Leon R. Rouse v. Philippines

The author of the communication dated 21 June 2002 is Leon R. Rouse, an American citizen who, at the time of the initial submission was detained at Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City in the Philippines. He was released and deported to the United States of America on 29 September 2003. He claims to be a victim of violations by the Philippines³ of articles 7, 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (a), (c), (d) and (e), 5, and article 9, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is not represented by counsel.

3. The Covenant and the Optional Protocol of the Covenant entered into force for the State party on 23 January 1987 and 22 November 1989 respectively. ↩

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee notes that the State party has not raised any objections to the admissibility of the communication, that the author has exhausted available domestic remedies, and that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

With regard to the alleged violation of equality before the courts (article 14, paragraph 1), the Committee notes that the author has complained about the outcome of the judicial proceedings, compared to the outcome of another similar case. The Committee notes that the State party contends that the circumstances of the case referred to by the author were completely different from those of the author’s. The Committee further observes that article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant guarantees procedural equality but cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing equality of results in proceedings before the competent tribunal. This aspect of the author’s communication falls outside the scope of application of article 14, paragraph 1, and is, therefore, inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. However, the Committee notes that the communication raises issues with regard to the claim relating to the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal established by law and will examine that part of the claim under the same article.

With regard to the allegation of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (a), the Committee notes that the author was not found guilty of a different offence from the one he was charged with. This claim has thus not been substantiated for purposes of admissibility and is inadmissible, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), the Committee notes that it is clear from the material before it, that the author was present at his trial and that he was afforded legal assistance. Reliance by the Court on the alleged youthful looks of the 21-year old witness, referred to by the author to support this claim, falls outside the scope of application of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), and is, therefore, inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee considers that the author’s remaining allegations have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and therefore declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (c) and (e), 5; article 9, paragraph 1; and article 7 of the Covenant.

On the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, the Committee notes that the author complained that the Supreme Court had denied his appeal, which he maintains contained questions of law, without examining the substance of the case, on the ground that this court only reviews questions of law. He does not complain that his sentence was not reviewed by a higher tribunal. Moreover, it transpires from the facts that the Trial Court conviction of the author was reviewed by the Court of Appeal, which is a higher tribunal within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 5. The Committee observes that this article does not guarantee review by more than one tribunal. Consequently, the Committee concludes that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.

In relation to the alleged violation of the right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, it is uncontested that the author was arrested without a warrant. The State party has neither contested this allegation nor given any justification for arresting the author without a warrant. The Committee concludes that the author was the victim of a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

As to the author’s claim under article 7, the Committee recalls that States parties are under an obligation to observe certain minimum standards of detention, which include provision of medical care and treatment for sick prisoners, in accordance with rule 22 (2) of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners⁵. It is apparent from the author’s uncontested account that he suffered from severe pain due to aggravated kidney problems, and that he was not able to obtain proper medical treatment from the prison authorities. As the author suffered such pain for a considerable amount of time, from 2001 up to his release in September 2003, the Committee finds that he was the victim of cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of article 7. In the light of this finding, it is unnecessary to consider the author’s additional claim under article 7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c) and (e); 9, paragraph 1; and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation, inter alia for the time of his detention and imprisonment. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognised the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not, and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s views. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.]

5. Adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977; see Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.02.XIV.4), chap. J, sect. 34. ↩