III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the Petitioners
8. In relation to the admissibility of their complaint, the Petitioners claim that Mr. Caesar has
exhausted his domestic remedies in Trinidad and Tobago, as required under Article 46(1) of
the Convention and Article 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The Petitioners state
that Mr. Caesar applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence to the Court of
Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago and his application was refused on February 28, 1996. Counsel
in the United Kingdom was then instructed on the merits of an appeal to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, who subsequently advised Mr. Caesar on November 9, 1998
that an appeal to the Privy Council was unlikely to succeed and that his case did not merit the
provision by Counsel of the certificate necessary to apply for Special Leave to Appeal to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a Poor Person. The Petitioners argue that Mr. Caesar
has now exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him.
9. Furthermore, the Petitioners submit that due to lack of funding and the fact that legal aid is
not available for Constitutional Motions in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. Caesar is unable to pursue
a Constitutional Motion before domestic courts for the protection of his fundamental rights. It
is submitted that without expert legal representation in Trinidad, Mr. Caesar would not have a
realistic prospect of success in such a motion due to the complex nature of the provisions of
the Trinidadian constitution.
10. In respect of the timeliness of the petition, the Petitioners argue that Mr. Caesar received
legal advice from Counsel and from his solicitors in the United Kingdom that his case did not
merit the necessary Counsel’s certificate to apply for Special Leave to Appeal to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council as a Poor Person. He was informed of Counsel’s opinion by a
letter from his solicitors dated November 9, 1998. The Petitioners submit therefore that "final
judgment" in this case should be considered to have been delivered to Mr. Caesar no earlier
than November 9, 1998 and that, as his petition was lodged with the Commission on May 9,
1999, Mr. Caesar has complied with the time limit specified for lodging petitions in Article
46(1)(b) of the Convention and Article 32(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
11. Also in relation to the admissibility of their complaint, the Petitioners contend that the
matters complained of in Mr. Caesar’s petition have not previously been submitted for
examination by any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.
12. With respect to the merits of their complaints against the State, the Petitioners claim the
following:
a) The sentence of flogging with 15 strokes of the cat o’nine tails to which the victim
was subjected on February 5, 1998 was a violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the
Convention. In support of this claim, the Petitioners rely in part on the case of Tyrer v
United Kingdom2 in which the European Court of Human Rights concluded that a
sentence of three strokes of the “birch” passed on a 15 year old boy constituted “cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.”
b) The victim’s conditions of detention amount to a breach of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and
5(6) of the Convention. In particular, the Petitioners claim that Mr. Caesar sleeps on a
concrete floor in a cell of dimensions 8 feet x 6 feet with a ventilation shaft of 2 feet x 1
foot. His toiletry, food and clothing allowances are limited. Since his incarceration, Mr.
Caesar has contracted tuberculosis and suffers from chronic hemorrhoids. The
Petitioners also indicate that they are not aware of any attempts by the State to reform
Mr. Caesar or to readapt him socially.
2
Eur. Court H.R., Tyrer v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A, No. 26.
2