| |
1.1 The author of the
communication, dated 16 January 1998, is Dennis Lobban, a Jamaican citizen
born on 16 January 1955, currently detained at the General Penitentiary,
Kingston, Jamaica. He claims to be a victim of violations by Jamaica of
articles 7 and 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 10, paragraph 1, article 14,
paragraph 1, and article 2, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel.
1.2 Both the Covenant and Optional Protocol entered into force for the State
party on 23 March 1976. The State party denounced the Optional Protocol on
23 October 1997, with effect from 23 January 1998.
THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHOR
2.1 On 17 June 1988, the author was convicted of three counts of murder in
the Home Circuit Court of Kingston and sentenced to death. His appeal
against conviction was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 4 June 1990. On 30
November 1992, he applied for special leave to appeal to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. On 10 February 1993, he was granted leave to
appeal. On 6 April 1995, his appeal was dismissed. On 21 July 1995, the
author's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. It is submitted
that the author is unable to pursue a constitutional motion, because of his
financial situation and the unavailability of legal aid for the purpose.
2.2 The prosecution contended that the author was one of three men who went
to the house of the deceased with the intent of robbery. All three were in
possession of fire arms. Three persons were shot during the robbery. Two
witnesses who knew the author testified that they recognized him. A caution
statement by one of the author's co-defendants also identified him. The
author denied any participation in the robbery and claimed to have been in a
different location when the crime was committed.
2.3 It is submitted that the complaint has not been submitted to any other
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The author alleges that his rights under article 9, paragraph 3, have
been violated, since he was arrested on 17 September 1987 and not brought
before the Gun Court until 28 September 1987, i.e. eleven days later.
3.2 The author claims that the conditions of his confinement on death row at
St. Catherine's District Prison from 17 June 1988 to 20 July 1995 violated
articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. He invokes the reports of
several organizations in support of his argument. These reports are said to
show that the conditions are incompatible with the requirements of article
10 of the Covenant, that the provision of medical facilities and health care
is lacking, and that prisoners are not provided with education or work
programs. Moreover, ill-treatment of inmates by prison guards is said to
occur regularly. It is stated that no effective mechanism exists for dealing
with complaints from prisoners. The above is said to constitute violations
of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, as well as of the UN
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The author alleges
that he was locked up in his cell for up to 23 hours a day, that no mattress
or bedding were provided, that no integral sanitation existed, that
ventilation was inadequate and that there was no natural light.
3.3 He claims that he was not provided with the necessary medical, dental or
psychiatric services, and that the food did not meet his nutritional needs.
He claims that he is sleeping on cardboard and newspapers, and that his
present conditions of detention at the General Penitentiary, also violate
articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
3.4 Finally, the author alleges that the State party has failed to ensure to
him an effective domestic remedy and that constitutes a violation of article
2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Moreover, he claims that he was denied the
right of access to court as no legal aid is being provided. He is thus
barred from exercising his constitutional right to seek redress for the
violation of his rights. This is said to be in violation of article 14,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
THE STATE PARTY'S SUBMISSION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS OF THE
COMMUNICATION
4.1 In its observations dated 25 September 1998, the State party denies that
the author was detained for eleven days before being brought before a
magistrate. It notes that according to the author's own communication only
three days elapsed (September 17 through 20, 1987). For the State party,
this does not amount to undue delay and thus does not violate article 9,
paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant.
4.2 The State party denies that there are inadequate medical facilities at
St. Catherine District Prison, and observes that the prison now has a
doctor, that basic medication can be obtained in medical room, and that
prisoners are transported to Spanish Town Hospital whenever the need arises
for medical attention.
4.3 In addition, the State party contends that the lack of legal aid for
constitutional motions does not constitute a breach of article 14, paragraph
1, of the Covenant. The State party argues that there is no requirement in
the Covenant to grant legal aid for constitutional motions. It adds that the
absence of legal aid has not proven to be an absolute bar to indigent
persons bringing constitutional motions. Moreover, the State party supports
its argument by stating that this is illustrated by cases Pratt & Morgan and
Neville Lewis v. Attorney General.
THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S SUBMISSIONS
5.1 In his comments of 12 April 1999, the author reiterates that the State
party violated article 9, paragraph 3 (b), because he was detained for
eleven days before being brought before a judge, in the Gun Court (28
September 1987).He notes that there was a typographical error in the
paragraph, to which the State party referred.
5.2 The author claims that in 1996, he suffered from ulcers,
gastro-enteritis and hemorrhoids, and that he did not receive medical
attention for his ailments. On 29 February 1997, his solicitors wrote to
Commissioner of Corrections, seeking medical attention. On 3 April 1998, his
solicitors wrote the second letter to Commissioner informing that the author
had been referred to the Hospital on 2 October 1997, but was not taken to
this appointment. Furthermore, they reiterated the urgency of the author's
medical care. On 11 March 1998, the author was taken to hospital but did not
see a doctor. He states that he received some medication for his ulcers and
gastro enteritis but not for hemorrhoids. His solicitors thereupon wrote a
further letter to the Commissioner. On 29 January 1999, the Commissioner
responded that every effort would be made to ensure that the author received
medical attention.
5.3 The author claims that, in practice, medical care and effective
assistance was not made available and that he continually suffered from the
same ailments for over 5 years. He argues that despite the numerous
responses and referrals, he is yet to see a doctor, and that the State party
failed to ensure that he is treated for his medical condition. He claims
that the neglect of the prison authorities to adequately deal with his
medical problems amounts to a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1,
of the Covenant.
5.4 The author invoking the Committee's decision in Henry v. Trinidad and
Tobago Communication No. 752/1997, Views adopted on 17 July 1996, alleges
that the State party is wrong to assert that there is no requirement under
the Covenant to grant legal aid for Constitutional Motions. The author
states that article 14, paragraph 1, create an obligation for States to
ensure to all persons equal access to Courts and Tribunals. In Jamaica,
there is a dearth of lawyers who are prepared to take Constitutional Motions
on a bro bono basis and the cases Pratt and Neville Lewis, to which the
State party referred, are truly exceptional.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS BY THE STATE PARTY
6.1 By additional submission of 13 July 1999, the State party informs that
it will investigate the exact length of the author's detention before being
brought before a judge.
6.2 The State party invokes the Committee's decision Deidrick v. Jamaica
Communication No. 619/1995, Views adopted on 9 April 1998., where the
complainant was held on death row for over eight years, was confined to his
cell for 22 hours a day, spent most of his time in enforced darkness, and
where the Committee held that the complainant had not substantiated specific
circumstances that could raise an issue under articles 7 and 10, paragraph
1, of the Covenant, and that this part of his complaint was inadmissible.
6.3 The State party reaffirms that St. Catherine District Prison has
adequate medical facilities: the prison now houses a Medical Center with two
medical practitioners, a dentist, and their assistants. The State party
denies the breach of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1.
6.4 The State party reaffirms that it has no responsibility to provide legal
aid for Constitutional Motions, and that this responsibility only arises in
criminal proceedings.
6.5 On 11 February 2000, the State party submitted the results of its
investigation, claiming that the author's medical records indicate that he
was treated for stomach pains and hemorrhoids and that he received regular
medical treatment by the Medical Center and Kingston Public Hospital
personnel from January 1997 onwards. It adds that the author was provided
with adequate sleeping facilities, which are the norm within Jamaican
Correctional Institutions. Moreover, it states that, during the
investigation, the author admitted that he has a comfortable mattress at his
disposal.
6.6 The State party argues that the author receives a diet, which is
prescribed by a dietician and limited by the budget of the Institution. The
author allegedly admitted that the meals system at the Institution provides
him with nutritious foods, and that he is comfortable with the system.
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY
7.1 Before considering any claim contained in communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to
the Covenant.
7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph
2(a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
7.3 With regard to the author's claim under articles 14, paragraph 1 and 2,
paragraph 3, the Committee notes that the author did not seek legal
assistance to submit a constitutional motion. This claim therefore is
inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, as it has not been
sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility.
7.4 For the remaining claims under articles 7, 10, paragraph 1, and 9,
paragraph 3, the Committee considers that there are no other obstacles to
the admissibility and thus declares the claims under these articles
admissible. It proceeds without further delay with the examination of the
merits of the communication, in the light of all information made available
to it by the parties, as required by article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional
Protocol.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS
8.1 The author has claimed a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, on
the ground of the conditions of detention to which he was subjected while
detained on death row at St. Catherine's District Prison. In substantiation
of his claim, the author has invoked reports of several non-governmental
organizations. The Committee notes that the author refers to the inhuman and
degrading prison conditions in general, such as the complete lack of
mattresses and very poor quality of food and drink, the lack of integral
sanitation in the cells and open sewers and piles of refuse, as well as the
absence of a doctor. In addition, he has made specific allegations, stating
that he is detained 23 hours a day in a cell with no mattress, other bedding
or furniture, that his cell has no natural light, that sanitation is
inadequate, and that his food is poor. He is not permitted to work or to
undertake education. In addition, he claims that there is a general lack of
medical assistance, and that from 1996 he suffered from ulcers,
gastro-enteritis, and hemorrhoids, for which he received no treatment.
8.2 The Committee notes that with regard to these allegations, the State
party has disputed only that there are inadequate medical facilities, that
the author received regular medical treatment from 1997 and that now he has
a mattress, receives nutritious food, and that the sewage disposal system
works satisfactorily. The Committee notes, however, that the author was
detained in 1987 and transferred to death row in June 1988, and from there
to the General Penitentiary after commutation of his death sentence, and
that it does not transpire from the State party's submission that his
conditions of detention were compatible with article 10 prior to January
1997. The rest of the author's allegations stand undisputed and, in these
circumstances, the Committee finds that article 10, paragraph 1, has been
violated. In light of this finding, in respect of article 10, a provision of
the Covenant dealing specifically with the situation of persons deprived of
their liberty and encompassing for such persons the elements set out
generally in article 7, it is not necessary separately to consider the
claims under article 7 of the Covenant.
8.3 The author has claimed a violation of article 9, paragraph 3, of the
Covenant, on account of a delay of eleven days between the time of his
arrest and the time when he was brought before a judge or judicial officers.
After its investigation, the State party did not refute that the author was
detained for eleven days, though denying that this delay constitutes a
violation of the Covenant. In the absence of any plausible justification for
a delay of eleven days between arrest and production of the author before a
judge or judicial officer, the Committee finds that this delay constituted a
violation of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee reveal
violations by Jamaica of article 9, paragraph 3, and article 10, paragraph
1.
10. Pursuant to an article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the Committee
considers that the author is entitled to an appropriate remedy, which should
include compensation. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that
similar violations do not occur in the future.
11. By becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has
recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has
been a violation of the Covenant or not. This case was submitted for
consideration before Jamaica's denunciation of the Optional Protocol became
effective on 23 January 1998; in accordance with article 12(2) of the
Optional Protocol the communication is subject to the continued application
of the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State
party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or
subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to
provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been
established by the Committee. The Committee wishes to receive from the State
party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect
to the Committee's Views. The State party is also requested to publish the
Committee's Views.
_______________________________
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of
the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] |
|
