-24.
This President has decided to admit the declarations of the alleged victims and the
expert witness that were proposed by the representatives. As for the Commission’s request
to transfer to this case the expert opinion rendered by Desmond Allum in the Case of Hilaire,
Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, the President notes that the expert
statement in that case had addressed “the nature of the ‘mandatory death penalty,’ the
exercise of the prerogative of mercy in Trinidad and Tobago, and other points of the State’s
domestic criminal law, including the evolution and current status of the law of prosecutorial
disclosure,” and therefore, this testimony could be useful for judging the present case. He
further notes that the State did not challenge the admissibility of this statement and that the
representatives supported the Commission’s request for transfer. Thus, the President also
admits the transfer to this case of the expert opinion rendered by Desmond Allum in the
Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago.
5.
In view of the arguments by the parties and the Commission, this President will proceed
to examine in particular:
A.
The need to hold a public hearing in this case
B.
Use of the Court’s Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund
A. The need to hold a public hearing in this case
6.
The President recalls Article 15 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, stating that “[t]he
Court shall hold hearings when it deems it appropriate to do so.” This grants the Court or its
President a specific power to be exercised reasonably in view of the nature of the case, the
procedural requirements that arise from its particular characteristics, and the need to protect
the rights of the parties.1
7.
Based on the study of the application submitted by the Inter-American Commission
and the representatives’ brief, as well as the annexes thereto, the President notes that, prima
facie, and without prejudice to any views the Court may eventually adopt, the cause of action
in this case is of a legal nature. The President also notes that statements by the
representatives can be submitted as written affidavits of sworn statements before a public
attestor.
8.
In view of the above, the President has decided that it is not necessary to hold a public
hearing in this case for reasons of procedural economy, taking into account the particular
features of the case and the need to manage proceedings effectively.
B. Use of the Court’s Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund
9.
A note from the Registrar on March 29, 2022 informed the parties and the Commission
that the request submitted by the representatives of the alleged victims for access to the
Court's Victims' Legal Assistance Fund was admissible, and the necessary financial support
was granted to cover the expenses incurred for the presentation of up to three statements,
either in a hearing or by affidavit.
10. Therefore, considering that no public hearing will take place in this case, the President
authorizes allocation of economic assistance to cover the reasonable expenses of formalizing
(the costs of the public attestor) and mailing the affidavits of the three statements offered
Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Order by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
of May 5, 2006, Considering clause 11, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2021, Considering clause 6.
1