THE Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), according to a Kaieteur News article dated Wednesday November 26th, 2014, has said that the Government of Guyana should “protect K/News and staff, investigate AG Nandlall.” 

In fact, the Kaieteur News published verbatim the statement made by the IACHR in addition to their article. The statement was issued based on a complaint and request for “precautionary measures” that was lodged by one of Kaieteur News Lawyers, Mr. Christopher Ram over the impugned and manipulated recording of the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall which was incidentally, tapped and published by Kaieteur News.
According to the IACHR, it granted its precautionary measures “After analysing the factual and legal arguments put forth by (Christopher Ram), the commission considers that the information presented demonstrates prima facie that the members of Kaieteur News journal are in a serious and urgent situation since their lives and personal integrity face an imminent risk of irreparable harm.”
Amazingly, the IACHR has issued a statement outlining a prima facie finding based only on the complaint that was made by Mr. Ram. I find it quite perplexing that such a body which should, for all intents and purposes, be neutral would make such a pronouncement before giving the other side a hearing, or even a chance to respond. Does this body which places Human Rights at its apex not subscribe to the fundamental principles/rules of Natural Justice or do they subscribe to ‘bush laws’?
The body, realising its bias and in what appears as an attempt to seem neutral, outlined towards the end of its statement that it is requesting a report within 15 days from the Government since “the present precautionary measures have been granted without having previously requested information from the State, the Commission will review this decision once it receives reports from both parties.”
Well if the “Commission will review the decision once it receives reports from both parties,” why did it not wait until a report was given from the Government’s side before issuing its precautionary measures?
The answer is simple and has nothing to do with urgency. The IACHR has taken a biased position and released its precautionary measures at the behest of Kaieteur News through its lawyer.
The proof to substantiate this is also within the statement made by the IACHR where the body said that “the request for precautionary measures is presented in favour of the members of Kaieteur News journal, who are identified in the communications presented to the IACHR.” This was not captured in the article done by Kaieteur News for obvious reasons.
More disconcerting, is that IACHR armed only with information that was provided by the lawyers of Kaieteur News formed a definitive pronouncement that indeed, threats were made to the lives of journalists attached to Kaieteur News.
I have listened to the impugned recording between the Attorney General and the reporter attached to Kaieteur News and I would like to know on what basis did the IACHR come to the conclusion that “alleged threats” were made by Mr. Nandlall that would place the lives of Kaieteur News staff in danger or “irreparable harm.”
All the Attorney General did was highlight that such an eventuality could occur, if the Kaieteur News continues its unabated practices of unethical journalism aimed at tarnishing the character of persons. I am not a lawyer, but my colleagues who are, have expressed that there is no basis for such a definitive conclusion to be made, even if it is alleged.
It would seem that the IACHR has taken a one sided position and, with the premature issuance of its precautionary measures without garnering the input from the State, the body has solidified its bias despite now requesting a report from the other party involved.
One would’ve thought that the IACHR would have investigated the journalistic malpractice of Kaieteur News which, for the most part, is aimed at the character assassination of persons who the publisher of the news outfit is not in congruence with. After all, that is a human rights violation.

RICHARD MENDOZA