I WOULD firstly like to commend Attorney-at-Law Mr. Murseline Bacchus for his excellent exposition of the law as it relates to “threats” in respect of the impugned recording that is attributed to the Attorney General (AG).Mr. Bacchus identified legally and objectively what I have been saying all along, that no threats were made by the AG on the impugned recording. It is my hope that the great work that he did in his letter published in the Chronicle, ‘Kaieteur News report not factual’ (November 26, 2014), would satisfy the public that the AG did not commit any offence.

I must also make mention of letter writer Faruk Mohammed who, like myself, has observed that the conclusions made by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) about the AG were made in violation of the rules of natural justice. How could an international body issue a precautionary measure using only information that the complainant (Mr. Christopher Ram, legal counsel for Kaieteur News) provided without hearing the other side or even using information which is in the public domain such as the AG’s official statement on the impugned recording.
Mr. Bacchus’s legally-informed factual position also flies in the face of what was conveyed by the IACHR, which highlighted among other things that “the Commission considers that the requirement of seriousness is met, in light of the alleged threat expressed against the lives and personal integrity of the Kaieteur News personnel, within the framework of their right to freedom of expression.”
One would have thought that out of the seven commissioners sitting on the IACHR, at least the two, Ms. Tracy Robinson of Jamaica and Ms. Rose-Marie Belle Antoine of Trinidad & Tobago, both being distinguished attorneys with knowledge of the Caribbean legal system and the legal prescription of due process and natural justice, would know that “threats” were never conveyed by the AG to the staff of Kaieteur News.
Mr. Mohamed in his letter in Chronicle (on November 28) under the caption ‘The IACHR should state what criteria and principles guide them when dealing with a complaint’ made a very important point when he spoke of the seriousness placed on the privacy of one’s communication and the fact that IACHR didn’t find it necessary to address that important issue, even though it was the Kaieteur News that taped, manipulated and made public a private conversation without the consent or permission of the AG. I am reminded of the Edward Snowden of WikiLeaks who because of his actions has become an international criminal seeking asylum in Russia to hide from his crimes of invasion of privacy in the U.S.
Again, the two Caribbean commissioners of the IACHR Ms. Belle and Ms. Antoine who presumably are familiar with the Caribbean domestic laws in addition to foreign laws should have addressed this crucial infringement of one’s privacy, seeing how it is also enshrined in the US constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and indeed, the OAS charter on Human Rights to which IACHR comes under.
I would also like to ask, which country of law, principle of law or system of law did the IACHR use to make its findings and issue its precautionary measures and incidentally, are they now prepared to make a similar pronouncement on the invasion of privacy by Mr. Leonard Gildarie and Kaieteur news?
Unless they do so, Guyanese and the reading public at large would be forced to lump them in the category of International organizations that simply issue statements to fabricate the grounds for their existence, following in the footsteps of organisations like Transparency International, the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and others whose agenda are simply driven by perception indices and whose conclusions are based without any reference, empirical data or indeed, by any scientific methodologies. In other words they are part of a family of International organisations who derive their sustenance and demonstrate their usefulness by the parasitic exploitation of issues without any regard to principle or objectivity.
It is important at this juncture to note the imperative point made by Mr. Mohamed in his letter when he outlined that the IACHR made an egregious statement prior to the one it is now making about the AG. He was referring to the 2012 Linden shooting when he said “it was the same IACHR that came out with a similar, impulsive and capricious statement holding the Guyana Police Force responsible for the shooting. This premature finding of theirs, which was obviously made without hearing the other side, contrary to the rules of natural Justice, was later debunked by an International Commission of Inquiry that could not connect the shooting to the police after hearing the facts of the case objectively.” History it seems is repeating itself.
These highly decorated academics including Ms. Robinson and Ms. Antoine of the IACHR should answer for the travesty committed against the Attorney General of Guyana and by extension the Government. It is my contention that the Government of Guyana should petition CARICOM in this matter.

RICHARD MENDOZA