Haiti Liberte

On May 6, 2008, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ruled that the de facto government of Prime Minister G?rard Latortue and President Boniface Alexandre as well as the current administration of President Ren? Preval together have violated 11 provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights over the last four years in their treatment of former Haitian Prime Minister Yvon Neptune.

In its first-ever ruling involving Haiti, the court ordered the Haitian government to pay Neptune $95,000 in damages and costs. It also gave the Haitian government two years to bring conditions in its terrible prisons in line with minimum international standards.

"From the beginning, the [Haitian] State failed its obligation to protect Mr. Neptune's right to be heard by a court competent to hear the charges against him.as well as to an effective recourse," the IACHR said in a 60-page judgment issued publicly on June 6.

Neptune, who served as former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Prime Minister from 2002-2004, turned himself into the police on June 27, 2004, when he heard on the radio that there was a warrant for his arrest. He was accused of masterminding a "massacre" of anti-government popular organization members by Lavalas supporters in the La Scierie neighborhood of St. Marc. Subsequent investigations by human rights groups, journalists and the United Nations debunked the "massacre" story, which had been initiated and championed by the pro-coup human rights group National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH). Instead, researchers found there had been a struggle between two armed groups, with casualties on both sides. The Haitian Appeals Court prosecutor found that there was no credible evidence of Neptune's involvement. Still, Neptune spent 25 months in prison, including nearly a year in the squalid and overcrowded National Penitentiary, on the orders of a judge who never had jurisdiction over his case, according to the IACHR and Haitian courts.

Neptune was given provisional release for health reasons on July 27, 2006, two months after President Pr?val's constitutional government replaced the Latortue/Alexandre coup regime. However, the new government has proved unable for 15 months to serve an April 2007 Appeals Court order that would end the case against Neptune. The charges against him remain in force, and he risks being returned to prison. By refusing to serve the order, the Pr?val administration is keeping Neptune in a state of "absolute judicial insecurity" and perpetuating "an unjustifiable delay in access to justice," the Court said.

"It is regrettable that the Inter-American Court's first case on Haiti finds that a democratic government is violating human rights," said Haitian attorney Mario Joseph of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, who appeared as an expert before the Court. "I hope the Pr?val administration uses this decision as an opportunity to end Mr. Neptune's persecution, free the remaining political prisoners detained since the Interim [de facto] Government, and improve prison conditions."

The Inter-American Court's eight judges were unanimous in their ruling, which was made public June 6. They denounced nearly every aspect of the Haitian government's treatment of Neptune, finding that the de facto government illegally imprisoned Neptune in inhumane conditions, as it did hundreds of other political opponents after the February 29, 2004 coup d'?tat against President Aristide. Several of Neptune's co-defendants also have cases remaining against them; one is still in jail, four years after his arrest, with no trial in sight.

"Haiti's government certainly faces many challenges today," said Brian Concannon Jr., Neptune's lawyer before the IACHR. "But officials serve appeals court orders every day - the government could easily do that tomorrow. The government could make a good-faith gesture by apologizing to a Prime Minister who has suffered four years of political persecution, and promising to end the persecution now."

"This decision shows the interim government's complete disregard of elementary due process, by carefully explaining how the government failed to live up to 11 different human rights standards" said Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law (Professor Roht-Arriaza and Hastings students helped prepare Mr. Neptune's case). "The Inter-American Court demonstrates that Mr. Neptune never should have been arrested in the first place. At every step of the way, the justice system was distorted to keep a political opponent quiet."

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, headquartered in San Jos?, Costa Rica, judges claims of human rights abuse by the 22 countries in the Americas, including Haiti, that have submitted to its binding jurisdiction. Neptune v. the State of Haiti was heard on January 29, 2008.

Neptune was not brought before any court until 11 months after his arrest, and no formal charges were levied against him until September 2005, 14 months after his imprisonment. When the charges did appear, they were so vague that Neptune could not adequately defend himself against them, according to lawyers at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which referred Neptune's case to the Inter-American Court. The statement of charges contains "no indication that Mr. Neptune directly perpetuated the crimes alleged against him nor is there a clearly defined connection between Mr. Neptune and those who are alleged to have perpetrated the crimes," the Commission concluded. "The mental and factual elements necessary to establish Mr. Neptune's responsibility.remain entirely unclear."

Amnesty International called Neptune and other Lavalas detainees "prisoners of conscience," and numerous international organizations, including the United Nations and the Organization of American States, condemned the de facto government's use of the justice system to imprison and intimidate political opponents. Although many Lavalas detainees were freed following Haiti's 2006 restoration of democracy, some remain in prison without having been tried, four years or more after their arrests. Others, like Neptune, are out on provisional release, but continue to have cases hanging over their heads.

In April 2007, the Appeals Court of Gonaives ordered the case against Neptune dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Under Haiti's Constitution, regular courts in Haiti cannot try high public officials unless they have been previously convicted by the High Court of Justice, a special court formed by the legislature, similar to impeachment in the United States. In its judgment, the IACHR found it "unreasonable" that the State subjected Neptune to imprisonment and legal proceedings in regular courts without determining whether the forum it chose was proper.

During a hearing before the IACHR, the Haitian government's representatives claimed that the State has no power to serve the Appeals Court order, and that the delay was caused by a justice system with which it shouldn't interfere. The Court rejected that argument, saying that the government has the obligation to ensure that its justice system complies with the law.

The Inter-American Court ordered the Haitian government to pay Neptune $50,000 for lost wages due to his imprisonment and his current inability to work because of the case hanging over his head, $30,000 for pain and suffering, $10,000 to compensate him for other financial losses due to the proceedings against him, and $5,000 in legal costs, for a total of $95,000. In addition, the Court ordered Haiti to adopt judicial or other necessary measures to resolve the charges against Neptune as soon as possible and to publish portions of its opinion in a national journal or newspapers.

Neptune was represented before the Inter-American Court by the U.S.-based Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH). The original complaint in the case was filed in April 2005 before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by IJDH, the Haiti-based Bureau des Avocats Internationaux and the Hastings Human Rights Project for Haiti.

Here is Haiti Libert?'s exclusive interview conducted with Yvon Neptune on July 11 by telephone from his home in P?tionville. The interview was aired on the weekly WBAI program "Haiti: The Struggle Continues" on July 12, 2008.

---

KIM IVES, HAITI LIBERT?: Yvon Neptune, on May 6, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a decision in your case, finding that the de facto government of G?rard Latortue and Boniface Alexandre as well as the current administration of President Ren? Pr?val together violated 11 different provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights over the last four years. This is the first time the court has ever made a ruling in the case of Haiti, or even taken up a case concerning Haiti. The court's rulings are binding on its 22 member countries, including Haiti. Indeed, 16 months ago, a Haitian appeals court ruled that all charges against you be dropped, but the Pr?val government has yet to serve the order. Yvon Neptune, what affect do you think this ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will have on resolution of your case?

YVON NEPTUNE: Being that I have said all the time, even before my arrest, when some well-connected people were asking me about some accusations against me that I heard on the radio, I had made it plain that it was a political concoction that was intended to force me to flee the country, or being ready to be stigmatized socially, politically, and I would even say for the rest of my life.

That is why, from my cell, I didn't hesitate to keep writing about this. And that's the reason why also when initially the lawyers who were planning to do something about this, they wanted to go through some kind of legal process. But I told them no, this is a political matter. Because the way the judicial system is in Haiti, and given the connection between the system that has always been bad and under the de facto situation where the government and members of the so-called judiciary would be in cahoots to persecute Lavalas members and certain Lavalas officials.

My position was clear that it is not a matter of justice. It is a political matter.

But since the de facto government.... they knew what they were doing and they just put it through the political machinery of injustice in Haiti. So this decision issued by the Interamerican Court of Human Rights is a welcome decision and I would hope that this decision would in a way help the present government in Haiti, the state of Haiti, to do the right thing, to take the steps necessary to clear my name and in doing so, I believe that they would render a great service to the construction of democracy in Haiti.

HL: Can you please remind readers of when and how you came to be imprisoned illegally for two years, and why?

YN: My imprisonment is directly connected with the coup d'?tat of February 29, 2004. Right after that, since I had always taken the position that I would not leave my country and also I would be in a position [of being a threat] to any government that would result from an overthrow of President Aristide. So that was, I would say, an excuse, I would say a reason why this whole campaign was orchestrated against me. So I left the Prime Minister's office on March 12, 2004. And that was when I heard that campaign, the campaign that there was a massacre and that I should be arrested and all this nonsense. But that was not enough to force me to leave Haiti. So when I heard on the radio sometime later, sometime in June that there was an arrest warrant against me, and given that I'd always thought and I'd always been given to believe that my life was in danger... So when this question of justice or crimes committed against a certain group or whomever, I said well, the more reason for me not to go anywhere, not to leave the country. Because if anybody is accusing me of being a criminal, of being a killer, then I will stay in Haiti and I will fight to clear my name.

So those were in summary the conditions of the time when I was arrested.

HL: So you in fact went to the police to try to address the question on June 27, 2004, when you heard about it on the radio....

YN: I called the police chief to make sure that there was in fact an arrest warrant against me. When he confirmed it, I told him OK, I'm at your disposal. And then he came to pick me up.

HL: And then they arrested you?

YN: Yes.

HL: The Interamerican Court of Human Rights points out that Haitian officials of your standing are not supposed to be tried in the regular courts unless they've already gone before the High Court of Justice, which is convened by the Senate. Was this ever raised in the legal proceedings that you endured in Haiti?

YN: Being that I had refused all along... As I said, I did not want to be an accomplice in that sham. So in my view, it was up to the de facto government to do whatever they wished because they had the power to do anything that they wanted to do. So I didn't believe that, if it were ever raised, that question, if there was any reason, any evidence that I had committed something, that I should be tried by the High Court of Justice. During those times, during the de facto regime, that wouldn't have meant anything... At the time I was arrested, there was a Minister of Justice. Any Minister of Justice would know that. So if he went along, and first of all, arrested me, and they decided to go through this whole shameful and sham-filled process, so it is an indication that they were all out to do whatever they wanted to do against me based on their political and whatever other issues that they had.

HL: So you now continue to live in Haiti under a Damocles sword of the possible reopening of your case, which has never been dismissed. How do you expect things to unfold from this point forward given this new ruling?

YN: I know I was in a very risky situation but I said to myself that the risk was worth taking because I intended this to be a signal to the whole world that there is no judicial system in Haiti, no matter what anybody is trying to say. So I wanted to show that. And that was for me an occasion to show that, regardless of the pain I would be facing, the suffering I would be facing. I thought it was a duty for me, and especially being that also I was always advocating that justice takes root in Haiti. So it wouldn't have been proper for me to just leave and just let it be like that. That is the reason why also I accepted for this matter to be submitted to the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights, which in turn, after analyzing all the points of this, decided to submit it to the Interamerican Court of Human Rights to make a decision.

So now the decision has been rendered by the court. I am waiting to see how this government, which is a constitutional government, this parliament, which is a constitutional parliament, although the judiciary is still unconstitutional, so I am waiting to see how this administration, this government, what it's going to do to abide by the decision of the Interamerican Court. (...)

HL: The decision was announced on June 6th, but in fact the court ruled on May 6th, so the government has had at least a month or two to be aware of this and to take some disposition. Have they had any communication with you or your lawyers about what they intend to do about this?

YN: As far as I know, none whatsoever. No communication at all. And as I said to you, the Interamerican Court has said in its ruling that it will continue to observe the evolution of the matter. I myself, where I am, I will observe. I will observe to see how the government is reacting and what steps the government is taking to abide by the ruling.

HL: Might I ask, Yvon Neptune, why you and/or your lawyers have chosen to wait until now to have this decision known when it was announced on June 6th, the decision taken on May 6th? Why has there been a delay before making this public?

YN: To tell you the truth, it was not really up to me to make it public. The decision was rendered by the court, and I am quite sure the decision was submitted to the State of Haiti. Based on what the decision has asked the government of Haiti to do, I understand that the court has asked the State of Haiti to publish the decision, publish their ruling, but so far, the State of Haiti has not published their ruling. And also, in Haiti I know how things are. I know when some people are in power what they can do, not because it is lawful, not because it is legal. They will do it because they have the power to do it. And they will use any kind of pretext, they will concoct anything to do it. (...)

If I were to do anything that would not be to the liking of this government, what would prevent this government from doing what it wants to do to me, to create trouble for me? So I have to be very careful. Although I am not necessarily afraid, but I know whom I am dealing with, what kind of system, it's a known system I'm dealing with. I have to be very careful.

So the ruling has been issued, the government has the ruling in its hands, the government knows what the ruling has said, now it is up to the government to do what it is supposed to do. But I am not going to go around and talk. No! Because this is not going to compel the government to do that. (...) Also the Interamerican Court (...) is the overseer of what the government should be doing, it is what I use as a reference. So I can wait and see what will be the final outcome.

HL: Finally, Yvon Neptune, you continue to be a leader in the Lavalas Family party, active if behind the scenes. What would you ask your supporters, both Haitian and internationally, to do to push forward justice in this matter?

YN: I would have to make a little correction. I am not a leader of Fanmi Lavalas. And I do not pretend to be a leader of Fanmi Lavalas. I have said all along, since after the overthrow of the government, and up to today, I am a member of Fanmi Lavalas. It is a fact that I am interested for the survival of Fanmi Lavalas, even for the reorganizing of Fanmi Lavalas. That is another issue. But as far as Lavalas members, Lavalas partisans... well, given the situation in which Fanmi Lavalas is, I don't know if they would support me in spirit...

HL: What is that situation, if you can elaborate a little?

YN: Well, Fanmi Lavalas as an organization - I wouldn't say that it's in a state of disarray - but the organization per se is not really functioning as an organization. So the partisans, what they call the popular bases of Fanmi Lavalas, they do exist. Sometimes they make their voices heard, but that is not the reflection of a functioning organization. So that is why, in that sense, I would not really expect the kind of support, the kind of undertakings that a functioning political organization would accomplish in order to be part of a struggle that one of its members is going through, because we have examples of this situation. We know different cases where, being that there is no functioning organization, things happen to Lavalas members, and you'll hear a particular organization will talk about that, claiming that what's being done is an injustice. But there is not a real concerted effort, a real organizational effort to tackle this problem. You can take the case of [Lovinsky Pierre Antoine], who disappeared, and so many other cases. So I'm very realistic about this.

HL: Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us, and we trust that this matter will soon be resolved.

YN: I thank you very much and I hope that what I said will help people understand the truth of the matter.