Professor Claudio Grossman, a Co-Director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Law, was the lawyer for the victims in both cases against the Suriname government. He
represented the victims on behalf of the center and the International Human Rights Law Group.
Grossman gave us his own impressions on the two decisions.
Q: Why did the center decide to take these
cases over?
A: There were different reasons. First, I
speak Dutch and I knew the human rights situation in
Suriname as well as the victims. On the other hand, the case of Aloboetoe was
challenging
because it raised the interesting questions of cultural diversity and the rights of the indigenous
populations.
Q: What is your opinion of the decision
rendered in the Aloboetoe case?
A: The fact that the Court recognized the
responsibility of Suriname is significant because the
Bushnegroes [Maroons] are considered second-class citizen there. It was important for civil
society to be confronted with them. The decision gave them some rights. The Court awarded
nonmonetary damages as well as $500,000 as material compensation which will alleviate their
economic situation. However, the Court was shy in not recognizing moral damages for the tribe
as a whole. I think that it reflects a lack of sensitivity for the group's rights. The Court should
also have ordered Suriname to investigate the killings and to punish those found guilty. It is
worth noting that under the American Convention, Suriname still has the obligation to
investigate this human rights violations.
As to the legal expenses, the Court made a serious mistake in not awarding them. I acted as a
pro
bono attorney and all the expenses were afforded by my law school and the Law Group. This
decision created problems for the victims. But we will continue to litigate this matter in the
future.
Q: What are your observations of the
decision in the Gangaram-Panday case?
A: As you know, the Court did not
establish the responsibility of Suriname in the death of Mr.
Gangaram-Panday. I believe this decision will create not precedent, but reaction. The Court
should require reasonable standards of proof such as circumstantial evidence; otherwise, it will
be difficult to prove any human right violations in the future.
Q: So, do you think the Court required a
higher standards of proof?
A: Actually, the Court asked the victims
to prove the impossible. It requested them to
demonstrate that Asok Gangaram Panday did not hang himself; however, the family [did] not
have access to his body until four days later. Therefore, the evidence was not in their hands. I
believe the onus probandi should have been on the government to demonstrate that he
committed
suicide.
On the other hand, the doctor who made the autopsies, a government witness, in
cross-examination testified that there was blood in the victim's testicles as a result of a blow
applied shortly before the victims's death. I think that if you considered the circumstances of
Gangaram Panday's illegal detention and subsequent death, it is very likely that he was subjected
to torture.
Q: What could happen if the approach in
Gangaram-Panday becomes a general trend? In other
words, how can the Commission reach the standard of evidence required in cases in which the
proof is in the hands of the government?
A: We hope that it will not become a
general trend. Moreover, as you know, the decision was a
divided one. In fact, three judges support a different position as to the responsibility of Suriname
in the victim's death. This decision will not run high in the Court.
Q: Will your election as a member of the
Inter-American Commission affect the center's
participation in other cases before the Court?
A: I believe the center and the
International Human Rights Clinic must be involved in new cases.
However, I will not participate in the decisions of those before the Inter-American
Commission because there is a conflict of interest. I think that the fact that I am a member of the
Commission can benefit the students at WCL in many ways. Among others, I am in charge of a
project concerning women's issues and I will need the assistance of some students. Furthermore,
in the Commission, I want to support my decisions with universal precedents; therefore, I will
need the assistance of students to prepare some comparative studies.
©Copyright 1994The Human Rights Brief
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to this issue's Table of Contents
Return to The Human Rights Brief Home Page