Barbados: Visits & Communications
Correspondence from 2006
The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.
Barbados: Death Sentence of Frederick Atkins
Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment
Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male
Character of reply: No response
Observations of the Special Rapporteur
The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Barbados has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Urgent appeal sent on 11 February 2005
Mr. Frederick Atkins, aged 36, is scheduled to be executed by hanging early on the morning of 14 February 2005. Mr. Atkins was sentenced to death in 2000 for the murder of 20-year-old Sharmaine Hurley. If the sentence is carried out, he would be the first person to be executed in Barbados since 1984. I have been informed that a previous death warrant issued to him in June 2002 was stayed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. However, a new death warrant was issued by the Barbados authorities on 9 February 2005.It has been brought to my attention that, on 3 September 2004, Frederick Atkins's lawyers submitted an appeal against his death sentence to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It is my understanding that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has not set a date to hear Frederick Atkins's appeal. His lawyers have reportedly requested the Commission to grant precautionary measures in order to prevent his execution prior to completion of the hearing. However, in view of the rescheduling of his execution by the Barbados authorities, fears have been expressed that the authorities may carry out his death sentence before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has considered his case and therefore in breach of the State’s obligations under international law. As I had previously mentioned to your Excellency, I have further been informed that the death penalty in Barbados is imposed as a mandatory measure for murder and treason, thus making it impossible to take into account any mitigating or extenuating circumstances and eliminating any individual determination of an appropriate sentence. I would like to reiterate that such arbitrariness is incompatible with the international obligations of Barbados under various instruments. I am aware that the Privy Council upheld the constitutional validity of the mandatory death penalty law in its judgment of July 2004 in the case of Boyce and Joseph v. The Queen. I note, however, that the majority opinion carefully limited the grounds for its finding to the issue of constitutional interpretation. The Court expressly observed, however, that the maintenance of the mandatory death penalty ‘ will … not be consistent with the current interpretation of various human rights treaties to which Barbados is a party’ (Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 2002, Judgment of 7 July 2004, para. 6). In the minority judgment in that case, signed by four Law Lords, the same conclusion is expressed in the following terms: ‘the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court has been wholly consistent in holding the mandatory death penalty to be inconsistent with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. … The appellants submitted that “No international human rights tribunal anywhere in the world has ever found a mandatory death penalty regime compatible with international human rights norms,” and this assertion has not been contradicted.’(para. 81(3)). Since the mandatory death penalty is clearly in violation of international law and thus of the norms applicable in relation to Barbados, it follows that the execution of Mr Atkins on the basis of a mandatory death sentence provision would constitute a failure by Barbados to comply with its obligations under international law. It would thus amount to an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution. I would greatly appreciate receiving, on an urgent basis, information from your Government concerning the steps taken by the competent authorities to comply with the State Party’s relevant obligations under international law.
Correspondence from 2005
The record of correspondence for 2005 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1.
Country: Barbados
Type, date and summary of communication:Urgent appeal, 1 October 2004, Mr. Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Mr. Jeffrey Joseph were sentenced to death for the April 1999 murder of 22-year-old Marquelle Hippolyte. They reportedly had their death warrants read to them on 15 September 2004. If their sentences were to be carried out, they would be the first persons to be executed in Barbados in 20 years. Lennox Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph were initially told that their executions were scheduled to be carried out on 21 September 2004. On 17 September their lawyers petitioned for a stay of execution until the court decided whether their constitutional rights were breached. A stay was granted by the Barbados Court of Appeal, which was to hear their cases between 29 September and 5 October 2004. On 4 September 2004 the two men also filed appeals against their sentences to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. However, following the rescheduling of their execution, fears were expressed that if the domestic courts were to deny the current legal appeals, the Barbados authorities would again issue execution warrants and may carry out the death sentences before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had considered their cases. The death penalty in Barbados is imposed as a mandatory measure for murder and treason, thus making it impossible to take into account any mitigating or extenuating circumstances and eliminating any individual determination of an appropriate sentence. Such arbitrariness is incompatible with the international obligations of Barbados under various instruments.
Government reply:Response dated 1 November 2004: According to the Government, the facts indicate that the petitioners were convicted of murder and sentenced to death on 2nd February 2001 and subsequently the Court of Appeal of Barbados dismissed their appeals and affirmed their sentence to death. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the mandatory death sentence imposed on them. Pursuant to section 78 of the Constitution of Barbados, the petitioners are entitled to seek mercy from the Privy Council. In addition, petitioners sentenced to death can avail themselves of the right to petition the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Barbados has not signed the UN Second Optional Protocol nor its equivalent statute in the OAS system. Following the recent application to the high Court, the warrants of execution read to the petitioners have been stayed pending determinations of their constitutional rights. Accordingly, Barbados has fully complied with its obligation under international law which are reflected in its constitutional framework. The Government of Barbados states that the proposed executions of the petitioners cannot be classified as extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary. The petitioners were convicted by trial involving a judge and jury; they received legal representation by able counsel fully funded by the State Party. The appeal to the Court of Appeal was fully funded from public funds and able counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The convictions of the petitioners resulted after full compliance with due process requirements including legal representation and comprehensive arguments on appeal including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The imposition of the death penalty was examined and held constitutionally permissible. In October 2003, Barbados contented before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the imposition of the death penalty is constitutionally protected. The Inter-American Commission has since referred Barbado’s position for an Advisory opinion to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Accordingly, the death penalty is constitutionally permitted in accordance with international law.
Observation of the Special Rapporteur:The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its detailed and systematic reply, although the status of the mandatory death penalty under international law was not specifically addressed by the Government. The SR would appreciate receiving information with regard to the outcome of the appeals filed against these death sentences with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
Correspondence from 1983-2002
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has been corresponding with Governments regarding alleged violations since the mandate was established over two decades ago. While the Project on Extrajudicial Executions is making efforts to provide easily browsed versions of as many years as possible, much of the earlier correspondence is available only in the PDF versions of reports from 1983 to the present.