Kanta Baboeram-Adhin et al. v. Suriname, CCPR/C/24/D/146/1983, 4 April 1985

Case: / Baboeram et al. v. Suriname, CCPR/C/24/D/146/1983
Parties: / Authors: Kanta Baboeram-Adhin et al., (Communication 146/1983)
State Party: Suriname
Facts:
Arguments of the parties: / On the night of 8 December 1982, John Khemraadi Baboeram, a Surinamese lawyer, Andre Kamperveen, a businessman in Paramaribo, Cornelis Harold Riedewald, a lawyer in Paramaribo, Gerald Leckie, a professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Suriname, Harry Sugrim Oemrawsingh, a professor at the Technical Faculty of the University of Suriname, Somradj Robby Sohansingh, a businessman in Paramaribo, Lesley Paul Rahman, a journalist and trade union leader from Aruba, Netherlands Antilles and Edmund Alexander Hoost, a lawyer in Paramaribo were arrested at their home. At the time of the arrest no warrant of arrest was showed to the victims. On the night of 8 December the Suriname authorities “announced that a coup attempt had been foiled” and on 9 December, they said that “a number of arrested persons were killed during an attempt to escape”. Between 10 and 13 December 1982 the bodies were identified at the mortuary of the Academic Hospital and all of the bodies showed evidence of brutal maltreatment and gun wounds. Some of the bodies showed broken bones, bruises and most of the bodies showed numerous shot wounds to the chest and head. No investigation, no autopsies were performed.
The authors stated that no explanation had been given by the authority to clarify the matter before the committee and that in addition to the evidence of the brutal maltreatment of the victims and numerous gun wounds on their bodies, during an interview with a Dutch Magazine a military official stated that the military had killed the 15 individuals saying it was “‘their lives or ours' and 'we killed them first before they could kill us.’"
All the authors claimed that their relatives were victims of violations of articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In response to the Committee’s request for explanations and information on the matter, the State Party did not give a direct response preferring to submit earlier observations they had presented concerning a report prepared by the IACHR on the human rights situation in Suriname, which also considered the circumstances of the death of the same 15 individuals. The State also filed the report of the IACHR and death certificate for each of the 15 individuals.
From the Committee’s decision it does not appear clear what was actually argued in these observations since we only have extract from the document. However it appears that the State expressed their deep regret for the death of the 15 individuals but underlined that IACHR did not pay attention at all to the important fact that these individuals were being arrested because of the participation in the planning of the overthrow of the legal authority and were shot trying to escape. (Therefore killed “legally”)
Procedural Posture. / First procedural issue:
Following the filing of seven communications all based on similar facts and events and pursuant to rule 88 (2) of the of its provisional rules of procedure the Committee decided to join the communications of Johnny Kamperveen (No. 148/1983); Jenny Jamila Rehnuma Karamat (No. 149/1983), Henry Francois Leckie (No. 150/1983), Vidya Satyavati Oemrawsingh-Adhin (No. 151/1983), Astrid Sila Bhamini-Devi Sohansingh-Kanhai (No. 152/1983), Rita Dulci Imanuel-Rahman (No. 153/1983), Irma Soeinem Hoost-Boldwijn (No. 154/1983) to the one of Mrs. Baboeram-Adhin. (Par. 10.2)
Second procedural issue:
The authors submitted that the matter was not under investigation by other international bodies. They also submitted that no domestic remedies had been taken for the following reasons: lack of judicial investigation, high suspicions of involvement of the highest military authorities in the murder and no possibility to be represented by lawyers before the national jurisdiction because of their fear of repercussions since 2 of the people killed were lawyers allegedly because they were human rights activist.
The State argued that Suriname was already the object of series of general evaluation by different international organisation such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Labour Organization, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions. All these organizations would logically have to consider the facts and circumstances around the killing of the 15 individuals as part of a more global analysis, therefore the case should be considered as already before another international organization pursuant to Article 5 (2) b) of the Optional Protocol.
The Commission ruled on the admissibility of the communication on 10 April 1984 (Par 10.1)
The Commission rejected the argument of the State. It stated that it cannot be argued that a study by an intergovernmental organization or “of a human rights problem of a more global character” to mean the same as an individual communication pursuant to Article 5 of the Optional Protocol. (Par 9.1)
Secondly, investigation by international NGO’s does not constitute a procedure of international investigation in the sense of Article 5 of the Optional Protocol. (Par 9.1)
Thirdly, although the cases of the alleged victims were submitted to IACHR (by an unrelated third party) they were no longer under consideration. (Par 9.1)
The State did not contest the fact that no effective domestic remedies were available and pursuant to a consistent case law, the Committee reiterated its general rulings that if no effective remedies are available to the authors, then the communication should be deemed to be admissible pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. (Par 9.2)
Issues: / 1. Admissibility of communication when other organisations are investigating the case or situation surrounding the case.
2. Admissibility on the basis of exhaustion of domestic remedies.
3. Was the right to life of Mr. violated Baboeram and other were violated when they were arrested and killed by the Suriname military force.
Rights: / Article 6: Right to life. Only one addressed in the decision. The author also alleged violations of Article 7: torture, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment, Article 9: liberty and security of person, Article 10: to be treated with humanity and respect if deprived of their liberty, Article 14: access to court, fair trial and legal right upon arrest, detention and legal proceedings, Article 17: right of privacy and Article 19: Freedom of expression. However the Committee ruled that it was unnecessary to consider if there were any violations of the other rights in the present case.
Holding/
Reasoning / First the Committee considered that the State Party failed to respond to the committee’s request for clarification and information about the death of the 15 individuals. The Committee ruled that Article 4 of the Optional Protocol implicitly requires the State Party to investigate in good faith allegations made of violations of the Covenant. The Committee took notice of the lack of investigation into the circumstances of the killings. The Committee ruled that when an author of a communication presents corroborated evidence of its allegations and that the State Party, after being requested by the Committee, failed to investigate and provide information or explanation generally available only to the State Party, the Committee may therefore consider the allegations proven in absence of evidence to the contrary. (Par 14.2)
The Committee stated that “the right to life is the supreme right of the human being” and “that the deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity”. Law should therefore protect the right to life and it must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by the authorities of a State. (Par 14.3)
In the present case it is evident from the facts that 15 prominent persons lost their lives as a result of the deliberate action of the military police that the deprivation of life was intentional. The State party has failed to submit any evidence proving that these persons were shot while trying to escape. (Par 15)
Rules of Law: / 1) Investigation by intergovernmental organizations of a more general character or investigation by international NGO’s does not constitute a procedure of international investigation in the sense of Article 5 of the Optional Protocol. (Par. 9.1)
2) The right enshrined in this article is the supreme right of the human being. Law therefore should protect the right to life and it must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by the authorities of a State. (Par. 14.3)
3) The Committee ruled that when an author of a communication presents corroborated evidence of its allegations and that the State Party, after being requested by the Committee, failed to investigate and provide information or explanation generally available only to the State Party, the Committee may therefore consider the allegations proven in absence of evidence to the contrary. (Par. 14.2)
4) Domestic remedies must be effective and available. (Par 9.2)
Decision / The Committee “is of the view that the victims were arbitrarily deprived of their lives contrary to article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the circumstances, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider assertions that other provisions of the Covenant were violated”. (Par 15)
“The Committee therefore urges the State party to take effective steps (i) to investigate the killings of December 1982; (ii) to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for the death of the victims) (iii) to pay compensation to the surviving families; and (iv) to ensure that the right to life is duly protected in Suriname”.
Validity / Not binding.

1