CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS COUR INTERAMERICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRESIDENTE DE LA CORTE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF JUNE 14, 2007 CASE OF BOYCE ET AL. V. BARBADOS HAVING SEEN: L The Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court", "the Court" or "the Tribunal") of May 29, 2007, in which this Presidency considered, ínter alía: 10.

That although the proposed expert declaration of Mr. Adrian King was not objected to by any of the parties, this Presidency [.,,] noticed from the evidence before the Court that he has represented Jeffrey Joseph, one of the alleged víctírns in this case, as counsel before the Caribbean Court of Justice, as well as before the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Justice of Barbados. 11.

That Article 50.1 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, read in Iight of Article 19.1 of the Court's statute, determines the grounds for disqualification that shall apply to expert witnesses. In accordance with said provisions, expert witnesses "rnav not take part in matters in which, in the opinion of the Court, they or members of their family have a direct interest or in which they have previously taken part as agents, counsel or advocates, or as members of a national or international court or an investigatory committee, or in any other capacity".

That the evidence shows that Mr. Adrian King has participated as counsel for 12. one of the alleged victims in the domestic proceedings during the years 2004 to 2006. Therefore, this Presidency consider[ed] that, according to Article 50.1 of the Court's Rules of Procedure and Article 19.1 of the Court's Statute, Mr. Adrian King is disqualified to act as an expert witness in the present case. and decided, ínter alía: 4.

To convoke the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to a public hearing that will take place at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on July 11, 2007, starting at 9:00 a.rn., in order to receive their oral arguments on the preliminary objection and on posslble merits, reparations and costs in the present case, as well as testimony from the following witnesses and expert witness: [ ] 1.

Charles Leacock, who will specifically testify about: 'Iel.: (506) 234-0581 Fax: (506) 234-0584 Apdo. 6906-1000 San José, Costa Rica E-mail: corteidhtsicorteídh.or.cr • Pago Web: www.corteidh.or.cr 2 (i) the iegal proeedures followed in proseeutions for the erime of murder, and (ii) the exereise of the prerogative of merey. [..] 2.

The communication of May 31, 2007, by which the Inter-Arnerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") noted this Presidency's decision not to call Mr. Adrian King as an expert witness in this case (supra Having seen 1), and requested this Presidency to consider calling Mr. Adrian King to testify as a witness, rather than an expert witness, during the public hearing in the present case.

The Commission's proposed object for Mr. King's testimony is the "death penalty legislation and procedure in Barbados in the present case and other such cases[;] the nature of mandatory sentencing and the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in Barbados in this case and in other such cases]; as well as] the procedures followed in prosecutions for the crime of murder in this and other such cases", 3.

The communication of June 1, 2007, by which the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (hereinafter "the representatives") noted this Presidency's decision not to call Mr, Adrian King as an expert witness in thls case (supra Having seen 1), and requested that Mr. King "be allowed to offer testimony as a witness during the public hearing".

The representa ti ves' proposed object for Mr. King's testimony is "the criminal justice process as it applies to those accused of murder], in] particular, Mr. King is to offer testirnony concerning the constitutional history and sources of law in Barbados; the law of rnurder in Barbados and the history and working of the Offences Against the Person Act 1994; an overview of the criminal procedure; the stages of the criminal process in murder cases; the rnandatory death penalty and savings clauses; the prerogative of merey, and the operation of the Prison Rules". 4.

The communication of June 1, 2007, by which the secretariat, upon instructions of this Presidency, informed the IIIustrious Sta te of Barbados (hereinafter "the state" or "Barbados") that it had until June 6, 2007 to submit any observations it deemed pertinent regarding the Commission and representatives' request to call Mr. Adrian King as a witness during the public hearing in this case. 5.

The cornrnunication of June 6, 2007, by which the state informed the Court that "it ha[d] no objection to the testimony of Mr. Adrian King as a witness" in this case. 6. The communication of June 6, 2007, by which the IIIustrious state submitted that "it wishe[d] to substitute Mr. Charles Leacock's norninee, Mr. AIIiston seale, as a witness in place of Mr.

Leacock, who will be otherwise unavoidably engaged during [,.] the Court's orai hearings" in the present case. Additionally, the state subrnltted Mr. seale's curriculum vitae. 7. The communication of June 7, 2007, by which the secretariat, upon instructions of this Presidency, informed the Commission and the representatives that they had until June 12, 2007 to subrnit their respective observations to the state's offering of Mr.

AIIiston seale as a substitute witness for Mr. Charles Leacock. 8. The communication of June 12, 2007, by which the representatives expressed that they had "no objection to the state replacing Mr. Charles Leacock with Mr. AIIiston seale, as a witness at the Court's oral hearings" in the present case (supra Having seen 6). 3 9. The communication of June 12, 2007, by whlch the Commission stated that It had "no observations" regardlng the request made by the State to replace Mr.

Charles Leacock with Mr. AIIlston Seale as a witness at the public hearing In the present case (supra Havlng Seen 6). CONSIDERING: 1. That regarding the admission of evidence, Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure provldes: 1. Items of evldence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only If prevlous notiFicatlon thereof is contained in the appllcatlon and in the reply thereto and, when appropriate, In the document settíng out the preliminary objectlons and In the answer thereto. [.] 3, Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious Impediment or the emergence af supervening events as grounds for produclng an Item af evidence, the Court may, In that particular Instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those lndlcated aboye, provided that the opposing partles are guaranteed the right oF defense. 4.

In the case of the alleged víctlrn, hls next af kin or his duly accredited representatlves, the admission of evidence shall aiso be governed by the provislons oF Articies 23, 36 and 37(5) oF the Rules of Procedure. 2. That with respect to the admission of evidence presented by the representatives of the alleged victims, Article 23(1) of the Rules of Procedure sta tes that [w]hen the application has been admitted, the alleged vlctlrns, their next oF kln or their duly accredited representatives may submit thelr pleadings, motions and evldence, autonomously, throughout the proceedlnqs. 3.

That Article 47 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that lo The Court shall determine when the partles are to cal! thelr witnesses and expert wltnesses whom the Court conslders it necessary to hear. Furthermore, the summons shall lndlcate the name of the wltness or expert witness as well as the object of the testlrnonv. 2, The party proposlng testimonial or expert evldence shall bear the costs oF the appearance oF lts witness or witnesses before the TribunaL [.. ] 4.

That the Inter-American Commisslon, the representa ti ves and the State were glven the right of defense wlth regard to the evidentiary proposals made by each of the parties at the dlfferent procedural junctures (supra Having Seen 4 and 7). * * * 5. That, In the Order of May 29, 2007, this Presidency consldered that, "accordlng to Article 50.1 of the Court's Rules of Procedure and Artlcle 19.1 of the Court's Statute, Mr.

Adrlan Klng 15 disquallfled to act as an expert wltness In the present case" (supra Having Seen 1). 6. That the Inter-American Commisslon and the representatlves noted this Presidency's declsion not to call Mr. Adrian Klng as an expert witness In this case, and requested this 4 Presidency to consider caJling Mr. Adrian King to testify as a witness, rather than an expert witness, during the public hearing in the present case (supra Having Seen 2 and 3). 7.

That the State informed the Court that it had no objection to the testimony of Mr, Adrian King as a witness in this case (supra Having Seen 5), 8. That the proceedings before this Court, as an international tribunal that seeks the protection of human rights, differ from proceedings in domestic law. This Court's procedure is less formal and more flexible than that of the domestic system.

Nevertheless this Court's procedure allows for juridical security and for the procedural balance of the parties '. For this reason, the Court, in exercise of its contentious function, has expanded faculties to receive evidence it considers necessary or pertinent. 9. That, in light of the aboye considerations, and because this Presidency finds that the proposed subject matter of Mr.

Adrian King's testimony is relevant to the adjudication of the present case, this Presidency considers it convenient to receive the testimony of Mr. Adrian King, in the manner stated in this Order's operative paragraphs, in order for the Tribunal to assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case, and according to the rules of sound criticismo * * * 10.

That, in the Order of May 29, 2007, this Presidency summoned Mr. Charles Leacock to the public hearing in the present case as a witness proposed by the State (supra Having Seen 1). That on June 6, 2007, the State informed the Court that lt wished to substitute Mr. 11. Charles Leacock with his nominee, Mr. Alliston Seale, due to Mr. Leacock's previous unavoidable engagement on the date this Presidency has set for the public hearing (supra Having Seen 6). 12.

That the representatives and the Commission expressed that they had no objection to the Sta te replacing Mr. Charles Leacock with Mr. AIIiston Seale as a witness at the Court's oral hearing in the present case (supra Having Seen 8 and 9). 13. That, in light of the aboye considerations, and because this Presidency finds that the proposed subject matter of Mr.

AIIiston Seale's dedaration is the same as that of Mr. Charles Leacock, this Presidency considers it convenient to receive the testimony of Mr. AIIiston Seale, as a substitute for Mr. Charles Leacock, in the manner stated in this Order's operative paragraphs, in order for the Tribunal to assess its evidentiary value within the context of the body of evidence in the case, and according to the rules of sound criticismo * * * er.

Case of Boyce et. al. Order of the Presldent of the Inter-American Court af Human Rights af May 29, 2007, Consldering nlneteenth; Case of the Saramaka Community. Order af the President af the Inter-Amerlcan Court of Human Rlghts of March 30, 2007 t Considering nlneteenth, and Case af Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez. Order of the President of the Inter-Arnerican Court of Human Rlghts of March 15, 2007, Constdertnq sixth 5 14.

That the appearance of Mr. Adrian King and Mr. AIIiston Seale in an oral proceeding will contribute to the Court's elucidation of the facts in the present case; thus, lt is appropriate to receive their testimonies in a public hearing, in accordance with Article 47(1) and (2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. Now THEREFORE: THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, in accordance with Articles 24(1) and 25(2) ofthe Court's Statute and Articles 4, 14(1), 24, 29(2), 40, 42, 43(3), 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of íts Rules of Procedure, and having consulted the other Judges of the Tribunal, DECIDES: 1.

To reaffirm the Order of the President of May 29, 2007, with the exception of the modifications made to said Order as stated in the second Operative Paragraph of the present Order. 2. To receive, during the public hearing that will take place at the seat of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, on July 11, 2007, starting at 9:00 a.m., in addition to the witnesses summoned in the Order of the President of May 29, 2007, the testimony from the foliowing witnesses: A. Proposed by the Inter-Americen Commission and the Representatives of the Aileged Victims and their Next of Kin 1.

B. Adrian King, who will specifically testify about: (i) the death penalty legislation and procedure in Barbados applied in the present case and in other cases of which Mr. King has personal knowledge; (ii) the nature of mandatory sentencing and the exercise of the prerogative of merey in Barbados as applied in the present case and in other cases of which Mr.

King has personal knowledge; (ili) the operation of the prison rules applied in the present case and in other cases of which Mr. King has personal knowledge. Proposed by the State of Barbados 2. A/liston Sea/e, who will appear as a substituta for Mr. Charles Leacock, and will specifically testify about: 6 (i) the legal procedures followed in prosecutions for the crirne of murder in Barbados applied in the present case and in other cases of which Mr.

Seale has personal knowledge, and (ii) the exercise of the prerogative or mercy in Barbados as applied in the present case and in other cases of which Mr. Seale has personal knowledge. 3. To require the State of Barbados, in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to facilitate the departure and return of Mr. AIIiston Seale, who has been summoned by the present Order to testify in the public hearing in this case, 4, To require the Inter-Arnerican Commission, the representatives, and the State to notify the present Order to each witness it has proposed and to advise each one that he has been summoned to testify before this Court, in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 5.

To inform the Inter-American Cornmission, the representatives and the State that each must cover the costs incurred in the production of the evidence that each has requested, in accordance with Article 46 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 6. To require the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to inforrn the witnesses surnrnoned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in accordance with Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will inform States whenever those called upon to testify before this Tribunal do not appear befo re it or refuse to testify without a legitimate motive, or of those that, in the Court's opinion, have vlolated their oath or solemn declaration, for whatever purpose foreseen in the corresponding national legislation. 7.

To require the Secretariat of the Court to notify the present Order to the InterAmerican Comrnission, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin and the State. gio García Ramírez President