Report No. 282 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 1016-13 (Jamaica)

• Year: 2020
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Respondent State: Jamaica
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 282/20

PETITION 1016-13

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

JEVAUGHN ROBINSON AND FAMILY

JAMAICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 299

12 October 2020

Original: English

Approved electronically by the Commission on October 12, 2020.

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 282/20, Petition 1016-13. A.. Jevaughn Robinson and family. Jamaica. October 12, 2020.

www.iachr.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner	Jamaicans for Justice and the International Human Rights Center - Loyola Law School
Alleged victim	Jevaughn Robinson and family
Respondent S.	Jamaica1
Rights invoked	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 19 (rights of the child) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights2 all in relation to Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects)

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR3

Filing of the petition	J. 21, 2013
N. of the petition	J. 11, 2019
S.’s first response	December 6, 2019
Additional observations from the petitioner	May 2 and 3, 2019; M.5., 2020
Additional observations from the S.	August 21, 2020

III. COMPETENCE

Ratione personae:	Yes
Ratione loci:	Yes
Ratione temporis:	Yes
Ratione materiae:	Yes, American Convention (ratification of the American Convention August 7, 1978)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata	No
Rights declared admissible	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 19 (rights of the child), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in relation to articles 1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of the same instrument
E. or exception to the exhaustion of remedies	Yes,
Timeliness of the petition	Yes

V. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petitioners denounce the extrajudicial execution of alleged victim J.R. by members of the Jamaican police force, and the failure of the S. to carry out a proper, timely and diligent investigation and prosecution. T. allege a widespread pattern of extrajudicial executions by security force members in Jamaica and structural defects in the criminal investigation of these crimes, resulting in virtually absolute impunity.4

2. Specifically, the petitioners allege that J.R., a 13-year-old child was shot and killed on September 22, 2008 without justification by members of the Jamaican police force in St. C.P.. T. indicate that the alleged victim was running through an open lot near his home when police officers pursued him and opened fire, ultimately shooting him in the head and killing him. T. further indicate that the police officers took the alleged victim´s body in their patrol car and later returned to the scene to set fire to the area where he had laid dead. The petitioners hold that this extrajudicial execution falls within a well-documented pattern of hundreds of fatal police shootings, most of which remain uninvestigated; and that this exacerbates the absolute impunity of security forces in Jamaica, who use excessive and disproportionate force with disregard for human life.

3. The petitioners assert that the S. has failed to diligently investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the crime. T. also stress that since the extrajudicial killing of the alleged victim, the petitioners and his family have made numerous inquiries into the status of the investigation, but that they received no response. The petitioners further claim that in December of 2019, when they received the S. response to the IACHR, they learned for the first time that in September 2019 –-11 years after the murder of the alleged victim-- the Director of Public Prosecution ruled that charges should be brought against three Special Constables for the crime. H., no further information was provided as to the date of trial.

4. T. also claim that the killing of the alleged victim and the suffering of his family are the direct result of deficient investigatory, prosecutorial and judicial actions that operate together to shield police from accountability. With regard to the S.´s argument that they did not exhausted civil remedies, the petitioners contend that these are not adequate for investigating and prosecuting extrajudicial killings. T. refer to well-established IACHR position in similar situations in the sense that “the remedies that must be taken into account for the purposes of the admissibility of the petitions are those related to the criminal investigation and punishment of those responsible”.5 Further, they argued that monetary compensation awarded to the victims’ family because of a civil suit is not a sufficient remedy because it does not provide comprehensive reparations6 to the family of the alleged victim and that it should take place after the S. fulfils its obligation to investigate and prosecute such crime.7

5. On its part, the S. argues that the petition is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies particularly because it was pursuing a criminal justice process and the petitioners had not exhausted civil proceedings. For the S., civil proceedings are the adequate avenue for the examination of the complaint and the subsequent finding of responsibilities for human right violations, as well as compensation as a form of relief. In this regard, the S. requests the Commission to depart from the position taken in the admissibility report in the M.G.C., and s points out that Section 19(1) of the Jamaican Constitution recognizes the right of persons to approach the Supreme Court for redress for human rights violations, which includes the right to life and the right no to be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. T.S. considers that this form of constitutional relief is an adequate and effective remedy for an allegedly unlawful killing. As to the criminal proceedings, the S. informs that the Director of Public Prosecution ruled on September 2019 that charges should be brought against three Special Constables for the killing of the alleged victim. The S. considers that this matter is being resolved internally, and therefore the Commissions’ complementary jurisdiction should not be engaged. Further, the S. maintains that any complaint of undue delay in pursuing the criminal justice process is simply an allegation of a breach of the duty to investigate, which should be placed before the Supreme Court of Jamaica for redress. Finally, it reiterates that the remedy to be exhausted is the Constitutional relief, which had not yet been initiated; accordingly, the S. holds that the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies invoked is inapplicable.

VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

6. The petitioners submit that the S. failed to meet its duty to conduct an effective investigation, prosecution and adjudication. T. allege that the S. undertook some actions to investigate the alleged victim´s death, and that in September 2019 the Director of Public Prosecution ruled that charges should be brought against the constables. H., no further information has been provided as to the development or results of the proceedings, and that there has been an undue delay in rendering a final judgment. Accordingly, they request the application of the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(c). In addition, they hold that civil proceedings need not be exhausted in the case of an alleged violation of the right to life when criminal proceedings have been initiated; and that they are not an adequate remedy for an extra-judicial killing case. For its part, the S. alleges that it fulfilled its duty to investigate, prosecute and punish, but that the petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies and thus the petition is inadmissible. The S. submits that civil proceedings are an adequate and effective remedy and must be pursued by the petitioners under Article 46(1) of the American Convention.

7. With respect to the lack of exhaustion argument, the IACHR recalls that whenever an alleged crime prosecutable ex officio is committed, the S. has the obligation to promote criminal proceedings; and that this is the adequate avenue in these cases to clarify the facts, prosecute those responsible and establish the appropriate criminal punishment.9 Under international standards, where serious human rights violations such as homicide are alleged, the appropriate and effective remedy is an effective criminal investigation aimed at the clarification of the facts and, if necessary, the individualization and prosecution of those responsible. The Commission has consistently held that it is not necessary to exhaust civil actions before resorting to the inter-American system, since such remedy would not redress the serious human rights violation claim. In the instant case, the central issue raised is the alleged victim´s arbitrary killing, followed by the failure of due diligence in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible.10

8. The Commission notes that the alleged victim was killed more than 12 years ago, and that the investigation, prosecution and establishment of criminal responsibilities is still outstanding, which would constitute prima facie an...