Unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings

Facts

Madeleine Alicia Rodriguez, a Norwegian national, was arrested in Bolivia in 2008 for alleged drug trafficking with her daughter and others, after cocaine was found in their luggage. Initially sentenced in 2010 to over 13 years in prison for trafficking and related charges, she challenged the conviction, arguing for a lesser charge and disputing evidence of her involvement in criminal activities. On appeal, Bolivia’s Supreme Court adjusted her sentence to 10 years and 8 months but later reinstated the original sentence. Rodriguez sought to mitigate her situation, including bail reduction due to financial constraints and her responsibilities for two minors, and she was released in 2016. She continued to appeal against the prolonged legal process, but her motions were rejected. The case’s complexity was further compounded by motions from co-defendants, impacting the proceedings’ duration.

Madeleine Alicia Rodriguez claims her rights under article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant were violated due to the nearly decade-long delay in her criminal proceedings in Bolivia, starting from her 2008 arrest. She emphasizes that the right to a speedy trial is crucial for both the accused’s peace of mind and the interests of justice, covering all stages from arrest through to the final appeal. Rodriguez attributes the delay to the State’s failure to adequately resource its judiciary and to the actions of the co-accused in her case. She highlights the personal toll of the delays, including being unable to leave Bolivia or see her daughter in Norway, and living in difficult conditions without a work permit. Rodriguez urgently seeks a resolution to return to Norway and care for her daughters.

Admissibility

The Committee assessed the communication’s admissibility, noting the author attempted to exhaust domestic remedies and countered the State’s arguments regarding the effectiveness of such remedies. It highlighted issues with the late availability of certain remedies, such as constitutional amparo, and found no obstacles to admissibility.

Merits

The Committee reviewed the case against the backdrop of all submitted information, focusing on the claim of unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings against the author. Despite the State attributing delays to various factors like the case’s complexity and judicial reforms, the Committee found these reasons insufficient to justify the prolonged duration of the delay. It highlighted the author’s efforts to expedite the process and noted the personal hardships she faced due to the delay. Concluding that the lengthy proceedings violated her right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Covenant, the Committee ruled in favor of the author.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to:

a) Provide the author with an effective remedy;

b) Make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated;

c) Take the necessary steps to provide compensation to the author in respect of the damage caused by the unwarranted delay in the resolution of the judicial proceedings against her; d) Take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 15 September 2023

More information on the case:

— Los Tiempos - Joven noruega presa pide atención a su país