First Cantonal Court of Suriname ordered the seizure and sale of property purportedly belonging to the deceased defendant to satisfy the judgment debt owed to the P.. The P. claims that he subsequently attempted to enforce the judgment by seizure and sale of property belonging to the defendants. H., he claims that on October 28, 2003, on the application of the heirs of the deceased defendant, another judge of the court, J.O., purported to rescind the previous order of J.V. and that there is no available or effective mechanism to challenge J.O.’s order. 3. The P. has not cited particular provision of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention” or “the Convention”), but complains that the S. violated his right to: ● fair trial by an independent and unbiased tribunal ● humane treatment ● full compensation in case of a final judgment based on miscarriage of justice ● privacy ● freedom of speech ● freedom of movement ● equality before the law and effective judicial protection 4. The S. denies the P.’s claims, contending that the P.’s petition is inadmissible, inter alia, for failure to characterize any colorable violations, and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 5. In J. 2006, the parties accepted the Commission’s friendly settlement offer; however the Commission terminated its involvement in M. 2007 when it determined that the matter was not susceptible of resolution by this means. 6. As set forth in this Report, having examined the contentions of the P. and the S. on the question of admissibility, the Commission considers the petition to be inadmissible under articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The Commission also decides to publish the present report in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly and to notify both parties. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 7. On December 29, 2003, the Commission received a petition from the P. dated December 22, 2003, which it acknowledged by letter of J. 16, 2004. 8. By correspondence of M. 01, 2004 and A. 22, 2004, the P. submitted further information to the Commission. 9. By letter of J. 28, 2004, the Commission requested further information of the P., and followed this up with a letter to the P. of J. 15, 2004. The P. replied by letter of J. 22, 2004. The Commission acknowledged the P.’s reply by communication of August 04, 2004. 10. By letter of August 20, 2004, the P. submitted further information to the Commission, which was acknowledged by the Commission on August 24, 2004. By communication of August 31, 2004, the P. submitted further information to the Commission. By letter of September 16, 2004, the Commission acknowledged receipt of this communication and requested further information of the P.. The P. submitted further information by communication of October 12, 2004, which was acknowledged by the Commission on October 21, 2004. The P. submitted further information on December 07, 2004, which was acknowledged by the Commission on December 07, 2004. The P. submitted further information to the Commission by letters of December 14, 2004, J. 03, 2005 and J. 07, 2005. 11. By communication of J. 11, 2005, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the P.’s complaint to the S. of Suriname, requesting a response within two months. By letter of the same date, the Commission informed the P. of this step. 12. By note of February 24, 2005, the S. requested an extension of three months to respond. By communication to the S. of February 25, 2005, the Commission granted an extension of six weeks, and so informed the P. by letter of the same date. In response to this letter, the P. submitted further observations by letter of M. 02, 2005. The Commission acknowledged the P.’s letter by communication of M. 03, 2005. 13. On A. 11, 2005, the Commission received the S.’s response to the P.’s complaint, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the P. by letter of A. 12, 2005. By note of the same date, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the S.’s response. 14. By letter of A. 13, 2005, the P. submitted further observations to the Commission and by letter of A. 18, 2005; t.P. requested an extension of time to respond to the S.’s observations. By letter of May 09, 2005, the Commission granted the P. an extension of 30 days. On May 17, 2005, the Commission received the P.’s observations on the S.’s reply, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the S. by communication of May 25, 2005. By communications received on J. 11, 2005 and J. 14, 2005, the P. submitted further information to the Commission. 15. By note of J. 15, 2005, the S. requested an extension to J. 22, 2005 to submit its observations on the P.’s submission of A. 13, 2005. The Commission granted the requested extension by letter of J. 18, 2005, and so informed the P. by letter of the same date. 16. By note of J. 22, 2005, the S. transmitted its observations on the P.’s submission of A. 13, 2005. By letters of J. 28, 2005 and August 03, 2005, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the S.’s observations to the P., requesting a response within a month. By letter of J. 03, 2006, the P. submitted additional information to the Commission. 17. By correspondence to both parties of J. 05, 2006, the Commission informed both parties that it had decided to make itself available to them with a view to reaching friendly settlement, pursuant to Article 48(1) (f) of the American Convention on Human Rights. By letter of J. 10, 2006, the P. accepted the Commission’s offer and also submitted additional information. By letter of J. 27, 2006, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the P.’s additional information and by note of the same date, transmitted the pertinent parts thereof to the S.. 18. By communication received by the Commission on February 02, 2006, the S. accepted the Commission’s friendly settlement offer and submitted further observations. By letter of M. 02, 2006, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of this communication to the P.. 19. By note of February 23, 2006, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commission’s note of J. 27, 2006 and requested an extension of three months to reply. By communication of M. 06, 2006, the Commission granted an extension to M. 27, 2006 for the S. to submit its observations. 20. By letter dated M. 15, 2006, the P. submitted further observations, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the S. by note of M. 22, 2006. 21. By note of M. 22, 2006, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commission’s communication of M. 06, 2006 and requested a further two weeks to submit the requested observations. By note of M. 28, 2006 the Commission granted an extension to A. 05, 2006. By note of M. 28, 2006, the S. submitted observations on the P.’s submissions of J. 10, 2006, and by communication of A. 07, 2006, submitted its observations on the P.’s submissions of M. 15, 2006. On May 02, 2006, the Commission acknowledged receipt of additional submissions from the P. of M. 30, 2006 and A. 07, 2006, and by note of the same date, transmitted the pertinent parts thereof to the S.. 22. By communications of A. 25, 2006 and May 13, 2006, the P. submitted additional information to the Commission. By note of J. 01, 2006, the S. responded to the Commission’s note of May 02, 2005, indicating that it had met with M.B. on May 17, 2006 to facilitate friendly settlement discussions. T.S. requested an extension of three months to respond to the petitioner’s submissions of M. 30, 2006 and A. 07, 2006. By note of J. 12, 2006, the Commission granted an extension of two months. By letters of the same date, the Commission also acknowledged receipt of the P.’s communications of A. 25, 2006 and May 13, 2006 and transmitted the pertinent parts of the S.’s response of J. 01, 2006. 23. By letter of J. 25, 2006, the P. responded to the Commission’s communication of J. 12, 2006. By communications of J. 10, 2006, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the P.’s response and transmitted the pertinent parts thereof to the S.. By letter of August 02, 2006, the Commission confirmed an earlier telephone communication from the P. to the effect that the P. had met with S. officials on May 17, 2006 and that further meetings might be pending. 24. By note of August 10, 2006, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commissions communication of J. 10, 2006 and requested an extension of two weeks to respond. By note of August 15, 2006, the Commission granted the requested extension. T.S. subsequently submitted its observations by note of August 24, 2006, the pertinent parts of which were transmitted to the P. by letter of August 31, 2006. By communication of August 30, 2006, the P. submitted further information to the Commission, and by letters of September 27, 2006 and October 06, 2006, responded to the S.s submission of August 24, 2006. By note of October 10, 2006, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the P.s latest...