The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee disclose violations of the Covenant with respect to: Article 7, because WaIter Lafuente Penarrieta, Miguel Rodriguez Candia, Oscar Ruiz Caceres and Julio Cesar Toro Dorado were subjected to torture and inhuman treatment; Articles 9, paragraph 3, and 10, paragraph 1, because they were not brought promptly before a judge, but were kept incommunicado for 44 days following their arrest; and Article 14, paragraph 3 (b), because during the initial 44 days of detention they had no access to legal counsel.
The Committee lacks sufficient evidence to make findings with regard to the other claims made by the authors.
The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation, in accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, to take effective measures to remedy the violations suffered by the victims, to grant them compensation, to investigate said viol~tions, to take action thereon as appropriate and to take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.
October 1984 (date of initial letter) Date of decision on admissibility: 2 April 1986 The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 5 November 1987, -207-
'rhe author of the communication (initial latter dated 10 October 1984 and further lette: dat.d 30 Sbpt.mb.r 19&5 is Ram6n B. Martine. Portorreal, a national of the Dominican R.public t,orn in 1943, at pr'tsent a practhiuq attolney, Law Profe••or and Executive r)I'C,l,.tary of th. Comil.:it Dominican.o de 10s Derechos Huma:.oB (COH). H. claims to b. -=,t~:I victim ot violations by the Government of the Dominican Republic of artic1. 9 parftqraph. 1 to 5, and article 10, paragraphs 1 And 2 (a), of the International Covenant on Civil and Politi~al Rights.
The author all.g•• that on 14 June 1984 at 6 a m. six members of the National Polic. came to his home in Sar-to Domingo and tol1 him that au assistant uf the prosecutor was with th6m and had rec.iv.d an order to have him arrested. He was taken to the h.adquarters of the National Police, where he saw several political opposition leaders (four names are given) who had al~o been arrested in the early morninq. They were taken to the Casa de Guardia of the Secret Sdrvice where they were put in a cell (known as the "cell of tha drivers"), where approximtitely 50 individuals wero beinq held. They learned that the Government had ordered a police raid that day aqainst all leaders or personalities considered to be members of the leftist opposition.
Later the same day, the author was allegedly separated trom the other political opposition leed.ra and t~an.ferred to another cell (known as the "Viat Nam cell"), measurfnq 20 by 5 m.tres, where approximately 125 persons accus~d of conunon crimes were being held. Conditions wflle alleqedly inhuman in this oV6rcrowded cell, the heat was unbearable, the cell extremely dirty and owing to lack of apace some detainees had to .it on ••crement. The author further status that h. received no food or water until the followlnq day. ~. On 16 June 1984, atter 50 hours of detentioll, the author and the other8 were released. Th~ author points out that at no time during his detention was he informed of the r.nsons for his ar~est. He maintains that his detention was aimen at servinq the following purposes. To intimidate COH because it had internationally critici3ed the Government'~ repr~ssion of a demonstration in April 1984 (no other ~etails are given), To prevent thft Executive Secretary of COH from d~nouncing the police caid agtiinat all individuals consi~ered to be leftist lea~era;
concerning the exhaustion of dom.stic r.m.di•• , the author state. that, although the Pen31 Cod. of the Dominican a.public provid•• that civil s.rvaut., agents or officials of the Gove~nment who have ordered or committed arbitrary act. or acts against the fr••Jom an~ political right. of one or ••v.ral individual. may be aentelnc.d to civilian demotion (alilrAdAciOn.c:LvigO), th.r. i. no r.cours. availabl. in the national penal law that would .nabl. him to pr•••nt hi. accusations and to s.ek redrea.. Thft autho~ doe. not indicate wh.th.r the .ame matter is being examined under ~nother procedure of internatioual inv.stigation or settlement.
By its decision of 5 July 1985, th. WOI:k1ng Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the Committ•• •• provisional rul.s of proc.dur. to the State party concern.d, r.qu••ting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the commur.ication. The working Group also requ.st.d the authol· to provide the C~mmitt•• with more detailed informatlon conc.rning the ground. for alleging that there was no r.cour•• available in the national p.nal law that ~ould enable him to pr•••nt the accusations mad. in his communication dn~ to s••k r.dr••••
By letter dated 30 Septrmber 1985, the author indicat•• that chapter 11, section 2, the P.nal Cod. of the Dominican aep~hlic r.f.rA tr infringem.nt. of liberty and that artic18s 114 to 122 deal with the p.nalti•• Lu I)e imposed on civil servants and agents or represenlativ•• of the Government ord.ring or committing an act that is arbitrary or constitutes an infLingement of individyal fr••dom, the volitical rights of ~n. or more citizens of the Conotitution. Accor~in9 to the article in qll.estivn, the penalty iu civilian demotion (~lldDC16D c1ylcO). The aut~or 31leges, however, that the ftrticles in question are a d~ad lett.r in the Dominican Republic, since in the 141 y~ars of the Republic'••xi.t~nc., no civil servant has lI.en brought to trial for an offence aqetnst. this provl.ion. Ho further aile4ft8 that the Uominican Code of Crimina! Procedure lay. down no procedure tOI the onforcement at the dbove-m~ntioned artiC~8S of the Penal Cod•• There is no court to d.al with applications of this kind. Thu., the author concludes, it is quite inconceivabld that any attempt to make u.e ot the procedur•• established by the pre8ent Cod~ of Criminal Procedure will prove Ducce.sful.
The time-limit for tho Observations requested from the State party under rule 91 at the Committeu's provisional rul.s of ~roceaure expired on 1 October 1985. No suhmissions were received from the Slat. party.
With reysrd to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Jptional Protocol, the Co~nitt8e ascertained that tho case was not being examined und.r an~Lh.r procedure of international investiqfttion or settlem.nt. fL2 With regard ~o lnticle 5, paragraph 2 (b). of the Opt.ional Protocol, the Com:ni.tt.ee could not conclude. on the basis of the information before it., and in the absonce of 0 sul"n18~ion tram the State party, that there were available remedi.s in the circumstances of the pre~ent case which could or should havft be.n pursued.
The time-limit tor the State party's sunmis"ion under article 4, paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol expired on 6 November 1986. No oubmission has been received trom the State party, apart from a note, dated 22 July 1987, stating that the Government of the Dominican Republic intended "to submit its explanations concerning communication No. 188/1984 ••• Dn~ the admissibility decisiox. adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 2 April 1986, during the forthcoming General As.embly". The Committee informed the State party that any submission should b& addres.ed to the Committpe, care of the Centre for Hum~n Rights. No further submission has be.n rer.eived.
The Auman Rights Committee. having considered the present con~unication in the light of all the information mad. available to it, as provided in article ~. paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides to bale it~ view. on the following fact. and uncontested allegations.
Hr. Remlon B. Martine. Portorreal i. a national of the Dominican Republic, a lawyer and P.;xecutive Secretary of the Comite DOln,\nicano du 108 DerDchol Humano•• On 14 June 1984 at 6 a.m., he was a~rested at hi. home, according to the author. because ot. his activities as a leader of a human riC)htll allsoc!.atiC'll, &nd taken to a cell at the Recret ~ervice police headquarters, from wher~ he wal transferred to another cell measuring ~o by 5 motres. where approximately 125 persons ~cGusad at common crime. were being held, and where, owing to lack of space, some detaineel h~d to sit Olj excrement. He received no food or ~ater until the following day. On i6 June 1984, attor 50 hours of detention, he was released. At no time during his detention wa~ he inl~r~.d of the reasons for his arrest.
In formulating its views, the Human Rights CommitteD ~lBO takes into account the tailure of the Jtate party to furniah any intormation or clarifications. It Is implicil in article 4. paragraph 2, ot t~e Optional Pr~ ,ocal that the Stdt~ party hus the duty to investlqat~ In good faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and l"s authorities, and to furnish to t.he Committilte tho information available to it. The Committee notes \lit~l concern that, desplt.ft its repeated r.eque.ts and reml..derl and ~espit. the State party's obligation undel article 4, paragraph l, ot lhe Optional Protocol. no explanatlonb or stateme~t" clarifying the matter have beon received from the State party in I.h" prose~t C~Re. In the circumstanctUI, due weight must be given to the autl'oc's allelJatious.
The Committee observes that the intormntlon before It does not justify a finding as to c,lle allegod vJolatio~ of ;lrtic1es 9, paragraphs 3 anr} 4, and 10, paragraph 2, o( the Covenant.
"he Human Rights ~ommittee, acting under article !i, paragrapL 1, of the Optional Pr3tocol to ~he International Covenant on Civil &nd Pol~tiGal Rights. is of the view that theue facts di8clo~e violations or the Covenant, with respect toa Articles 7 and la, paragraph 1, becaus" Raman Martinez Portorreal was sublected to inhuman and degrading treatment ftnd to lac~ of respect for hi~ inherent human <ii'll'! i ty dudng his detention1
July 1985 (datfl ef initial letter) 1l.D.tL.Q.f. dlcis10p OP IdmhlibUityl 9 April 1987 Tha.....HWllAILlUyht.l ...c.wnmlt.tIJl, established under article 28 of the Internationft~ Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Mta..ting on 4 April ]988, HAvlng.i:oAca\.\ti its consideration 0": communication No. 19111985, suurr.itt.ed t.o the C~mmittee bV Carl Uenrik Slom under tne Opti~nal Protocol to the Inte~national Covenant on Civil an~ Political Rights. l~ylml__tU••LlntQ.A~cQ)Wt all written informat.ion made available tu it by t.he ~uthor of the communication ftud by the State party concerned, AdQ2t.A the followln~1
The author of the communication (initial letter dated 5 July 1985 and further lattera dated 24 f.bruary 1986 and 19 ~anuary 1988) is Csrl Henrit 8lom, a Swedish citi.en, born in 1964. H~ is repres.nte~ by l~qal counsel. ne claims to be a victim of violations by the Swedish authorities ot article 2, paragraph 3, and article 26 of the International Cov.nant on Civil and Political Riqhta in conjunction with ~rticle 3 (c) and article 5, paragraph (b), ot the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education ot 1960. Article 13 of the International Covenant vn Economic, Social and Cultural Right. ia also invoked.