It comes as no surprise to me that the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) would prematurely issue precautionary measures to the Government of Guyana over the impugned recording that was attributed to the Attorney General, even before the Government was given the opportunity to be heard.It also comes as no surprise that the request for precautionary measures was facilitated by Mr. Christopher Ram who happens to be one of the attorneys-at-law representing Kaieteur News. In a quest to perpetually have on their front page scandalous and misinformed news about the Attorney General to placate their agenda, the Kaieteur News has been enlisting the help of international bodies known for their partiality.
The IACHR should state what are the criteria and principles by which they are guided when dealing with a complaint, because it is obviously not in keeping with recognised concerns of fairness, due process and natural justice.
I say this because the IACHR has said definitively based only on the information that was provided to them by the lawyer for Kaieteur News, that among other things the “Kaieteur News journal are in a serious and urgent situation since their lives and personal integrity face imminent risk of irreparable harm…In the present situation, 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.”
For a Commission to make such reckless assertions without examining the information from both sides is, as I said, not surprising, since it was this same body that made such a misinformed decision before.
In the 2012 Linden shooting, 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.
The same position is being adopted here. It begs the question, whose interests is the IACHR representing? I am forced to ask the question. especially since the AG’s public statement that he made concerning the impugned recording was ignored completely.
Had they been truly impartial as they claim, they would’ve factored in the AG’s public statement, where he claimed that he was having a private informal conversation with a long standing acquaintance whom he trusted, but unbeknownst to him, the conversation was taped, distorted and released publicly without his permission.
The IACHR should know about the severity with which the privacy of one’s communication is protected. It is protected by the US Constitution, the UN Convention and Charter on Human Rights, in addition to the Canadian and OAS Charters. However, not a word about the invasion of privacy and breach of trust was ever spoken by the IACHR, despite the seriousness of its nature. Which civilised system of law or legal system would condone such conduct, which system of journalistic ethics will find such conduct acceptable?
Additionally, I would like to know which Principle of Law, Country of Law or System of Law did the IACHR apply to determine that threats were made by the Attorney General, on the impugned recording, to the lives of any person attached to the Kaieteur News?
I recall in his public statement the Attorney General said “I wish to state clearly and unequivocally, that I am unaware of any planned violence or extra-judicial sanction against any individual, journalist or any newspaper. Indeed, in my own case I have filed legal proceedings and have every confidence in our judicial system to conduct a fair and open hearing and to deliver justice at the end.”
Unless the IACHR can address these issues, I would advise the Government, the people of Guyana and indeed, the entire Region to disregard the statements emanating from this body which is supposed to be impartial.

Faruk Mohamed