The Caribbean Court of Justice on Monday awarded Trinidad-based political analyst and consultant Derek Ramsamooj US$30,000 in damages following his arrest and detention in Suriname between 2020 and 2022.
Ramsamooj had argued that his rights under the Caribbean Community’s Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC) were violated after he was detained by Surinamese police officers from October 2020 to September 2022.
In its ruling, the CCJ found that provisions of Suriname’s domestic law were inconsistent with minimum human rights protections required under Community law, particularly regarding access to legal counsel during the investigative stage of criminal proceedings.
The court referenced the European Court of Human Rights case Sardouz against Turkey, which established that early and effective access to legal representation is a critical safeguard to ensure fair proceedings.
According to the CCJ, Article 40 of Suriname’s Code of Criminal Procedure unlawfully restricted access to counsel without providing sufficient safeguards to protect a defendant’s rights.
“The Court held that Article 40 of the SCCP, insofar as it authorises the deprivation of access to counsel at the investigative stage without compensatory framework sufficient to preserve the effectiveness of the defence, unlawfully impedes free movement and cannot be reconciled with a minimum human rights baseline required by Community law,” the judgment stated.
The court also ruled that Ramsamooj did not need to prove discriminatory treatment based on nationality in order to establish a breach of his treaty rights.
Justice Winston Anderson said the case differed from the earlier CCJ matter Gilbert v State of Barbados, which had established that CARICOM nationals are not immune from law enforcement measures in member states.
Anderson explained that the Gilbert case involved the lawful application of domestic legislation that was consistent with the RTC, while Ramsamooj’s case involved domestic procedures that were themselves incompatible with treaty obligations and minimum human rights standards.
“The present case fell within the Mariline line of authority, where the domestic law authorising the enforcement action is itself inconsistent with the treaty by breaching the minimum standard of human rights,” Anderson said.
The CCJ further noted that Article 226 of the RTC — which allows member states limited flexibility in enforcing domestic laws — has a “greatly diminished role” where treaty-based rights are undermined by procedures that fail to meet accepted human rights standards.
“Only in extremely rare circumstances could a member state be permitted to rely on Article 226 to justify conduct that undermines the substance of treaty-based rights,” the court stated.
