HRC Engaged in a Range of Activities

Published 17th October 2006, 12:43pm

For example, the HRC has been asked for its comments on whether prospective legislation is compatible with human rights principles and is pleased to be making its first such contribution in relation to the Drug Court Bill 2006 and the Alternative Sentencing Bill 2006.

Following its Final Report in Case 1/06 Luarca, the HRC also continues to be in dialogue with various government departments in an effort to implement a number of the suggestions contained in the Report, which would improve the level of respect accorded to those particular human rights in the Cayman Islands.

In addition, the HRC's Public Education Sub-Committee now has concrete plans for the establishment of a HRC website, which, it is anticipated, will alert all interested parties to the work and workings of the HRC and advance the recognition of human rights in the Cayman Islands. This will negate the need to publish HRC information on the government's website, which the HRC currently utilises. Furthermore, the proposed appointment of greater private sector representation to the HRC will serve to reinforce the distinction between the activities of the HRC and those of the government.

The HRC is also conscious that it is, in its latest manifestation, a new body, providing an alternative avenue of redress for discontented persons. As such, the HRC has to explain to these persons how they can access the HRC and then precisely what they can expect from the HRC. The HRC is therefore in the process of producing a definitive operational document, which will guide the petitioner through the application process and manage their expectations. This document will be published shortly and will be made available on the HRC's website as soon as that is online.

The need for this guidance is evident from several of the informal enquiries that the HRC has received, as well as the HRC's conclusions in two other cases. Case 2/06 involved a complaint from an employer and an employee, following the refusal of a work permit for the employee; whilst Case 3/06, at least in part, related to a contractual dispute between the Prison Service and a prison officer. The difficulty with each of these cases was that the information supplied did not engage any human right recognised in international law. The HRC's net has been cast wide, as the HRC is able to measure domestic activities against all international human rights treaties that have been extended to the Cayman Islands; however, the HRC is not a one-stop shop for the settlement of all grievances and is restrained by the interpretations given to these human rights by the competent international bodies.

Sometimes a complaint may clearly fall within the scope of one of these internationally recognised human rights, but it may not contain sufficient information to verify the complaint and enable the HRC to act. This was also evident in Case 3/06, where the complainant also alleged that prisoners' human rights were being infringed, but was unable to substantiate these allegations of abuse. In this event, the HRC was unable to take its investigation any further, although, in recognition of the seriousness of the allegations, the HRC did, and would as a matter of course, extend an invitation for further information to be supplied at a future point in time.

By way of comparison, the successful resolution of Case 4/06 illustrates how the HRC can make a positive contribution where internationally acknowledged human rights are potentially at risk. In this case, the complainant had objected to a clause that a government entity sought to include in a contract of employment, which would have precluded the complainant from talking about his particular religion. This complaint was accepted by the HRC; who felt that there was an arguable case of religious discrimination, which could have been in breach of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and referred the matter to the Procedural Sub-Committee for further investigation. When a member of the HRC then contacted the government entity concerned in order to ascertain its perspective, the government entity undertook to review its position. Following some supplementary dialogue, in which the HRC participated as mediator, the government entity decided to withdraw the offending clause in the contract, thus eliminating the human rights issue and addressing the concerns of the HRC. This met with the approval of the complainant and an amicable settlement was reached.

The HRC's Procedural Sub-Committee is now in the process of dealing with five further cases. Two of these cases pertain to the treatment of work permit holders and, in particular, whether the operation of the work permit system, in the context of the facts of these two cases, could be considered to amount to forced labour. Another case that the HRC has been asked to look into is the situation of non-Caymanian children of Caymanian parents, who are subject to immigration control when seeking to enter the Cayman Islands and whether this applies principally to certain nationalities. The HRC has also received a complaint from six persons currently serving life sentences and is investigating the question of whether a tariff, which determines the length of imprisonment, must be set under international human rights law. The final case under investigation relates to the treatment of Cuban Boat People. This case raises a number of issues, including the reception, detention and removal of Cuban Boat People and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Governments of Cuba and the United Kingdom, all of which will be measured against international human rights standards. All of these investigations are in their formative stages and the HRC is unable to make any indication, at this stage, as to whether human rights have been infringed in these cases.

The HRC's findings in these cases will be published in due course. In the interim, further information on the HRC can be obtained by visiting www.humanrights.gov.ky.

If you would like to contact the HRC, please address written correspondence to PO Box 30664SMB or alternatively, emails can be sent to humanrights@gov.ky.

For further information contact: Human Rights Committee