5. The petitioners contend that, in light of the two new affidavits sworn by the prosecution’s key witnesses,
the alleged victims’ case was submitted to the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal for a second appeal. 5
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the alleged victims’ convictions and sentences on July 6, 2001.
After that, the petitioners observe that an additional petition for Special Leave to Appeal was lodged before the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“Privy Council” or JCPC) on November 27, 2002, but it was dismissed
on February 14, 2005.
6. The petitioners subsequently informed the IACHR that, pursuant to constitutional proceedings in the High
Court of Trinidad and Tobago, the alleged victims’ death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment on
August 15, 2008.6 The petitioners underscore that the late commutation of the death sentences does not alter
the alleged breaches for the period the alleged victims were on death row for what they consider to be
convictions obtained through a miscarriage of justice.
7. The petitioners note that Trinidad and Tobago’s denunciation of the American Convention on Human
Rights (“the American Convention”) took effect on May 26, 1999. Therefore, they maintain that the State is
responsible for violations of the American Convention with respect to those facts which took place before that
date; as well as for violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men (“the American
Declaration”) that allegedly occurred after that date. They conclude that the State violated Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
11 and 25 of the American Convention, and Articles I, II, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration. With
regard to Mr. Dial, the petition also alleges a violation of Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention.
8. In that regard, the petitioners mainly complain of three related issues: violations of due process in the
course of their arrest, pre-trial detention, trial, conviction and sentencing; conditions of pre-trial and post-trial
detention; and the delay in commutation of the alleged victims’ death sentences despite jurisprudence from the
JCPC requiring such action.
9. The petitioners contend, firstly, that during the whole course of criminal proceedings, beginning with the
arrests of the alleged victims, the State failed to respect their right to personal liberty and due process
guarantees. In this regard, the petitioners stress, inter alia: that the alleged victims were not told of the reasons
for their detention at the time of their arrest, nor were they allowed to immediately contact a lawyer or a family
member; they were not brought to trial within a reasonable time, since there was a delay of almost two years
between their February 24, 1995 arrests and the beginning of their trial on January 15, 1997; they were not
given prior notification in detail of the charges against them or the evidence on which the State was going to
rely at trial; they were not provided with adequate legal representation by the State; they were not provided
with adequate means for the preparation of their defense, nor could they afford adequate representation; and
they were not permitted to communicate freely and privately with their counsel. The petitioners emphasize
that the alleged victims’ deprivation of personal liberty resulted from illegal means, namely conspiracy and
fabrication of evidence by the police, as demonstrated by the 1999 affidavits of the two eyewitnesses.
10. The petitioners argue that the State has failed to provide the alleged victims with equal and effective access
to constitutional motions before the courts in Trinidad and Tobago for the protection of their rights. In
particular, they maintain that the conditions for such recourse are discriminatory because the proceedings are
extremely expensive, and no legal aid is available for these motions. The petitioners argue that the alleged
victims are indigent and that they do not have access to legal aid to bring a constitutional motion in respect of
the issues raised in the petition and therefore are being denied access to a legal remedy. They maintain,
however, that the scope of constitutional motions is limited to the constitutional validity of the State’s attempt
to execute the alleged victims.
11. Secondly, the petitioners argue that the conditions of pre-conviction and post-conviction detention of the
alleged victims violated their right not to be exposed to cruel, inhuman, degrading, infamous, or unusual
punishment or treatment. Indeed, the petitioners contend that the alleged victims have been detained for more
5
6
Pursuant to Section 64 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
The petitioners cite High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, H.C.A. No. 1412 of 2005, dated August 15, 2008, entered August 19, 2008.
2