The author’s son was killed by a police officer and the police investigation and justice system delayed in dealing with the case – inadmissible

Facts

The author is a national of Ecuador acting on behalf of their deceased son, also a national of Ecuador. The author claims the State party has violated their son’s rights under articles 6 and 14 of the Convention. The author’s son was in a park with his cousin. A fight broke out between them and a police officer who was off duty. The author's son was killed during the fight by the police officer with his service gun. The author reported the event to the police and the police began an investigation. However, their process was extremely slow and convoluted. The police never found the police officer’s gun and when they conducted different tests there was never the evidence to convict the policeman. The author claims that by protecting their colleague, providing bogus evidence, and avoiding the conclusion of the case if it were not at the author's repetitive request, the State party violated their son’s right to justice and equality before the courts as well as the right to life under articles 14 and 6 of the Covenant. The author maintains that other available domestic remedies would not have brought a reasonable prospect of justice as they are employed only in extraordinary cases and as these remedies would only revise the sentence which is not the aim of the case at hand.

Admissibility

The Committee reminds the author that doubts about the effectiveness of further domestic remedies do not constitute a sufficient ground to consider domestic remedies exhausted. The remedies of ‘extraordinary protection’ before the Constitutional Court over the substantiated criminal proceeding; a contentious administrative appeal against the State; and an action for damages against officials of the Administration of Justice were all available remedies. Following satisfactory justification by the State party that the further available domestic remedies would create a valid prospect for justice in their balanced approach to both parties and proven ability to overturn judgements and/or sentences, the Committee finds the communication inadmissible in virtue of article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol.

By Laura Cestaro