GHRA CONCERNS ARE
ONLY FOR VICTIMS
The
press release issued by the Guyana Human Rights Association concerning the
killing of six men in the Joint Operation Saline Solution has attracted
caricature and distortion from Government spokespersons. Criticisms range from
failure of the GHRA to comment on the crime situation until the criminals
started to die, no concern for victims’ rights and lack of concern for the
policemen who have died. Others ridicule the idea of peaceful methods being
employed against hardened criminals in possession of an array of weapons who
are responsible for a string of violent crimes.
With respect to the charge of ‘silence’, the Guyana
Human Rights Association has issued fifteen Press Releases since February 2002
on the crime, violence and East Coast upheaval. Two of them dealt exclusively
with the ‘Dirty War” on Policemen. Three of them addressed the fact that
indo-Guyanese were the overwhelming targets of criminal violence. The most
irresponsible criticism is the allegation of the GHRA is unconcerned about the
rights of victims and only interested in the rights of criminals. A brief examination of what are victims’
rights will show this to be a completely false allegation.
Victims’
rights, as set out by the United Nations, include:
·
The right to access justice through
procedures which are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible.
·
Right to information concerning progress and disposition of their cases.
·
Providing proper
assistance to victims throughout the legal process.
·
The right to privacy and to ensure the
safety of families and witnesses from retaliation and intimidation.
·
The right to restitution of property by
offenders.
·
Restoration of the environment and community property where appropriate
·
The right to compensation from the
offender, or other sources.
·
The right to compensation from the State for victims of seriously bodily
injury and for the dependents of persons who have died or been incapacitated as
a result of
victimization.
·
Establishing national funds
for compensation of victims should be encouraged.
Since Guyanese victims of crime a enjoy none of these
rights at all, the onus is on Government representatives to explain exactly
what they mean when they defend their actions by reference to victims’ rights.
In reality all the work of the GHRA concerns victims’
rights. The GHRA’s objection to extra-judicial
killing rests on the fact it violates all of the rights of victims listed
above, as well as rights that pertain to any citizen under the constitution, in
particular the right to a fair trial.
The State is currently coarsening the concept of
victims’ rights. By equating victims’
rights with the elimination of criminals in general, the range of rights
referred to above are reduced to an assumption of victims’
being satisfied by vengeance. Victims’ rights refer to justice
concerning specific crimes, specific perpetrators and specific procedures.
A further concern of the GHRA relates to restoring the
confidence of the community in the police force. The central issue here
involves respect for the rights of citizens. Failure to respect rights was a
major factor leading to the breakdown in community relations with the police on
the East Coast. This breakdown rendered the police completely ineffective over
the past year. This being the case, the impression generated by political
spokespersons that observing human rights diminishes the efficiency of policing
operations is misplaced, unhelpful and irresponsible.
Finally, with respect to the question of how the
police might be expected to act in a situation of well-armed criminals in
significant numbers who are disposed to kill for little or no reason. The GHRA
is not challenging the fact that a situation exists on the East Coast that is
beyond the capacity of normal policing methods to control. Our concern is with
the legal pretence that the situation is normal while employing practices only
justifiable in abnormal circumstances. If normal policing is inadequate, the
first step is to set in place the proper legal framework that will allow other
forces, such as the GDF to exercise emergency powers of a restricted nature to
support the police. To our knowledge this has not been done.
While the general public feels welcome relief at the
reduction in crime, Operation Saline Solution has features which set bad
precedents. Involvement of the military in civilian operations such as
crime-fighting, without a very clear legal framework is a particularly bad
precedent. To re-interate, the GHRA is not challenging
the need for GDF involvement in restoring law and order on the East Coast.
While the GHRA is not enthusiastic about states of emergency, however limited,
we believe this to be preferable to the use of emergency powers outside of the
appropriate legal framework.
Executive Committee