Solicitud de la Comisión de 19 de octubre de 1992 para realizar de los expertos.
October 19,. 1992
Ref: CASES 10.274, 10.150
Dear Mr. President:
By the Resolution dated July 10, 1992, the Commission's delegates and advisor were informed that the Court would seek the assistance of expert witnesses on criminal and psychiatric aspects of Case 10.274 (Gangaram Panday), and as to translations. They were also informed that the Court would seek expert assistance with regard to the medical testimony rendered during the hearing on the merits, including interpretation of the videotape and slides shown during the hearing. By the Resolution date September 24, 1992, the Commission's delegates and advisor were informed that the Court would seek the assistance of experts in determining reparations and costs in Case 10.150 (Aloeboetoe et al.).
Consistent with the Regulations of the court, the Commission's delegates and advisor wish to request of the Court that they be permitted to reserve the right to cross-examine any witnesses and testimony thereby provided to the Court. Article 41(2) of the rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provides:
The witnesses, expert witnesses and any other persons referred to in Article 36 of these Rules may, subject to the control of the President, be examined by the Agents and the Delegates or, at their request, by the persons referred to in Articles 21 and 22 of these Rules.
Counsel appreciate that there may be instances where the Court could appropriately consult its own experts, pursuant to Article 34(1) of the court's Rules, and take judicial notice of information so acquired. The underlying jurisprudential precepts guiding the taking of evidence recognize the utility of the taking of judicial
Dr. Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
San Jose, Costa Rica
notice of certain non-adjudicative facts. However, in the instant situation the facts as to which the Court will receive testimony are adjudicative in nature - particularly with respect to the criminal and psychological aspects of Case 10.274, and most critically with respect to the interpretation of the videotape and slides presented in that case. Such critical, potentially dispositive, testimony requires the safeguard of cross-examination to ensure the petitioner's case is determined with reference to reliable, probative, and non-prejudicial evidence.
With respect to expert witness assistance to be provided in Case 10.274, the Commission's delegates and legal advisor would like to request that the oral testimony of Dr. M. A. Vrede introduced at trial be brought to the attention of such experts. In that testimony Dr. Vrede confirmed the presence of blood on the scrotum of the victim, and stated that the injury causing the presence of that blood would likely have occurred just prior to the victim's death, as a result of the application of brute force. The latter portion of that testimony presented information in the case not previously in the record.
Oliver Jackman Claudio Grossman
Delegate Legal Advisor
Home / Treaties / Search / Links