Report No. 96 (1998) IACHR. Petition No. 11.827 (Jamaica)

• Year: 1998
• Petition Number: 11.827
• Report Number: 96
• Respondent State: Jamaica
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Peter Blaine

REPORT Nº 96/98; CASE 11.827; PETER BLAINE; JAMAICA; December 17, 1998 I. SUMMARY 1. On September 29, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") received a petition filed on behalf of Peter Blaine, a prisoner on death row in the St. Catherine District Prison in Jamaica, alleging the responsibility of the State of Jamaica (hereinafter "Jamaica") for violations of Articles 1, 5(1), 5(2), 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention"). 2. The petitioner, Karen Aston, of the law firm Allen & Overy, reported that Mr. Blaine had been convicted of capital murder on October 14, 1994 by the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, Jamaica, and applications for appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council had been unsuccessful. The claims set forth in the initial petition related primarily to the trial and appeal of Mr. Blaine, and the conditions of his post-conviction detention. More specifically, the petitioner alleges that Mr. Blaine was not permitted adequate time for the preparation of his defense at trial, and was denied effective representation on appeal, in violation of the due process guarantees of Article 8(2) of the American Convention. She asserts that the conditions of his post-conviction detention violate the standards of Article 5, particularly with respect to inadequate infrastructure, hygiene facilities, and medical care. The petitioner complains of instances of ill treatment at the hands of prison guards, most specifically, a beating alleged to have taken place on March 5, 1997. In a supplemental petition, she added a series of claims related to the legal and procedural framework of the proceedings against Mr. Blaine, principally concerning the mandatory nature of the death penalty in cases of capital murder, the procedure for applying for amnesty or pardon, and the Governor General’s Instructions.1 3. The petitioner reports that the only judicial remedy theoretically still available, the presentation of a constitutional motion, is effectively unavailable because Jamaica does not provide legal aid to assist indigents such as Mr. Blaine in the filing of a motion of that nature. The fact that the remedy is unavailable, she argues, also constitutes a violation of Mr. Blaine’s right to judicial guarantees under Article 8. 4. The record indicates that, on May 3, 1996, Mr. Blaine had filed a petition before the United Nations Human Rights Committee ("UNHRC’) complaining of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"). The UNHRC issued its views on the petition on July 17, 1997, finding a violation of Article 10(1) of the ICCPR with respect to the conditions to which the applicant had been subjected while in pre-trial detention. The petitioner asserts that the matters raised before the IACHR have not been submitted before the UNHRC or another intergovernmental procedure. 5. The petitioner contends that the appropriate remedy for the violations alleged is release. She argues that the conditions of Mr. Blaine’s post-conviction detention are so violative of minimum standards under the Convention and other instruments that execution pursuant to such conditions would equate to cruel and unusual punishment. Given the risk that the sentence against Mr. Blaine was subject to being carried out at any point, the initial petition asked that the IACHR address the State to request the adoption of precautionary measures to stay his execution pending the Commission’s decision, pursuant to Article 29 of its Regulations. 6. The State of Jamaica controverts the admissibility of the claims concerning the trial and appeal of Mr. Blaine, which it characterizes as duplicative of those filed before the UNHRC. It maintains that the claims concerning the conditions of Mr. Blaine’s post-conviction detention, and the arguments raised with respect to the legal and procedural framework of capital punishment are unfounded as a matter of fact and law. Further, the State maintains that an indigent applicant wishing to file a constitutional motion does not require legal aid: an applicant may invoke the remedy pro se; and the legal system of Jamaica does not require that legal aid be given in such cases. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 7. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the petition by means of a note of October 2, 1997. Pursuant a request of the petitioner (aimed at compliance with timelines established in the Governor General’s Instructions), on October 7, 1997, the Commission informed the State of Jamaica that a petition concerning Mr. Blaine had been received and was under study pursuant to the applicable Regulations. 8. On October 14, 1997, the petitioner reiterated her petition that the Commission request a stay of execution, noting that, according to the Instructions, where a stay is not requested within 30 days of the filing of such a petition, execution will not be postponed. 9. The Commission opened Case 11.827 on October 31, 1997, and transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition to the Government of Jamaica in a note of that same date, with a response requested within 90 days. The petitioner was notified that this action had been taken. 10. On October 31, 1997, the State submitted a note indicating that it considered the laws and procedures of Jamaica applicable to the case, including the Governor General’s Instructions. 11. On November 19, 1997, the Commission addressed the State, pursuant to Article 29 of its Regulations, to request the adoption of precautionary measures to stay the execution of Mr. Blaine until such time as it could fully investigate the petition. The petitioner was notified that this request had been made. 12. The State’s response to the Commission’s request for information on the petition was received on November 26, 1997. The contents were transmitted to the petitioner on December 1, 1997, with observations requested within 30 days of receipt. 13. By means of a note of December 15, 1997, the State transmitted a brief supplemental response to the petitioner’s allegations. This was transmitted to the petitioner on December 17, 1997, for any additional observations. 14. The petitioner submitted observations on December 23, 1997, along with a supplemental complaint alleging a series of additional claims under Articles 4(3), 4(6), 5(1), 5(2), 24 and 25 of the American Convention. The pertinent parts of both documents were transmitted to the State by means of a note of December 24, 1997, with observations requested within 30 days. 15. Pursuant to the January 16, 1998 request of the petitioner, the Commission scheduled a hearing on the case during its 98th period of sessions. That request having been withdrawn on January 26, 1998, the Commission decided to strike the hearing from its schedule and notified the parties accordingly. 16. The State responded to the petitioner’s observations and supplemental petition by means of a note dated January 27, 1998. This was transmitted to the petitioner on February 20, 1998, with a response received on March 27, 1998. 17. In the interim, the petitioner had filed a brief additional submission of observations, dated February 2, 1998. This was transmitted to the State on February 24, 1998, which acknowledged receipt on March 30, 1998. 18. The petitioner’s submission of March 27, 1998 was transmitted to the State on April 2, 1998, with any observations requested within 30 days. The State’s acknowledgement of receipt was received on April 23, 1998. 19. The petitioner submitted an additional piece of information by means of a brief note of May 26, 1998, the contents of which were transmitted to the State on July 23, 1998. 20. On July 17, 1998, the Commission reiterated its November 19, 1997 request for precautionary measures to stay Mr. Blaine’s execution. The petitioner was duly notified that this action had been taken. 21. In a note of August 13, 1998, the State acknowledged receipt of the July 23, 1998 communication, and indicated that the specific matter at issue was under investigation. This information was transmitted to the petitioner on August 18, 1998. 22. On November 17, 1998, the petitioner informed the Commission that Jamaica had issued a warrant for the execution of Peter Blaine to be carried out on November 26, 1998. She asked that the request for precautionary measures in the case be reiterated. On November 20, 1998, the Commission addressed the State of Jamaica to reiterate its request that the execution of Mr. Blaine be stayed until the claims pending before it had been fully investigated. 23. On December 14, 1998, the petitioner forwarded to the Commission a copy of a constitutional motion filed on behalf of Mr. Blaine against the Attorney General of Jamaica and the Superintendent of the St. Catherine District Prison subsequent to the reading of the above mentioned warrant establishing a November 26, 1998 execution date. On December 16, 1998, the petitioner filed a brief submission of additional arguments on one of her claims. III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Position of the Petitioner 24. The petitioner alleges that the State of Jamaica is responsible for violations of Mr. Blaine’s rights under Articles 1, 4(3), 4(6), 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), 8(2), 24 and 25 of the American Convention, most essentially in relation to his trial and appeal, the conditions of his post-conviction detention, and the legal and procedural framework applicable to the capital sentence issued against him. According to the petitioner, Mr. Blaine was formally charged with the murder of Victor Higgs on July 21 or 22, 1994, and the trial was initiated on October 14, 1994. Mr. Blaine and his co-defendant, Neville Lewis,2 were convicted of capital murder by the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, Jamaica that same day. The Court of Appeals of Jamaica refused Mr. Blaine’s application for leave to appeal on July 31, 1995, and his...