Update: Thanks to every­one who wrote to insist on a fair and expe­di­tious appeal for polit­i­cal pris­oner Annette AugusteBureau des Avo­cats Inter­na­tionaux

http://www.time.com/time/2006/time100/walkup/poll/.

The Kolek­tif Fanmy Pri­zonye

ordon­nance by an inves­ti­gat­ing judge of St. Marc in the so-called case. In her ordon­nance, the judge declared that for­mer Prime Min­is­ter Yvon Nep­tune, for­mer Min­is­ter of the Inte­rior Jocel­erme Privert, for­mer mem­ber of the lower house Amanus Mayette, and sev­eral

other offi­cials and local sup­port­ers of the elected gov­ern­ment must stand trial with­out jury to account for the alleged killings and the destruc­tion of prop­erty in St. Marc dur­ing the days lead­ing to the forced depar­ture of Pres­i­dent Aris­tide. While the ordon­nance

M. Nep­tune, impris­oned since June 2004, did not for­mally appeal the ordon­nance out of protest against his pro­longed pre-trial deten­tion, but he would still ben­e­fit from a deci­sion by the Appeals Court to rescind the ordon­nance, as it would apply to all defen­dants in the dossier.

The ordon­nance has sev­eral legal errors that can be adduced on appeal. Among other things, the ordon­nance is too vague and does not estab­lish in detail the facts of the case and the ele­ments show­ing the crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­ity of each defen­dant (For exam­ple, it cov­ers an entire period between Feb­ru­ary 9 to Feb­ru­ary 29 and speaks of 44 peo­ple killed, but names only 22 vic­tims and does not fur­ther spec­ify the dates and cir­cum­stances of their deaths.). Such lack of pre­ci­sion con­sti­tutes a major obsta­cle for the defense. Instead of giv­ing a detailed descrip­tion of the facts, the ordon­nanceordon­nance fur­ther orders the defen­dants to stand trial with­out the assis­tance of a jury in vio­la­tion of Arti­cle 50 of the Hait­ian Con­sti­tu­tion which states that blood crimes (crimes de sang) and polit­i­cal offenses are sub­ject to trial by jury. We also raised these errors with the Inter-American Com­mis­sion on Human Rights in our follow-up con­clu­sions to the peti­tion in favor of Yvon Nep­tune sub­mit­ted by BAI, IJDH and the Hast­ings Law School Human Rights Project.

Com­mis­saire du Gou­verne­ment) to declare the appeal well-founded on the grounds raised by the appel­lants and to rescind the ordon­nance. If the Court decides to rescind the ordon­nance, it can either issue a new ordon­nance or order an addi­tional inves­ti­ga­tion by an inves­ti­gat­ing judge at the trial court. In both cases, the court will order the lib­er­a­tion of those against whom it found no charges.

avokahaiti@aol.com, and we will ensure that they are deliv­ered promptly.

Me. Hugues Saint Pierre

En son cabinet

Hon­or­able Magistrat,

I am writ­ing to urge you to ensure that the law is respected and that jus­tice is done in the appeals case against the by judge Clu­nie Pierre Jules of St. Marc in the dossier com­monly referred to as the dossier.

The defen­dants in the dossier have been impris­oned with­out trial for up to two years on accu­sa­tions brought forth by their polit­i­cal opponents.

The appeal against the ordon­nance , and the defen­dants remain in pro­longed pre­trial detention.

by the Com­mis­saire du Gou­verne­ment, Me. Paphius Roland, to declare the appeal well-founded and to rescind the ordon­nance.

Thank you in advance for your con­sid­er­a­tion of this request, and for your efforts to achieve jus­tice in the case of .

Sin­cerely,

___________________________

Me. Hugues Saint Pierre

En son cabinet

Hon­or­able Magistrat,

La Sci­erie.

La Sci­erie

La Sci­erie.

For more infor­ma­tion about the Half-Hour For Haiti Pro­gram, the Insti­tute for Jus­tice and Democ­racy in Haiti or human rights in Haiti, see www.ijdh.org. To sign up for the weekly Action Alert, send an email to HalfHour4Haiti@ijdh.org.