Information received and communications sent

     543. As in previous years, the Special Rapporteur received numerous reports indicating that in some cases the practice of capital punishment in the United States does not conform to a number of safeguards and guarantees contained in international instruments relating to the rights of those facing the death penalty. The imposition of the death penalty on mentally retarded persons, the lack of adequate defence, the absence of obligatory appeals and racial bias continue to be the main concerns.
     544. The Special Rapporteur sent 12 urgent appeals concerning death sentences imposed in the following states: Arizona, Delaware (3) Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri (2), Oregon, Texas (2), Utah and Virginia. The urgent appeals to the Government of the United States were sent on behalf to the following 14 persons:
     (a) Sentenced to death despite their mental retardation: Emile Duhamel (17 January 1996); Jeff Sloan, who was also reported to have been represented by an inexperienced lawyer (9 February 1996); and Richard Oxford (12 August 1996). The Special Rapporteur also sent an urgent appeal for Billie Bailey, who reportedly suffered from serious psychological, emotional and behavioural problems (18 January 1996);
     (b) Sentenced to death after trial in which their right to an adequate defence had allegedly not been fully ensured: James M. Briddle (11 December 1995); John Taylor (15 January 1996); and William Henry Flamer (18 January 1996);
     (c) Sentenced to death without resorting to their right to lodge any legal or clemency appeal: Guinevere García, who was also reported to suffer from severe personality disorders; James B. Clark (9 April 1996); and Douglas Wright (12 August 1996);
     (d) Sentenced to death despite strong indications casting doubt on their guilt: Tommie Smith (16 July 1996); Rickey Roberts, who was also reported not to have been adequately represented (20 February 1996); Joseph Roger O'Dell, who has reportedly extraordinary proof of innocence which could not be considered because the law of the State of Virginia does not allow new evidence into court 21 days after conviction (12 August 1996);
     (e) Luis Mata, who was reportedly sentenced to death after a trial which was allegedly marked by racial bias. According to the source, he was sentenced and resentenced to death in 1977 and 1978 respectively by the same judge, who has reportedly since been disqualified for making derogatory racial remarks in some cases presented before him (15 August 1996).
     545. In addition, the Special Rapporteur transmitted allegations of violations of the right to life committed by police officers against four persons:
     (a) Anthony Baez, of Puerto Rican origin, who reportedly died on 22 December 1994 as a result of injuries sustained during his arrest in the Bronx, New York. The medical examiner reportedly concluded that the victim's death was caused by asphyxia due to compression of the neck and chest, as well as acute asthma.
     (b) Frankie Arzuega, reportedly shot and killed on 12 January 1996 while seated in the back of a parked car. It has been reported that, according to police statements, the police officer fired through the back widow of the car, thereby killing the victim, after the driver tried to drive off while being questioned by another police officer.
     (c) Anibal Carrasquillo, an unarmed man of Puerto Rican origin, reportedly shot and killed on 22 January 1995 in Brooklyn, New York. The incident reportedly took place after police officers saw the victim peering into the window of the parked car. According to the source, a medical examiner allegedly reported that the autopsy had shown that the victim was shot in the back, though a police spokesperson had allegedly stated that the victim was shot in the chest after turning to face the police officer in a "gun stance".
     (d) Aswon Watson, an unarmed black man, reportedly killed on 13 June 1996 by three police officers in plain clothes. According to the source, the victim was shot 24 times while he was entering his car. It was also alleged that the New York City Police Department violated its own regulations and procedures by removing the body within minutes of the shooting without conducting any crime scene investigation.

Communications received

     546. In response to the urgent appeals transmitted by the Special Rapporteur, the Government of the United States continued to provide a reply in the form of a description of the legal safeguards provided to defendants in the United States in criminal cases, and in particular those specific to death penalty cases. In its replies, the Government referred to the following cases: Joseph Spaziano, Larry Lonchar, Luis Mata, Mumia Abu Jamal, Robert Brecheen, Barry Fairchild, Frederic Jermyn and Dennis Waldon Stockton (5 January 1996); James Briddle, Guinevere García, John Taylor, Billie Bailey, William Henry Flamer, Anthony Joe Larette, Emile Duhamel, Jeff Sloan and Rickey Roberts (29 February 1996); Tommie Smith (17 July 1996); James B. Clark, Richard Oxford, Luis Mata, Douglas Wright, Joseph Roger O'Dell (20 August 1996). Concerning none of these cases, a substantive reply was received.

Follow-up

     547. The Special Rapporteur, in its follow-up communication, thanked the Government for the replies provided but indicated that these replies did not satisfy the requests for information expressed in each of his communications. The Special Rapporteur also informed the Government that the appropriate authorities of the states concerned had not provided him with additional information with regard to these cases. In addition, the Special Rapporteur reminded the Government of his letter of 25 September 1995 in which he expressed several general concerns with regard to the application of the death penalty in the United States of America, to which no reply had yet been received. Lastly, he reminded the Government of his letters of 23 September 1994 and 25 September 1995, in which he inquired whether the Government could consider extending him an invitation to carry out an on-site visit.

Follow-up on the request for a visit

     548. In a letter addressed to the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations Office in Geneva, the Special Rapporteur indicated that, in view of the fact that repeated requests for an invitation during 1994 and 1995 had met with no response, he would highly appreciate it if the Government of the United States could inform him within two weeks whether such a visit could take place before February 1997. In the same letter, he also requested a meeting for the third week of September 1996 to discuss this matter, as well as other issues concerning his mandate (2 September 1996).
     549. As a result of this request, the Special Rapporteur had a meeting with representatives of the Government on 23 September 1996, during which he was orally invited to carry out a visit to the United States of America. On 8 October 1996, the Special Rapporteur further requested an invitation in writing and indicated that the most convenient period for him to conduct such a visit would be between April and July 1997. The Government extended an invitation in writing on 17 October 1996.

Observations

     550. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no replies were received to the individual cases he transmitted during 1996 and to the allegations of a general nature which he transmitted during 1995. He also regrets that no substantive replies were received to the urgent appeals.
     551. The Special Rapporteur remains deeply concerned that death sentences continue to be handed down after trials which allegedly fall short of the international guarantees for a fair trial, including lack of adequate defence during the trials and appeals procedures. An issue of special concern to the Special Rapporteur remains the imposition and application of the death penalty on persons reported to be mentally retarded or mentally ill. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur continues to be concerned about those cases which were allegedly tainted by racial bias on the part of the judges or prosecution and about the non-mandatory nature of the appeals procedure after conviction in capital cases in some states. In this context, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the decision of the Government of the United States of America to invite the Special Rapporteur for an on-site visit.