Should CARICOM Gov’ts reassess their relationship with IACHR? -in light of dubious statements

HOW long are Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Governments going to tolerate organisations they support and fund in the lynching of the same Administrations?

This is the question being asked by several political pundits as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) comes under fire for what is being deemed as “premature pronouncements” being seen as not premised on the principles of law, due process or fairness.
This recent contention was expressed following a statement by the Commission calling for the “adoption of precautionary measures for members of Kaieteur News” given that that the three staff members “received threats against their lives and personal integrity as a consequence of their work” as journalists.
The Commission’s statement followed much hullaballoo over a controversial 19-minute private conversation between a senior reporter at Kaieteur News, Leonard Gildharie, and the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, which was illegally recorded and made public by Kaieteur News publisher, Mr. Mohan Lall, also called Glenn Lall.
The IACHR said: “After analysing the allegations of fact and law, the Commission believes that the information presented demonstrates prima facie (on initial examination) that the members of the Kaieteur News Journal are in a serious and urgent situation, since their lives and personal integrity face an imminent risk of irreparable harm.”
IGNORING OTHER SIDES
Notably, another two pivotal questions are: how can an organisation of this type and standing conclude on allegations when only one side is heard; and which jurisdiction’s law was examined to arrive at such ‘prima facie’ position.
The Guyana Chronicle understands that this organisation is headed by two distinguished Caribbean jurists, Tracy Robinson and Rose-Marie Belle Antoine.
Also, the circumstances under which the private conversation was recorded and the invasion of privacy, which extends to the public release of the recording were ignored by the IACHR – an issue addressed clearly in both journalistic principles and several United Nations (UN) policies.
First, the United Nation’s (UN) Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, which is applicable to all member states, makes it clear, in Article 12, that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Secondly, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by Guyana in 1977, in Article 17, reiterates the same message.
Thirdly, last December, the UN General Assembly, of which Guyana is a party, unanimously voted to adopt a resolution calling for online privacy to be recognised as a human right – ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age’. For the first time, the General Assembly established that human rights should be applicable both offline and online. The resolution has been introduced by Germany and Brazil after the revelations of the extraterritorial extension of US surveillance in cyberspace. The resolution calls upon the 193 UN member states to “respect and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of digital communication” and “to review their procedures, practices and legislation on the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance.”
Additionally, Guyana’s Constitution, Article 154 (A), makes it clear that local functionaries in the judicial system, including judges, are required to take into account international law and Guyana’s treaty obligations in their deliberations. Article 154 (A) addresses the protection of human rights.
In some sections of society, concerned Guyanese are calling on the Government of Guyana to take this issue as it relates to invasion of privacy to the UN.
NOT THE FIRST TIME
IACHR’s comments are seen to have impugned Guyana, a CARICOM member state, on the international scene, and questions are being asked about whether the IACHR will be called to justify their pronouncements.
This is not the first time that the Commission’s actions have attracted negative attention for premature pronouncements and for representing only particular groups.
Additionally, in recognition of its shortcomings, the IACHR itself embarked on a strengthening process, which was started in 2011 and is led by the States belonging to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas.
In Guyana, the IACHR was last flayed for a press release that condemned the action of security forces at Linden on July 18, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of three citizens and injuries suffered by 20 others.
No less than the Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon, at the time said that the Commission in its release had already determined that live rounds were fired by Police Officers “whereas this is an allegation for which evidence is yet to be evaluated and an assumption that remains to be factually established.”
Evidence in the matter was eventually provided, debunking IACHR’s criticisms.
An independent investigation was done by a Commission of Inquiry (COI) headed by former Jamaica Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe.
In its report handed over to President Donald Ramotar, in March 2013, the Commissioners said: “There was no evidence given, at the hearings before the Commission, to support the assertion that the minister gave instructions to the Guyana Police Force (GPF) in relation to the incident in Linden on July 18, other than testimony from the minister, that he gave a general direction, on July 17, 2012 to the Commissioner, that he should take all lawful steps to maintain law and order in Linden.”
The Commission also found that, from all accounts, the acts of violence and destruction that immediately followed the shootings were committed by unidentified protestors and that, while the police action may be questionable, it was justified.
The Commissioners said, while Lindeners had applied to the appropriate regional police authority for permission to stage a five-day protest against the electricity tariff adjustment, “the evidence revealed that the conditions were breached and therein was the birth of the ensuing problems.”
In recent times, organisations like these have continued to make damning statements against regional Governments based on perception indices, no empirical data and in the absence of affording the said Governments a fair hearing.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.