Lack of fulfilment of admissibility requirements

Facts

G.J., a Dutch national and former Finance Minister of Curaçao, claims his rights under several Covenant articles were violated by the Netherlands. His involvement in the 2013 political murder investigation of Helmin Magno Wiels led to his arrest and subsequent legal battles. Despite challenging the lack of evidence and the infringement of his right to a speedy trial, his petition was rejected after an ex parte meeting between the examining magistrate and the prosecution. G.J. highlights the futility of appealing under Curaçao’s legal system, noting similar efforts by others have failed.

G.J. claims the Netherlands violated his Covenant rights by branding him unjustly as a suspect and conducting a biased, prolonged pretrial investigation. He criticizes the lack of fairness in the investigation process, particularly highlighting an ex parte meeting that excluded him from challenging the prosecution’s stance, a move he argues is not supported by procedural laws. G.J. also notes the investigation’s failure to explore alternative scenarios or to utilize available forensic evidence, which has kept him under suspect status without substantial evidence for over three and a half years. This, he argues, infringes on his right to a timely trial and impacts his potential political career, as current laws prevent him from being appointed as a cabinet minister due to his suspect status. G.J. seeks the Committee’s intervention to remove his suspect status, end the criminal proceedings against him, and obtain compensation for the harm suffered.

On 27 April 2018, the author contested the relevance of certain legal proceedings against him to his complaint before the Committee, emphasizing his ongoing detention in Venezuela since 2017. He detailed an appeal against a 2019 conviction where a 2018 court ruling had publicly implicated him in murder, violating his presumption of innocence as safeguarded by article 14(2) of the Covenant. Additionally, he highlighted a breach of article 14 (1) concerning a denial of access to essential court records post-investigation, affecting his right to a fair trial and timely legal proceedings, citing delays from October 2016 to December 2018.

The author contends that the State party has infringed upon his rights under article 25 of the Covenant, arguing that a 2012 law prevents him from being considered for a cabinet minister role due to his status as a criminal suspect. This law makes it a criminal offense to nominate someone who is officially recognized as a suspect in a criminal investigation for a cabinet position, thereby denying him the opportunity to serve based on these preliminary accusations, despite not having been tried or convicted by a court.

Admissibility

The Committee acknowledges the State party’s argument that the author’s claims related to article 14, both independently and together with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, should be deemed inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, due to his not having exhausted all available domestic legal remedies. It found his claims regarding unfair trial and excessive investigation duration inadmissible, citing a lack of effort to use all available remedies.  Additionally, G.J.’s claim of rights violations under article 25 related to his political aspirations was deemed unsubstantiated, especially following his serious offense conviction. Thus, the Committee declared the communication inadmissible.