Report No. 83 (2011) IACHR. Petition No. 12.145 (Trinidad y Tobago)

Petition Number12.145
Report Number83
Year2011
Respondent StateTrinidad & Tobago
Case TypeAdmissibility
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Alleged VictimKevin Dial y Andrew Dottin
Report No. 83/11

10


REPORT No. 83/11

PETITION 12.145

ADMISSIBILITY

KEVIN DIAL and ANDREW DOTTIN

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

July 21, 2011



I. SUMMARY


  1. On April 29, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received two petitions along with requests for precautionary measures from Herbert-Smith LLP1 (“the petitioners”) against the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (“Trinidad & Tobago” or the “the State”). The petitions were presented on behalf of Kevin Dial and Andrew Dottin (“the alleged victims”), two Trinidadian nationals who at that time were inmates on death row in that country’s State Prison.2


  1. The petitioners indicated that the alleged victims were tried and convicted as co-defendants for the murder of Junior Baptiste and sentenced to death on January 21, 1997 by the High Court of Justice of Trinidad & Tobago, pursuant to the country’s mandatory death penalty. The petitioners subsequently informed the IACHR that, pursuant to constitutional proceedings in the High Court of Trinidad & Tobago, the alleged victims’ death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment on August 15, 2008. The petitioners underscore that the late commutation of the death sentences does not alter the substance of the alleged due process violations during the alleged victims’ pre-trial detention and trial, nor does it resolve the alleged violations for the period the alleged victims were on death row. In that regard, the petitioners mainly complain of three related issues: violations of due process in the course of their arrest, pre-trial detention, trial, conviction and sentencing; conditions of post and pre-trial detention; and the delay in commutation of the alleged victims’ death sentences despite jurisprudence from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“the JCPC”) requiring such action.


  1. The petitioners note that Trinidad & Tobago’s denunciation of the American Convention on Human Rights (“the American Convention”) took effect on May 26, 1999. Therefore, they maintain that the State is responsible for violations of the American Convention with respect to those facts which took place before that date; as well as for violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men (“the American Declaration”) that allegedly occurred after that date: Article I of the American Declaration and Article 4 of the American Convention; Article II of the American Declaration and Article 24 of the American Convention; Article XXV of the American Declaration and Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention; Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration and Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention; and Articles 10 and 11 of the American Convention. With regard to Mr. Dial, the petition also alleges a violation of Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention.


  1. The State argues that the petition is inadmissible because the petitioners failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Moreover, the State denies all allegations related to the merits, principally because it considers that the petitioners failed to produce substantive evidence of violations of the American Convention. More specifically, the State contends that the existence of the mandatory sentence of death for murder is in accordance with international law; the United Nations Human Rights Committee (“the HRC”) found no breach to the right to humane treatment arising from prison conditions in Trinidad & Tobago; the IACHR has no competence to challenge the sentences imposed by the State in accordance with its domestic law; and the period between the completion of the committal proceedings and the trial was not unreasonable. Finally, the State concludes that the petitioners are merely seeking to use the Inter-American Commission as a court of appeal, since no denial of justice can be said to arise in this case. Accordingly, the State submits that the alleged victims are not entitled to compensation, because their convictions were the result of criminal procedures which respected all fair trial guarantees.


  1. As set forth in this report, having examined the contentions of the parties on the question of admissibility, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission decides to admit the present petition with respect to the claims concerning Articles I, II, XVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration and Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 19, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. By virtue of the general principle of iura novit curia, the IACHR also admits this petition in relation to Articles VI and VII of the American Declaration and Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. On the other hand, the IACHR declares this petition inadmissible with respect to Article 11 of the American Convention. The IACHR also decides to notify the parties, publish this report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.


II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR


  1. The petition was received on April 29, 1999, along with requests for precautionary measures. On May 7, 1999, the petitioners submitted additional information. On May 11, 1999, the IACHR forwarded the relevant parts of the petition to the State, and set a three-month deadline in which to submit its comments. On August 19, 1999, the State submitted its response to the petition, which was duly transmitted to the petitioners.


  1. The Inter-American Commission received additional information from the petitioners on the following dates: September 16, 1999, August 23, 2000, August 10, 2005, February 14, 2007, April 21, 2008 and February 6, 2009; these communications were duly forwarded to the State. On January 7, 2000, the State indicated that it would not be submitting any additional considerations regarding this petition, on the grounds that the IACHR should deem it inadmissible at its next sessions. Since then, Trinidad & Tobago has presented no further observations.


Precautionary and provisional measures


  1. On May 11, 1999, the Inter-American Commission issued precautionary measures on behalf of the alleged victims. In light of the absence of any response from the State to its request for precautionary measures, the IACHR submitted a request for provisional measures in favor of the alleged victims to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the Inter-American Court”), on May 25, 1999.


  1. On May 27, 1999, the Inter-American Court amplified the provisional measures previously ordered in the Matter of James et al. to include the alleged victims.3 Trinidad & Tobago has not presented any of the periodic reports that were ordered by the Inter-American Court regarding the measures it has adopted to protect the life and personal integrity of the beneficiaries/alleged victims, despite constant requests by the Tribunal.4


  1. At the request of the Inter-American Court, on March 19, 2009, the IACHR submitted a communication to the Tribunal confirming the pending status of this petition. On July 6, 2009, the IACHR also informed the Inter-American Court of the commutation of the sentences of the alleged victims.


III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES


A. Position of the petitioners


  1. According to the petitioners, the alleged victims were arrested by the police on February 24, 1995, and charged with the February 20, 1995 murder of Junior Baptiste, primarily based on the identification evidence of Junior’s brother, Shawn Baptiste.5 The petitioners indicate that, in their defense, Messrs. Dial and Dottin alleged an alibi and testified that the lineup identification procedure at the Besson Street Police Station was flawed, and that the lack of fingerprint evidence or firearms ballistics testing...

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