Report No. 78 (2007) IACHR. Case No. 12.265 (Bahamas)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Number: 12.265
• Year: 2007
• Report Number: 78
• Respondent State: Bahamas
• Case Type: Merits
• Alleged Victim: Chad Roger Goodman, Bahamas

REPORT Nº 78/07 CASE 12.265 MERITS (PUBLICATION) CHAD ROGER GOODMAN COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS October 15, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. T. report concerns a petition, which was presented on August 7, 1998, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") by Burton Copeland, Solicitors from London, United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners"), on behalf of C.R.G.. T.P.s allege that the Commonwealth of The B. ("The B." or the "S.") violated the human rights of Mr. G. as established by Articles I, II, XXV, XVIII and XXVI of the American D. of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter referred to as "the American D."). 2. The Petitioners state that M.G., a national of The B., was charged on May 6, 1993, for the offence of murder. T.P.s indicate that M.G.'s first trial for murder began on May 20, 1996. T.P.s claim that the trial was aborted on May 28, 1996, when the T.J. discharged the jury as a result of the contents of television and radio news broadcasts, which made reference to Mr. G.'s trial. T.P.s claim that M.G.'s re-trial was adjourned on October 21, 1996, at the request of his legal representatives. Mr. G.'s second trial commenced on November 4, 1996. T.P.s state that on November 20, 1996, M.G. was convicted of murder, kidnapping and armed robbery by the S. and sentenced to a mandatory death sentence for the murder, concurrent terms of 10 years imprisonment for kidnapping, and 15 years imprisonment for armed robbery. 3. To date the S. has not presented any information to the Commission concerning the admissibility and merits of the Petition, nor has the S. responded to the Commission’s offer of a friendly settlement. 4. The Commission, on the basis of the information presented, and the due analysis under the American D., declares that the petition is admissible pursuant to its Rules of Procedure and finds that: 1. The S. is responsible for violating Articles I, XXV and XXVI of the American D. by sentencing M.G. to a mandatory death penalty. 2. The S. is not responsible for violating M.G.'s right to an impartial hearing as established by Article XXVI of the American D.. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. Mr. G.'s petition was presented to the Commission on August 7, 1998, and included in the petition was a request for precautionary measures pursuant to Article 29 of the Commission's former Regulations. On April 6, 2000, the Commission opened C. No. 12.265 and forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the S. pursuant to Article 34 of its former Regulations and requested that the S., within 90 days, provide the Commission with its observations, if any, with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the claims raised in the petition. The Commission also issued precautionary measures requesting that the S. stay M.G.'s execution pending the Commission's investigation of the alleged facts. 6. On February 29, 2000, the Petitioners contacted the Commission requesting urgent attention to the matter, due to M.G.'s risk of execution. On April 5, 2000, the Petitioners presented the Commission with the supporting documentation to the petition, and informed the Commission that no execution warrant had been issued since the dismissal of Mr. G.'s appeal by the P.C.. On J. 18 and September 15, 2000, the Commission reiterated its request for information from the S. pertaining to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the merits of the C. and requested a response within 30 days. The Commission again forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the S.. 7. On September 20, 2000, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commission's letter of September 15, 2000. On August 20, 2001, the Commission wrote to both the S. and the Petitioners and informed them that it places itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the case pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and requested a response within 7 days of receipt of its communication. 8. On May 28, 2002, the Commission informed both parties that, pursuant to Article 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure, it had decided to defer the treatment of admissibility of the case until a decision on the merits of the case. The Commission also requested, pursuant to Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, that the Petitioners submit their additional information within a period of two months from the date of its letter. On J. 11, 2002, the Petitioners requested a two-month extension in order to obtain additional information from Mr. G.. By letter dated J. 19, 2002, the Commission granted the Petitioners a one-month extension. On August 21, 2002, the Petitioners again requested a one-month extension to submit additional information. On August 23, 2002, the Commission granted the additional one month extension. 9. On December 26, 2002, the Commission wrote to the S. and, pursuant to Article 38(1), requested that the S. submit its observations on the case. On J. 23, 2003, the S. acknowledged receipt of the Commission's letter of December 26, 2002. On February 6, 2003, the Petitioners wrote to the Commission and stated that they were not yet in a position to present further submissions to the Commission. On February 13, 2003, the Commission received additional information from the Petitioners, which was forwarded to the S. on February 13, 2003. On October 6, 2003, the Petitioners presented further submissions on the merits of the case to the Commission. On October 8, 2003, the Commission wrote to the S., forwarding the additional information from the Petitioners, and requested, within a period of one month, any observations on the case from the S.. In a note dated J.3., 2004, the Commission wrote to the S. reiterating its request for observations, if any, on the case. To date the S. has not presented any arguments on the admissibility and/or merits of the petition, nor has it indicated its willingness to accept the Commission's offer to facilitate a friendly settlement. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ON ADMISSIBILITY A. POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS 1. Background 10. The Petitioners claim that M.G. was interviewed in connection with the offenses of armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder on J. 12, 1993, in relation to a murder which occurred some time between J. 6 and 9, 1992. T.P.s indicate that an identification parade was held on May 5, 1993, at which Mr. G. was identified, and he was charged on May 6, 1993 for the murder. T.P.s maintain that M.G. was committed for trial on September 25 or 26, 1993, and he was arraigned on J. 17 or 20, 1995. 11. The Petitioners indicate that M.G.'s first trial for murder commenced on May 20, 1996. T.P.s claim that the trial was aborted on May 28, 1996, when the T.J. discharged the jury as a result of the contents of television broadcasts of May 24, 1996, and radio news broadcasts of May 25, 1996, referring to Mr. G.'s trial. The Trial Judge stated in discharging the jury that "the broadcasts irremediably prejudiced the accused in this case so that a fair trial before the present jury can no longer be had." 12. The Petitioners claim that M.G.'s re-trial was adjourned on October 21, 1996, at the request of his legal representatives. Mr. G.'s second trial commenced on November 4, 1996. T.P.s maintain that on November 20, 1996. Mr. G. was convicted of murder, kidnapping and armed robbery by the S. and sentenced to a mandatory death sentence for the murder, concurrent terms of 10 years' imprisonment for kidnapping, and 15 years' imprisonment for armed robbery. 2. Admissibility 13. The Petitioners argue that M.G.’s petition is admissible because he has exhausted the domestic remedies of The B.. T.P.s claim that M.G. appealed his conviction and sentence and it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of The B. on J. 25, 1997. A warrant of execution was read to him for his execution on J. 13, 1998. According to the Petitioners, M.G.'s execution was stayed following notification to the relevant authorities that he wished to petition the P.C. for special leave to appeal. T.P.s claim that M.G.'s petition to the P.C. was dismissed on J. 15, 1998. B. STATE'S POSITION ON ADMISSIBILITY 14. The S. has not addressed or presented arguments on the admissibility of the petition. IV. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission 15. The Petitioners have alleged violations of Articles I, II, XXV and XXVI of the D.. Article 23 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides that: any person or group of persons, or non-governmental entity legally recognized in one or more Member S.s of the OAS, may submit petitions to the Commission, on their own behalf or on behalf of third persons, concerning alleged violations of a human right recognized in, as the case may be, the American D. of the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Additional Protocol in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Inter-American Convention on the forced Disappearance of Persons, and/or the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, in accordance with their respective provisions, the S. of the Commission, and these Rules of Procedure. T.P. may designate an attorney or other person to represent him before the Commission, either in the petition itself or in another writing. 16. The petition in this case was lodged by the Petitioners on behalf of Mr. G. who is a national of the S. of The B.. 17. The D. became the source of legal norms for application by the Commissions upon The B. becoming a member S. of the Organization of American S.s in 1982. T.B. is...