Juvenile Offenders Sentenced to Life Imprisonment Without Parole

1

REPORT No. 18/12

PETITION 161-06

ADMISSIBILITY

“JUVENILE OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE"

UNITED STATES

March, 20 2012

1. SUMMARY

1.On June 23, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission", the "IACHR" or "the Inter-American Commission") received a petition lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, the American Civil Liberties Union - Human Rights Working Group, and the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute (hereinafter "the petitioners"), on behalf of 32 individuals (the "alleged victims")[1] against the United States of America (the "United States" or "the State"). The petitioners alleged that the 32 alleged victims were tried as adults and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for having committed the crime of homicide in the state of Michigan, with the result that the State has violated Articles I, VII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV y XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter "the American Declaration"), interpreted in conjunction with various international treaties in the sphere of human rights. Also,the petitioners also argued that some of the alleged victims' detention conditions violated the American Declaration. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners relied on the exception to the fullfilment of that requirement due to the lack of effective remedies available in domestic law to redress the rights violated. Finally, they added that the petition had been filed within a reasonable time.

2.The State argued that the petition was inadmissible because the petitioners had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies due to the fact that some alleged victims had not been sentenced and others still had procedures pending before federal courts. The State added in its response that the petitioners had not filed a valid petition in relation to 27 of the 32 alleged victims, since they had not exhibited the corresponding information. The State also alleged that the petition had not been filed within the required time limit. Additionally, the State maintained that sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without parole does not represent a violation of the American Declaration.

3.As this report has established, after having examined the parties' allegations in the matter of admissibility and without prejudice to the merits of the case, the Inter-American Commission concludes that this case is admissible with regard to the 32 alleged victims for the alleged violations of Articles I (right to life, liberty and personal security and integrity), II (right to equality before the law), VII (right to protection for mothers and children), XII (right to education), XVIII (right to a fair trial), XXV (right to protection from arbitrary arrest), and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration. Finally, the IACHR considered that the petition was inadmissible with regard to the right contained in Article XXIV (right of petition) of the American Declaration. The Commission also decides to advise the parties of this decision, to publish it and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

II.PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4.The petition was received by the IACHR on February 23, 2006 and assigned No. P-161-06. On June 14, 2006, the petition was sent to the State and a time limit of two months was granted for it to present its response, in accordance with the IACHR's Rules of Procedure. On August 7, 2006 the IACHR received a request by the State to extend the time period for its response, and the Commission granted a 30-day extension from the date of notification of the extension. The IACHR received the State's reply on April 25, 2007.

5.The IACHR received observations and additional information from the petitioners, presented on January 30, 2007, May 9, 2007, July 19, 2007, August 22, 2007, December 12, 2008, May 19, 2009, June 16, 2010, November 1, 2010, December 20, 2010,June 24, 2011, September 28, 2011, and on March 8, 2012. It also received the State's observations on February 13, 2009, September 24, 2010, and on February 3, 2012. The observations and information were duly sent to the parties.

III.POSITION OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the Petitioners

General Allegations

6.The petitioners indicated that the 32 alleged victims committed various breaches of the criminal laws of the State of Michigan, United States, when they were between 14 and 18 years of age. They informed that after the relevant criminal proceedings finished, the 32 alleged victims were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Subsequently, they stated that the victims filed various legal remedies against the judgments and criminal proceedings against them, but these were unsuccessful. The petitioners alleged in essence that the laws of the State of Michigan, United States, as well as the various orders applying them, violated several rights of the 32 alleged victims, which are enshrined in the American Declaration, interpreted in conjunction with various international treaties in the area of human rights.

7.The petitioners explained that the criminal law of the State of Michigan has incorporated three types of legislative policies over the course of time:

i)The exclusion of juvenile justice based on age or on certain types of offenses.- Since before 1988, the law provided that all juveniles of 17 years of age had to be automatically tried as adults when they committed certain breaches of criminal laws - such as the offense of homicide - being liable for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Also, adolescents between the ages of 15 and 16 could also be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole if the judge decided, after a hearing, to treat them as adults in cases of the commission of certain offenses such as murder. The petitioners alleged that Damion Todd's case fits under the first premise, due to his age, and Henry Hill's case under the second, by reason of the offense committed;

ii)Prosecutors' discretion to determine whether minors breaching criminal laws should be tried under the juvenile justice system and the suppression of the judge's ability to decide whether they should be sentenced as minors. - Beginning in 1988, prosecutors were legally entitled, at their discretion, to decide whether juveniles between the ages of 15 and 16 should be treated as adults, reserving to the ordinary criminal judge only the ability to decide, on conviction by a jury, whether they should be sentenced as adults or minors when committing certain offenses. Beginning in 1996, the law removed the judge's ability to decide whether or not to sentence individuals aged between 15 and 16 as adults, as well as post-sentence hearings, such that life imprisonment without parole became the automatic punishment for committing certain offenses without the possibility of considering their individual circumstances, background, or possibility of rehabilitation. The petitioners alleged that Barbara Hernández and Kevin Boyd's cases illustrate the first scenario, and the cases of Patrick Lamore and the 28 victims referenced in Annex A to the petition are illustrated under the second, and;

iii)Lowering the minimum age at which minors could be tried as adults. - Since 1996, adolescents aged 14 could be treated as adults if prosecutors so decided, at their discretion, and could be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole when committing offenses such as murder. The petitioners group the cases of Matthew Bentley and T.J. Tremble under this heading.

8.The petitioners explained that in the State of Michigan, the crime of murder in the first degree includes: first degree murder, premeditated murder, felony murder, murdering a peace or corrections officer, or aiding and abetting first degree murder. The petitioners alleged that the 32 alleged victims were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for committing the crime of first degree murder whose classification is broader and regulates different conduct without differentiation between, for example, the perpetrator of the offense and those aiding and abetting the offense. They also pointed out that in the State of Michigan, in 2006 there were 307 juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, of whom 211 belong to ethnic minorities, overwhelmingly African-Americans.

9.The petitioners alleged that the United States violated the right to special protection set out in Article VII of the American Declaration, by treating the 32 alleged victims that are minors, as adults; and by trying and convicting them, in accordance with the law of Michigan, to life imprisonment without parole without consideration of their age, mental capacity and culpability. In particular, they argued that the State violated the 32 alleged victims' right to special protection by not opting for a prison sentence of the shortest possible length, and for having sentenced them to a punishment which controverts the aims of rehabilitation which should be the goal of the legislation applicable to minors who breach criminal laws.

10.The petitioners argued that the United States violated Articles I, VII and, XXVI of the American Declaration, by criminally classifying and applying the sentence of life imprisonment without parole to the 32 alleged victims, since it constitutes cruel, infamous or unusual punishment, with no consideration given to the vulnerability, immaturity, and consequently, the diminished moral and legal responsibility of minors.

11.The petitioners also alleged that the State is responsible for violating Articles I, VII, and XXVI of the American Declaration for treating the 32 alleged victims inhumanely by imposing this punishment on them. Above all, the State is responsible for the disproportionate amount of moral and psychological harm that the sentence of life imprisonment without parole causes to minors, and for incarcerating them in adult prisons, in some cases in maximum security wings, where they remain in solitary confinement and where, given their vulnerability, they are at greater exposure to sexual attacks or to other forms of violence, as well as suffering from profound depression, which, in some cases, ends in suicide attempts.

12.The petitioners alleged that with the United States' applying the State of Michigan's legislation to the 32 alleged victims, it violated Articles VII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration, by: i) not guaranteeing specialized proceedings and court trials in the area of the rights of children and adolescents; ii) not guaranteeing differential treatment between minors under the age of 18 and adults in accordance with substantial equality and their different needs, taking into account that a difference is drawn between minors and adults in other areas; iii) for the courts' failure to take into account the age and diminished responsibility of children and adolescents, the difference in ability between children and adolescents and adults to understand and participate in the proceedings, and defense counsel's lack of ability to represent minors in these cases, and; iv) the State's failure to give them an opportunity to present testimony relating to the inappropriateness of life imprisonment without parole, since every time they were treated as adults, this sentence was automatic. Finally, the petitioners added that the alleged victims were not provided with an opportunity to effectively revise or appeal the imposition of the life imprisonment without parole punishment.

13.The petitioners stated in their December 12, 2008, brief that the deprivation of the alleged victims' rights was compounded by the consequent omission by the State to provide them with opportunities for their rehabilitation, education and adequate health services. This includes requiring the inmates in Michigan to pass the General Educational Development Test in order to be able to gain paid work or a vocational program within the prison, and denying them access to this test due to the duration of the sentences. They also added that the mental health services directed at the alleged victims are derisory.

14.The petitioners argued that in light of the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been almost universally ratified and that this international treaty expressly prohibits life imprisonment without parole and obliges that incarceration be a measure of last resort for minors; and taking into account that the Commission recognized in the Case of Michael Domingues that the prohibition on the death penalty applied to juvenile offenders constituted a consuetudinary rule recognized as ajus cogensnorm, given the extensive ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[2] the State has violated customary international law in this case, by virtue of the fact that the prohibition on life imprisonment without parole within the Convention on the Rights of the Child constitutes a norm belonging to customary international law.

Allegations relating to the case of Damion Todd

15.The petitioners alleged that in accordance with the legislation in force in the State of Michigan prior to 1988, the judicial authorities automatically treated Damion Todd as an adult at the age of 17; that the jury convicted him of having committed the crime of first degree murder; and the judge sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, in violation of Articles I, VII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration. They also added that Damion Todd comes from a family of limited means and that his family had to hire a defense attorney who only interviewed him one day prior to trial. They indicated that the judge did not provide Damion Todd's defense counsel with a letter from various witnesses stressing that he had not fired. They added that in the adult prison, Damion Todd had only received four disciplinary infractions in 18 years, and that he had completed his high school studies.

Allegations relating to the case of Henry Hill

16.The petitioners alleged that in accordance with the legislation in force in the State of Michigan prior to 1988, the judicial authorities treated Henry Hill as an adult at the age of 16, the jury convicted him of aiding and abetting first degree murder. The judge sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, in violation of Articles I, VII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV y XXVI of the American Declaration. The petitioners informed that given the applicable legislation, the prosecutor requested that the judge treat him as an adult, and,once the trial hearing had taken place, the juvenile justice judge decided that he should be tried in ordinary criminal court without considering, among other questions, that he had the maturity and capacity level of a nine-year-old child. The petitioners added that upon conviction, Henry Hill was locked up for one year in solitary confinement in an adult prison where he remained until the age of 17, and thathe was only allowed to be out for one hour each day, two days per week. The petitioners noted that Henry Hill was afraid of physical and sexual abuse, a common occurrence in the prison he was incarcerated, and thathe had not received psychological treatment. Since his incarceration, Henry Hill has taken various courses, and at the date of the petition was in charge of serving food to the prison officials and inmates.

Allegations relating to the cases of Bárbara Hernández and Kevin Boyd

17.The petitioners stated that in accordance with the law in force between 1988 and 1996, the judicial authorities treated Bárbara Hernández and Kevin Boyd as adults at the age of 16, the jury convicted them of having committed felony murder, the judge sentenced them to life imprisonment without parole, in violation of Articles I, VII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration. The petitioners informed thatin their cases, given the applicable legislation, the prosecutor in his discretion decided to treat them as adults. Once convicted by the jury, the judge ought to have considered in their case whether they should be sentenced as adults or minors. In accordance with the legislation, the judge ought to have considered: i) background, character, maturity and way of life, ii) the seriousness of the crime; iii) whether the crime formed part of a pattern; iv) whether the adolescent's type of behavior represented a danger to society upon release at the age of 21; v) whether the adolescent was able to be rehabilitated in adult institutions or for minors and young persons; and vi) the superior interests of the common good and the protection of public security. The petitioners informed thatin these kind of cases, the judge had two options: if they were to be sentenced under the juvenile justice system, they would remain at liberty at the age of 21, and if sentenced as adults, the punishment of life imprisonment would be automatic for the crimes committed.The petitioners informed that this last sanction was the one imposed by the judge in their case.

18.The petitioners alleged that in the case of Bárbara Hernández, the judge sentenced her as an adult in accordance with the expert's report that indicated that she demonstrated no remorse about the death of the victim and the severity of the crime, without considering her psychological condition and that she had been sexually abused since childhood. For her incarceration in an adult prison,the judge considered the fact that the juvenile justice facilities did not offer the medical attention that Bárbara Hernández required, as well as the low probability for rehabilitation. Bárbara Hernández has been the victim of sexual violence and has suffered various injuries whilst incarcerated in the adult prison.