Delivery of Judgment - TTOJ2024/001 Derek Anand Ramsamooj v The State of Suriname

Añadido: 2026-05-26

[00:03:20]and judges of Court of Justice.

[00:04:00]Madame Registar, please call the matter.

[00:04:07]The Caribbean Court of Justice original jurisdiction delivery of judgment in the matter TTOJ 2024001 between Derek Anon Ramsuj and the state of Surinam. The members of the delivery panel are the honorable Mr. Justice Anderson, President and Presiding Judge, the honorable Madame Justice Rajn North, the honorable Mr. Justice Barrow, the honorable Mr. Justice Jamada and the honorable Madame Justice Anonu. Council, you may now enter your appearances.

[00:05:09]He is on the link before you as well.

[00:05:14]>> Thank you, Mr. Fipps. And we do see Mr. Ramoj on the link. Happy to see him. Uh, thank you again for your appearance. For the defendant, >> good afternoon, your honor. My name is Anapo and I represent the state of Surin.

[00:05:34]>> Thank you Mr. Limapo. And for the Caribbean community, >> if it pleases you, your honors, I'm Rad Permanand and with me is Mr. O'Neal Francis.

[00:05:48]>> Thank you very much, Kikum.

[00:05:51]and for the state of Trinidad and Tobago.

[00:05:55]>> Your honors may please this honorable court. My name is Marvani Oj Maharaj and I'm instructed by Miss Laurel Aaku Laura Pasad. Together we appear for the state of Trinant to make this matter who holds a watch in brief.

[00:06:09]>> Thank you Mr. Naj. Now the court also acknowledges the presence of members of the judiciaries and legal fraternity around the region.

[00:06:23]Representatives of government and civil society, members of academia including representatives of the University of the West Indies and representatives of the Suramese NGO Projit Surinam.

[00:06:41]The court also wishes to pay special recognition to the honorable Kim Wilkerson, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Bermuda, Miss Shakira D Francois, Solicitor General of Bermuda, and Mr. David Roberts, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice Bermuda.

[00:07:11]The court further acknowledges members of the diplomatic corps, the media, students, and all other members of the public joining these proceedings.

[00:07:24]I will now deliver the judgment of the court by reading a summary of the decision of the court.

[00:07:35]You are reminded that this summary is not intended to serve as a substitute for the reasons of the Caribbean Court of Justice, nor should it be relied upon in any subsequent consideration of the court's reasoning.

[00:07:54]The claimant, Mr. Derek Anan Ramsuj a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago is a political analyst and political consultant from 2014.

[00:08:10]He visited Surinam regularly to provide consultancy services.

[00:08:16]On the evening of 6th October 2020, a police officer visited the Clayman's hotel in Paribo seized his passports and instructed him to report to the police station the following morning.

[00:08:31]The next day, the claimant was detained in connection with an investigation of alleged fraud by the previous government for which he had worked.

[00:08:43]He was denied direct access to legal counsel for two consecutive 8day periods on the basis of Berkin orders made under article 42 of the surname code of criminal procedure the SCCP.

[00:09:05]During that time he was interrogated in Dutch with the use of a translator and signed a statement in Dutch which was used in court as his confession.

[00:09:17]The claimment was held in pre-trial detention until 22nd December 2020 when he was released due to the deterioration of his health.

[00:09:28]Formal charges of participation in a criminal organization.

[00:09:34]Fraud, forgery of invoices, and money laundering were laid against him on 26th March 2021, and those charges remained pending before the trial court in Surinam.

[00:09:47]His passports were held until September 2022 when he was permitted to leave Surinam to seek medical treatment.

[00:09:56]With special leave of the Caribbean Court of Justice, the claimant instituted proceedings against Surinam, the defendant, in the original jurisdiction of the court. He contended that he had been arbitrarily detained in Surinam without access to court or to council.

[00:10:16]He argued that this amounted to a violation of his rights under the revised treaty of Shagaramus, the RTC, the freedom of movement and to provide services. He asserted that the rights accorded to community nationals under the RTC are not effective without the protection of fundamental human rights, specifically those rights articulated in the charter of civil society for the Caribbean community, the charter. and that the berkin provision under the SECCP or its use in practice was incompatible with the RTC.

[00:10:54]By way of their defense, the defendant contended that the claimant had failed to premise the alleged breach of his rights to freedom of movement and to provide services on discriminatory treatment on the ground of nationality only. that the charger was non-binding and that the court lacked jurisdiction over alleged human rights violations simplicity.

[00:11:20]The defendant also asserted that the restrictions imposed on the claimant, including the restriction on his access to council, were justified under article 2261A of the RTC for the protection of public morals and the maintainance of public order and safety.

[00:11:42]The Caribbean community was added to the proceedings as amicus kuri and made submissions in response to specific questions posed by the court concerning the legal status of the charter and the relationship between the exercise of community rights and the competence of national law enforcement authorities.

[00:12:05]The court identified four key issues for determination. one, whether there is a minimum standard of human rights required for the effective exercise by community nationals of their rights under the RTC such as the right to freedom of movement and the right to provide services.

[00:12:28]Two, if there is such a minimum human rights standard under community law, whether the operation of the berkin mechanism under article 42 of the SCCP in the circumstances of this case was consistent with the effective exercise of the claimment's right to freedom of movement and to provide services.

[00:12:54]Three, whether the defendant could rely on article 2261A of the RTC to justify its use of the biperkin mechanism.

[00:13:05]And four, what remedies were to be awarded to the claimant for any violations of his rights under the RTC?

[00:13:16]On the first issue, the court held that community law imposes minimum human rights standards that must attend the exercise by community nationals of their treaty based rights.

[00:13:30]Applying the principle of effectiveness FET UTIL, the court reasoned that the guarantees of free movement of community nationals under the RTC would be deprived of their effectiveness if minimum human rights standards were not inferred.

[00:13:48]The court concluded that the charter is neither a treaty nor a decision of the conference of heads of governments with binding force.

[00:13:58]Nevertheless, the charter has legal relevance in the community's legal order. First, as an aid to the interpretation of the RTC pursuant to article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and second in helping to identify general principles of community law.

[00:14:21]The court found that the fundamental right human rights are general principles widely accepted throughout the community evident from the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual under the constitutions of all car member states from the charter itself and from international human rights instruments such as the international covenant on civil and political rights and the universal declaration of human rights.

[00:14:51]to which car member states had subscribed.

[00:14:55]The court held that the minimum human rights standards that must attend the exercise of treaty based rights such as right to freedom of movement include the right of an accused person to have access to legal counsel of his or her choice.

[00:15:16]That right was entrenched in the constitutions of every kiccom member state and had crystallized into a regional customary standard.

[00:15:29]On the second issue, the court identified three critical junctures at which the operation of the B Perkin under article 40 of the SCCP results in the accused being deprived of access to a lawyer. One during police or judicial interrogation, two during any challenge to the B Perkin order itself.

[00:15:57]and three during the contest of the lawfulness or continuation of detention.

[00:16:05]Noting that Surinam had inherited its criminal procedural framework from the Netherlands during the colonial period, the court contrasted the Surinamese approach with the Dutch system which had been significantly reformed to require prompt judicial oversight and the immediate provision of an independent alternative lawyer where a suspect's chosen council is restricted reflecting the position at the European Union able that access to council must be effected and effective from the first interrogation.

[00:16:43]Applying the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in Salus against Turkey which identifies early and effective access to council as a structural safeguard without which the fairness of the proceedings is presumptively compromised. The court held that article 40 of the SCCP in so far as it authorizes the deprivation of access to council at the investigative stage without compensatory framework sufficient to preserve the effectiveness of the defense unlawfully impedes free movement and cannot be reconciled with the minimum human rights baseline required by community law.

[00:17:28]The court found that in those circumstances there is no need to establish discriminatory treatment on the ground of nationality only in order to establish a violation of RTC rights.

[00:17:44]On the third issue, the court reaffirmed the principle in Gilbert against state of Barbados that freedom of movement under the RTC does not immunize caraccom nationals from the operation of law enforcement agencies in the receiving state.

[00:18:05]but distinguished Gilbert on the basis that it concerned the application to a community national of domestic law which was consistent with the RTC.

[00:18:18]The present case fell within the marry line of authority where the domestic law authorizing the enforcement action is itself inconsistent with the treaty by breaching the minimum standard of human rights.

[00:18:37]Article 226 of the RTC has a greatly diminished role to play.

[00:18:44]Only in extremely rare circumstances could a member state be permitted to rely on article 226 to justify conduct that undermines the substance of treatybased rights by reference to domestic procedures that fail to meet the minimum standards of human rights required by community law.

[00:19:10]on remedies. The court declined to make a declaration in respect of the alleged breach of the freedom to provide services being unsatisfied on the evidence that the claimant was at the material time actively engaged in the provision of services within meaning of the RTC.

[00:19:30]With respect to the claim for damages, the court was also not satisfied that the claimant had demonstrated a causal link between the denial of his access to council and the medical expenses he had incurred.

[00:19:46]Nevertheless, the court was convinced that the claimant suffered severe emotional and physical distress and that his health deteriorated appreciably because of his attention and that these effects were exagerbated by the claimant being held in communicado without access to his family and his attorney at crucial stages.

[00:20:11]The court accepted the unchallenged expert evidence on behalf of the claimment of a consultant cardiologist that the claimment had sustained a coronary event, a stroke and significant progression of his coronary artery disease during his detention and that the reported conditions of detention would certainly have contributed to the decline of his cardiovascular and general health.

[00:20:38]On the basis of that evidence, the court found that such deterioration in health, at least partially caused by conditions which breached his basic human rights enjoyed under the RTC, must attract some monetary recompense.

[00:20:56]The court did not consider it necessary to pronounce on the allegations of breach of articles 7 or nine of the treaty noting that a finding of breach of the specific substantive right to freedom of movement was sufficient.

[00:21:14]The court declared that the application of the Berkin mechanism to the claimant in the circumstances of this case was inconsistent with and constituted a breach of his right to free movement, freedom of movement under the RTC.

[00:21:36]It awarded the claimant the sum of USD30,000 by way of nonpcunary damages as compensation for the clear and significant injury sustained by the claimant as a result of the serious breach of an important RTC right.

[00:21:58]The court further declared that any reliance upon or use in any criminal proceedings against the claimant of any admission or confession obtained from him during the period of his unlawful detention arising from the treaty inconsistent application of the Perkin would constitute a breach of community law.

[00:22:24]However, this did not preclude the defendant state from continuing or instituting criminal proceedings against the claimant on the basis of evidence, if any, obtained independently of and untainted by the unlawful detention or deprivation of procedural safeguards.

[00:22:50]costs were awarded to the claimment and all other applications and claims for relief were dismissed.

[00:23:02]That then is the summary of the court's decision.

[00:23:06]We note that in addition to the summary judgment being available in English, Dutch and the sign language that the full written judgment will be available for download in English and Dutch on the court's website before the end of the day.

[00:23:27]Is there anything from council? Council for the claimment.

[00:23:34]council for the defendant.

[00:23:40]>> No, your honor, uh we will uh we will read u read and study the uh the judgment.

[00:23:50]>> Thank you very much, sir. Uh council for the community.

[00:23:55]>> No, thank you your honor.

[00:23:57]>> And for the state of Trinidad and Tobago?

[00:24:02]>> No, please.

[00:24:04]Thank you all very much indeed. Madame registister, would you please close the proceedings?

[00:24:10]All rise.