Table 1: Civilians shot and killed by police 1981 - 2000

2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991
140 151 145 149 148 132 125 120 145 178


1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983
148 162 181 205 178 210 354 196



Table 2 Police officers killed by civilians 1990 - 2000

2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990
11 8 14 13 10 4 6 10 11 10 11

Amnesty International welcomes these measures. However, the organisation still considers that the legal framework which governs the treatment of those under arrest and detention fails to provide adequate protections and may even facilitate the perpetration of human rights abuses.

There are no statutory limitations to ensure that individuals are promptly informed of the reason for their arrest and detention and brought before a judicial authority. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has stated that if a court is informed of a detention after significant delay, the rights of a detainee are not protected. Both the Commission and the Human Rights Committee have ruled that detention without being brought before a judge of between 48 hours and a week was excessively long.

Although written records are required to be kept on all those in custody at police lock-ups, and despite the appointment of special officers to oversee custody, reports received by the Amnesty International indicate that written custody records systematically omit details, such as time and place of interrogations, and the identity of the interrogator, considered crucial to prevent ill-treatment. Source: Interview with Executive Director, Legal Aid Council, February 2001. The UN Human Rights Committee recommends that, to prevent incommunicado detention and protect detainees' rights, registers should record: the names of those in detention; places of detention; names of persons responsible for detention; and the time and place of interrogations. This register should be available and accessible to all concerned, including relatives and friends, and should be available for judicial proceedings.

INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

The authorities in Jamaica have consistently failed to hold those guilty of human rights violations accountable. The vast majority of incidents are not investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially, in accordance with international standards, such as the UN Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has recommended that these principles should be taken into account and respected by Governments within the framework of their national legislation and practices. Resolution 1989/65, paragraph 1.


This situation has continued despite well-developed institutional mechanisms to investigate alleged abuses, including reforms made in recent years to the manner in which police shootings and other allegations of ill-treatment are investigated.


International standards on investigations

International standards, including the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, provide that when there is a death in disputed circumstances involving the use of force by law enforcement officials, authorities are required to initiate an independent and impartial investigation.

Investigations should examine, among other things, whether the use of force by law enforcement officials was in accordance with the (UN) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. This in accordance with Principle 18 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions and the opinion of the Human Rights Committee.

In the case of deaths, including alleged extrajudicial executions, the purpose of such investigations is to determine the cause, manner and time of death, the person responsible, and any pattern or practice which may have brought about that death. Investigations must include an adequate autopsy, collection and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements from witnesses.

Standards also provide that governments are to maintain investigative offices to undertake such inquiries. Investigators must have all the necessary budgetary and technical resources for effective investigation, and must be granted the authority to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry, to oblige officials allegedly involved and witnesses to appear and testify, and to demand the production of evidence.

Written reports on the methods and findings of such investigations are also to be made within a reasonable period of time. The report shall be made public immediately and shall include the scope of the inquiry, procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence, as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law. Those responsible are to be brought to justice and victims, their families and dependents granted fair and adequate compensation within a reasonable period of time.


Internal investigations into police misconduct

Two units within the JCF are responsible for investigating alleged abuses by the police. Both are accountable to the Commissioner of Police. Members of the public may deposit complaints with either unit, or with the civilian oversight body, the Police Public Complaints Authority (PPCA). Their completed reports are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a ruling on whether criminal or disciplinary proceedings, or a coroner's inquest, should follow.


Bureau of Special Investigations

The police department's Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) was established in May 1999 with the intention of taking over investigations of all police shootings from the Office of Professional Responsibility. It became operational on 1 July 1999. Headed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, its officers are intended to work under the close supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Government authorities and the DPP maintain that the quality of investigations has improved since the BSI was established. The DPP told Amnesty International that there had been a general reduction in the time taken for cases to be investigated and forwarded to his office for a ruling; he also said fewer files needed to be returned to the police for further investigation, because of lack of evidence or information.

Amnesty International remains concerned that, despite the authorities' assurances to the contrary, the quality of investigations still fails to conform in many respects to international standards.

Incidents are still not investigated promptly, impartially and thoroughly. The collection and analysis of forensic evidence remain cause for particular concern. The DPP informed the organisation that since the BSI became operational, no files had been returned because of a lack of forensic evidence. However, as detailed below, forensic investigation, including post mortems, remains wholly inadequate in most cases.

It is commonly reported that police investigators arrive at the scene of shootings after considerable delays - of hours, days or, in several cases reported to Amnesty International, even weeks. Investigators have failed to undertake thorough examinations at the scenes of many police shootings. This failure to arrive promptly at incidents provides further opportunity for crucial evidence to be contaminated or removed, as described below.

For example, Amnesty International was informed that investigators did not arrive at the scene of the shooting of William Richards until nearly 12 hours after it took place. By the time they arrived, the body had been removed by police involved in the shooting, and other forensics and ballistic evidence had been systematically contaminated. In the case of Delroy Lewis, it was reported that investigators only arrived at the scene of the shooting one week after it occurred. During their visit, they failed to even view the part of the property where the shooting was alleged to have taken place.

The head of the BSI told Amnesty International that the lack of resources, including under-staffing, is a major factor impeding an adequate response to the volume of complaints received.

Office of Professional Responsibility

All other complaints of misconducts concerning the police that do not involve firearms are investigated by the Complaints Division, a unit within the Office of Professional Responsibility. Complaints can be made directly to the Complaints Division or to the Police Public Complaints Authority - a civilian oversight authority.

This office has been repeatedly criticised by human rights organisations, lawyers and others as lacking impartiality and thoroughness.

Amnesty International spoke to many individuals who stated that investigators had attempted to intimidate them to prevent deposition of complaints. In one case, police investigators initially refused a 15-year old witness permission to deposit a statement in the presence of an adult. She was only allowed to make the complaint in the presence of an adult when she returned with a lawyer. There have also been complaints that the OPR has failed to follow the formal complaints procedure to deal with serious complaints. In one case, a woman alleged that officers recording her complaint of excessive force and harassment told her that they would get the officer concerned to the OPR office "to talk to him about his behaviour."

Police investigators frequently lack the specialist training and resources necessary to undertake adequate investigation. For example, the officer responsible for leading the police investigation into the death of Michael Gayle had been in the JCF for 19 years but had no formal training as a detective. He had been in the investigations department of the police for four years but had not received any on-the-job training. The two police constables assisting him in his investigations had also not received any training in detective work.

Public confidence in the complaint process is further undermined by the secrecy of police investigations, as described below.


Independent civilian oversight - Police Public Complaints Authority

Amnesty International is extremely concerned that the PPCA has neglected to focus on the most serious alleged violations. In a period which saw over 150 killings by police shooting - many alleged to be extrajudicial executions - the major concern cited by the PPCA in its last published Annual Report, regarding inadequacies of police investigation, was the non-return of detainees' property.

The Police Public Complaints Authority is an independent civilian monitoring body, with final oversight responsibility for the investigation of complaints against the police. Established by law in 1993, it is headed by a retired Judge, assisted by a staff of civilian personnel. Its responsibilities include supervising, reviewing and reporting on investigations by the JCF into all complaints regarding death or serious injury, and others as appropriate. It is also empowered to make recommendations to parliament regarding handling of complaints by police and to initiate its own direct investigations. It may comment on both the disciplinary and the criminal aspects of investigations. Any complaint made to the police complaints division must by law be copied to the PPCA.

However, there remains a widespread lack of public confidence in the credibility, independence and transparency of the PPCA.

Disciplinary and criminal proceedings against officers alleged to have committed abuses are frequently hampered through a lack of evidence, with officers unwilling to provide information. The PPCA has stated that a major factor preventing the full and thorough investigation and supervision of complaints is the failure by police who are the subject of complaints to respond promptly to requests for information from the PPCA. Nevertheless, the failure by the PPCA to make full use of its powers appears to contribute to the inadequacy of investigations. The Chairperson of the PPCA himself informed Amnesty International that the PPCA's statutory powers to search premises or review documentation (after first obtaining a warrant via a Justice of the Peace) are rarely deployed and that independent investigations are rarely initiated.

There is also public belief that the PPCA lacks the political will necessary to confront and challenge impunity. Amnesty International is extremely concerned that the PPCA has neglected to focus its attention on the most serious alleged violations. In a period which saw over 140 police killings through shooting for example - many alleged to be extrajudicial executions - the major concern cited by the PPCA in its last published Annual Report regarding inadequacies of police investigation was the non-return of detainees' property.

The PPCA chairman stated in an interview with Amnesty International that he did not consider it appropriate or possible to hold the Jamaican police accountable to the same standards as other countries, due to the high level of gun-related crime in the country. He also stated that he was generally satisfied with the quality of police investigations. Amnesty International is deeply concerned that this comment may suggest that the PPCA is not fully committed to ensuring that internationally agreed minimum standards are adhered to in respect of the investigation of alleged human rights violations by police officers in Jamaica.

The office also suffers from under-resourcing; currently staffed by just four investigators for the whole country. The Chairperson of the PPCA acknowledged that in practice it is difficult for those outside the areas of Kingston and Montego Bay, where PPCA offices are located, to report complaints.


Complaints against the Jamaica Defence Force

Despite the involvement of soldiers in civilian law enforcement roles, and the many allegations of their involvement in serious human rights violations in this context, no independent mechanism exists to oversee or supervise the investigation of complaints against soldiers.

Internal investigations of complaints into alleged offences by soldiers are shrouded in secrecy and the Jamaica Defence Force has reportedly failed to co-operate in criminal investigations, notably in the Gayle case (see below).


Autopsies

One of the major factors prolonging impunity is the inadequacy of forensic investigation into deaths at the hands of the security forces.

International standards provide that investigations must include an adequate autopsy, as well as collection and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements from witnesses. They stress that the autopsy report is as important as the autopsy itself, and must be full, detailed, clear, comprehensible and objective. Standards also provide, inter alia, that the body of the deceased person must not be disposed of until an adequate autopsy is conducted by a physician, who should be an expert in forensic pathology. Those conducting the autopsy shall have the right of access to all investigative data, to the place where the body was discovered, and to the place where the death is thought to have occurred. The autopsy shall, at a minimum, attempt to establish the identity of the deceased and the cause and manner of death. The time and place of death shall also be determined to the extent possible. Detailed colour photographs of the deceased shall be included in the autopsy report in order to document and support the findings of the investigation. The autopsy report must describe any and all injuries to the deceased including any evidence of torture.

Standards also state that, in order to ensure objective results, those conducting the autopsy must be able to function impartially and independently of any potentially implicated persons or organisations or entities.

Standards governing autopsies into cases of deaths through gunshots are even more specific. In cases of shooting fatalities information recorded should include, amongst other factors, an extensive account of the scene of the incident; weapons involved; types of bullets; cartridge cases; relative positions of persons involved; examination of clothing; investigation and documentation of blood splashes on body surfaces; precise description of bullet entry and exit wounds relative to anatomical landmarks and distances from soles of feet and bullet tracks within the body; excision of uncleaned skin specimens surrounding entry and exit wounds; X-ray before and during autopsy and determination of bullet tracks and their directions ; final determination of direction(s) of fire, of the succession of shots, of intra vital occurrence, of the victim's position.

In Jamaica, autopsies frequently fail to conform to an even minimal degree to international standards. Their inadequacies need to be urgently addressed.

A forensic expert, Professor Derrick Pounder, who reviewed a series of autopsy reports undertaken by state pathologists where there had been disputed accounts of fatal shootings in each case concluded that the autopsies, "did not constitute autopsies in the normally understood sense of the word", and failed to reach internationally accepted standards for best practice. Every autopsy report lacked the most basic, essential data. In some cases the cause of death was not even stated. One report, concerning Sylvester Wint (see page 13), indicated only that the body was discovered "lying on the ground suffering from a gunshot wound" - with no further information on injuries provided at all. In another, that of Rasheed Williams (see page 24), the pathologist failed to fully open the skull, despite the fact that the Williams was shot in the head.

In a number of cases, such as that of Matthew Mullins (see pages 23), clothing has been discarded after the autopsy. Mullins' relatives were denied access to view the body, but were reportedly asked to sign papers indicating that he had died from gunshot wounds.

International standards state that the family of the deceased shall have the right to insist that a medical or other qualified representative be present at the autopsy. Administrative procedures regarding autopsies were reformed in October 1999, to allow for this to happen. The reforms followed the outcry over the killing of Michael Gayle, and in particular, the condemnation by Jamaicans for Justice, of attempts by the state pathologist to prevent an independent pathologist representing the family of the deceased to observe Gayle's autopsy.

Despite this change, reports of repeated obstruction by state pathologists continue. Since October 1999, state pathologists have continued to refuse relatives, or forensic experts whom they appoint, full access to observe autopsies in many cases of fatal police shooting. Independent forensic observers have been reportedly forced to stay in one place, preventing them from viewing the body during the examination, and have been prevented from asking questions or taking notes or photos. Some relatives have been unable to make arrangements for expert observers to witness proceedings because they have only been informed of the date of the autopsy the day before it occurred. Relatives have also been refused permission to view bodies by police officers after arriving at the morgue.

The Minister of National Security and Justice had also stated that legislation would be enacted to provide for the right to observe autopsies. At the time of writing however, such legislation had yet to be brought into effect.

Authorities, including prosecutorial agencies, do not appear to concede such failings. In an interview with Amnesty International in August 2000 for example, the DPP stated that he considered the quality of forensic and ballistics evidence to be satisfactory. He also stated that whilst many inadequately detailed post mortem reports had been received prior to the establishment of the BSI, no files had been returned for lack of forensic evidence since its inception.


Coroner's Inquests

The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that not all cases of deaths at the hands of police or security forces in Jamaica are subject to a coroner's inquest. It recommended that all such deaths be inquired into.

Under Jamaican law, coroners have discretion in deciding whether to hold an inquest. In practice, as the case of Michael Gayle illustrates, these are often only held following sustained public pressure.

The Human Rights Committee also recommended that in all such cases, inquests ordered under the Coroners Act must be re-opened if no prosecution ensues. By law, inquests may be postponed until the conclusion of criminal proceedings at the discretion of the Coroner. In practice, inquests adjourned in this way are not reopened in every case, if no prosecution or conviction ensues. Coroners may exercise discretion in deciding whether to resume or hold an inquest in such circumstances.

Where directions are given for inquests into police killings to be held, they are often subject to frequent adjournments and delays. There is a general shortage of coroners and in some cases, coroners have failed to turn up on the appointed day.

The relatives of the deceased have no right to legal representation at the inquest, although the coroner may permit a family to be legally represented at their discretion, and there is no system of legal aid provision for families to obtain representation. In practice, families are often unaware of their right to request legal representation and are often unrepresented at inquests. Given the quasi-legal status of inquests, they are often therefore placed at a disadvantage. Legal expertise is often imperative for calling and effectively cross-examining witnesses and for the proper examination of medical and other evidence.

Amnesty International has also received recent reports that in a number of cases, such as the inquest into the death of Rasheed Williams in March 2001, witnesses have been intimidated into refraining from giving evidence at coroner's inquests. In the case of Williams, the witness was reported to have withdrawn after police reportedly visited his house several times.


Avoiding accountability: covering-up evidence

In many cases of alleged police abuses, accounts are disputed or there are no independent witnesses. Cases often rest upon the word of the victim or witnesses against that of the accused officer. The standard of proof in criminal prosecutions is particularly high and it can be difficult to obtain sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction unless police or army witnesses themselves come forward. Efforts to cover-up abuses, and the "code of silence" that prevents officers testifying against each other, are major barriers to overcoming impunity.

Members of the security forces have frequently resisted giving evidence at inquiries. At the inquest in December 1999 into the death of Michael Gayle for example, the coroner's jury repeatedly heard testimony from police officers and soldiers attempting to blame each other for the killing. During the investigation into the death of Gayle, the Jamaican Defence Force (JDF) also refused to make available statements that could have aided the police inquiries. Statements by army officers and soldiers were only made available to the Coroner's inquiry after repeated attempts to obtain them by the Coroner.

Other means by which members of the security forces have reportedly attempted to cover up brutality to avoid being held accountable for their actions include forcibly preventing individuals from viewing shootings; intimidation and death threats; charging the victim, or potential witnesses, with offences such as possession of narcotics or firearms or assault; failing to report misconduct and filing false or incomplete reports to cover up abuses (commonly by claiming that fatal shootings occurred in the context of an exchange of gun fire) and contaminating forensic evidence. In some cases people have even been charged with shooting at police.

Amnesty International has received numerous reports, which it believes to be credible, that police officers implicated in shootings have attempted to avoid being held accountable by removing or interfering with vital forensic and ballistics evidence. Such evidence is particularly crucial, given the numbers of disputed accounts that take place with the word of the police at odds with that of witnesses.

Some relatives have been forcibly prevented from accompanying police officers to the morgue and there has been concern that police have in some cases inflicted further subsequent injuries. In one case described above for example (page 16), relatives stated that a victim had been shot in the arms after he was forcibly removed from the scene of the shooting by police.

Bodies of deceased victims are invariably handled and removed immediately after shootings take place, before the arrival of forensic practitioners. Bodies are not normally stored in body bags; a standard procedure to prevent the body being contaminated with substances that could interfere with the forensic evidence. One man described seeing the body of his relative stacked on top of a pile of other naked bodies in a mortuary. In several cases, police have ransacked properties after a shooting has taken place.

Reports also indicate that ammunition shells are removed and disposed of by police officers, and that officers have in some cases failed to hand in their weapons immediately after a shooting takes place, in contravention of international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which stresses the need for efficient reporting mechanisms to account for every piece of ammunition used. Interference with ballistics evidence also contravenes domestic policy, which provides that every piece of ammunition used and every use of a firearm must be immediately accounted for to superior officers, registered and reported.

International standards state that prosecutors shall perform an active role in criminal proceedings, including institution of prosecution and, where authorized by law or consistent with local practice, in the investigation of crime, supervision over the legality of these investigations.

The Director of Public Prosecutions stated to Amnesty International that witnesses, not police, were mostly responsible for picking up ammunition shells. While Amnesty International is not in a position to verify that witnesses never interfere with such evidence, the organisation is concerned that the DPP assumes such practices take place; an assumption that appears to automatically favour the police version of events.

Threats, intimidation and torture of witnesses, relatives and attorneys

There have been many credible reports indicating that police and army officers have attempted to intimidate victims, relatives of victims, lawyers or witnesses, in an attempt to prevent such individuals making official complaints or testifying at inquiries.

The UN Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions state that complainants, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation. Those potentially implicated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions shall be removed from any position of control or power, whether direct or indirect, over complainants, witnesses and their families, as well as over those conducting investigations.

Amnesty International has received credible information indicating that many relatives of victims of abuses and witnesses have received death threats, including, in some cases, both before and after shootings have taken place. In June 2000, eye witnesses reportedly received death threats from police officers following the fatal shootings of Quwame Pickering and Danville Patterson in Craig Town. One member of the security forces allegedly also drove past mourners with a cocked rifle at Pickering's funeral procession.

Amnesty International has also documented an increase in reported allegations of the short-term detention, ill-treatment and occasionally torture of relatives of alleged criminal suspects. The allegations include those made against members of the Crime Management Unit (see page 36).

Witnesses testifying against the police have not received adequate state protection. In 1997 the Ministry for National Security and Justice established a Witness Protection Programme. However, Amnesty International is concerned that doubts have arisen as to its effectiveness in ensuring the safety of witnesses, particularly those involved in testifying against officers implicated in human rights violations. Individuals seeking protection before or after trial may enter the programme upon the recommendation of either the DPP or the police. In practice however the police are normally the first point of contact. In September 2000, personal information on a individual in the program was reportedly leaked to police officers allegedly under investigation for drug offences in September 2000. Acting on the information, one officer reportedly visited the informant's house and that of his relatives and made death threats.

Authorities do not appear to concede the need for reform to the programme to ensure adequate witness protection. The DPP stated that the programme was "functioning as effectively as any witness protection programme can." Following media reports of the alleged leak, the Ministry of National Security and Justice has refused to confirm or deny the allegations.


Threats against lawyers and human rights defenders

International standards stress that states are under a duty to protect those who defend human rights. The UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), for example, bliges the State to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection, by competent authorities, of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration to defend and promote human rights. Everyone is entitled to effective protection under national law in opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, the Defender's Declaration states that those professionally qualified, have the right to offer and provide legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Lawyers representing victims of alleged abuses and human rights activists have been targeted for threats and intimidation in Jamaica. As this report was going to press, Jamaicans for Justice reported receiving a number of death threats, following the killing of seven men in Braeton on 14 March 2001. Over three days in June 2000, Dr. Carolyn Gomes, the Director of group, received death threats by phone. Jamaicans for Justice has also reported surveillance of their work, including through wire-tapping and police infiltration of meetings. Following the killing of Sylvester Wint in 2000, high-ranking police officers allegedly criticised Jamaicans for Justice in a press conference, accusing them of politically motivated involvement in the shooting. A journalist who had queried political involvement behind the shootings also reportedly had a gun placed through his window the next day and was threatened.

Attorney Dahlia Allen left Jamaica in August 2000 after alleging intimidation and harassment, including death threats. She had represented a number of those ill-treated by the police in the Montego Bay removal in June 1999, as well as representing a number of prisoners allegedly ill-treated during the course of disturbances in St. Catherine's prison in May 2000. The Prime Minister strongly refuted allegations that Mrs Allen's telephone had been tapped and that she had been the subject of intimidation in a meeting with Amnesty International in September 2000, although media reports stated in October that a number of illegal wiretaps had been executed without the Prime Minister's consent or knowledge.


Cartoon depicting a member of human rights group Jamaicans for Justice under surveillance by the police. The cartoon followed the labelling of the group as "suspicious" by the Chairman of the Police Federation. Copyright: Jamaica Observer.


Amnesty International is further concerned about a number of comments from those in authority, which have been openly derisive of the work of human rights defenders. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Security and Justice have derided the work of Amnesty International and others involved in the defence of human rights, claiming they cared little for police officers killed in the line of duty or the victims of crime. The Chairman of the Police Federation has also made allegations suggesting links between Jamaicans for Justice and armed criminals, labelling the group "suspicious" and stating that the Police Federation would monitor the group "closely". Such comments are conducive to a climate of disrespect for human rights and may further encourage harassment of human rights defenders and undermine freedom of expression.


Secrecy of investigations

Public confidence in the Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Jamaica Defence Force, including the complaints and disciplinary process, is further undermined by the secrecy of police and army internal investigations and civilian oversight.

International standards stress that families and legal relatives are to be informed and have access to hearings and all other information relating to investigations.

The lack of transparency in police investigations has been criticised by the UN Human Rights Committee. In 1997, the Committee lamented the lack of published information about the alarmingly high incidence of the use of firearms by the police and security forces, and urged that the outcome of all investigations to be made public.

Some efforts have been made to address the provision of public data in relation to the use of force by the police. In October 1999 the Constabulary Communications Network was established, replacing the Police Information Centre as the public information service for the JCF. This body provides certain data on demand, such as official records of the numbers of fatal police shootings and the numbers of police officers killed.

Complainants and their lawyers have however continued to report extensive difficulties in obtaining information about the status and outcome of police investigations. They are not customarily kept informed of the status or outcome of police internal investigations or investigations by the civilian PPCA. The authorities have frequently failed to respond to Amnesty International's requests for information about the outcome of investigations into many killings by law enforcement officials in disputed circumstances.

In some cases, police have even refused to confirm whether a casualty was alive or dead. In one case, a mother had to be informed of the death of her son in a fatal police shooting by hospital staff, after police refused to confirm or deny reports.

The legislative framework governing investigations, acts as a further disincentive to prevent the development of a culture of transparency in investigations. Under the Police Public Complaints Authority Act for example, the PPCA may withhold interim reports if an investigating officer considers it might, "adversely affect the investigation of the complaint." In practice, complainants are virtually never informed of the status of complaints.

Legislation has even been passed with provisions criminalizing those who make information relating to the findings of the Government Police Force Inspectorate available to the public. Publishing such information is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, with the possibility of hard labour for a term of up to 12 months. Under the Constabulary Force (Amendment) Act 1997, a Government Police Force Inspectorate was established to monitor and report on police officers compliance with internationally accepted standards of policing, and to monitor the implementation of JCF Force Orders and policy. Prohibited information includes the mandatory, annual reports of findings and recommendations that the Inspectorate must produce for the Minister, to be subsequently laid before Parliament.

Other investigative and prosecutorial bodies are also failing to provide adequate information. Although the civilian PPCA has acknowledged a need to make the organisation more accessible to the public, and to increase public awareness of its activities, little has been done to increase the transparency with which it operates. The PPCA does not publish regular, detailed information regarding its activities or the quality of police investigations. Annual reports are not published or disseminated widely on a regular basis, and the body is under no obligation to make such reports public. It has only published one annual report since its inception. In August 2000, the PPCA was unable to provide Amnesty International with current statistics detailing the time normally taken to dispose of complaints.

The PPCA's 1998-99 Annual Report reviewed just one police investigation into a fatal shooting. No information was provided in the review detailing: the grounds for which a complaint had originally been made, including whether the shooting took place in disputed circumstances; methodology and scope of PPCA review and the circumstances of the shooting. The police version of events however, alleging that the deceased had opened fire, was accepted without qualification. Such limited information provides no opportunity for meaningful analysis of either alleged patterns and practices of excessive force by police; quality of police investigations or the effectiveness of oversight into police investigations.

In an interview with Amnesty International, the DPP was unable to provide information on prosecutions of police officers. He suggested that the BSI should provide more information on the outcome of rulings by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the public. The Public Defender for example stated to Amnesty that geographical remoteness was a factor precluding updating complainants on the status of investigations, stating that relatives can call to get updates.


Failure to discipline and prosecute

Successful prosecutions of police officers and soldiers invoked in human rights violations are reported extremely rarely, despite the range of laws punishing offences from assault to murder, and despite the fact that, every year, hundreds of successful civil actions result in costly payouts to families. Disciplining is also rare, despite the fact that both the Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Jamaica Defence Force provide disciplinary sanctions for officers who commit abuses or who fail to report misconduct.

Prosecutions of police and army officers alleged to have committed abuses are clearly hampered by the inadequacies of investigations. They may also be hampered by the severe trial delays that frequently take place. A recent Police Executive Research Forum study suggested that this risked resulting in "the destruction of spoilage of evidence, the forgetfulness, intimidation or even the death of witnesses." In several cases police officers charged in connection with killings have absconded.

In 1991, the Hirst report concluded that there was a lack of clear responsibility for abuses within the JCF, with no effective chain of command in which senior officers had management control over subordinates. See The Edge of the Knife, previously cited, page 219. The report concluded that accountability had collapsed at all levels and that there was no systematic disciplining of officers.

More recent reports have indicated that the majority of complaints about human rights abuses within the JCF still concern lower-ranking police officers and the JCF has itself acknowledged publicly a need for improving systems for monitoring lower ranking-officers, to ensure accountability for abuses. Citing current efforts by the JCF to encourage "management by walk-about", for example, the Head of the Police Training College acknowledged in a radio interview the very high numbers of lower-ranking police officers who were working unsupervised.

The failure to enforce disciplinary procedures has occurred despite overt violations of army and police policy - as the case of Michael Gayle illustrates (see page 61). Despite the prohibition of making false statements and delaying investigations, no-one has yet reportedly been disciplined as a result of the killing.

Training

Police training has reportedly been improved in order to bring it into line with international human rights standards. New recruits now reportedly receive more training on conflict resolution skills and alternatives to deadly force, than on weapons training.

Although police policies reportedly incorporate the provisions of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, there remains a need however for such training to be more explicitly enforced. Training should also incorporate provisions of other relevant human rights instruments, including the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearance.

Furthermore, this training does not reportedly apply to members of the army deployed in civilian law enforcement roles. International standards state that training on and observance of codes of conduct for law enforcement officials should apply to all those who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials specifies that in countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities, the definition of law enforcement officials should be regarded as including officers of such services.

The reform of the police training program appears to have reassured those foreign government donating aid to the JCF. In January 2001, the authorities of the United Kingdom (UK) agreed to allow the supply of 500 guns to the JCF, having previously withheld an export licence for transfer of the pistols in August 2000, citing concerns around human rights abuses. (The government of the United States of America (USA) also halted the transhipment of bullet proof vests around the same time.) The UK authorities stated that they were satisfied that the human rights training would be sufficient to ensure that the firearms would not be used to commit human rights violations. A £19.5 million training programme for law enforcement officers in 14 countries in the English-speaking Caribbean was subsequently announced.


CONCLUSION: LIVING WITH POLICE VIOLENCE TOO LONG

The loss of life at the hands of the Jamaican Constabulary Force borders on a human rights emergency. Changing the climate of impunity which encourages continuing police violence is an immediate priority.

As this report was going to press, seven young men, including one fifteen year old, had just been shot dead after approximately 60 police officers from the Crime Management Unit in Braeton, Kingston, went to their house.

A police news release stated that, at 5 a.m. on 14 March 2001, they were met with a hail of gunfire after identifying themselves and requesting entry to a house. They claimed seven men were shot and injured as police returned fire and that several others escaped from the property where the police sought to serve an arrest warrant in connection with the murder of an officer. The press release, which described all the men as "gunmen", made no mention of the motive for the police operation, although police subsequently alleged that it was in connection to the murder of a police officer the previous week.

Residents told a different story. Their testimonies stated that the police had beaten five of the men - whose ages ranged from 15 to 20 - after dragging them into the front yard of the house, before executing them one by one inside the property. The residents told of hearing the young men plead as they begged police for their lives. One neighbour responding to the pleas was shot and killed. Another of those killed was a man passing by the house on an errand, toothbrush still in hand. Residents meanwhile reported that they were kept away from the house at gunpoint for six hours, as police attempted to cover-up evidence of the alleged executions.


Cartoon depicting some of the many killings by Jamaican police officers over the past 20 years. Copyright: Jamaican Observer.


Despite the passionate response and debate the incident prompted in Jamaican society, the reaction of the government was a deafening silence. A week after the killings, the Minister of National Security and Justice, K D Knight, made a short statement that he had faith in the investigation process and would not be "coerced" into "interfering" with the investigation. As one newspaper commentator put it "unfortunately, though, as the controversy grew over the Braeton affair Mr Knight kept quiet for a week, and when he spoke Wednesday night, it was not with a calming assurance but in hectoring fashion about the legal processes and to lecture families about the need to keep their children in check and 'out of the clutches of crime'"

Government officials have told Amnesty International that the system of investigation into possible police misconduct is autonomous and that it would therefore be wrong to "interfere" with the process. This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the government is responsible for ensuring that law enforcement officials are held accountable and that justice is served.

It is no longer acceptable for the government of Jamaica to use these excuses to stand on the sidelines watching the unacceptably high level of killings by the police continue. The Jamaican government must demonstrate the will and invest the resources to improve the timeliness and quality of investigations into abuses by law enforcement officials. It should make clear its total opposition to extrajudicial executions, torture and other human rights violations by the police and security forces, and its determination to ensure that any officers who commit violations are brought to justice.

Amnesty International believes that the problems of lack of public trust in the police and the JCF's inability to prevent violent crime are closely related. The authorities' repeated calls for the public to aid the police will not be heeded if the police continue to beat and kill with impunity. For the sake of the people of Jamaica, Amnesty International calls on the government to formulate a National Plan of Action on human rights and to implement the following recommendations as soon as possible.


RECOMMENDATIONS


Human Rights are a legitimate subject for international law and international scrutiny.
Law enforcement officers are obliged to know, and to apply, international standards for human rights.

Amnesty International is calling for the formulation of a National Plan of Action on human rights in keeping with the commitment made by all of the world's states in June 1993 during the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna.

Amnesty International calls on the government of Jamaica to work with civil society in developing such a plan, to articulate a national consensus on human rights built around the challenges of prevention and accountability.

Amnesty International calls upon the Jamaican authorities to implement the following Programme as a positive indication of their commitment to stop human rights abuses. It invites concerned individuals and organisations to join in promoting the program.

' Official condemnation
' Restraints on lethal force
' The right and duty to disobey
' Chain-of-command control
' Investigations, prosecution and discipline
' Protection against death threats
' Protection of human right defenders
' Safeguards during arrest, detention and interrogation
' No use of statements extracted under torture
' Non-discrimination in law enforcement
' Provide and enforce effective training
' Reparations
' Ratification of human rights treaties and implementation of international standards





Official Condemnation

' Pending the formulation and implementation of a national plan of action, Jamaica's highest authorities should demonstrate their absolute opposition to extrajudicial executions, torture and ill-treatment. They should be condemned whenever they occur.
' The government should make clear to all law enforcement officials, including members of both the police and the military, that these will not be tolerated under any circumstances.
' Authorities at all levels of government should explicitly commit themselves to promoting respect for human rights.


Restraints on legal force

' Law enforcement officials should not use lethal force except when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life and to the minimum extent under the circumstances.
' The Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Jamaica Defence Force should ensure that their policies on the use of force and firearms conform to international standards, including the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms and the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearance, and that these standards are strictly enforced.
' If firearms are used, law enforcement officials should identify themselves and give clear warnings of their intent to use firearms.
' Medical assistance and aid should be rendered at the earliest possible moment
' Relatives or friends of the affected person should be notified at the earliest possible moment.


The right and duty to disobey

' Law enforcement officials should be instructed that they have the right and duty to refuse to obey any order to participate in an extrajudicial execution or act of torture.
' Law enforcement officials who have reason to believe that a violation has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power.
' An order from a superior officer must never be invoked as a justification for taking part in an extrajudicial execution or act of torture.


Chain-of-Command Control

' Those in charge of the security forces should maintain strict chain-of-command control to ensure that officers under their command do not commit extrajudicial executions or torture.
' The JCF and the JDF should issue clear guidelines requiring officers to report abuses. Superior officials with chain-of-command control should be held responsible for enforcing these guidelines and for strictly enforcing penalties for failing to report, or covering up, abuses.
' Officers who order or tolerate extrajudicial executions, torture or other human rights abuses by those under their command should be held criminally responsible for these acts, including if the superior officer knew or should have known of abuses but failed to take concrete action.
' The JCF and the JDF should ensure that those officers who testify against their fellow officers in criminal or civil proceedings, or in disciplinary hearings, should be supported and protected from intimidation and threats. Law enforcement officials shall not suffer administrative or other penalties because they have reported violations have occurred or are about to occur.
' The JCF and the JDF should establish early warning systems to identity and deal with officers involved in human rights violations. They should establish clear reporting systems and keep detailed records of every officer's conduct. The records should be regularly audited in order to identity, and take remedial action in respect of, any patterns of abuses. The records should be open to inspection by independent oversight bodies.


Investigations

Investigations to be held in every case of alleged violations
' The Jamaican authorities should ensure that all allegations of human rights violations by members of the security forces -- including both the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) and the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) are investigated fully, promptly and impartially by a body which is independent of those allegedly responsible and which has the necessary powers and resources to carry out the investigation. Particular scrutiny should be given to the role and activities of the Crime Management Unit.
' The PPCA should prioritize investigations into police killings and torture.
In particular, it should ensure that in all such cases it:
- Compels officials allegedly involved in executions and torture to appear and testify and insists on cooperation from police departments and individual officers;
- Demands the production of evidence;
- Requires the JCF to provide information on action taken in individual cases, with reasons for inaction;
- Provides regular, detailed public reports, at least annually, giving relevant data, including the type and outcome of complaints;
- Publicizes the complaints procedure within the community to ensure that it is accessible to the public; information about complaints procedures should be prominently displayed in all police stations.
' The authorities should establish an independent and effective oversight body with the authority to investigate and review complaints of human rights violations by the public against members of the Jamaica Defence Force.
' Inquests should be held in the case of every death suspected to be at the hands of the security forces.


Purpose of investigations
' Investigations should serve to identify victims; recover evidence; discover witnesses; discover cause, manner, location and time of crime and identify and apprehend perpetrators. Investigations shall also include the determination of any pattern and practice which brought about death.

Manner of investigations
' Complainants, witnesses, lawyers, judges and others involved in the investigation should be protected from intimidation and reprisals. No pressure, whether physical or mental, shall be exerted on witnesses, victims or suspects in attempting to obtain information.
' Officials suspected of responsibility for extrajudicial executions, torture and other violations should be suspended from active duty during the investigation.
' The investigation must include an adequate autopsy, collection and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements from witnesses. Crime scenes should be carefully processed and evidence carefully collected and preserved, including forensics and ballistics evidence. Incident scenes should be secured until the arrival of forensic experts. The body of the alleged victim should not be disposed of until an adequate autopsy has been conducted by a suitably qualified doctor who is able to function impartially. Those undertaking autopsies should be experts in forensic pathology. Doctors appointed by relatives to be present at an autopsy on their behalf should be granted full access to observe the autopsy without obstruction. Relatives should also have access to view the body of the deceased.
' Autopsy reports should conform to international standards and be full, detailed, clear, comprehensible and objective. They should:
- attempt to establish the identity of the deceased and the cause and manner of death. - determine to the extent possible the time and place of death
- include detailed colour photographs of the deceased
- describe any and all injuries to the deceased including any evidence of torture
- include examination of clothing
Autopsy reports into shooting fatalities should include:
- extensive account of the scene of the incident, weapons involved, types of bullets, cartridge cases, relative positions of persons involved;
- investigation and documentation of blood splashes on body surfaces;
- precise description of bullet entry and exit wounds relative to anatomical landmarks and distances from soles of feet and bullet tracks within the body;
- excision of uncleaned skin specimens surrounding entry and exit wounds;
- X-ray before and during autopsy
- determination of bullet tracks and their directions
- final determination of direction(s) of fire, of the succession of shots, of intra vital occurrence, of the victim's position.
' Information on civil lawsuits alleging police or army misconduct should be forwarded to the DPP and the PPCA. Information on the number of lawsuits filed, judgements and settlements should regularly be made public.

Public confidence and transparency
' There should be greater transparency in the investigation of complaints of human rights violations.
' The methods and outcome of all criminal, disciplinary and administrative investigations into alleged violations, including all disputed shootings and deaths in police custody, should be made public promptly after the completion of the investigation. Detailed national data on police and army use of force should also be compiled and regularly published with analysis of patterns of concern and recommendations.
' Complainants should be kept informed of the progress of investigations.


Prosecutions and discipline

' The Jamaican government should ensure that those responsible for extrajudicial executions, torture and other human rights abuses - including failure to report misconduct - are brought to justice.
' This principle should apply no matter how much time has elapsed since the commission of the crime, and wherever such people may be.
' Trials must be fair and take place in civilian courts.
' The perpetrators should not be allowed to benefit from any legal measures exempting them from criminal prosecution or conviction.
' The Jamaica Constabulary Force, the Jamaica Defence Force and the Police Public Complaints Authority should publish regular statistical data on the on the internal disciplinary process and the outcome of disciplinary action.


Role of prosecutors

' Prosecutors should give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly abuse of power, grave violations of human rights, and, the investigation of such offences, including supervision over legality of these investigations, supervision of the execution of court decisions.
' Statements and other evidence obtained through torture should not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture.


Protection against death threats

' The Jamaican government should ensure the full implementation of a comprehensive witness protection programme for the effective protection from death threats and other forms of intimidation of all those involved in investigations or other proceedings against those alleged to have committed human rights violations , including victims, their relatives, witnesses, police officers or soldiers, lawyers and human rights defenders.




Human Rights Defenders

' Authorities at all levels of government should explicitly commit themselves to the protection of human rights defenders.
' State officials at all levels should fully collaborate with and facilitate the work of members of non-governmental organisations.
' Effective action should be taken to ensure that all state agents, including law enforcement officers and the security forces, recognise the legitimacy of the work of human rights defenders and abstain from making unsubstantiated allegations about human rights defenders. Statements of this nature must be rectified publicly and promptly and those responsible should face disciplinary action.
' Integrated programmes for the protection of human rights defenders should be adopted that include preventative measures such as thorough criminal investigations into attacks and threats against human rights defenders, education for security force agents on the rights of human rights defenders to carry out legitimate activities as well as security measures to assist human rights defenders and their families with immediate safety issues.


Provision of safeguards during arrest, detention and interrogation

Arrest

' No-one should be subject to arbitrary arrest and detention.
' Anyone who is arrested should be informed at the time of the arrest for the reasons of the arrest and of any charges against him. Officers carrying out the arrest should identify themselves to the person arrested and, on demand, to others witnessing the event. Police officers and other officials who make arrests should wear name tags or numbers so that they can be clearly identified. Police and military vehicles should be clearly identified as such.
' A record of each arrest must be taken and include: time of arrest; reasons for arrest; identity of officers involved.
' All detainees should be brought before a judicial authority without delay after being taken into custody.
' All those arrested should have access to a lawyer and adequate opportunity to communicate with him or her in private.

Detention

' No person under any form of detention should be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, including all forms of sexual abuse. Law enforcement officials should be instructed that rape in custody constitutes an act of torture that will not be tolerated.
' Torture often takes place while detainees are held incommunicado - unable to contact people outside who could help them or find out what is happening to them. The practice of incommunicado detention should be ended. Accurate information on the arrest and detention of any detainee must be made immediately available to families, lawyers and the courts. Families and others should have prompt and regular access to them thereafter to verify the detainee's continued well-being. If detainees to not have the financial or technical means to send word to their relatives, officers must be prepared to do it for them. Officers must ensure that relatives are not obstructed from obtaining this information.
' All detainees should be immediately informed of their rights. These include the right to lodge complaints about their treatment and to have a judge rule without delay on the lawfulness of their detention.
' Governments should ensure that all prisoners are brought before an independent judicial authority without delay after being taken into custody. Judges should investigate any evidence of torture and order release if the detention is unlawful.
' Every detainee must be informed promptly after arrest of his or her right to a legal counsel and be helped by the authorities to exercise this right. A lawyer should be present during interrogations. While being interrogated, no detainee may be subjected to violent methods or threats which impair his or her capacity of decision or judgement. Detainees must be able to communicate regularly and confidentially with their lawyer, including having meetings with their lawyer within sight but not hearing of a police officer, in order to help prepare the detainee's defence and exercise his rights.
' An independent doctor should promptly conduct a medical examination of the detainee after he or she is taken into custody in order to ascertain that the detainee is healthy and is not suffering from torture or ill-treatment. Thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary.
' Registers of detainees should be kept. Information to be entered into them should include:
The name and identity of each person detained
Reasons for his or her arrest or detention
Names and identities of officials who arrested the detainee and transported him
Date and time of arrest and of transportation to a place of detention
Time, place and duration of each interrogation and name of interrogators
Time of detainee's first appearance before a judicial authority
Precise information on place of custody
Date, time and circumstances of release of transfer to another place of detention.
' The authorities responsible for detention should be separate from those in charge of interrogation.
' The Jamaican government should ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards for the treatment of prisoners and take into account the needs of members of particularly vulnerable groups. Lock-ups facilities should be humane, designed to preserve health. Detainees should be provided with adequate water, food, shelter, clothing, medical services, exercise, and items of personal hygiene. This is a fundamental and universally applicable rule to be applied without distinction and should not be dependent on material resources.
' The rights and special status of children and women are to be protected. Children in police custody should be provided with adequate safeguards in accordance with international standards. Juveniles are to be separated from adults and alternatives to custodial care should be provided. Women detainees should be supervised and searched only by male members of staff.
' There should be regular, independent, unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection to all places of detention.


Non-discrimination in law enforcement

' The JCF and the JDF should not unlawfully discriminate in protecting the community on the basis of any status, including race, gender, religion, language, colour, political opinion, sexual orientation, birth or property.


Provide effective training

' It should be made clear during the training of all officials that deliberate and unlawful killings and torture are criminal acts. Officials should be instructed that they have the right and duty to refuse to obey any such order.
' Training for law enforcement officials should include: international standards on human rights, incorporating the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms; how to deal with situtions which have often led to excessive force, including arrests, pursuits and coping with disturbed individuals; gender issues and sensitivity to other vulnerable groups. Such training should be strictly enforced.
' Proper screening procedures must exist to select law enforcement officials.


Reparations

' All victims of crime, abuse of power and human rights violations should be treated with compassion and respect.
' Victims of extrajudicial executions, torture and ill-treatment and their dependants should be entitled to obtain prompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair and adequate financial compensation and appropriate medical care and rehabilitation. Redress procedures should be expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible. Unnecessary delay in the handling of victims' cases should be avoided.

Ratification of human rights treaties and implementation of international standards

' The government should ensure full implementation of the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials.
' The government should ratify without reservations international treaties containing safeguards against torture, including the UN Convention against Torture with declarations providing for individual and inter-state complaints.
' Governments should ensure full implementation of international instruments, and comply with the recommendations of intergovernmental organisations and resolutions concerning these abuses. The government should ensure full support for human rights protection mechanisms and initiatives within the UN and Inter-American human rights systems, including special rapporteurs.

APPENDIX

Summaries of other cases

The following are brief summaries of a selection of police killings recently reported in the media. Although the reports lack detail, and Amnesty International is unable to comment on the accuracy of the information, these examples illustrate how police killings in disputed circumstances have become almost daily events in Jamaica.

2001
26 January 2001, Lukart Lowe, age 50, Bamboo, St. Ann
Police described the killing of Lukart Lowe, a farmer, as a shoot-out. However, residents claimed that Lowe was extrajudicially executed, claiming that Lowe was shot in the head and again when he fell to the ground. According to protesters, four policemen arrived at Lowe's house, following a dispute Lowe had with another farmer, who made a report to the police. Lowe was called out of his house and came out with his hand on his head begging the police not to kill him. Media reports indicated that the BSI was investigating. Following the killing, hundreds of residents of Bamboo and adjoining districts in St. Ann blocked the roads in protest.

2000
3 April 2000, Shaheed Graham, aged 16, Church Street, Kingston
Witnesses alleged that Shaheed Graham was shot in the back by police after refusing to stop. Police claimed they challenged Graham after spotting a bulge in his waistband they believed to be a gun and that he had pulled a pistol from his waist after being told to raise his hands. Graham died after waiting for medical attention for two hours. The shooting led to demonstrations.

Dennis Myers, aged 46, 5 August 2000, Savanna-la-mar
Dennis Myers, a mentally ill man, was shot in the foot by police in Savanna-La-Mar, Westmoreland. Media accounts suggested that he had been shot accidentally by a police officer who was aiming at a man smoking marijuana. The officer concerned was reportedly removed from duty, but the current status of the case is unknown.

Ricardo Stewart, aged 19, 25 August 2000, Green Island, Hanover. Stewart was fatally shot by police who allegedly arrived to arrest him following a family dispute. According to information received by AI, the shooting was still being investigated by the BSI at the time of writing.

Residents of Nannyville Gardens, off Mountain View Avenue, Kingston, alleged that Sean Sangster, aged 19, was shot in the back of the head on 22 May by a police officer, in what appeared to be a retaliatory-style killing, after the officer realised that he had shot his colleague accidentally. Police officers had allegedly been firing without restraint. At least four witnesses alleged that the police had lied in their account of the incident, which stated that Sangster was shot after opening fire with a handgun. Police alleged that a gun and ammunition were taken from him.

Following the incident, the Minister for National Security and Justice urged that the police maintain a "strategic, systematic and professional resistance" to any attempt to undermine their roles as law officers and sent a message of support to the police.

Amnesty International was informed that Sangster's file was sent to the authorities on 14 November 2000 and that the BSI investigation was carried out under the supervision of the PPCA. An incomplete copy of the post-mortem report was received and indicated that shots in the shoulder and chest and back.

1999
8 January 1999. Marvin Aird, Kingston
Marvin Aird was shot dead by police in his yard in circumstances which, according to eye witness accounts, may have amounted to an extrajudicial execution. Whilst the Police Information Centre maintained that he was shot after firing at officers, residents claimed the police entered his yard, spoke to him and that he was shot after he protested that he had done nothing wrong. Residents alleged that he was mistaken for another man with similar plaited hair. Local residents protested the killing with roadblocks.

10 February 1999, Norvil Gordon, Lower St, St Andrew.
Police alleged that Norvil Gordon was killed after he opened fire on them. Norvil Gordon=s sister Alicia alleged that she had pleaded with the police party not to kill her younger brother but that she had been pushed aside. His father, Byron Gordon, alleged that he was standing on a corner when an unmarked police car drew up, a policeman got out and shot his son in both legs. Norvil Gordon attempted to escape and was then chased and killed. The Office of Professional Responsibility was reported to be investigating.

21 April 1999. Errol Campbell, a 44 year old soldier with the Jamaica Defence Force was shot dead in Seaview Gardens, St. Andrew, on 21 April 1999. The PIC report allegedly stated that Campbell was shot after being caught in crossfire between police and gunmen, who had opened fire on Seaview police station. Eye witness accounts stated that Campbell had been shot three times in the stomach after identifying himself to police. They claim he had been trying to protect a little boy exposed to the danger of shots being fired by putting him against a wall, and that he had shouted out three times that he was a soldier.

May 1999, Lloyd Campbell, aged 17, Olympic Gardens, Kingston.
Lloyd Campbell was killed in disputed circumstances. The PIC reported that police returned fire after being shot at by a group of men and that Lloyd Campbell was found after the shooting suffering from gunshot wounds. Residents maintained that he had been washing his face at a pipe when he was approached and shot by police and that police then attempted to plant a gun on him. The incident was being investigated by the OPR.

5 June 1999, Leroy Bailey.
Initial PIC reports asserted that the 40 year old taxi driver and ex police officer was the victim of crossfire between police officers and gunmen: AHe ended up between the police and the gunman...it was an accident@ claimed a police spokesman. However, police later altered their version of events stating the officers involved believed Bailey and his passengers were wanted gunmen. The police drove up behind his taxi and opened fire indiscriminately, aiming at head level. Bailey was hit twice in the head and died instantly. A high-ranking police official - speaking upon the condition of anonymity - later told an Associated Press journalist "What happens sometimes, like in the case of taxi driver Bailey, is somewhat like the accidental bombing of civilian targets by NATO in Kosovo. But most of the time we kill criminals, not innocent people." Following protests against the shooting, riot police fired shots and released tear gas in the air, arresting 26 people. The OPR was investigating.

19 June 1999, Colin Hamilton, Grants Pen, Kingston.
Colin Hamilton was shot in circumstances which appear to have amounted to an extrajudicial execution. According to residents, he was seen walking down a lane accompanied by two officers. A shot was heard soon afterwards and the policemen were then seen walking back to the car. According to police accounts, Hamilton was shot by a lone gunman who then ran away. It was rumoured that the police were angry that Colin Hamilton had recently escaped a prison sentence for shooting at a policeman.


1. US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Jamaica: Country Reports on Human Rights 2000; GOTOBUTTON BM_1_ http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/wha/index.cfm February 2001.
A study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) - Violent Crime and Murder Reduction in Kingston, Executive Summary and Strategies - concluded, "So urgent is the issue of crime to the lives of Jamaicans that it is fair to say that unless there is a virtual sea change in the crime issue the country's very existence is in danger", Washington D.C., January 2001, pp. i.

2. For example, the Jamaican constitution provides for a range of rights. These include the right to life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property and the protection of the law; the right not to be intentionally deprived of life; the right to seek compensation in cases of arbitrary arrest and detention; and the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment.

3. These have included the establishment of a civilian body to review investigations of abuses, the Police Public Complaints Authority; reformulated training to police officers on the use of force as well as the creation of a specialised unit to investigate all police shootings - the Bureau of Special Investigations.

4. Annual report submitted to the South African parliament by the statutory oversight body, the Independent Complaints Directorate.

5. Review of the Jamaica Constabulary Force, carried out by M. Hirst, Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, United Kingdom.

6. The order states that the police "shall use only that force that is reasonably necessary to effectively bring the incident under control" and "shall meet force with no more force than is necessary in protecting the lives of the members or of others."
Force orders are internal police regulations emanating from the Commissioner of Police. Failure to abide by a Force Order may lead to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
Regulations governing the use of force and firearms have been progressively expanded by the Commissioner of Police. Other regulations provide for strict reporting mechanisms, also in accordance with international standards.

7. On 18 March 1998, the Prime Minister, in a statement relating to the killing of three men by security forces urged the police to have "respect for human life". Shortly after the killing of Leroy Bailey in June 1999, the Prime Minister conceded that the police "had fallen short from time to time in their responsibilities" and announced a plan "to rein in excesses". The plan included restricting the use of high-powered weapons and new training to stress human rights and discourage resorting to firearms.

8. Sources: Constabulary Communications Network (CCN); The Edge of the Knife, Paul Chevigny, NY Press, New York 1995; Civilians shot and killed by police 1984, Jamaica Council for Human Rights, Kingston 1985.

9. The appendix lists further media reports of police killings which have occurred in disputed circumstances.

10. Amnesty was informed that the internal police investigation had been supervised by the Police Public Complaints Authority, the civilian oversight body.

11. The letter also stated that Williams' son would be provided with "psychological and counselling support through the Government's Victim Support Programme and other agencies", in keeping with the country's obligations as a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

12. UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, cited above, principles 9 and 11.

13. JCF policies forbid firing from or at a moving vehicle unless necessary to protect life. Appendix "A" to Force Orders 2494, dated 20 February 1997, Procedures and Regulations, provide that:
B.3 "Weapons shall not be fired from a moving vehicle unless it is necessary to protect a life"; B.4 "Weapons shall not be fired at a moving vehicle unless that vehicle poses an immediate threat to human life"; B.5 "Firearms shall not be discharged when it appears likely that an innocent person may be injured."

14. This police unit previously examined all police shootings until the creation of the Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) in 1999. See "Investigations" below.

15. See Amnesty International - Jamaica: A summary of concerns - A briefing for the Human Rights Committee, AI Index AMR 38/07/97, October 1997, pp. 12-14.

16. UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1.

17. McLawrence v Jamaica, UN Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/702/1996, 29 September 1997, para 5.6.

18. Reporte Anual de la Comisión Interamericana - 1985-86, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.68., doc.8., rev.1, 1986, p.154, El Salvador.

19. Principles 19, 16(1) and 24.

20. Oleoresin Capsicum spray (commonly known as OC or Pepper spray) is an inflammatory agent derived from cayenne peppers. OC spray inflames the mucus membranes, causing closing of the eyes, coughing, gagging, shortness of breath and an acute burning sensation on the skin and inside the nose and mouth. Since the early 1990s, more than 60 people in the USA are reported to have died in police custody after being exposed to the spray.

21. Mental health legislation in force at the time of the act granted constables powers to forcible remove "those of unsound mind" for the purposes of treatment in a government clinic or hospital.

22. The Convention defines forced disappearance, under article 2, as the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.

23. Amnesty International urged, in an open letter to Prime Minister Patterson on 3 August 1999, for an independent enquiry to examine the arbitrary detention, deprivation of liberty, use of force by police officers in the incident, and the unconfirmed deaths in custody.

24. These were: to enquire into and report on the incident; to establish the identity of those who participated in and ordered the removal of persons; to make recommendations to prevent similar recurrences; to make recommendations for appropriate state redress and to make policy recommendations for the state and public sectors to improve treatment of homeless.

25. The Commission of Inquiry Act to Enquire into the Forced Removal of Homeless Persons from Montego Bay to St. Elizabeth on the 15th Day of July, 1999, page 114.

26. Under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1873, section 10, these include the same power as Supreme Court judges to summon and examine witnesses, and to call for relevant books, documents and plans. Furthermore, subject to the same rights of privilege as in courts of law, those who refuse to appear, produce relevant evidence or answer the Commission's questions, or who wilfully obstruct or interrupt proceedings, may be fined or imprisoned (section 11).

27. Jamaica Gleaner, 2 May 2000.

28. The package included appropriate accommodation, a reviewable monthly pay out of J$20,000 and food, medical expenses and other support.

29. He also stated that the use of chemical spray during the incident, if confirmed, would be a violation of policy and the subject of criminal prosecution.

30. Amnesty International also urged the government review the use of non-lethal force in the incident, which appeared to contravene Provision 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials - "Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result" - and requested a copy of the guidelines on the use of chemical spray by police officers and details of investigating incidents where these weapons are used.

31. In violation of Articles 7 and 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, article 5.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international treaties.
The Director of Public Prosecutions stated to the organization in August 2000 that a voir dire - a trial held within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence - is conducted whenever an allegation of coercion arises in relation to a confession. However, Amnesty International has received information to suggest that evidence obtained as a result of torture has been used to convict individuals.

32. For further information, see Amnesty International, Jamaica - A Summary of Concerns: A Briefing for the Human Rights Committee, AI index: AMR 38/07//97, pp.6-7.

33. Although the victim has made an official complaint, he requested that Amnesty International not refer to him by name.



39.

40. Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child : Jamaica; 15/02/95; CRC/C/15/Add.32.; Eighth session; Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention: paras 17 and 21. Held to be a violation of articles 37 and 40. The Committee recommended that professional groups, including the police, should be systematically trained on the provisions of the Convention.

41. Article 37(d) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of their liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial tribunal, and to a prompt decision on such action.

42. For further information see "Nobody's Children: Jamaican Children in Police Detention and Government Institutions", Human Rights Watch, New York, 1999. Available at http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/jamaica/

43. Interviews with the Ambassador for Children and the Head of the Department of Children's Services. Means of improved co-ordination reportedly included: the appointment of special personnel within the Department of Social Services to monitor such cases; the establishment a 24 hour telephone hot-line direct to social services for cases to be reported; weekly reports to be sent by the police to children's services on the status of children in lock-ups and the creation of a registry to maintain records regarding the arrest and detention of children.

44. Interview with the Ambassador for Children, Marjorie Taylor, August 2000.

45. Sections 76-82 of the Offences Against the Person Act. Article 76 punishes the "abominable crime of buggery" by up to ten years' imprisonment with hard labour. Article 79 punishes, among other things, men who commit any act of gross indecency with another male in public or private by a term of imprisonment of up to two years, with or without hard labour. Section 24 of the Constitution of Jamaica does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Section 24(7) permits restrictions of a discriminatory character with regard to the right to privacy.

Amnesty International considers that the existence of such laws violate the prohibition against discrimination, the right to privacy and the right to equal protection under the law enshrined, respectively, in Articles 2(1), 17 and 26 of the ICCPR.

Amnesty International does not have information about recent successful prosecutions for consensual homosexual activity in private in Jamaica. However, if a person were to be imprisoned under these provisions as a result of consensual sexual activity between adults conducted in private, the organisation would regard him or her as a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned in violation of Articles 2, 17 and 26 of the ICCPR, and would call for the immediate and unconditional release of the individual concerned. For more information, see, Amnesty International, Jamaica - A Summary of Concerns: A Briefing for the Human Rights Committee, AI index: AMR 38/07//97.

46. The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that "sodomy" laws are an obstacle to HIV prevention work, See UN Human Rights Committee, Toonen v. Australia.

47. The military has a history of involvement in civilian law enforcement in Jamaica. For example, on 2 October 1966, the government called out several hundred military and police personnel when a state of emergency was declared. For more information, see, Government, the Police and Personal Freedom, Jamaica Council for Human Rights, Kingston September 1967, pp. 4. Previously, the Suppression of Crimes Act gave soldiers the power of arrest when in joint operations with the police.

48. The Minister of National Security, K D Knight, stated, "Certain provisions of this Act have generated widespread criticism because they have enabled the police to abuse the civil rights of people. This abuse has served over the years to alienate the police from the people and has contributed to the lack of confidence in the police" See "Crime Act to be repealed", Jamaica Gleaner, 16 July 1993.

49. The act was criticized for this reason by MPs and human rights activists, including the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, Lloyd Barnett, Hugh Small and Delroy Chuck, amongst others. See for example, Security Minister Says 1974 Legislation Ineffectual, Caribbean and Central American Report, 19 May 1994 and The Legacy of the Crime Act, Jamaica Gleaner, 30 March 1994.

50. Jamaica Constabulary Force Act, section 16, "Any warrant lawfully issued by a Justice ... may be executed by any Constable at any time notwithstanding that the warrant is not is his possession at that time but the warrant shall, on the demand of the person apprehended, be shown to him as soon as practicable after arrest."

51. UN Convention Against Torture, article 2.

52. Barbados Nation, Army Fall Out "Durant and Haynes not happy with role of BDF", 9 May 2000.

53. Constabulary Force Act 1997, section 50A (3) (b)

54. For further information, see Amnesty International - Jamaica: The killing of Michael Gayle: Authorities Yet to Hold Police and Army Officers Accountable, AI index AMR 38/02/00, available on AI's website at www.amnesty.org

55. Attorney Hugh Small, QC, quoted in the Jamaica Observer, 14 March 2000.

56. The Legal Aid Act followed the repeal of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act. Under this act, legal aid was not available from the time of arrest. In 1997, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that the adequate remuneration of lawyers acting under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act at all stages of arrest and subsequent proceedings would "greatly assist in providing a proper defence of clients in a proper manner."CCPR/C/61/CMT/JAM/3;HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE; Sixty-first session, Geneva, 20 October - 7 November 1997, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under
article 40 of the Covenant, JAMAICA (Concluding Observations, 14).

57. The Legal Aid Act (Act 36 of 1997), The Legal Aid Regulations, 1999, part IV. 9-15. The duty counsel scheme became operational on 1 May 2000.

58. The Executive Director of the Legal Aid Council informed Amnesty International in August 2000 that, at that time, 95 of 165 police stations on the island were currently covered by the duty counsel scheme. The Council has also visited police headquarters in all 12 parishes, to provide training on these duties. The Legal Aid Council was established to administer legal assistance.

59. For example the Constitution provides for the right to be informed of reasons for arrest and detention "as soon as reasonably practicable"; for the right to a trial "within a reasonable time" and for the right of those arrested or detained for the execution of a lawful warrant or upon reasonable suspicion of having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence, if not released, to be brought before the court "without delay" and, if the case is not tried within a "reasonable time" are to be granted bail without conditions. See sections 15(2-3) and 20 (1-2) and 6. The Constabulary Force Act (section 15) states only that persons arrested without a warrant are to be brought before a Justice "forthwith", for a decision on custody.

60. Report of the HRC, vol. 1, (A/45/40), 1990, para. 333, Federal Republic of Germany; Brogan et al v. United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, 145b Ser. A33 at 62.

61. Source: Interview with Executive Director, Legal Aid Council, February 2001.

62. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Article 7), 10/04/92, point 11.

63. Resolution 1989/65, paragraph 1.

64. For example, Bautista v. Colombia, UN Doc: CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993 at para 8.6 and Chaparro et al v. Colombia, UN Doc: CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995 at para 8.8.

65. Complaints on fatalities are to be sent to the DPP after the initial deposition of the complaint, under s. 14.(3)(d) of the Police Public Complaints Act. The act states that it is the Commissioner who decides whether to refer a complaint on to the DPP, but that if there is any indication of criminal conduct, the complaint shall be referred to the DPP beforehand for advice and other direction as necessary.

66. Investigations into police shootings were previously undertaken by the Office of Professional Responsibility. Defending the decision not to establish a civilian body, Prime Minister Patterson reportedly said that, "training and establishing a civilian group would be tantamount to establishing another police force." The Prime Minister also suggested that the creation of the BSI was designed to bring about closer collaboration between internal police investigations and prosecutors and to improve the manner in which police investigations are carried out, stating, "this new procedure will ensure that investigations are timely, thorough and seen to be impartial." "New approach to probing report against cops" Jamaica Gleaner 6 May 1999.

67. The Chairman of the PPCA indicated that complaints regarding ill-treatment by soldiers could be reported to the Public Defender. However, the Public Defender stated to Amnesty International that he has not received or investigated any such complaints.

68. See UN Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, principles 12, 13, 14 and 16.

69. For example, see The Harmonization of Medico-Autopsy Rules, Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (99) 3 and explanatory memorandum, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 2 February 1999.

70. International had originally requested and received copies of the reports from the authorities. However, every rep Amnesty ort received from the authorities was missing vital pages. Copies were obtained from other sources.

71. See for example, UN Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Summary and Arbitrary Executions, principle 16.

72. Under Jamaican law, post mortem examinations into violent, unnatural or sudden deaths are discretionary.

73. As in other countries with similar legal systems, the main function of the inquest system in Jamaica is to inquire into the circumstances and determine the cause of sudden or unnatural deaths which are not the subject of criminal proceedings.

74. The Coroners Act, 12 June 1900, s. 14.

75. Op. Cit., 14. A Coroner exercising his discretion, by deciding not to resume an inquest in these circumstances, must be satisfied that criminal proceedings have established the cause of death and ascertained that it is not suspected to be murder or manslaughter.
Op. Cit., 15. Coroners must forward medical and police records together with a statement to the DPP. Should a ruling be given by the coroner that it is not necessary for an inquest to be held, the DPP is obliged to give further direction on, upon receipt of relevant reports. A Judge of the Supreme Court may also order an inquest if satisfied that a coroner has refused or neglected to or disobeyed a DPP directive than one take place, upon application to the DPP. (s. 21-(1)

76. UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. 11. Rules and regulations on the use of firearms by law enforcement officials should include guidelines that: (d) Regulate the control, storage and issuing of firearms, including procedures for ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable for the firearms and ammunition issued to them.

77. Appendix "A" to Force Orders 2492 Dated 20.02.97, IX. Issue of Firearms, E. and F.

78. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990), principle 11.

79. Principle 15.

80. A/RES/53/144, 8 March 1999, Fifty-third session, Agenda item 110 (b), RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [on the report of the Third Committee (A/53/625/Add.2)], 53/144, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: articles 9 3(c) and 12.

81. See for example, UN Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Summary and Arbitrary Executions, No. 17.

82. As previously cited, concluding observations (16).

83. The Constabulary Force (Amendment) Act, 1997, section 81.-(1) (b) and (a). The Inspectorate is composed of public officers and is granted broad powers to inspect police records and premises.

84. Office of the Police Public Complaints Authority, Annual Report 1998-99, Introduction, pp. 2.

85. A rare example was the conviction on October 13 1999 of 3 police officers of non capital murder, for the murder of David Black in Rio Bueno Police Station, Trelawny, on 10 September 1995.
Neither the BSI nor the DPP were able to provide statistics on prosecutions or disciplining to Amnesty International. Accurate information on prosecutions and disciplining of officers is not published regularly. It is common for the public to be left uninformed as to the outcome of investigations.

86. Writs are filed at a rate of approximately 10 to 12 per week, despite the fact that legal aid was not available for constitutional actions and other civil proceedings until 2000, and despite the fact that proceedings are often lengthy, with victims waiting years to receive compensation.
For example, in January 2000, two men were awarded a total of J$6,161,510 (approximately US$136,700) by the Supreme Court for damages arising out of a claim for unlawful assault and negligence dating back to 1991. Johnny Nugent v. Attorney General of Jamaica; Rudolph Bailey v. Inspector Vandel Preddie, Acting Corporal Errol Simms, Attorney General for Jamaica. The complainants had between 40% and 55% impairment of their bodies. The judge accepted the plaintiffs' case that a police inspector had deliberately ran into them with his jeep while they were riding on Nugent's motorcycle, causing a crash, had stolen money from them, and had left them on a pavement near a hospital.
In 1997 the UN Human Rights Committee urged that draft legislation to provide legal aid in such cases be enacted speedily and sufficiently resourced to function effectively. They recommended that Jamaica continually monitor the quality of legal aid representation, ensuring especially that competent counsel be assigned to individuals accused of capital and other serious offences, 8., CCPR/C/61/CMT/JAM/3, Sixty-first session, Geneva, 20 October - 7 November 1997.

87. Responsibility for administering discipline in the JDF is vested in the Chief of Staff and the Jamaican Defence Board. Soldiers may not be discharged or transferred when charged with offences under the provisions of the JDF Act.

88. As previously cited, pp. v.

89. See for example Constables on the run, Jamaica Gleaner, 18 September 2000.

90. See The Edge of the Knife, previously cited, page 219.

91. The 1998-99 PPCA Annual Report stated that there were 175 reported complaints against the rank of corporals or below, as against 51 reported complaints against Inspectors and Sergeants.

92. Senior Superintendent Grant, interviewed on 'Nationwide', Hot FM, 8 August 2000.

93. Provisions in the Jamaica Defence Act for example provide that the following are offences, many of which are triable by military court martial and punishable with imprisonment: making false statements when acting as a witness before a court; making false documents or altering documents, or commanding or aiding someone else to do so; scandalous or disgraceful conduct; conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline; disobeying lawful commands and defying authority; and wilful damage of public property. It is also an offence to unnecessarily delay investigation of alleged infringements of JDA provisions, which are to be investigated without undue delay.

94. Source: "With friends like these, Mr Paterson", Jamaican Observer, 23 March 2001