Report No. 317 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 1070-14 (Jamaica)

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

REPORT No. 317/20

PETITION 1070-14

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

IAN LLOYD AND FAMILY

JAMAICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 335

18 November 2020

Original: English

Approved electronically by the Commission on November 18, 2020.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 317/20, Petition 1070-14. A.. I.L. and family. Jamaica. November 18, 2020.

www.iachr.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	International Human Rights Clinic of the L.L.S.
:	Ian Lloyd and family1
Respondent S.:	Jamaica2
Rights invoked:	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights3, in relation to its Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects)

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR4

Filing of the petition:	J. 29, 2014
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	April 18, 2019
N. of the petition to the S.:	May 22, 2019
S.’s first response:	October 18, 2019
Additional observations from the petitioner:	May 5, 2020
Additional observations from the S.:	August 18, 2020

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., deposit of the instrument of ratification of the American Declaration on J. 19, 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) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects)
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Exception set forth in Article 46.2(a) of the Convention applies
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., in terms of Section VI

V. ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petitioners denounce the extrajudicial execution of the alleged victim, I.L., 27 years old at the time, by a police officer, on J. 19, 2010, as well as the failure of the S. to carry out a proper, timely and diligent investigation and prosecution. T. condemn a widespread pattern of extrajudicial executions in Jamaica and structural defects in the criminal investigation of these incidents, resulting in a virtually absolute impunity for these killings.5

2. The petitioners allege that I.L. was shot and killed without justification on J. 29, 2010, by an officer of the Jamaican Constabulary Forcers (hereinafter JCF), one of Jamaica’s security forces, and allegedly amongst the deadliest in the world per capita.6 The petitioners highlight that there are conflicting accounts on what exactly happened on J. 29. The information released by the JCF is in direct opposition to video footage of the incident captured by a private citizen and released to the media; officials have failed to reconcile the contradictions made evident by the video. The petitioners submit that, according to police reports, the officers attempted to apprehend the alleged victim in response to accounts that he had attacked and stabbed a woman. According to the police, the victim would have hurled a stone at the police team, as well as stabbed one of the policer officers, resulting in the alleged victim being fatally shot. The petitioners submit that the video footage rather depicts a constable beating the alleged victim while he was unarmed and on the ground, and in the presence of six police officers. T. allege that the brutal acts were conducted in plain view of on-lookers, who can be heard encouraging the brutality. It also shows the S.K. fatally shooting the alleged victim while he was clearly subdued.

3. The petitioners allege that the Jamaican justice system is replete with numerous failings, particularly in cases of excessive force and extrajudicial killings by police officers, including lack of effective, prompt and thorough investigations, the failure of judges and prosecutors to treat cases with impartiality, and irregularities in the selection process for juries. T. allege that neither the petitioners not the family of the alleged victim have been able to obtain any information on the investigation7, except for the information derived from the video footage and news articles. B. on the above, and on information obtained on subsequent proceedings, they believe that the family has been denied a fair hearing because the investigation and prosecution of the crime have been severely deficient, resulting in a no-case submission ruling before the Circuit C., with no prospect of resolution, and an impossibility to properly document vital evidence.

4. The petitioners indicate that on August 9, 2010, the Director of Public Prosecutions (hereinafter DPP) charged S.K. with Ian Lloyd's murder. The Sergeant was granted bail on August 10, 2010. The petitioners allege that the case has faced significant delay. N., they were informed in February 2012 that the C. still hadn’t prepared the file; in September of 2012, the trial was pushed to February 2013 due to the absence of witnesses despite the fact that fifteen witness statements were recorded by police, eight of which were from police personnel and seven of which were collected from civilians. F., on M.7., 2013, the C. upheld a no-case submission by the defense attorneys8 and S.K. was acquitted of the murder of the alleged victim. The petitioners indicate that the video footage of the shooting could not be tendered into evidence because the witness who recorded it was not present in court. In addition, they allege that that the person who conducted the autopsy of the alleged victim was unavailable to provide a declaration on his belief in the truth of his report. T. further indicate that in the course of the criminal proceedings, the judge expressed concerns about the chain of custody of the evidence and noted that prosecution witnesses sounded as though they were testifying for the defense. The petitioners submit that in cases such as the present one, it is the duty of the S. to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible. T. argue that the failure from the S. to conduct an effective investigation, prosecution and adjudication, leading to the acquittal of S.K. based on a no-case submission ruling, despite the existence of video footage clearly depicting the incident and the recording of at least fifteen witness statements, is evidence that the criminal prosecution in I.L.’s case was ineffective. In accordance, the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(a) is applicable.

5. The petitioners further affirm that the family of the alleged victim does not have the means to pay for attorney’s services, and that there is no indication that the S. would have been able to provide the Lloyd family free representation to pursue civil remedies. T. also submit that, contrary to what is alleged by the S., civil remedies are not adequate remedies for a case of extra-judicial killing9, and that while monetary compensation awarded to victims as a result of a civil suit is one of the possible remedies, it is not a sufficient one10, but is rather eventual and incidental. It comes only after the S. has fulfilled its basic obligation to investigate and prosecute. Further, in a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is shifted from the S. to the plaintiffs, which is inconsistent with the Inter-American System’s jurisprudence11. A., civil proceedings need not be exhausted in the case of an alleged violation of the right to life when criminal proceedings have been initiated.

6. For its part, the S. contends that the petition is inadmissible because the domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and the petitioners have not established prima facie violations of the American Convention. The S. submits that the Petitioner has not exhausted civil proceedings in Jamaica in the form of constitutional relief for the alleged violation of human rights, and thus have filed to meet the requirement set forth in Article 46(1). Section 19(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica recognizes the rights of persons to approach the Supreme C. for redress for human rights violations, including violations of the right to life and of the right not to be subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment. The Government hereby invites the Commission to depart from its previously held position in so far as suggesting that civil remedies are inadequate or ineffective remedies for alleged breaches of non-derogable rights by the S., and in turn submits that civil proceedings are an adequate and effective remedy and must be pursued by the petitioner regardless of whether the S. has failed to adequately pursue the criminal process. The S. contends that civil remedies adequately address alleged human rights violations as they allow for the facts to be ventilated by assessing the S.’s responsibility for human rights violations; and provide for compensation, including allowing for exemplary damages, which is an adequate form of relief12. Jamaica further argues that by the very nature of the criminal process, the responsibility of the S. cannot be properly established; the criminal law process, in fact, holds individuals responsible for offences. In addition, they cannot provide or facilitate...