Report No. 81 (2007) IACHR. Case No. 12.504 (Guyana)

Report Number81
Case Number12.504
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Respondent StateGuyana
Case TypeMerits
Alleged VictimDaniel Kornel Vaux, Guyana



REPORT Nº 81/07

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

CASE 12.504

DANIEL AND KORNEL VAUX

GUYANA

October 15, 2007

I. SUMMARY

1. On December 08, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission") received a petition from Mrs. Avril Solomon on behalf of her brothers Daniel and Kornel Vaux (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Vaux brothers” or the “alleged victims”). The Vaux brothers are currently incarcerated in Guyana under sentence of death. Mrs. Solomon subsequently submitted a revised petition to the Commission on July 03, 2001.

2. The petition alleges that the Vaux brothers were convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Baiwant Jaikissoon on December 19, 1997, having been previously charged for his murder on July 11, 1993. Their subsequent appeal to the Guyana Court of Appeal (Guyana’s court of last resort) against conviction and sentence was dismissed on December 07, 2000.

3. The Petitioner contends that the Vaux brothers’ right to due process was violated by the failure of the judiciary to exclude confessions that were allegedly made by the Vaux brothers after being beaten by Guyanese police officers.

4. The State has not offered any observations on the admissibility or merits of the petition. The only communication from the State to the Commission relates solely to the status of the Vaux brothers’ case before the Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy in Guyana.

5. After having considered the matter, the Commission has decided to declare admissible the claims presented on behalf of the Vaux brothers. In addition, upon consideration of the merits of the Vaux brothers’ complaint, the Commission reached the conclusion that the State is responsible for violating the rights of the Vaux brothers under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:

a. by the infliction of violence by police officers on Daniel and Kornel Vaux while in their custody contrary to Article XXV and XXVI;

b. by failing to accord a fair trial to the Vaux brothers particularly, in the treatment of the confession evidence by the Guyana courts, which prevented them from fully contesting the voluntariness of the confession evidence tendered by the prosecution contrary to Articles XVIII, XXV and XXVI.

6. The Commission further concluded that execution of the Vaux brothers based upon the criminal proceedings for which they are presently convicted and sentenced would be contrary to Article I of the Declaration.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

7. Following the receipt of Ms. Solomon’s petition on December 08, 2000 and a revised petition on July 03, 2001, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the revised petition to the State on August 02, 2001, with a request that the State supply information with respect to the communication within two months as established in the Article 30 (3) of the Commission's Regulations.

8. By letter of June 09, 2004, the Commission inquired the Petitioner whether the death sentences of the Vaux brothers had been commuted or whether Guyana’s President or Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy had yet considered the issue of commutation. By letter received by the Commission on September 07, the Petitioner advised that the Vaux brothers were still under sentence of death and that she was not aware of whether the issue of commutation had been yet considered by the State. By note of October 07, 2004, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the Petitioner’s observations to the State and requested a reply within a month. By note of June 08, 2005, the Commission reiterated its request to the State.

9. By note of September 01, 2005 the Commission informed the State that it had invoked Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure to open a case and to defer the treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits. Contemporaneously, the Commission advised the Petitioner of this decision, and requested the Petitioner to present additional observations on the merits within a period of two months.

10. By note dated September 19, 2005, the State advised the Commission that “Messrs. Daniel and Kornel Vaux have approached the Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy in Guyana but to date no decision of the Council has yet been communicated to these two persons.” Save for this communication, the State has not offered any observations on the admissibility or merits of the petition. The Commission conveyed this information to the Petitioner by letter of November 09, 2005. To date, the Commission has not received a response from the Petitioner to this communication or to its previous communication requesting additional observations on the merits of the petition.

A. Precautionary Measures

11. Contemporaneously with the transmission of the pertinent parts of the petition in this matter to the State, the Commission requested pursuant to Article 25(1) of its Rules of Procedure that the State take precautionary measures to stay the execution of the alleged victims until such time as the Commission had an opportunity to examine their case. This request was made on the basis that if the State were to execute the Vaux brothers before the Commission had an opportunity to examine their case, any eventual decision would be rendered moot in terms of available remedies and irreparable harm would be caused to them. The Commission did not receive a response from the State to its request for precautionary measures. Based on the communication received from the State on September 19, 2005, it appears that the executions have not been carried out.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the Petitioner

1. Background

12. According to the Petitioner, the Vaux brothers were arrested and charged with the July 1993 murder of Baiwant Jaikissoon and were subsequently sentenced to death after being convicted for the murder on December 19, 1997. They subsequently appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeal of Guyana, and their appeal was dismissed on December 07, 2000. The Vaux brothers were represented by counsel during the trial and appellate proceedings. At that time, Guyana’s Court of Appeal was the State’s court of final resort.

13. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was found strangled to death on July 09, 1993 along a highway in Guyana. The deceased had been last seen in the company of the Vaux brothers. Apart from this circumstantial evidence, the prosecution relied on oral and written confessions made by the Vaux brothers to the police on July 11, 2003, three days after their arrest. The oral statements were allegedly made almost immediately prior to the written confessions.

14. At the trial the Vaux brothers contended that these confessions had been involuntarily given to the police after beatings inflicted (on or about July 11, 2003) by certain police officers. After a voir dire at the trial, the judge ruled that the confessions were voluntary and therefore admissible. Despite an alibi defence, the Vaux brothers were ultimately convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

DANIEL VAUX

15. According to the Petitioner, Daniel Vaux was arrested by the police on July 08, 1993, (page 79 of trial transcript). Daniel Vaux claims that later that evening, he was assaulted by a police officer known as “Meerai” (also spelt “Merai” in various parts of the trial transcript) and two other officers. He claims that he was gun-butted under his ribs and on his belly (page 82). Daniel Vaux states that three days later on July 11, 1993, Meerai and other police officers beat him again, to force him to make an oral statement and a written statement incriminating himself in the murder of Balwant Jaikissoon, the deceased. Daniel Vaux alleges that he suffered injuries as a result of the beatings, but was not taken to see a doctor until July 13, 1993. At pages 4-5 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal of Guyana expressly found that on the day following the making of the oral and written statements, a senior police office (Superintendent Leon Trim) observed that Daniel Vaux was suffering from a swollen and discoloured jaw. A former magistrate (a Mr. Vic Puran) also testified during the trial that when Daniel Vaux first appeared before him at the preliminary inquiry, he saw black and blue marks on Daniel (and Kornel Vaux) between the chest and abdomen.

16. At the trial, Daniel Vaux challenged the voluntariness of his statements, tendering medical evidence of injuries sustained and the evidence of a magistrate who had previously seen bruises on his body. However, the trial judge rejected Daniel’s Vaux’s claim of being abused by the police and ruled that both statements were voluntary and contemporaneous. In respect of the oral statement, the judge held that it was a “spontaneous outburst by the accused” and not an involuntary statement. (Page 132) “I have addressed my mind to the sequence of events which led to the spontaneous outburst by the accused. (Page 135-135) As regards the written statement, the trial judge ruled that:

“I have considered the flow of events immediately proceeding (sic) and I find that it was one continuing event. I have addressed my mind to the allegations of the accused and … I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations are unfounded. Accordingly I reject his story and rule the statement free and voluntary. In the exercise of my residual discretion I do not find any circumstances to exclude the statement on the ground of unfairness.”

KORNEL VAUX

17. The Petitioner alleges that Kornel Vaux was also arrested on July 08, 1993, and like his brother Daniel, alleged that he was detained for three days before the police elicited similar oral and written statements by beating him. The Petitioner claims that Kornel Vaux was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT