2000-2001

THE SECOND

ANNUAL REPORT

OF

THE OMBUDSMAN

T B

H E

E O L

F

O I

B Z

U E

D

S

M

A

N “Truly a haven of Democracy”

The SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

OMBUDSMAN

Prepared for laying before the Senate of Belize and the House of Representatives pursuant to Section 28(2) of the Ombudsman

Act, No. 7 of 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION …………………………………..1 A MAJOR CONCERN …………………………………..2 FORMAL COMPLAINTS ………………………………….14 CLOSED FILES ………………………………….15 OPEN FILES ………………………………….16

CONFIDENCE BUILDING WITH THE POLICE ………………………………….17 POLICE CASES ………………………………….23 THE CITIZEN VS LANDS DEPT. ………………………………….33 PRISON CASES ………………………………….51 FAMILY MATTERS …………………………………62 AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES …………………………………67 TEACHERS COMPLAIN ………………………………….72 LABOR ISSUES ………………………………….76 SOCIAL SECURITY ………………………………….86 MISCELLANEOUS ………………………………...88 ADDRESS TO SJC …………………………………102 CONCINTIZANDO LA POLICIA …………………………………108 JUSTICE AND THE COMMON MAN ……………………………..116

LA JUSTICIA EL HOMBRE COMUN ……………………………122 MENSAJE NAVIDEÑO ………………………………129 NECESITA AYUDA ………………………………130 HOW DO WE FIGHT CORRUPTION? …………………………138 NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEMS …………………………….139

Ombudsman Office 56 Regent Street Belize City, Belize Central America Tel: (02) 70985 Tel/Fax: (02) 70967

(1 March 2001)

Ref: 3/AROMB/2001

Hon. Elizabeth Zabaneh, O.B.E President of the Senate National Assembly Belmopan Dear Madam President,

I have the honour to present the Ombudsman Annual Report which covers the period 1 April, 2000 – 31 March, 2001.

The report is submitted in accordance with Section 28(2) of the Ombudsman Act, No 7 of 1994 which states: - “The Ombudsman shall submit to the National Assembly an annual report relating generally to the execution of his functions.” Respectfully, ____________ Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman of Belize)

Ombudsman Office 56 Regent Street Belize City, Belize Central America Tel: (02) 70985 Tel/Fax: (02) 70967 (1 March 2001)

Ref 4/AROMB/2001

The Hon. Speaker of the House Of Representatives The National Assembly Belmopan Dear Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to present the Ombudsman Annual Report which covers the period 1 April, 2000 – 31 March, 2001.

The report is submitted in accordance with Section 28(2) of the Ombudsman Act, No 7 of 1994, which states: - “The Ombudsman shall submit to the National Assembly an annual report relating generally to the execution of his functions.” Respectfully, _______________ Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman of Belize)

STAFF

OMBUDSMAN Mr. Paul Rodriguez, B.A, OBE INVESTIGATOR Mr. Lionel Castillo J.P. OFFICE ADMINSTRATOR Miss Sharon Flowers ACCOUNTS (part time) Mrs. Rose Nicholas, National Assembly TRANSLATION SERVICES A special thanks to Ms. Estrellita Chan

and Mr. Raul Aguilar for their Spanish translations.

STAFF GOALS: -

1. To greet every visitor with a cheerful and caring smile. 2. To listen to every complainant as though his/her problem is the

only one in the world.

3. Not to take sides between the complainant and the authority against whom the complaint is made.

4. To seek to uncover the facts and the truth in every case.

To be fair and transparent in all that we decide and recommend.

INTRODUCTION It has been an exciting 12 months since our first report, and we trust that this will be evident in the more diverse and meaningful issues that are contained in these pages. Of particular interest to the Ombudsman has been the cultivating of improved working relationships with all government agencies. Much more work needs to be done on confidence building, but this is an issue that embraces far more than only the role of the Ombudsman. There is likely to be confidence where there is trust. On the other hand, there is suspicion if things must be hidden from sight that should be transparent for all to see. In the first Annual Report the Ombudsman avoided using real names judging that the identification of real persons would not serve any useful purpose. However, in this issue he has used real names in certain instances, because he judged that this would better serve the cause of transparency. Another new feature of this issue is a comparison of statistics with those of the previous year. We believe this is one way for Belizeans to measure whether they are getting their money’s worth out of the investment being made to maintain the Ombudsman and his small staff. We wish we could publicise all the cases we have attended to; they range over the whole spectrum of life in Belize: from the claim for pension benefits after 20 years to investigating official abuse of prison inmates. Important issues were investigated, and it is our fervent hope that policies and procedures will be put in place in the ministries, departments and other agencies to ensure that the same mistakes and failures be not repeated. During this year the Ombudsman attended two inter-agencies seminars. This strengthened his convictions that difficult problems which seem insoluble can be solved if the various caretakers co-ordinate strategies, work out protocols and consult with one another more frequently. Although the Ombudsman has received complaints from every district, he is well aware that he must make all the villages of Belize aware of his existence. Already he has spent significant periods of time in all the towns, except Orange Walk and San Pedro, Ambergris Caye. This will be remedied in the near future. Besides, he will initiate efforts to start reaching out to all the major villages throughout the country. A modest start has been made to internationalise the office of the Ombudsman in Belize. Contacts have been established between us and the Caribbean and Central America, Belize having become a full member of the Council of Central American Ombudsman. As resources permit, this initiative will continue and be increased. Finally, without the dedication of the staff of the Ombudsman, this report would not be what it is.

A MAJOR CONCERN: - What happens after the Ombudsman reports a matter to the National Assembly? The Ombudsman Act, No 7 of 1994, Section 22(1) provides: - “(1) If the Ombudsman finds, during the conduct of his investigations or on the conclusion thereof, that there is evidence of a breach of duty, or misconduct, or of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of any authority, he shall refer the matter to the person or body of persons competent to take such disciplinary or other proceedings as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a special report before the National Assembly.” The Office of the Ombudsman being a magistracy of persuasion, there is no other sanction available to him but making a report to the National Assembly, the supreme executive and legislative authority of the land. Because it is the embodiment of the voice and will of the people, within the letter and spirit of the Constitution, Parliament has the power to move any member of any government authority or agency to right a wrong or redress a grievance. However, there is a gap between having the authority, and the will to act. If the will to improve governance is present, then achieving what should be the goal of every civilized, democratic society today, is a matter of having a working mechanism to ensure that reports become converted into actions of redress. This should be the business of the Ombudsman Report Committee, in which the two Members of the Opposition should be the leading voices.

This past year the Ombudsman submitted the following “special reports”: -

1. The Complaint of Mrs. Emerita Smith. 2. Special Report on the Death of Kelvin Barrow

3. Special Report on the “Riot” at Hattieville Prison.

4. Case of Abelina Ayala

………

1. Complaint of Mrs. Emerita Smith.

SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE OMBUDSMAN #2, ‘00

This special report is being submitted in accordance with the Ombudsman Act No 7, 1994, Sec 22 (1) that states: - “If the Ombudsman finds, during the conduct of his investigations or on the conclusion thereof, that there is evidence of a breach of duty, or misconduct, or of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of any authority, he shall refer the matter to the person or body of persons competent to take such disciplinary or other proceedings as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a special report before the National Assembly.” REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT OF MRS. EMERITA SMITH. Mrs. Smith’s home was burglarized on 29 March 1999 and some antique, valuable jewelry was stolen. She reported the matter to the Police stating exactly what was stolen and giving an exact description of the jewelry. She also conducted a personal investigation. She visited numerous jewelry stores. She finally came across the items at Medina's’ Jewelry. She returned to the Police Station and reported her findings. The Police later retrieved the jewelry from Carlos Medina Jr. who was charged for “handling stolen goods”. Mr. Carlos Medina gave a report to the Police that two persons, a male and a female, entered his store and requested a barter for one piece of his jewelry in exchange for the jewelry they had, which they suggested could be melted down. Mr. Medina apparently made a deal and placed the jewelry in his show window for sale. At the trial on 10 November, 1999, Mrs. Emerita Smith, under oath, described her jewelry as those that she had positively identified at the station. Sgt. Denbigh Martinez later informed the court that Mr. Medina did give a statement that he got the jewelry from two persons who came to his store and offered a trade for one of his pieces also suggesting that the jewelry they had could be melted down. Unfortunately, shortly after we began our investigation, Sgt. D. Martinez became unavailable, and todate has not afforded himself a chance to defend himself against what seems a clear case of obstruction of justice. For some reason or other, the Exhibit Keeper did not make the exhibits available to the Prosecutor, W. Sgt. Beverly Moguel, and they were not tendered in court as such. The Learned Counsel for the defense, L. Sooknandan, made a submission for dismissal that was upheld by magistrate Emerson Banner.

Mr. Sooknandon then applied to the court for the recovery of the jewelry for Mr. Medina, but Magistrate Banner said that he could not comply, because Mr. Medina told the court that the jewelry had been obtained from a third and fourth persons. He added that the jewelry should be returned to Mrs. Smith, but he could not so order because the jewelry had not been brought to the court as evidence. Mrs. Smith later got a letter that the cases had been concluded. She went to the Police Exhibit Keeper to recover the jewelry, but Sgt. Denbigh Martinez stopped the handing over stating that Mr. Medina also had claim to the jewelry. These facts, i.e., that Sgt. Martinez was the investigating officer; that as Files Manager he failed to provide the file for prosecution; that he prevented the jewelry from being returned to its rightful owner (although this could have been correct procedure) all seem to add up to a deliberate obstructing of justice. This matter has also been reported to the Lord Chief Justice, Director of Public Prosecution, and the Commissioner of Police. Respectfully submitted Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

2. Special Report on the Death of Kelvin Barrow

SPECIAL REPORT ON THE DEATH OF KELVIN BARROW – SR3 This special report is being submitted in accordance with the Ombudsman Act No 7 of 1994, Sec 22 (1), which says: - “If the Ombudsman finds, during the conduct of his investigations or on the conclusion thereof, that there is evidence of a breach of duty, or misconduct, or of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of any authority, he shall refer the matter to the person or body of persons competent to take such disciplinary or other proceedings as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a special report before the National Assembly.”

THE REPORT: - On Thursday, 24 February, 2000, between the hours 4 - 4:30 P.M., Kelvin Barrow of a Queen Charlotte Street, Belize City, address lost his life in the waters off Burton Beach, Yarborough, while being pursued by P.C. Sylvester Martinez. The tragedy started as a lovers’ quarrel at 48 Queen Charlotte, Belize City, the residence of Miss Vashty Alvarado, the girlfriend of Kelvin Barrow. He had come to see her to enquire why she had not come to him the night before. This led to a quarrel. Sergeant M. Locke, Miss Alvarado’s stepfather, heard the commotion and came to the door of his one-room apartment. He and Barrow started cursing each other. After a while Barrow broke off the argument and was leaving. When he passed in front of Sgt. Locke’s door, the Sgt. fired a chop across Barrow’s shoulder with a dull machete. After hiding and seeking against each other behind the outside toilet, during which time Locke fired another chop that missed; Kelvin Barrow ran off to his yard. Returning with a small machete, he could not engage Sgt. Locke to continue the fight, for he had already called for Police back-up; and Barrow ran off when he saw them. Evidence that the Ombudsman gathered indicates that Sgt. Locke’s efforts may have been not really to answer the calls of a maid in distress, but to satisfy a personal grievance he had against Kelvin Barrow. Vashty Alvarado testified that some years before, Sgt. Locke, her stepfather, had stoned her with a beer bottle; and that Barrow and his cousins had gone after the Sergeant. When an unmarked police vehicle came on the scene, Sgt. Locke showed the arriving officers Kelvin Barrow, who then ran into the water close to Yarborough Bridge. At first the arriving officers were reluctant to go after him, but then Sgt. Locke sent them after him. One officer got into the water and pursued Barrow 100 yards, or more, into the sea. There was a struggle between the two men with eyewitnesses watching them going under the water and coming back up. Kelvin got away one or two times, but the officer was relentless. When they were close, he was beating Barrow with something in his hand. At one point Barrow raised his two hands. Finally only one person surfaced, and he was picked up by a skiff sent by the Marine Department of the Port Authority. He was PC. Sylvester Martinez, and he had his baton in his hand. The Ombudsman and Investigator Lionel Castillo went to the spot where the officer, P.C. Sylvester Martinez, had been picked up out of the sea that Thursday afternoon. Major Lewis of the Port Authority made calculations afterwards and described the point where P.C. Martinez had been retrieved as being 600 yards away from the Yarborough shoreline. We made soundings of the water’s depth, and this revealed 7 – 7½ ft. around that spot. Messrs Matthew Gomez and Martin Swazo stated that when P.C. Sylvester Martinez was fished out of the water, he had his baton in his hand. They also stated that they

circled the area 3 – 4 times and then left. The whole effort, from the time they left the Port dock to their return, took 45 minutes. They had made no further search that day. Looking at the above facts, it seems necessary that a court of law should decide to what extent Sgt. Sylvester Martinez and Mervin Locke are responsible for the untimely death of Kelvin Barrow. Respectfully submitted, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

3. Special Reports on the “Riot” at Hattieville Prison

REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SHOOTING OF CLARENCE GENTLE

INTRODUCTION: On the night of Friday, 17th December 1999, at between 7:30-8:00 P.M., Hattieville Prison inmate Clarence Gentle was shot in the right leg. On Tuesday 21 December the Superintendent of Prisons invited the Ombudsman to do an investigation of the incident. Because of his interest in seeing that the human rights of all inmates he respected, the Ombudsman decided to undertake an investigation on his own initiative. Since September of 1998 when he was Chairman of the Visiting Justices the Ombudsman became acutely aware of the lack of discipline among the ranks of both prison guards and inmates. The social intercourse between the guarded and the guards was so informal and loose that it seemed to him that proper discipline and rehabilitation was either extremely difficult or nearly impossible. Security was extremely lax with inmates walking about on the compound and in and out of the main entrance without any let or hindrance. It was clear then as it is even more so now that a major effort has to be made to establish an understanding of mutual respect between inmates and guards whereby each understands fully the role of the other and guidelines are made completely clear so that incidences of conflict are kept to the minimum. THE INVESTIGATION In this investigation the Ombudsman interviewed three prison guards:

Chief Officer Martin Garcia, 43 years old, with 12 years of prison experience;

Principal Officer Winston O’Brien, 35 years old, with 17 years of experience;

Officer Daniel Mendez, 38 years old, with five years prison experience. Chief Officer Martin Garcia and Principal Officer Winston O’Brien were summoned to appear before the Ombudsman and gave testimony on oath. Officer Mendez volunteered a statement. Four inmates were interviewed. They included the President of the Inmates Association, a Councilor and two inmates who were strategically housed to see and hear this unfortunate drama unfold.

Interviewed were:

Goldbourne Adolphus, President of the Inmates Association, 29 years old;

Kelvin Reneau, 24 years old, Councilor of the Inmates Association;

Kenrick Dawson, 25 years old and cell mate of Clarence Gentle;

Juan Alvarez, 27 years old, Guatemalan, who gave his testimony in Spanish. Salient Points of testimonies of Inmates: -

Clarence Gentle did not appear intoxicated.

P.O. Winston O’Brien fired a warning shot.

After the warning shot, Clarence Gentle still refused to go to the punishment cell.

P.O. Winston O’Brien fired the shot that hit Gentle in the leg.

The shot was fired on the order of P.O. Martin Garcia.

The incident arose because of the disorderly conduct of Clarence Gentle that caused P.O. O’Brien to decide to put him into the punishment cell.

Salient points of the testimonies of the prison guards: -

Clarence Gentle was intoxicated and disorderly.

None of them fired the shot that injured Gentle.

Gentle had a piece of pipe in his hand that they thought could be a dangerous weapon.

Gentle refused to comply with the order to go to cell 41 even after a warning shot was fired.

Even after Gentle appeared to be hit, they were afraid to go near him. Summary After carefully considering all the facts that have come to light in this investigation, one of them is absolutely clear: An order was given to Clarence Gentle; he refused to comply; and even after a warning shot, he still refused to obey. The prison guards testified to this, and so did all the inmates. The question, then, is whether the force used to get Gentle to comply with an order was excessive or not. In determining the answer to this, these factors had to be considered:

1. The behaviour of Gentle at the time; 2. The lighting available where Gentle was standing; 3. The weapons available to the prison guards.

Putting oneself in the shoes of the prison guards it is not difficult to understand how anyone put in the same situation would respond the same way the prison guards did. It is therefore difficult not to conclude that the guards use of force was not excessive. Conclusion: Finally, I would like to recommend the following points to be implemented immediately:

1. Inmates should never defy a legitimate order given by a prison guard. Comply and then argue the point afterwards.

2. There should be no drinking by officers at any time on the prison compound. 3. The brewing of wines cannot be permitted in Hattieville Prison. 4. The behaviour of prison guards should be such as to win and keep the

respect of all inmates at all times. 5. The practice of allowing inmates to cook in their cells is one that has to be

reviewed. Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

4. Case of Abelina Ayala

RE: CASE OF ABELINA AYALA I write you in accordance with Sec. 22(1) of the Ombudsman Act, No 7, 1994, which states: “If the Ombudsman finds, during the conduct of his investigations or on the conclusion thereof, that there is evidence of a breach of duty, or misconduct, or of a criminal offence on the part of an officer or member of any authority, he shall refer the matter to the person or body of persons competent to take such disciplinary or other proceedings as may be appropriate against that officer or member and in all such cases shall lay a special report before the National Assembly.” This case is as follows: - Ms. Abelina Ayala on Thursday, 15 June 2000 felt that she needed to speak to someone who would listen to the tragic tale of how she miscarried a 4 – month baby due to a callous and malicious assault against her person by a certain Dorlina Coh, a neighbour in Guinea Grass, Orange Walk District. This attack against her seems to have been a pre-meditated one intended to cause her grievous harm. This conclusion, Miss Ayala sustained, stemmed from the fact that during a quarrel a few days before the incident, she made Ms Coh aware that she was pregnant. Ms. Coh is alleged to have replied that if she had a pen - knife (navaja) she would rip Ms. Ayala’s belly. The grievance of Ms. Coh had arisen from the fact that Ms. Ayala owed for 3 cokes. She had sent her child to buy with $50.00, but Ms. Coh had had no change. Thereafter she had gone away for three days. But upon her return, after Ms. Coh had cursed her, she had paid for the cokes. Subsequently when she was boarding the bus at Tower Hill, Ms. Dorlina Coh had attacked her. Even before the attack, Ms Ayala testified that the matter had been reported to PC. 84 Luis Patt, but he had done nothing. When the Ombudsman became aware of this case, he had Investigator, Lionel Castillo check with the Orange Walk Magistracy to ascertain if Ms. Dorlina Coh had been arrested. This was done because, upon consulting the Officer in charge of Orange Walk, he had said that both Dorlina Coh and Abelina Ayala had been charged. Our investigation showed that only Ms. Ayala had been charged. In a telephone conversation with the doctor stationed in Guinea Grass, she indicated that the miscarriage suffered by Ms. Ayala had been caused by the blows that she had received.

If the allegations made by Ms. Abelina Ayala are true, then the officer who investigated this case may be guilty of obstructing justice and covering up a crime. The officer in charge of the Orange walk Branch of the Police may be guilty of collusion, or at least of being untruthful to the Ombudsman. Commissioner, I leave this matter in your hand having done what duty assigns me to do. I must now go on to report this matter to the National assembly, as I am enjoined by the same above-quoted Sec 22(1), Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE OF ABELINA AYALA Background On the 26 May, 2000, Ms Abelina Ayala of Guinea Grass, Orange Walk Town, was arrested and charged for causing harm to Ms. Dorlina Coh, of Guinea Grass, Orange Walk Town, Contrary to Section 75 of the Criminal Code Chapter 84. On 14 June, 2000, the common law husband of Abelina Ayala came to make a report to the Ombudsman. He stated that his wife had been harmed by Ms. Dorlina Coh of Guinea Grass, and the blows she had received had caused her to miscarry a 4 – month pregnancy. When the Ombudsman became aware of this case he had Investigator Lionel Castillo check with the Orange Walk Magistracy to ascertain if Ms. Dorlina Coh had been arrested. This was done because, upon consulting the Officer in charge of Orange Walk Police, he had said that both Dorlina Coh and Abelina Ayala had been charged. This turned out not to be so. The Officer in charge of Orange Walk had arrested and detained only Ms. Ayala, who was detained for two days, although she was still bleeding from her miscarriage.

TESTIMONY OF MISS AYALA On 15 June, 2000, Ms. Abelina Ayala, while still suffering from physical and psychological pain caused by her miscarriage, appeared before the Ombudsman and made testimony on oath (Her testimony in Spanish forms part of this report). The salient points of her testimony are:

On 26 May, 2000 she boarded a bus at Tower Hill bound for Guinea Grass.

When she boarded, she was assaulted by Dorlina Coh, who grabbed her arm, pulled her hair, punched her twice or thrice in the stomach.

Dorlina Coh had been cursing her and abusing her some days before because of a grievance she had that Ms. Ayala had not paid her for 3 cokes that she had sent to buy at her bar. She had gone away for three days and forgotten to pay her. However, she had paid her well before the above incident had occurred.

In a quarrel before the above incident Ms. Ayala had told Ms. Coh that she was pregnant. Ms. Coh had expressed a desire to put a knife in her so she would lose the baby.

MAJOR CONCERNS

The common law husband had reported the above attack to the stationed officer in Guinea Grass, Mr. Luis Patt, who had done nothing.

Sgt. Elie Salazar had also gotten a report but he had done nothing.

Ms. Abelina Ayala was still bleeding from the miscarriage when officer in charge of Orange Walk Mr. Magdaleno had Ms. Ayala arrested and detained for two days.

Madam President, the Ombudsman has already reported this matter to the Commissioner of Police for him to undertake a thorough investigation. This is necessary because the officers involved may have been guilty of one or all of the following: - 1. Obstruction of justice 2. Cover – up 3. Conspiracy to conceal the committal of a crime. Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

THE OMBUDSMAN REPORTS COMMITTEE

Hon. John Briceño – Chairman Hon. Michael Finnegan Hon. Erwin Contreras Hon. Jorge Espat Hon. Dolores Balderamos Garcia Hon. Agripino Cawich

FORMAL COMPLAINTS

During the past 12 months 251 formal complaints were made. Of these 148 files have been closed, the remainder 103 are still open. The closed files fall into the following categories: - No. 1. Complaint investigated and sustained, 13

recommendation made and accepted 2. Complaint investigated and sustained, 0

recommendation not accepted and report made to the National Assembly.

3. Complaint resolved to the satisfaction 12

of both parties during the course of the investigation.

4. Complaint resolved by informal action 5

without the need for a formal investigation 5. Complaint not investigated, advice and 40

assistance given. 6. Investigation refused or discontinued 60

because of exercise of Ombudsman’s discretion in terms of Section 15.

7. Complaint investigated and not sustained. 15 8. Investigation discontinued. Special Report made to the

National Assembly. 3

CLOSED FILES Police Department 64 Files Lands Department 24 Files Department of Corrections 12 Files Government of Belize 2 Files WASA 2 Files Labor Department 1 File Representative of Albert Division 1 File Belize Social Security 2 Files Human Development Department 1 File Civil Aviation Department 2 Files Housing & Planning Department 1 File National Fire Station 1 File Agriculture Department 2 Files Customs Department 2 Files Fisheries Department 2 Files Own Initiative 1 File Income Tax Department 1 File Ministry of Health 1 File Ministry of Education 1 File Family Court Administration 9 Files BDF 4 Files A Mediation 7 Files Belize Advisory Council 1 File Ministry of Economic Dev. 1 File Immigration 1 File Public Service 2 Files

INFORMAL COMPLAINTS Besides the above class of complaints, each of which is represented by a file case, there were 364 others made by phone or verbally, which are recorded in a special notebook. These cover a wide variety of citizen’s concerns.

103 OPEN FILES

Lands Department 41 Files Police Department 32 Files Housing & Planning Dept. 3 Files Family Court Administration 4 Files Ministry of Public Service 1 Files Department of Corrections 7 Files Department of Human Dev. 1 File Ministry of Education 1 File Recondev 3 Files Government of Belize 1 File Transport Department 1 File Belize City Council 1 File Supervisor of Insurance 1 File KHMH 1 File Batty Bus Bros. 1 File Area Rep. (Hon. Lizama) 1 File Ministry of Sugar Industry 1 File Labor Department 1 File B.D.F. 1 File

CONFIDENCE BUILDING WITH THE POLICE During this year in review, the Ombudsman has taken concrete steps to improve his relations with the Police Department. Among other things he has: -

1. Spoken publicly in support of the police when they have come under five for the lawful execution of their duties; e.g. the incident of 19 January, 2001. An entry in one of the registers of the office says:

“Saturday 19 January at 11P.M. the Ombudsman was called out by the Police to verify and witness the action they were taking against Angel Hugh Thomas of Caesar Ridge, who had allegedly fled from the police and rammed 2 of their vehicles to evade arrest… The Ombudsman testifies that while he was there the police acted with great restraint….”

2. In a lecture delivered at S.J.C. Sixth Form, the constitutional and legal basis for

the use of force by the police was clearly explained to students. (That paper in its entirety is reproduced in this report beginning on p. 103).

3. Agreed to give lectures on a regular basis to the police on their own role and that

of the Ombudsman. Hereunder is the first of those lectures in outline form: -

PROFILE OF A GOOD POLICEMAN I A Law-abiding person

He or she must have a basic understanding of the laws to know what offences are violations.

A. Murder, robbery, theft, assault, drug abuse, drug trafficking. B. Must be able to distinguish between a criminal matter and a civil matter. C. He or she must himself be a model citizen, obedient to all the laws of the

land.

II A policeman/woman is a person of integrity and honesty.

A. Does not use his position for private gain. B. Does not act out of personal consideration, but is fair to friend and foe alike. C. Avoids sexual relationships that compromise his professionalism.

III A policeman/woman is a person of courage.

A. A policeman /woman must be willing to put himself in danger to carry

out his duty. (Saturday night). B. A policeman/woman must be a person of prudence. (Brambles case). C. Prudence works both ways: to protect yourself and to protect the life of a

citizen.

IV. A policeman/woman must be respectable and respectful.

A. Respectability has to do with the way a person carries himself or herself: - (1) personal appearance (2) personal speech (3) avoiding vulgarity in action and speech

B. Respectfulness has to do with inner qualities by which we recognize the inherent dignity of every human being.

(1) Colour of skin makes no difference.

(2) Manner of dress or speech makes no difference. (3) Rich and poor, beautiful and ugly, old and young, small or big, all

are equal in the eyes of the law.

V. A policeman/woman must be confident.

A. Ways to improve self-confidence:

(1) Be mentally fit: educate yourself as much as you can. Read. (2) Continue your formal education: UB,SJC Sixth Form, Extension. (3) Restrict your use of television: watch “History Channel, “Discovery.” (4) Don’t waste time – when you are waiting for something to happen

in the station – read. (5) Study people – how they act, how they speak, in short, things that

may help you to become a superior investigator.

VI. A policeman/woman is a guardian of society and civilization.

A. The Greeks are the most celebrated people of antiquity because their accomplishments form the basis of Western Civilization – Athens especially 500 BC.

(1) Art comparable to anything so far produced. (2) Their literature: The Iliad, Odyssey and dramas are the models of all

Western literature.

(3) Government: democracy under Pericles: the people voted for their leader.

(4) Philosophy – The Ancient Greeks are to human thought what the Jews

are to religion: the three greatest world religions had Jewish roots- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

(5) The Olympic Games- hundreds of years before Christ.

B. The greatest first step towards civilization was made by the first group of men to step out of the jungle somewhere in Africa to pursue game and find out that certain wild fruit and grasses were edible. These later settled near a river and began planting. These small groups increased and multiplied. Living together in a larger group than family made it necessary for them to observe rules which were the beginnings of law and civilised living.

C. A policeman is guardian of society.

(1) He is the person on the frontline to uphold the law. (2) He is the person who defends the rights of the people against those

who violate their rights. (3) He is defender of he weak.

VII. The Policeman/woman is a person of conscience

A. “The Black and the Scarlet”: when not to obey the order of superior

officer: when the order is in clear violation of the law.

B. At the Nuremberg Trials the judges rulings in the cases against Nazi officials helped to establish the principle of international law that no superior may order a subordinate to perform an act that is morally and/or legally wrong.

C. In 1948, 10 December, the United Nations issued the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights. 1. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and

inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,

and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedom is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now therefore, Proclaiming this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

2. 30 articles: Summary – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of

Happiness.

D. Belize is a nation founded upon belief in God.

WHEREAS the people of Belize –

(a) affirm that the Nation of Belize shall be founded upon principles which acknowledge the supremacy of God, faith in human rights and fundamental freedoms, the position of the family in a society of free men

and free institutions, the dignity of the human person and the equal and inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed by their Creator;

VIII. The Role of the Ombudsman

A. The Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament bearing the status of a judge of

the Supreme Court with the authority given to him by the National Assembly to oversee the administration.

B. The Ombudsman’s reason for being is to improve governance.

(1) He may investigate individuals to ascertain whether they are doing

their job properly or not following upon a complaint or on his own initiative.

(2) In his investigations and in everything he does officially he must be

independent and impartial.

(3) His work must be transparent.

IX. Specific Cases and what they revealed.

A. Brambles - over-reacting; personal considerations

B. Smith Case - Undue influence of friendship or negligence

C. Dixon Case - Insensitivity, carelessness,

D. Angel Hugh Thomas - Police to be commended for showing great restraint.

Where does the relationship Ombudsman – Police stand today? It is far better than where it was last year, but much more needs to be done. The police need to become convinced that to recover the confidence of the vast majority of citizens one of the main qualities that their performance must have is TRANSPARENCY. The insistence that their disciplinary work is no business of the public or the Ombudsman is unacceptable in a democratic society.

The Ombudsman recommends this prayer to every policeman: -

A policemAn’s prAyer

Teach me that sixty minutes make an hour, Sixteen ounces a pound, And a hundred cents a dollar, Help me so to live, that I can lie down at night, with a clear conscience, Without a gun under my pillow, And unhaunted by the faces of those to whom I have brought pain. Grant that I may earn my meal ticket on the square, And in earning it I may do unto others, As I would have others do unto me. Deafen me to the jingle of tainted money, And to the rustle of unholy skirts, Blind me to the faults of the other fellow, but reveal to me my own. Guide me so that each night when I look across the dinner table at my wife, who has been a blessing to me, I shall have nothing to conceal. Keep me young enough to laugh with little children. And sympathetic enough to the old age. And when comes the day of darkening shades and the smell of flowers, The tread of soft footsteps and the crunching wheels in the yard Make the ceremony short and the epitaph simple

HERE LIES A MAN

POLICE ACTION JUSTIFIABLE …

CASE NOTE CASE NO 390 On Friday, 15 December, 2001 the Ombudsman and Mr. Lionel Castillo, Investigator, visited Mr. Julio Leal of Second St. South, Corozal Town, the father of Claudio Lopez Leal, who was shot and killed by Corozal Police. Two policemen had answered the call of Mr. Lopez, who requested that they should come to his residence to help him pacify his son who had threatened him. Mr. Leal in his testimony to the police said that his son had come out of his house holding a piece of iron about 24 inches long. One of the policemen fired two shots at close range, 6-8 ft. away from the deceased. The Ombudsman later examined this piece of iron the deceased had held in his hand. It weighed between 8-10 lbs. Apart from the two policemen who came to effect the arrest, Mr. Leal was the only witness. Even the next door neighbour said she had seen nothing. The father of the deceased expressed strong feelings against the action of the police, but even his testimony, the only eyewitness testimony (apart from the policemen) support the view that the action of the police was justifiable use of force to protect their own persons. Signed:

CASE NOTE CASE NO 236 This case concerns the failure of a citizen to follow closely the process of an appeal to the Supreme Court to ensure that the judgment of the Lower Court be respected by him, in case his appeal should fail. When Mr. X complained to the Ombudsman, he claimed that he had been wrongfully arrested by the Police. Although he had been convicted on a drug trafficking charge, he had appealed the judgment. However, that arrest took place after the appeal had been abandoned, the Supreme Court upholding the judgment of the magistrate. His arrest was therefore justified. Signed:

AN APOLOGY FROM THE POLICE –

SOMETIMES THE POLICE ARE NICE, AS IN THIS CASE: -

Dear Commissioner:

RE: THREAT AT ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE Mrs. A.R. of 3201 Central American Boulevard, Belize City has complained to me about a Police matter that happened on 18 October, 2000. On that day there was a bomb threat at St. John’s College, and your officers responded promptly apparently to demonstrate how seriously the Police regard such pranks. I believe the very quick response and the immediate focusing on a suspect did much to manifest how seriously the Police viewed this matter. The daughter of the above named lady, was singled out and publicly embarrassed – up to now unjustifiably, because no evidence is known to be available against the young lady. Sir, I realize that at times it is difficult to decide what is the best course of action to take at a given moment of urgency to do something; and I do realize that the good of the whole must usually take precedence over the good of one individual. Yet where the reputation of a person is involved certain safeguards must be respected. Perhaps instead of a public spectacle a quiet meeting in the Principal’s office would have been more appropriate to accomplish both ends – the common good while not causing embarrassment to Miss R. At any rate, I am confident that you will give some sort of satisfaction to Mrs. R. and her family. May I suggest that it may be a good thing for the officer(s) involved to have a word with Mrs. R. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

REPLY FROM POLICE: Dear Sir: Kindly be informed that a letter of apology will be sent to Mrs. R.

SEARCHING WITHOUT A WARRANT:

CASE NOTE CASE NO 360 This case concerned the Police entering a citizen’s home without a search warrant, on the pretext of searching for drugs, weapons or ammunition. While they were searching they came across items, both old and new, and they took these into custody. The effort of the persons to recover their goods resulted in arrests by the Police of the wife of the complainant and a son. Were these arrests based on reasonable cause or were they an effort by the Police to cover their tracks, when the Ombudsman intervened to have the Police return their goods to those from whose house it had been taken without a search warrant? The Ombudsman closed the case when the complainant informed him that he had gotten a lawyer and was taking the matter to court. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM VS OVERREACTION

CASE NOTE CASE NO 276 This complaint concerns the lack of professional behaviour by our Police. While conceding that it is very difficult for men doing their duty during the small hours of the morning and late at night, yet our policemen must acquire that measure of self discipline that will enable them to deal with the most cantankerous citizen with restraint, with fairness and justice. In this case, because of extreme fatigue and because of a sense of being disrespected caused by a similar incident in a neighbouring country, the complainant may have overreacted. However, whatever the circumstances a very high standard is required of public officers. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Dear Commissioner: I am enclosing to you a copy of a complaint filed against the Police by Mr. Allen Palacio, a Belizean living abroad. I would like to urge you to expedite whatever measures you will take in this case. I regret to inform to you that the reports of police abuse continue to come to me. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Mr. Paul Rodriguez Ombudsman of Belize 56 Regent Street Belize City July 3, 2000 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you very much for your timely and spirited advocacy on my behalf with the Police Commissioner and in the local media. Your integrity and authority, and the weight of your office adds considerable support to my complaint of police abuse. The Police Commissioner has not provided me with an apology, as you had suggested. As apology would have been a small gesture demonstrating his recognition of wrongdoing and reassured me of the police’s institutional commitment to justice. Please accept my best wishes for you in your vital role as Ombudsman and guardian of constitutional principles in Belize’s fledging democracy. Sincerely, ___________ Complainant

PLAYING WITH THE POLICE

WHEN A LADY MADE THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT: - Dear Sir: On 27 April 2000 two officers of the Police at about 12:40 a.m. came to my home and forced me to open my door saying that they were going to search for drugs and ammunition. They did not even allow me to put on decent clothes, and started throwing my things all over the place. This, I believe, they did to satisfy Ms. T., who for some reason or other wants to get back at me. I already made a report to Assistant Inspector Watler, but I have come to you to make sure that this whole business is stopped so I can live in peace. Signed: __________ Ms. O The Ombudsman realised that the lady was playing a game with the police, because the other lady mentioned in the letter had previously made a similar complaint. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, refusing to be part of the game.

MOTHER COMPLAINS: DETAINED SON MISSES THE WEDDING

CASE NOTE

Case No. 211 Mrs. F of a Ladyville address complained that the Police detained her son and kept him in detention; and as a result he missed her marriage ceremony. Because she thought that he was innocent, she saw the Police action as a grave violation of her son’s civil rights. However, in her letter of complaint, she stated that her son had given a lift in his vehicle to three young men, who were later charged with causing damage to the property to which her son had taken them. The Ombudsman could not agree that her son’s civil liberty had been violated by the police’s action. The Police in his judgment had reasonable cause to suspect that the son had been a part of the misdemeanor. He may have acted out of kindness to give three would – be- delinquents a charitable lift; but the Police had a duty to investigate. The Ombudsman therefore did not investigate and offered advice to the complainant.

Letter Dear Mrs. F, Thanks for your letter of complaint. I have studied it carefully and sympathize with your concern over the good name of your son. If there is anything I can do to help you to answer queries by his school I would be pleased to do so, because I believe that your son may only be guilty of a lack of good judgment in this case. Nevertheless he has to be careful with whom he associates, even casually. Our society and its laws against drugs, for instance, are such that you may be arrested for associating with a person who is actually in possession of drugs, although you may not even know that he is carrying it. Therefore when I travel around, I do not pick up anyone off the road. When and if I do in the future, I will try to ensure before I say “get in that person has nothing illegal in his possession. Kindly explain to your son that the police need to do their job, and no one should call them to task when they do. Advise him to be very careful who he associates with. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CONFIDENCE WITH MORE TRANSPARENCY: -

WHEN A POLICE RECRIUT COMPLAINED OF UNFAIR DISMISSAL THE OMBUDSMAN WROTE AS FOLLOWS: -

Dear Commissioner:

Re: Wrongful Dismissal of trainee Kenroy Morgan. On 14 December 1999 after having returned to the Police Training School Trainee Mr. Kenroy Morgan was handed a letter of dismissal. The letter of dismissal stated the cause to be: intoxication whilst on duty. Mr. Morgan has contended to us that the charge is not true, and at any rate could not be substantiated because no urine or blood test was carried out on him. Mr. Morgan further argues that a disciplinary tribunal had been held presided over by Superintendent Rosado, and that he had not recommended dismissal but the punishment of being confined to barracks for one month. Sir, I would appreciate whatever clarification you can shed on this case within 10 working days. Respectfully yours Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

THE POLICE REPLIED THROUGH A LETTER OF 21 FEBRUARY, 2000 Dear Sir: I write acknowledging receipt of your letter 165/CPOMB/2000 dated February 4, 2000, Re: Case of Kenroy Morgan. I am pleased to inform you that this Department considers the matter with Mr. Kenroy Morgan closed. Your concern that my reply to you is not satisfactory is respected. However, this Department will continue to ensure that we improve on our image by dismissing members of bad character, likewise, reassuring the Belizean public that we are serious about our success, and forging a better relationship with them by the transparency they now enjoy. I am appalled to know that Mr. Morgan was not advised that his main contention of blood or urine extraction did not apply to any other offence except when being a driver involved in a traffic accident, contrary to Section 74(A)(1)(a) of Chapter 192 of the Laws

of Belize, R.E. 1980 as amended by Act No. 20 of 1992. However, since that was not done, if he has any queries he can visit any of our offices either in Belize City or at our Headquarters in Belmopan. Yours sincerely, ________________________ Commander, Internal Affairs & Discipline

THE OMBUDSMAN CLOSED THE CASE: - Dear Commissioner: I have received the last communication from your department signed by A.I.P. Keith Lino regarding the Case of Kenroy Morgan. I am now satisfied that Mr. Morgan’s complaint should not be sustained, because the Commissioner of Police must have the discretion to choose the most suitable candidates for service in the Police Department. It is a matter of his judgment; and we must under normal circumstances respect that. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

THE CITIZEN VS LANDS DEPARTMENT

WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN PUBLIC LANDS? Mr. Joaquin Bobadilla filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, after receiving the following letter: - Dear Sir: It has been reported that you entered illegally into Parcel No. 444, for which Mr. Humberto Gutierrez has an official lease No. 761/92. Our records show that you do not hold a lease for such parcel of land and this constitutes an act of trespass on national land. You are therefore urged to cease and desist all working and activities on the land immediately. Should you have any information or documents to the contrary or if you have any queries please do not hesitate to visit the Lands Office in Corozal Town. ___________________________ For Commissioner of Lands & Surveys

After his investigations, the Ombudsman replied to Mr. Bobadilla as follows: -

Dear Mr. B, I have studied your complaint, and would like to point out the following to you: - Your claim that since 1989 you have been occupying parcel 417 in Buena Vista upon the permission of the Village Chairman has no legal standing on its own. The fact that you have been cultivating the land since then may cause a sympathetic Minister of Lands to award you another parcel, but you cannot claim it as a right; because you were simply a squatter. Finally, to establish if you have any legal right to compensation is a matter that you would have to take to court. I am sorry that I cannot be of any further help to you. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE

CASE NO 284 This case raises the concern that the role of Village Councils with regards to the issuing of land has to be clarified for the benefit of all. The complainant in this case developed a parcel of land trusting in a public declaration that a village chairman made in 1989 that each villager could take whatever vacant lot he wished. However, village councils have no power to parcel out national lands; that is a power that only the Minister of Lands has. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

NATIONAL LANDS FOR PRODUCTIVE PURPOSES -:

CASE NOTE CASE NO 302 After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman learned that Mr. X. has never had a lease on the land he was claiming was his. Furthermore, the Ombudsman learned that he had served time in prison for illegal entry and possession of Indian Hemp. A visit to the land convinced the Ombudsman that its being in a fairly isolated place suited it for cultivation of illegal drugs. Therefore the Ombudsman decided to close this case. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

TO CANCEL OR NOT – THE ANSWER MAY DEPEND ON YOU – Dear Mr. Conorquie, I have just finished reading your letter and I am pleased to learn that another parcel of land has been assigned to you. What you need to do now is to stop paying attention to what people are saying and TAKE POSSESSION of the parcel that has now been assigned to you. Start clearing it and doing something to show that you mean to develop it. Since the rest of what happens is now up to you, I am now closing your case. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION LEADS TO RE – INSTATEMENT: -

Dear Mr. Tillett,

RE: THE RE-INSTATEMENT OF A LEASE ON YOUR BEHALF A report submitted to me on 14 December 2000 informed me that a lease has been re-instated to you for lot 2732. The same report said that you were being informed of this change. Trusting that this new arrangement meets with your approval, the Ombudsman has closed your case. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

SOLOMONIC WISDOM? CASE 66 In November 0f 1999 Mr. Fernando Gamez of the Cayo District complained that land he had held since 1980 was being divided between Mr. Alonzo Puc, on service of contract to the Lands Department, and himself. In July of 2000 the matter was finally resolved, and the Lands Department communicated this note to the Ombudsman: - “Mr. Puc has agreed to give up some of him cultivation in exchange for more acreage along the river. The survey team is surveying the area and as soon as this is done, Mr. Puc and Mr. Gamez will be allocated their blocks.”

On 17 July 2000 the Ombudsman closed the case with this letter to Mr. Gamez. Dear Mr. Gamez, A letter of 10 July 2000 from the Commissioner of Lands has informed me that the dispute between you and Mr. Puc has been settled to your satisfaction. I have therefore closed your file, thanking you for having used the services of the Ombudsman. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

SOME PROBLEMS ARE BIGGER –

Case No 21 Dear Ms. Gilharry I am very sorry to have taken so long to answer you regarding the complaint you made to me some months ago. Unfortunately, the problem you have raised is not one that concerns only you, but more of the dwellers in your area. There has to be a development plan for that area. This will probably require that some folks be re-located. I have already suggested this to the Area representative, Mr. Montejo. It is up to him to set this matter in motion. I have now closed your case and suggest you discuss the matter with your Area Representative. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Letter to Area Representative, Hon. R. Montejo

Dear Sir: RE-LOCATION AND IMPLEMENTING OF PROPER PLAN IGUANA ST. EXTENSION

Ms. Naomi Gilharry has complained to me that a plot of land that she was squatting on but is now leased to her has been surveyed and divided with another person being accommodated on a piece of what used to be her land. I write to you about this case, because something more than what a bureaucrat would ordinarily recommend needs to be done to rectify the mistakes that have been allowed to happen. The Complainant had been squatting on this land since 1993. In April of 1998 she was granted a lease. In 1999 the lot was surveyed and another person who had been squatting was accommodated on a piece of the same “plot.”

The Ombudsman has made an on the spot inspection of the area and found a very chaotic situation, with houses thrown together and no proper access to public streets or alleys and no provision for drains. Sir, I believe that you as Area Representative need to take this matter in hand and spearhead a move a re-locate whichever of these persons whose property is in the way of doing a proper survey, and implementing a proper development plan for the area. Best wishes! Respectfully,

CASE NOTE CASE NO 21 This case shows the chaos that results when a government department allows the impatience of the needy to offset the considerations of the need for proper surveying and planning of new areas. The complainant had been squatting on a plot of land since 1993. In April of 1998, just a few weeks before elections, she was granted a lease. In 1999 the lot was surveyed and was divided in two. The Ombudsman made on the spot inspection of the area and found a very chaotic situation, with houses thrown together and no proper access to public streets or alleys. As a result he has suggested to the Area Representative that a re-location of some of the residents be effected and a proper plan be implemented.

Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

LET’S HELP…BUT LEGALLY

RECOMMENDATION: LAND DISPUTE-ESPAT VS PANIAGUAS.

The Ombudsman agrees with the decision of the Lands Department to settle this dispute in favour of Mr. Hermogenes Paniaguas. However, at the same time inconvenience and loss has been sustained by Mr. Orlando Espat and therefore justice and fairplay require that adequate compensation be made to him. It is therefore recommended that: Either 1. The Lands Department uses its good offices to persuade Mr. Paniaguas to accept another plot of land in exchange for

1268. However, the success of this exchange depends on whether Mr. Paniaguas is agreeable.

Or 2. The above being unacceptable, Mr. Orlando Espat be fully compensated for his investment into lot 1268. This recommendation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman Act No 7 of 1994 Sec. 21(2), which says: “Where the Ombudsman has made a recommendation under subsection (1), and within the time specified or a reasonable thereafter, he is of the opinion that no action has been taken in pursuance of his recommendation, he shall lay before the National Assembly as special report on the case.” Accordingly, the Ombudsman requires that this matter be resolved within 40 working days. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE Case No 319 This case of double leases concerns the failure of the Lands Department to do a thorough and comprehensive study before rushing to comply with the request by a politician to accommodate a constituent with a parcel of land. In itself a praiseworthy deed to help a citizen to own a piece of our Belizean patrimony, it has to be done according to law, in a transparent manner and following a system that protects equally the rights of all. In this case one leasee had paid off a lien for a previous leasee, who transferred his rights to him. No proper consideration was taken of this before the land was leased to a third person, who has since invested time and considerable money in developing the plot of land. Double leases work great inconvenience on people and they should be avoided by putting in place a firm policy and a system that is transparently fair and just. This system should include a set procedure to do a thorough research before any move is made to give a lease. Signed:

Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) On 14 December, 2000, the Ombudsman received a note from the Lands Department, as follows: - “Cancellation of lease has been revoked on 6th September, 2000 and Mr. Espat has been reinstated.”

TO CANCEL OR NOT – THE ANSWER MAY DEPEND ON YOU – Dear Mr. Conorquie, I have just finished reading your letter and I am pleased to learn that another parcel of land has been assigned to you. What you need to do now is to stop paying attention to what people are saying and TAKE POSSESSION of the parcel that has now been assigned to you. Start clearing it and doing something to show that you mean to develop it. Since the rest of what happens is now up to you, I am now closing your case. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION LEADS TO RE – INSTATEMENT: - Dear Mr. Tillett,

RE: THE RE-INSTATEMENT OF A LEASE ON YOUR BEHALF A report submitted to me on 14 December 2000 informed me that a lease has been re-instated to you for lot 2732. The same report said that you were being informed of this change. Trusting that this new arrangement meets with your approval, the Ombudsman has closed your case. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

TO BENEFIT THE PART OR THE WHOLE? CASE NO 192 SHOWS THAT THE BEST PLANS MAY GO AWRY, IF THERE IS NO

POLITICAL WILL. THE COMPLAINT: I am the Village Council Chairman of Punta Negra, Toledo. A piece of land acquired by Government for village expansion has been divided into lots with provision for other village amenities and development. One family, have already been appointed their lots; but now they also want to acquire 7 acres of land adjacent to their lots, that has been earmarked for a Community Resort. I do not agree with this, nor do the rest of the village council, except Ms. Z, who is one of the family. Signed: __________ Chairman, Village Council

OMBUDSMAN TRIES TO FORTIFY THE POLITICAL WILL: Dear Mr. Representative, In my visit to Punta Gorda recently I was fortunate to meet with the Village Council Chairman of Punta Negra, Mr. Victor Jacobs. He showed me a plan of a beautiful development scheme for that village. The plan includes residential lots, farm plots, sports fields, and a Community Resort area. However, he complained that two persons: Thomas Young and Elizabeth Flowers are bent on spoiling this beautiful plan. They want to have the Community Resort divided into lots to benefit themselves, although they already have lots assigned to them. It would be a great pity, and very short-sighted, if we allowed this resort idea to be scrapped because of the greed of two individuals. I am therefore beseeching you to use your good offices to ensure that the Lands Department carry through on the plan as is and leave that Community Resort for the benefit of all. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Dear Mr. Jacobs, I have placed your concern both to the Lands Department and your own Representative, Hon. Mike Espat. The ball is now in their court, so to speak. On the other hand, you should speak to Mr. Espat and persuade him to stick to the original plan and ask your friends from Punta Negra to do the same. Best wishes! Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

HELP FOR ONE MUST NOT HURT ANOTHER –

CASE NOTE Case No. 314 This case involves the effort of an Area Representative to assist a constituent to obtain a parcel of land. In itself a very praiseworthy undertaking, the desire to help one citizen must not be done at the expense of another. If help to one causes the violation of the rights of another, then the result is a serious travesty of justice that is intolerable in a society where so much emphasis is being placed on the rights of all. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU BUILD?

CASE NO 336 Mr. X of Santa Elena complained to the Ombudsman. He had constructed a building on a parcel of government for which he had absolutely no legal document to prove the right to occupy. He was advised that there was nothing the Ombudsman could do for him. Thereafter the file was closed. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

TOO EASILY GIVING UP HIS RIGHT

FOLLOWING UPON THE COMPLAINT OF THE CITIZEN, THE OMBUDSMAN WROTE: -

Dear Miss Mendoza, On 5 June 2000 I wrote a letter to Mr. Paulino, now retired from Lands, about the case of a parcel of land, parcel 1678, block 24, Registration Section, Society Hall. I have a copy of a Land Certificate No 3648/97 in the name of Mr. Oscar Palma. Having waited over two months for the Lands Department to provide an explanation of how this parcel could have been sold to someone else, I am now proceeding to recommend that this matter be immediately rectified. This process must include at least the following: -

1. That the second person involved be immediately informed that his title is null & void;

2. That a copy of that document be sent to Mr. Oscar Palma of Teachers Street,

West Landivar, Belize City;

3. That a copy of the same be sent to the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is requiring that this matter be concluded within 20 (twenty) working days. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

A REPLY FROM THE CEO Dear Mr. Palma, I have in my possession a letter which I have just received from the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Hereunder is reproduced for you verbatim paragraph 5 of that piece of correspondence: - “with respect to the issue of lands in Blackman Eddy to which Mr. Oscar Palma has an interest, a perusal of the files gives no indication that there has been a sale….” My advice to you therefore is to make an on the spot check of your land. Do not go alone. Have a few witnesses with you. Take a letter addressed: “To whom it May Concern.” Have a justice of the Peace witness it, and deliver to whomever is

trespassing on your land. Give them a week to get of. Check again thereafter. If they are still on your land, sue them. Try to do this as quickly as possible! Because you have to do the rest for yourself, I am hereby closing your case. However, if you wish you may keep in touch for any additional advice. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

WRONG TITLE?

A CITIZEN WHO RECEIVED DOCUMENT OF GRANT TO THE WRONG PIECE OF LAND, COMPLAINED: - Dear Sir: We bought a piece of Land on Lords Bank Road May 1994 and we did receive Minister Fiat Grant #134 of 1994 for lot #20 in Lords Bank Village Belize District. Unfortunately our land, on which we have a home, is on Lords Bank Road not in the village. We would really like to have our title for the correct piece of land as soon as possible. We have made repeated attempts to obtain the same without success. Thanks for your intervention in obtaining our correct title. Signed: _________ Complainant

OMBUDSMAN’S ACTION: - Dear Mr. Cardona

Re: Wrong title for land on Lord’s Bank Road. Mrs. Alice Cardosa complains that she sought and obtained title for a plot of land in May of 1994. Unfortunately, the title she received, No 134 of 1994 was for lot No. 20 in Lord’s Bank Village. Unfortunately her lot is on Lord’s Bank Road.

Since this is a fairly uncomplicated matter, could you kindly rectify this matter within 10 working days. Thanks! Yours Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

IT TOOK ONE YEAR…

Dear Ms. C., By a note of 22 September 2000 I was informed that you have been contacted to visit the Lands office to have the mistake remedied. Would you kindly inform me when the process is complete. In the meantime, I have closed the case, depending on you to do what you must to have this matter regularized. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

HIS EMPLOYER PROMISED HIM A HALF OF THE LAND.

After a long-lived promise of 30 years, a citizen felt aggrieved because he was displaced. He felt that because the owner had promised him half of 36 acres, no one had any right to move him, even after the property had been sold to someone else. After some investigation, the Ombudsman discontinued the investigation and wrote the complainant this letter: Dear Mr. X, Though I am very sympathetic to your case and feel that your former employer deceived you, there is nothing that can be done for you legally against the present owner of the land you referred to in your complaint. Your whole claim is against Mr. F. not against the new owner. It is unfortunate that the two lawyers you talked to before coming to the Ombudsman did not properly inform you. Finally, whatever claim you think you have against Mr. F., you should pursue in Court through a civil suit. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

MAJOR CONCERN – IS THE LANDS DEPARTMENT ENCOURAGING TRESPASSING?

CASE 278 Mrs. Maria Chun of Toledo complained that a parcel of land that had been occupied by her father and leased to her had been taken away from her by the Lands Department. Previously, in June of 1995 the department had written Mr. Primitivo Coc the following letter: - Dear Sir, It has come to the knowledge of officers in the department that you are in occupation of lands which is leased to Mrs. Maria Chun. You are hereby advised to remain in occupation until you reap your crop of corn. Thereafter you shall abandon the land. You will be re-allocated somewhere else. Sincerely, For: Commissioner of Lands & Surveys

ON 10 JULY 1997, MRS. CHUN WAS SENT THE FOLLOWING LETTER:

- Dear Madam, This is to inform you that the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources has re-considered his decision which is in your favour. Lands taken away from you and issued to Mr. Primitivo Coc will now be returned to you. Mr. Primitivo Coc as well as the District Lands and Surveys Officer are also being made aware of this latest development. May I also inform you that since the area returned to you has been sub-divided, this is considered as fair compromise in view of the fact that the land has been sub-divided into lots and as such has a higher value. May this bring this long-pending problem between your good self and Mr. Primitivo Coc to an end. Sincerely, M.T. Paulino (Mr.) For: Commissioner of lands & Surveys

FOLLOWING UPON THE DEPARTMENT’S DECISION TO DIVIDE THE LAND IN

JUNE OF 2000, THE OMBUDSMAN WROTE THIS LETTER: - Dear Mrs. Chun, Perhaps by now you have received a letter written to you by the Lands Department. That letter says that the parcel of land in question is to be divided between you and Mr. Coc. Since there is nothing else I can do, I have closed your case. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Dear Mr. Minister, It has recently been called to my notice that a land dispute between Mrs. Maria Chun and Primitivo Coc, both of San Antonio, Toledo, has been resolved by the Lands Department by dividing the parcel of land between the rightful leaseholder, Mrs. Chun, and the trespasser, Mr. Primitivo Coc. This decision I consider to be a very unfortunate and unwise one which sends a very undesirable message. Mrs. Chun’s family has been in possession of this land and she had a valid lease. In 1995 Primitivo Coc started trespassing on this land, whether with official leave or not is unknown to me. However, he was then instructed to reap his crop and remove himself. This was a mistake. By not signaling to him clearly that he was trespassing, the Department of Lands seemed to be condoning his illegal action. In 1997 the Ministry of Lands through a letter CLS NO 822/63/97(43), clearly told Primitivo Coc that his trespass was alright, and he was awarded a portion of the parcel, a position that has been re-confirmed by your present Commissioner of Lands. Minister, I am aware that this is a problem you have inherited. However, I am sure that you would not regard it as an excuse for doing the wrong thing and sending the wrong message to would-be-trespassers. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

PRISON CASES: A prison officer complains of wrongful dismissal: After his investigation the Ombudsman wrote this letter to the complainant: - Dear Mr. Sir, I regret to inform you that I have looked into your case but cannot sustain your complaint. The Prison Ordinance C 110, Sec 21, gives the Superintendent of Prison wide – ranging powers to dismiss prison officers. The discretion of the Superintendent is even more significant in the case of employees, like yourself, who are not part of the permanent staff. In a private meeting with the Superintendent he accused you of opening cell doors after 7 P.M, a grave violation of prison rules, which you yourself admitted to me. I wish you good luck in the future and urge you to be more conscientious in your duties for any future employer. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE

Case No 254 This complaint concerns the failure of a prison employee to understand the serious responsibilities of his job. When Mr. S., a prison guard, made his complaint that he had been wrongfully dismissed, he admitted to the Ombudsman that earlier the night of the escape of inmates, he had allowed some prisoners to come out of their building to get drinking water, notwithstanding the fact that prison rules forbid this. This act was interpreted by the Governor of Prisons as negligence rather than a deliberate act to aid escape of prisoners. Whether the officer had deliberately aided or done so by negligence, he could have been charged for a criminal offence, according to Sec 42, 43 of Ch. 110 as follows: 42 – “ Every person having the custody of a prisoner who knowingly or willfully allows him to escape shall be liable… for any term not exceeding that to which the prisoners so escaping was liable.”

43 – “ Every person… who, through negligence or carelessness, allows any such prisoner to escape, shall be liable… to a fine or imprisonment…” It was not clear to the Ombudsman whether the complainant, a recent recruit, knew and understood the rules governing the conduct of guards and their responsibilities. A prison guard is responsible for the safety and security of inmates. Any escape is a bad reflection on their training, competence and/or integrity. This case also highlights the question of back-up security measures, and how effective they are, if they exist. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Murder suspect freed after 30 months

CASE NOTE Case No 170 In January of 2000 inmate of Hattieville Prison Ricardo Martinez complained to the Ombudsman that he had been charged for murder, but the case against him could not be heard because no one appeared as witness against him. On the 21st January the matter was brought to the attention of the Director of Pubic Prosecution. On 5 May Puisine Judge Meerabaux granted bail to Mr. Martinez in the sum of $1500.00. At the opening of the central Session of the Supreme Court on 8th June, when Mr. Ricardo Martinez appeared, the Director of Public Prosecution submitted a “Noble Prosequi” for lack of any evidence against Mr. Martinez. He was therefore acquitted of all charges and set free. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Mr. Martinez had been in the Hattieville Prison since 5 October 1997.

PRISON OFFICER APPEALS DECISION OF TRIBUNAL Dear Mr. G, Mrs. M. W., G.I. has appealed to me to question the decision of a tribunal held on 12 May, 2000 at the Hattieville Prison when she was charged with neglect of duty, prejudice to good order and discipline. According to her the charge arose out of a rumour started by P.O. J. P. that she harboured an inmate on 3 March 2000. She categorically denies the charge and finds it reprehensible that her accuser(s) were not present for her to question. In order to carry out an investigation to determine the truthfulness of the allegations I am requiring that all pertinent information be made available to me, including the statements of Mr. P. and Mr. A., and whatever other information you may have. I am also requiring that Mr. P. and Mr. A. attend at my office at their earliest convenience to be questioned by me. My authority for requiring information is Sec 18(1) of the Ombudsman Act, No 7 of 1994 which states: “Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section and section 19(1), the Ombudsman may at any time require any officer or member of an authority, or any other person who, in his opinion, is able to give any assistance in relation to the investigation of any matter, to furnish such information and produce any document or thing in connection with such matter and which may be in the possession or under the control of that officer or member or other person. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Dear Mrs. M.W., This serves to inform you that I have closed your case, having succeeded in having my recommendation accepted that the decision of a tribunal held against you on 12 May 2000 be set aside. However, I would like to emphasize the point that it is necessary that you exercise a great deal of discretion in your contacts with inmates. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE Case No 244 A head of department who has the power to discipline subordinates can be as cruel as the most unjust and corrupt judge, if he or she does not exercise the utmost care to see that disciplinary tribunals are carefully set up with the most fair-minded officers serving, who clearly understand the basic dictates of natural justice. In this case sufficient care was not exercised in the selection of the tribunal, for the person chosen as prosecutor had a record of being less than respectful in his dealing with women, having been found guilty of sexual harassment previously. Furthermore, the defence proved itself very weak when it did not insist that a person could not be judged guilty, if those who had accused her, were not summoned to be present for questioning and cross-examination. Moreover, it should be standard practice that all tribunals held to discipline public employees keep detailed records of the whole proceedings of any case. These records should be able to stand the glare of public scrutiny.

Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

PRISON OFFICERS COMPLAIN OF BEING FALSELY ACCUSED After investigating his submission the Ombudsman wrote him this letter: - Dear Mr. X

I greatly regret that I am unable to sustain your complaint against the Department of Corrections when you complain of being falsely accused. By your own admission, in paragraph 2 of your letter of 24 May written to Mr. Bernard Adolphus, you admit: “However, I did not see if he did so or not.” There you are referring to receiving a weapon from Officer Guzman, without checking to see if he had really put away the weapon. I think this was negligent. This, failure according to Mr. Adolphus, was reason enough to discipline you. The above being the case, it really does not appear to me that you have been unfairly treated, for although you personally may not have taken that weapon; you were most certainly responsible for its safekeeping. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE

Case No 255 This case of being wrongfully accused of stealing a weapon arose from a lack of proper communication on the part of the Prison Administration and a lack of understanding of a fundamental security requirement at a penal institution on the part of the complainant. If instead of accusing him of stealing the weapon, which was probably not provable, the Governor had pointed out that the officer had been wanting in taking a basic security measure, the prison officer could not argue back. His duty, when the weapon was handed to him, was to take the weapon and secure it. By his own admission he did not do this. This was a serious breach in security for which he could have been disciplined. He should have been required to pay for the missing weapon

Signed:

OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION EXONERATES GUARD

Dear Mr. Adolphus:

RE: INVESTIGATION OF BRUTALITY OF ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS – FRANK CASTRO – BY MARK FLOWERS, Q R T OFFICER, CASE NO 331

This is to inform you that I have decided to close my investigation of the above case, because the evidence that we have sifted through does not support the allegation either of abuse or brutality against Mr. Frank Castro by Q R T Officer Mark Flowers. THE WITNESSES

The Ombudsman received and studied statements from the following persons: -

1. Prison Governor, B.A. Adolphus 2. Mr. D. Palacio, Q R T Officer

3. Miss Michelle Trapp, Secretary

4. Mr. Wayne Moody, Program Co-ordinator

5. Inmate Frank Castro

6. Mr. Kevin Cadle, A.S.P.

7. Mr. Mark Flowers

SUMMARY Of all the persons who gave testimony only two persons witnessed the whole incident that occurred on 30 August, 2000, from its beginning in the Max Section of Prison to its conclusion in the Q R T Office. These two persons were Officer Mark Flowers and Inmate Frank Castro. They disagreed on an important point of fact, for instance, while Mr. Flowers admitted grabbing and holding Mr. Castro by the hair, he explained that this was necessary to defend himself from the inmate who had rushed toward him, apparently to grab his gun which was holstered on his right hip. On the other hand Mr. Castro claimed that Mr. Flowers grabbed him to force him to have his hair cut. Miss Michelle Trapp corroborated what was claimed by Mr. Flowers, saying that when she called for Q R T Officer Dennis Palacio to help; it was because she felt that Mr. Flowers was in real danger. Mr. Palacio also supported this allegation.

On the other hand, both Mr. Moody and Mr. Cadle, who both made statements alleging abuse and brutality by Mr. Flowers, were not present throughout the incident but happened to come by on the nick of time when Mr. Flowers was taking measures to preserve his own physical integrity against Inmate Castro. It is even possible to interpret Mr. Cadle’s intervention as perhaps unfortunate, because he acted in such a way as to put Inmate Castro in a position in the Q R T Office where a weapon was available to him in the form of a machete, knife etc. Therefore what he did was endanger his own physical integrity as well as that of whoever else was present in the office, even if innocently so. CONCLUSION

Based on the above, the Ombudsman has therefore considered that in fairness to everyone this case should be closed, and Mr. Flowers should be re-instated fully with a complete restoration to him of whatever emoluments were withheld from him. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Dear Mr. Flowers: I have discontinued the investigation of the case of alleged brutality and violation of human rights of Inmate Frank Castro (Case No 331). I am pleased to inform you that after a fairly extensive effort to search out the true facts of the case, we have found no conclusive evidence to prove that you were either brutal or abusive of the rights of Mr. Frank Castro. I have therefore so informed the prison administration, and it has been agreed that the matter is resolved, after your suspension is lifted and the emoluments which were rightly yours are to restored to you. Furthermore, the Ombudsman is pleased to informed you that during the investigation certain of your good qualities were revealed to him, and these show that you have great potential for doing a lot of good at the Department of Corrections. Finally, the Ombudsman would like to urge you to do all you can to support all the Department’s initiatives to frustrate the further development of the culture of violence,

drugs, dishonesty, indiscipline and lack of integrity that has become deeply ingrained in Prison culture. Best Wishes! Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE NOTE

CASE NO 331 The report of the Ombudsman on this case should be a clear indication to the officers of the Prison Department that the Ombudsman is also their protector and not only of those who make an allegation of having been wronged. In this case Mr. Mark Flowers of the Quick Response Team of Hattieville Prison was accused by a fellow officer of having abused the person of Frank Castro, a prison inmate, by trying to cut his hair against his will and against his religious belief. Two prison officers believed that this is what Mr. Flowers was about to do because when they walked into the office, they saw Mr. Flowers holding the inmate by the hair. However, two other officials who also heard the noise in Mr. Flowers’ office came to his aid because they felt he was in danger. This corroborated the contention of Mr. Flowers: that he had grabbed the inmate by the hair to fend him off from grabbing his service revolver. Furthermore, the accusing officer was not in a position to understand what had happened, because he, so to speak, came upon the scene when the story was already unfolding; and he misinterpreted the action(s) of the accused. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Dear Sir,

Re: Ombudsman Investigations I write to express my profound admiration for your evident fairness in executing your charter as “Ombudsman”. The fact that your investigations, which to my mind and satisfaction was conducted in such a thorough manner, exonerated me of any wrong doings, tells me that indeed you are both frank and fear in the discharge of your work. I have no ill feelings against you for the performance of your job. Infact, I have developed a sense of confidence in your judgment. May God continue to guide you and your staff and may be continue to give you the wisdom needed in your determination of guilt or innocence during your investigations. Best wishes, ____________ Complainant

JOINT EFFORT HELPS ELDERLY INMATE

CASE NOTE CASE NO 320 This case concerns the successful efforts of the Hattieville Prison Administration and the office of the Ombudsman to recommend the release of an inmate of Hattieville Prison. The inmate was 71 years old. He had been arrested and charged with transporting drugs through Mexico, having been caught with three sticks of marijuana. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. On the 20 December 1999 he was transferred to Belize to serve the rest of his term. Because of his good behaviour, advanced age, and sickly condition, a joint effort was made to achieve his release. This was approved by the Belize Advisory Council, and the release was effected on 18 September 2000. Signed; Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE 210 TERMINATION FOR INEFFICIENCY: -

HIS SERVICES HAVING BEEN TERMINATED, A PRISON OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT: -

Dear Sir: I am an officer of the Prison Department. I was fired from my job, and the cause named to me was that I was not working with enough efficiency. Also they told me that they suspected I am trafficking in drugs on the prison compound, which is a lie against me. I am hereby asking that you look into this matter for me. ________________ Sgn: Prison Officer

The Ombudsman initiated an investigation, which he closed, writing the following letter to the complainant: - Dear Sir:

Based on the letter of complaint you made to me, I started to investigate your case of wrongful dismissal. In principle you are right that no one should be dismissed from employment based on a mere suspicion. However, the memorandum informing you of your dismissal has been shown to me, and I have a copy in your case file. It states clearly that your services were terminated “due to your inefficient performance.” There is no doubt that the Superintendent has this power, for it is provided in Section 21 of ch 110, the Prison Ordinance, which says: - “A prison officer may, subject to the approval of the Minister, be discharged at any time if in the opinion of the Superintendent, he is likely to become, or has ceased to be, an efficient prison officer.” Therefore, I have discontinued this investigation, and have closed this file. I urge you to move on with your life and seek gainful, honest employment elsewhere. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

PRISONER COMPLAINS: THE MAGISTRATE CHANGED HER SENTENCES.

When the Magistrate changed her sentence to a stiffer penalty, the convicted person complained. After investigating, the Ombudsman closed the case, writing as follows: - Dear Mr. Godoy, I have investigated the matter you complained about and you are right. However, there was nothing illegal in what the Magistrate did. It may have been illegal for her not to have corrected her mistake. I am sorry that we can do nothing about a sentence of the court. However, there is much that you can do: one of these is to be on your best behaviour and perhaps make a plea for mercy to the Belize Advisory Council. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

FAMILY MATTERS THE ELLUSIVE FATHER: -

Case No. 177 It took almost a whole year, but the Ombudsman finally caught up with the ellusive father, whom the Family Court could not serve a sumonous to appear. Finally, in December, care and concern bore fruits; and the Ombudsman wrote this letter: - Dear Ms. Cardona, This morning I went to Mrs. Nicholas, the Director of Family Court, and I saw Mr. Espinoza sitting in court waiting for trial. At last we were able to ensure that he be brought to court. After this, I trust you will be getting your maintenance money on a regular basis. It you have any difficulty hereafter, get in touch with Magistrate Nicholas. Of course, our door is always open to help you. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) CASE NOTE: However, there are still deadbeat fathers out there who continue to evade their paternal responsibilities; for instance the one about whom this note is about: -

CASE NOTE CASE NO 107 On 25 November 1999 Miss X of a Belize City address made a complaint to the Ombudsman about a deadbeat father of 3 children, who for over a year has successfully evaded paying child support because the Family Court and/ or Police were unable to serve him a summons. Have our court system and our police become so pusillanimous that it cannot bring one little man to justice? Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

MOTHER COMPLAINS – BUT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

CASE NOTE CASE NO 346 On 4 October, 2000 Ms. X reported that when her children, 2 boys and 2 girls, were returned to her on 1 September, after having been assigned to the care of the Dorothy Menzies Child Care Centre by the Social Department, she noticed that one of her boys, Craig, 3 years old, had sustained a burn on his right arm. When the Ombudsman investigated the matter, he found out that the burn was not the result of any act of abuse but caused by an accident. He also found out that the cause of the accident, a stove with a defective oven door had been replaced and the kitchen area had been blocked by the installation of screen doors. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) Dear Ms. Craig, I conducted an investigation into the complaint that your son Abraham Craig, 3 years old, suffered a burn on his right arm, while he was in care at the Dorothy Menzies Child Care Centre. This is what we discovered: -

1. There was no denial that your child had gotten burnt at the center; but it was an accident.

2. The accident happened, because Abraham ran into the kitchen while playing,

bumped into the broom which supported the door of the oven. That door fell and the child’s hand came into contact with the hot door of the oven.

3. The stove with the defective oven door has been removed and another stove

installed. We checked the door of the old stove and did find it to be defective.

4. We found that two doors have been installed to keep the children from entering the kitchen.

5. The center has a new supervisor.

Although it is your right to feel aggrieved for your child’s sake, I would like to urge you to let the matter rest with the conclusion of my investigation, since measures have been taken to ensure that a similar accident does not occur in the future. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

DEADBEAT FATHER STILL AT LARGE:

A CASE NOTE:- Case Note 382 The Family Court is still powerless to deal with a father, who was reported three years ago to be eluding apprehension by the Court. Why are our courts failing in this important aspect of justice – the serving of summons to citizens whose attendance is required by the courts? Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CONFLICT RESOLUTION: -

CASE NOTE CASE NO 329 To resolve the complaint of Miss A against PC, S, the Ombudsman met in his office with all the parties concerned. In attendance were Inspector Keith Lino; Officer in charge of Police Internal Affairs and Discipline; PC. S; Miss A; youth Y; and youth X; Investigator Lionel Castillo; the Ombudsman. Nature of Complaint Miss A had complained of an assault against her son, youth Y, by youth X, son of PC. S. Investigation PC S admitted that he had held Y by his throat and that his son had taken advantage of this situation and had hit Y in the face. He regretted that his son had so acted and excused his action explaining that Y had been provoking him for some time. During a previous meeting in the Ombudsman office with Inspector Keith Lino present, both PC S and Miss A had expressed the desire to bring the conflict between their sons to a peaceful resolution. The Ombudsman therefore had set an encounter of all the parties for 4:30 P.M. on Friday, 22 September. The Encounter During the face-to-face encounter the Ombudsman asked each person to express openly and freely whatever grievance was felt against the other(s). However, he tried to steer them away from repeating over and over again grievances already expressed. Investigator Lionel Castillo had done some investigating before the meeting in an effort to understand the source of the conflict between the two families. He found out that X had had an affair with the mother of Y’s girlfriend and that she had caught them in the act of intercourse. He had also reported that the brother of PC. S had been the common law husband of Miss A. It was only close to the end of the meeting that the aggrieved young man, Y, was willing to admit that there was a sexual ingredient in the conflict between the two families.

The Resolution At the end of the meeting the Ombudsman urged the two youths to shake hands; so did their parents, after they said “sorry” for what they had done that had offended the other. The Ombudsman therefore closed this case. Signed: Paul Rodriguez

(Ombudsman)

AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES HOW A CEO AND THE OMBUDSMAN COOPERATED TO IMPROVE A DEPARTMENT: -

CASE NOTE CASE NO 158 This case shows how the cooperation of the ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Cooperatives made it possible for the Ombudsman and his office to effect within a reasonable time an investigation of the Fisheries Department. To close the case the Ombudsman wrote the letter below to the Chief Executive Officer: - Dear Mr. Avila: Having met with you several times to discuss the state of the Fisheries Department I now believe that there in no lack of commitment on your part to re-organise it and to monitor its performance to ensure maximum effectiveness in its service of the public. However, I fully realize that it would be naïve to think that this goal can be reached overnight. Rather it is one that may require a process of trial and error. This being so, I am closing this case satisfied that you may have done the best you could at this time to bring about an improved service at this department. In closing, it would be remiss of me if I did not repeat my concern about these following matters:

1. The maintenance of a high level of discipline, especially in honesty, of the CCU enforcement staff.

2. The establishment of a more secure and transparent procedure for issuing fuel.

Todate there is still not a reliable check and balance system. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

REVIEW OF OWN INITIATIVE INVESTIGATION OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT

INTRODUCTION The Fisheries Industry of Belize in one of its largest, accounting for earnings in excess of $70 million in 1999 and employing directly, and indirectly, perhaps as many as 10,000 persons. Our marine life, therefore, is one of our country’s most valuable resources that requires the best management, if we would continue to derive greater and sustainable benefits from it into future generations. When in early January two citizens came to the office of the Ombudsman and signed statements making allegations of abuse and dishonesty against certain members of the Fisheries Staff in Belize City it was thought that the matter had to be investigated. THE INVESTIGATION In late January Mr. Lionel Castillo, J.P. Investigator in the Ombudsman office, was sent to do on the site checking on how the Fisheries Department was operating. This initial step seemed to reveal a state of affairs that needed to be investigated with more determination. He reported laxity in the administration involving lack of discipline, very little respect for authority, apathy in enforcing discipline and unfairness in dealing with all members of staff. SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS In the two affidavits that had been obtained in Belize City, former employee of Fisheries, had named Mr. X and Ms. Y of confiscating produce and selling it instead of prosecuting the offenders. The second statement signed by Mr. Q alleged that Ms. Y had in his presence on one occasion received $1000.00 for crayfish caught before the opening of the season in 1997 and $500.00 for produce obtained before opening day in 1998.

TOLEDO EVIDENCE In order to be completely fair and just to the Fisheries employees against whom allegations had been made, the Ombudsman put out the word at the 2 Belize City Fishing Coops to see if verification would be obtained. This was also an attempt to test the perceptions expressed to the Ombudsman that officers of the Conservation and Compliance Unit intimidate and harass fishermen, without provocation. But there was a blanket of silence. However, in Punta Gorda two fishermen gave evidence to the Ombudsman. One told of an arrest made by Ms. Y and Mr. X late last year ’99 and how they were taken to Placencia and told that if he and his companion each paid $200.00 a piece; they could avoid going to court. He even named how he paid his part of the “fine” – one $100.00 note and five $20’s. EXAMINATION OF OFFICERS When Ms. Y was questioned about the incident, she denied all knowledge of it. However, when Mr. X was interviewed, at first he could not remember the incident. On the following day he came with the written records that showed that an arrest of two days later had been reported and prosecuted. It showed no prosecution of this arrest, but an entry of his diary showed that indeed the two persons, Eleudoro Lara and Roberto Caal had been caught with undersized crayfish. Five months later, no charges had yet been made. Another affidavit obtained in Punta Gorda leaves the question unanswered, i.e. did Fisheries Officers X and Y confiscate a 55 Yamaha and a 60 Yamaha, or a 55 and a 9.9? The records at the department shows 55 and a 9.9. The charge sheet from the court is silent, only mentioning vaguely that gear and engines and boat was confiscated. A comment needs to be made on this later.

LACK OF DISCIPLINE, TARDINESS, NO PROPER ACCOUNTABILITY Interviews with Senior Staff members and actual checking of files revealed much to be desired. For instance, we saw very few suspensions but many letters of warnings that were not followed up. Significantly, no record yet appears of a fight in which Ms. Y on 30 March assaulted fellow officer Z. Also, we heard talk of wide scale acts of insubordination, cursing, tardiness and absences but very isolated rebukes. The first two days that Investigator Lionel Castillo was at the Fisheries Department he reported loud talking, and cursing in the office with apparent disregard for supervisor. Several weeks later there are no records of warnings against indiscipline. Control through regular and frequent checks to see that senior staff are carrying out their respective functions carefully and thoroughly seems to be lacking.

RECOMMENDATIONS To improve the management of the Fisheries Department we would like to make the following recommendations: - 1. CCU officers X and Y be placed on a two-week suspension without pay and warned

that any future violation of the rules of the department will result in immediate dismissal.

2. In order to improve the efficiency and the reputation of the CCU that it be

immediately cut off from any relationship with drug enforcement. Drug enforcement makes it necessary to carry weapons. These are not needed to police fisher folk.

3. The terms and references of the Fisheries Advisory Board should be reviewed and

amended and a new board appointed by the Minister. 4. The Chief Administrator be transferred and a new person be appointed. The person

should have these qualities: -

A. Strong character with experience in dealing with people.

B. A hands-on approach with regular and frequent checks to see that stores Are safe. C. A tight control of the CCU to ensure that adequate patrols are made and that

truthful, accurate reports are made of all trips.

5. Request that the Magistrate records in detail all that is confiscated. For instance, it is not enough to state that engines were confiscated. The brand, and h.p. of each should be listed.

6. Keep a manual or logbook in which confiscations are recorded exactly, with

notations of size, make, shape, colour and serial number. 7. Keep a proper manual for exhibits, to be kept meticulously, with dates accurately

stated so that prosecution deadlines are not missed. 8. Frequent, regular, meticulous checking of fuel stores. Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CASE 371: A FISHERMAN COMPLAINS: -

Dear Sir:

I am requesting that you intervene on behalf of myself and the Fisherman of Glover’s Reef that the line that separates the Marine Reserve and open water be clearly marked, because Mr. E of the Fisheries Department continually comes out to harass us fishermen and arbitrarily moves the line to suit himself. ________________ Signed: Complainant

THE FISHERIES ADMINISTRATOR REPLIES: - Dear Sir: In reference to your letter dated 14th November 2000 (Ref 371/BWOMB/2000), the Fisheries Administration conducted an investigation to the allegations made by Mr. Francisco Gamez against Mr. Quintin Espinoza. Mr. Gamez has been caught various times fishing illegally in the Conservation Zone of the Glovers Reef Marine Reserve. However, he has been given only verbal warning as the Glovers Reef staff want to have a good working relationship with the fishers so that they can fully understand and appreciate the management objectives of the reserve in order to maintain a sustainable fishery. Various fishers do not want to abide to rules and regulations and will recur to any means in order to continue their behaviour. This may be a typical case. It is illogical to assume that Mr. Espinoza is moving the demarcation line between the marine reserve and the open waters at Glovers Reef since the whole atoll is inside the marine reserve. The reserve boundaries end at about 600 feet depth, which is too deep to place marker buoys. However, the Conservation Zone is demarcated from the General Use Zone by permanent markers. These markers consist of coconut tree trunks (some up to 18 feet in height), which were buried into the substrate using water pumps. For or five men accomplished this endeavor. The accusation that Mr. Espinoza is moving the markers, and especially alone, is ridiculous and malicious. Your highness, the Fisheries Department cordinally extends you an invitation to visit the Glovers Reef Marine Reserve if you still have doubts about our investigation. Respectfully yours __________________ Fisheries Administrator

TEACHERS COMPLAIN Teachers retiring early were not due pension before 1991: -

To: The Ombudsman 56 Regent Street Belize City 26 June 2000 Dear Mr. Rodriguez. This letter which we agreed that I should write you. On a visit to Belize in December 1998, I was informed by a former high-ranking official of the U.D.P. government that the Belize government has some money for me as gratuity payment of my years of service as a teacher in Belize. Sometime during the early months of 1999, I wrote the General Manager of Catholic Schools on behalf of myself and my wife Eleanor in connection with this matter of gratuity. The General Manager responded with the information that he had forwarded my inquiry to the Department of Education, but the Department did not respond to the inquiry. On a subsequent visit in December 1999, I went to the education office and spoke to the person responsible for the processing of gratuity disbursements. The officer said that the request or inquiry had been forwarded to the Public Service Commission since so much time has transpired between the time I last taught in Belize and the time of the inquiry. He promised to follow up the matter and would correspond with me. I never did hear from him. On my return in May, 2000, I again contacted the officer. After a few minutes of pretending to be looking for some documents, he repeated what he had said before about the request having been forwarded to the Public Service Commission along with many inquiries such as mine and that it would take a long time before any information as to the status of the request would be expected. Further, he said that the Solicitor General would have to review the cases. This seems to be a typical case of being pushed around and I have lost faith in the willingness of this officer to be up front about the matter. This is not to disparage the officer’s good name and credibility but I do believe that an impartial party needs to follow up on the matter and your office, is in my mind, the best place to start.

I do depend on you and I am looking forward to a continued interactive relationship with you. Sincerely, __________________ Retired teacher & Wife

CASE NOTE

Case No 267 This case concerns the failure of an officer to deal efficiently and effectively with a need of a citizen. His ineffectiveness may have been caused by a lack of knowledge of the law pertinent to pension and gratuities. The husband and wife, who were making request about gratuity, were teachers for 10 and 15 years, before leaving to go abroad in 1974 and 1975 respectively before reaching the retirement age. At both times the Pension Law did not provide for pension to persons who resigned before reaching retirement age. It was only in 1991 that the law was amended to provide that a teacher who resigned after 10 years could receive a gratuity and after 15 years, gratuity and pension when retirement age was reached. At the very least the officer could have picked up the phone and called the office of the Public Service to get initial guidance. He did not do this, as we did, and so caused the citizen and his wife loss of time and irritation Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

DISMISSAL BY COURT DOES NOT MEAN AN EMPLOYEE MAY NOT BE DISCIPLINED BY HIS EMPLOYER:

Dear Mr. P:

RE: Mr. J Last October you referred to the Ombudsman the case of Mr. J., who was appealing the deprivation of his compensatory benefits upon his dismissal by the Roman Catholic School Management. Mr. J’s plea has argued from the position that the accusation against him went to court and was dismissed. The following are the main facts uncovered by the investigation of the Ombudsman: -

1. On 3rd July, 1997 A, a 12 year old girl, of progreso, was examined by Dr. R. 2. The examination revealed that she had been carnally known.

3. Director of Public Prosecutions Adolph Lucas in memo CP/98(48) to the Officer

Commanding Orange Walk instructed that this matter be prosecuted in spite of the unwillingness of the parents to do so.

The Ombudsman is amazed that in the light of the evidence and the instruction of the Director of Public Prosecution this matter did not reach the Supreme Court. However, I believe that it could still be brought back for prosecution. Finally, in the face of the evidence on the case and other facts, the Ombudsman cannot justifiably support the appeal by Mr. J. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

LABOR ISSUES: -

IS A PROMOTION A BASIC RIGHT?

When a public officer was passed over for a promotion, he complained to the Ombudsman. After investigating the matter, he closed the case with this letter to the complainant: - Dear Sir: Thanks for requesting my input into your dispute with your department head. In paragraph 2 of your letter to me you quote a portion of PSR section 60(2), as follows: - “An officer shall be entitled to know the whole case made against him, and shall have the opportunity throughout of making his defense.” However, Section 60(2) does not deal with promotion; it deals with disciplinary matters. The principle laid out in it is basic and universally accepted: A person accused has the right to know all the allegations made against him so that he can have full opportunity to defend himself. Your case involves another basic right, but this one is intended to favour the employer. Briefly, any person who has a business or any enterprise has the right to organise it so that it can successfully do what the reason for being of the enterprise requires be done, provided that the basic rights of employees are not violated. Of course, you know that a promotion is not a basic right. Rather it is a reward for meritorious contributions to the well-being of the organization. Therefore, I am afraid that, if your case is simply about promotion, I cannot sustain your complaint, for I do not agree that you have been wronged in any way. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

PENSION BENEFITS AFTER 20 YEARS On 22 November, 1999, Mr. Bernard Longsworth, now of Ontario, Canada complained: Dear Sir: I, the undersigned hereby authorize you, Paul Rodriguez, Ombudsman of Belize City to pursue the matter of my claim for a pension on my retirement from the Public Service of Belize on the 13th Day of July, 1981. I am grateful to you for looking after this matter when there seems to be so little hope in effecting the payment of this pension. Thank you in anticipation of a positive reply. Signed: ____________ Complainant

THE BASIS FOR HIS PENSION WAS AS FOLLOW: - Sir: Entitlement to pension, which had been sought after before, is based on my tenure of service in Belize and is as follows:

September 1952 to the end of 1954…taught at Wesley and Ebenezer Primary Schools. January 1955 to the end of the school year in 1956…taught at Mullins River Methodist School.

September 1956 to July 1958…attended Belize Teacher’s Training College. Graduated in 1959

and received Diploma.

December 1958 to November 1962…taught at Crooked Tree Government School as Principal.

December 1962 to July 1965…taught at Rockstone pond Government School as Principal.

September 1965 to July 1966…Attended University of the West Indies in Jamaica, where I received Professional Certificate in Education.

September 1966 to July 1967…taught at Stann Creek Methodist School.

September 1967 to January 1968… taught at Libertad Methodist School.

February 1968 to November 1981…taught at Belize Technical College.

In all I served for a little over 28 years as a teacher in my country of Belize and through force of financial necessity, I appeal to you for the pension, which was mentioned in the letter of retirement. Thank you for a positive reply.

I am faithfully yours, ____________ Complainant

CLAIMING VICTIMIZATION BY THE OLD ADMINISTRATION, HE WROTE TO THE NEW IN 1985: -

Dear Sir: As Minister of Education under which ministry I was retired, I am appealing to you to see that justice is done in helping me to obtain my pension. I am not asking for any favours, but simply that fair play is carried out under the jurisdiction of this present government. Please note the correspondences which I have enclosed in order for you to read and decide whether or not I am entitled to a pension. The last letter I have received from establishment is that of the 28th of March 1985; Since then I have received no reply to my letter of the 30th of April 1985, hence I have written to you. I would like to point out to you a few things which I consider to be very important. First of all I was retired under the administration of the last governor in Belize before independence and at that time I was granted a pension and gratuity. Later on, another form of retirement was effected under the administration of the governor – general whereby I was granted only a gratuity. This came about after a long interval of waiting on the governor – general to sign the pension forms presented by the accountant-general, even though I had written to her long before that infamous decision was taken. As a matter of fact the governor-general did not even reply to my correspondence. It is my belief that personal victimization was enforced, as was the order of the day, and all I am asking is that justice be done under this new administration. Hoping to hear from you at your earliest convenience. Faithfully yours, _________ Complainant

ON 3 DECEMBER 1999, THE OMBUDSMAN WROTE ON LONGSWORTH’S BEHALF AND RECEIVED THIS REPLY: -

Dear Mr. Rodriguez, Kindly refer to your letter 98/BLOMB/99 dated 3rd December,1999 regarding the matter of pension benefits owed to Mr. Bernard H. Longsworth. We have researched Mr. Longsworth Personal File and despite his claim, have found no decision rescinding his pension benefits. Further research and discussion with personnel of the Accountant General’s Department reveal no indication that approval was granted to authorize the payment of pension benefits to Mr. Longsworth. For your information, we are forwarding copies of the following documents:

a) Minute sheet indicating the Governor’s approval of Mr. Longsworth retirement in the Public Interest.

b) Permanent Secretary, Establishment’s letter formalizing Mr. Longsworth retirement.

c) Pension computation. This Ministry will therefore pursue the rectification of this matter and thereby assist to bring the matter to closure. Sincerely, (Patricia Choj)(Miss) for Chief Executive Officer(Acting)

FINALLY ON 30 AUGUST 2000, THE OMBUDSMAN RECEIVED A COPY OF A LETTER THAT HAD BEEN SENT TO MR. LONGSWORTH: -

GEN/5/01/00 (24) Vol. II August 30, 2000 Mr. Bernard H. Longsworth Assistant Teacher Thru’ Permanent Secretary Ministry of Education & Sports Belmopan Dear Mr. Longsworth, His Excellency, the Governor General on the advice of the Public Services Commission, has approved to you an award of a Gratuity of Seventeen Thousand, Eight Hundred Fifty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($17,852.50) and a Reduced Pension of Four Thousand, Two Hundred Eighty-Four Dollars and Sixty Cents ($4,284.60) per annum. The above award is as a result of your retirement in the public interest with effect from August 27,1981. Kindly call the Accountant General’s Office, Treasury Building, Belize City to collect your award. Sincerely, _________________ Patricia Choj (Miss) For Director Office of the Services Commission

CONCLUSION: MR. LONGSWORTH RECEIVES PENSION

A LABOR DISPUTE RESOLVED:

CASE NOTE CASE NO 307 The Belize Worker’s Union referred to the Ombudsman a dispute between them and the Belize Sugar Industries regarding the payment of time to 9 (nine) employees of BSI, who are union members, and attended a meeting with the Cane Farmers association. In concluding his investigation the Ombudsman wrote the Commissioner of Labour the following letter: - I have read your opinion on the matter contained in a letter to Mr. Horris Patten, ref LAB/1/03/2000(18). Allow me to point out the following: - 1. In lines 3-5 you name four conditions under which special leave may be granted:

health, registration, voting and jury duty. However, this is not what the agreement says. Article 24, Sec (a) provides for an ex-gratia payment for hardship. Section (b) provides for special leave with pay to attend urgent BSI/Union business. Section (c) provides for leave up to a maximum of two years, without pay. Section (d) provides for special leave with pay to Union members who are company employees, for the purpose of attending seminars, conferences and other such non-BSI/Union business… There being no exclusionary proviso on that clause, it seems very clear to me that the Union’s position is the correct one, even though admittedly a very generous position conceded to them by BSI. Furthermore, in line 7, you imply that management should not be expected to support an endeavour that is against its own self interest, but you provide no evidence to support that conjecture. In point of fact, article 6 of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cane Farmers Association and BWU pledges as follows: - “Seek ways to improve productivity and efficiency, thus ensuring the viability of the industry.”

I am therefore recommending that you review this matter as quickly as possible. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman) The Commissioner did review the matter and in a letter of 3 November wrote BSI requesting that the payments be made to the officers who attended the meeting. The Commissioner having complied with his recommendation, the Ombudsman closed the case. Sign: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

FAVOURITISM OR NEPOTISM?

WHAT WE FOUND ….

CASE NOTE CASE NO 243 This case concerned the perception of favouritism and nepotism in the Sales Tax Department. Two of the top posts needed to be filled. Thirteen of the fifteen senior staff members filed a complaint alleging favouritism and nepotism. An examination of the personnel files revealed nothing that was very helpful in the assessment of the justification, or lack thereof, of the complaint. The Ombudsman therefore interviewed the two officers who were allegedly benefiting from special treatment. One officer impressed him as the most suitable of those eligible. In the case of the second, interviews were held shortly thereafter to fill that post. All the officers who had complained were short-listed to be interviewed. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION ENCOURAGES ACTION SOMETIMES ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER, AS FOR INSTANCE WHEN AN AIR TRAFFIC OFFICER COMPLAINED. Dear Mr. Gomez: Miss Marsha Hinkson has complained to me that on 17 May 2000 she missed work through no fault of her own but because the transport that was supposed to pick her up did not do so. Because of this absence she has been disciplined – a decision that I would like to ask you to review for reason(s) that are far bigger than Miss Hinkson, you or I. I was surprised to learn from her that the department does not have its own transport to carry Air Controller Officers to work. Instead they need to depend on the Airport Authority or the Met Service for transportation. This to me seems a very unsatisfactory arrangement, because, naturally, those transports are operated to satisfy the needs of their own and move to the convenience of those organizations. This is a very unsatisfactory arrangement for Air Traffic Controllers. Air Traffic Controllers, Sir, are people who work in very stressful situations, and I believe need to be in a completely tranquil mood when they start work. To be in a position of not being sure if and when they will be picked up is not conducive to calm and tranquility. I need not emphasize how important air traffic is to our country and how extremely important competent, efficient, alert, and tranquil air traffic controllers are in this industry. This letter is copied to Minister Samuels because of the urgency that I attach to this matter of ownership of its own transport by the Civil Aviation Department. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Re: Complaint by Miss Marsha Hinkson (ref. 262/EGOMB/2000). Following our telecommunication earlier today, I take this opportunity to reply to your letter reference Miss Marsha Hinkson. The delay in replying is regretted. This was not intentional. The Director of Civil Aviation did follow up on your letter and also a letter from the Public Service Union on the same complaint. After meeting with my Minister and Senior Officers of my Ministry, I was advised to allow the Ministry and the Ministry of the Public Service to deal with this matter. On the specific complaint, I do have a concern that no Senior officer from the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) was called to give our side of the story on the complaint in question. Mention is made, however, that an investigation was done. I do thank you on the other hand, that due to your mention of the CAD staff transportation situation at the CABINET level, this problem will be corrected soon. Today my permanent Secretary informed me that the Ministry of Finance has issued the Order to buy a new Van for the CAD. The request for a staff Bus has been put on the yearly Estimates from 1993, without positive results. I am sorry if I caused inconvenience to your office. Respectfully yours, ___________ E.O. Gomez Director of Civil Aviation

CITIZEN COMPLAINS…WHEN SOCIAL SECURITY REFUSES INTEREST PAYMENTS

CASE NOTE

CASE NO 345 This case concerned the interpretation of Section 4 (1) and (4) of Statutory Instrument No 85 of 1980: The Social Security (contributions) Regulations. Mr. X erroneously made contribution of $2,056.80 towards Miss Y’s social security account. On 28 January, 2000 Mr. X made a claim to Social Security that his contributions should be returned with interest because they erroneously collected his money to cover a benefit that they do not provide. Section 4(1) provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of regulation 3 and of this regulation, any contributions paid by a person or his employer under the erroneous belief that the contributions were payable by such person or in respect of him by his employer, shall be returned to that person or to his employer, as the case may require if application to that effect is made in writing to the Board within the appropriate time specified in paragraph (4) of this regulation.” The specified time is two (2) years. Mr. X applied ten (10) years later. In spite of this, Social Security still returned his money. When he insisted on collecting interest also, the Board turned down the request based upon the opinion of their legal advisor, who stated, inter alia: - “The legal position is that by common law (law derived from England and applied in Belize) a claimant is entitled to the debt owed but not to interest calculated on that debt, unless the parties had agreed expressly to the payment of interest, at the time the contract was created.” The Ombudsman informally contacted another attorney and he thought that the interest should be paid. In view of all the above, especially because Social Security had shown very good faith, seeing that Mr. X’s application for refund was made years beyond the statutory limit, the Ombudsman could not sustain the complaint; and informed the

complainant that if he was still not satisfied, he should pursue the matter in a court of law. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

EMPLOYEES MUST ENSURE THEIR EMPLOYERS ARE PAYING SOCIAL SECURITY

Case Note

Case No 223 Mr. X of a Belize City address came to appeal to us because after 16 years of work experience all that Social Security paid him was an Invalidity Grant of $4800.60. However, after 16 years of work for 5 different employees, Social Security records showed that only 379 contributions had been made in the name of Mrs. X. Workers must make sure that their employers are deducting and paying in their Social Security contributions. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

MISCELLANEOUS:

SOMETIMES COMMUNICATION FAILS, EVEN IN THE SMALLER BUREAUCRACY OF A DEPARTMENT. THIS HAPPENED TO MR.

MAGDALENO, WHO COMPLAINED TO THE OMBUDSMAN: - “I was to receive a salary adjustment from 1993 at the Vector Control Program Public Health Bureau. From 1993, the adjustment should be have been done for 3 Supernumerary but from since Belize and Cayo has received. From since I have tried with the Chief Clerk – but to no avail. My immediate Supervisor Mr. T. W. has written but no adjustment made. He has advise me to come to you.

THE OMBUDSMAN IMMEDIATELY WROTE THIS LETTER: - Dear Miss Gibson,

RE: SALARY ADJUSTMENT AND PROMISSORY NOTE TIMOTHY MAGDALENO Mr. Timothy Magdaleno has complained to me that since 1st January, 1993 his promotion from sprayman to supernumerary was approved. He was one of three so promoted. The other two have been receiving their new salaries, but so far his has not yet been adjusted after seven years! Mr. Magdaleno has had the same type of experience with promissory notes that should have been paid in 1997. Could you kindly look into these matters and clarify them for me. Respectfully yours Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Dear Sir, Re: Salary Adjustment & Promissory Note – Mr. Timothy Magdaleno Thank you for your letter of 1 August, 2000 in respect of Mr. Magdaleno A search of the records indeed revealed that Mr. Magdaleno was not being paid at the correct salary rate and that his name was not submitted to the Financial Secretary in regards to his promissory note. We are now submitting the information to the Financial Secretary for the processing of the Note and instructing the District Medical Officer at the Southern Regional Hospital to process Mr. Magdaleno’s salary adjustment. Enclosed are copies of these memoranda. Kindly accept our apologies for the late reply. Respectfully, For: Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive Officer

ON 14 FEBRUARY 2001, MR. MAGDALENO FINALLY RECEIVED THE MONIES DUE TO HIM

OMBUDSMAN MAY REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE Dear X: I feel compassion for you when you complain that you were unfairly accused of drinking on duty and dismissed from the Belize Defence Force. This dishonourable discharge resulted in a forfeiture of all your benefits. I can appreciate how painful this must be. However, to investigate this matter with fairness would require that you produce certain concrete evidence – an undertaking that would almost be impossible after ten years. I am afraid therefore that I cannot investigate this matter. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

A CONCERN: WHILE THE GRASS DI GROW…

Dear Mr. Greenwood, I have communicated with Minister Mark Espat on the subject of Queen Charlotte Drive, and I enclose his reply for your perusal. Like you, I have repeatedly used Queen Charlotte Drive, and I must confess sincerely that whatever little inconvenience I experience, I brushed off as simply a part of life in Belize that we have by and large learned to live with. While I do agree with you that all the legal requirements may not have been neatly observed, I do believe that without the sanction of Cabinet it could not have progressed to its present status. Therefore this puts it within the general framework of being legal, for Cabinet forms the majority of the supreme ruling body of our land, the House of Representatives. This point in itself raises other questions, which we will not go into here; but some people still worry that our democracy is not flourishing as fully as it might, because measures are not being taken to ensure that this principle of the Supremacy of parliament be vigorously upheld. Like you, I am deeply concerned that, especially in the new areas of development in Belize City and elsewhere, there is no strict adherence to legality. One manifestation of this disorder is that squatters continue to slash and burn and build where they may. But if the politician were to insist on strict observance of the rules at every twist and turn, when would these people, who are needy, be accommodated. You know the saying: “While the grass di grow, di horse di starve.” It is true that Belize needs to start taking seriously the carrying out of developments according to well thought out legally consistent plans. But what do the needy do, while the plans are being prepared? Perhaps, what I have said above is no answer, but I do hope that I have clarified one of the serious difficulties that our politicians in Belize face. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

CITIZEN MUST PAY INCREASE, BUT… When taxes or rents are increased, the citizen is liable, whether the increase is known to him or not. However, it is incumbent upon cashiers to inform those who do not know of the increase. The issue arose when Mr. X complained: - “A the age of 81 years, I would like to state that I have never been in arrears with the payment of Land Taxes or any kind of tax. I am therefore very grieved that the Lands Department will now tell me that I owe taxes going back 10 years, when I have dutifully paid the taxes they said I was to pay. I hereby request that you look into this matter on my behalf as I honestly feel that I should not be paying the additional $270.00 which the Lands Department is now claiming. Sincerely, ________ Citizen X

TO THIS COMPLAINT THE OMBUDSMAN REPLIED: Dear Mr. Barrow, I would like to suggest to you that you return to pay your taxes for 2000. If the Officer again tells you that you owe arrears, request from him information. It is possible that the rates have been increased, and you were not made aware of this before. No matter, whether you knew or not, you would still be liable for the additional tax or fee. If you need to, please feel free to get back in touch with me. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

GUN RETURNED TO THE WRONG AGENCY Dear Sir: In January of 1997 my gun, a 38 special revolver was switched by an Immigration officer at the border. I returned the wrong weapon to C.I.B. Since then I have been trying to get back my weapon from Immigration, without success. Signed: Complainant

LETTER FROM OMBUDSMAN TO COMPLAINANT: Dear Sir: After giving some more thought to your complaint, I am even more convinced now that it is almost impossible to do anything about it for two reasons: -

1. You should have gone back to Immigration to return the wrong weapon and recover your own.

2. You are not able to identify the Police Officer to whom you turned in the wrong

weapon. I am sorry that under the above conditions, there is nothing that can be done. Respectfully, Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

WASA GIVES BENEFIT OF DOUBT: Dear L. Folgarait:

Re: Recommendation to resolve Marcia Eiley Roberts case

THE CASE Mrs. Marcia Eiley Roberts thinks it unjust and unfair for WASA to require her to pay an accumulated bill for ten months of $967.27. She has claimed that she lived at 4 Courtney Crescent only two months, and that occupancy ended in December ’92. She swears that she informed WASA’s office that she was moving and requested a disconnection. Unfortunately, Mrs. Eiley Roberts has no proof of what she is saying and all we can do is rely on her veracity, which we have no reason to doubt, especially since the water consumption for December and two months following was only $10.92, $9.00, and $9.00. It was in March that consumption rocketed to $66.88, which would be questionable for a single mother and two small children. There are two other significant facts that impinge on this case which we must consider, if we are going to be fair to people. They are:

How many customers know that a disconnection request must be made in writing? I did not know until recently.

Why did WASA wait ten months before investigating this case? RECOMMENDATION In view of the above we recommend that: - 1. Mrs. Eiley Roberts be required to pay a flat sum of $200.00. This is because she is

unable to substantiate her claims of change of residency and request for disconnection. This amount we consider fair considering the special circumstances.

2. WASA give widest publicity to the regulation that requires disconnection requests be put in writing.

3. WASA more carefully monitor accounts to ensure that months of consumption be not allowed to accumulate to such a level that it works real hardship on consumers to pay.

Please inform us of your decision within 10 working days’ time. Respectfully Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

Case Note

Case No 190 Mrs. X complained to the Ombudsman that the water and Sewerage Authority was charging her for water which they claimed she used at #4 Courtney Crescent in 1992 & 1993 – a period of about 10 months. Her claim against the bill of $896.42 was based on these arguments: - 1. Her total bill for the first three months was $28.92. 2. There was a dramatic change afterwards, but she had already moved from that

residence. 3. She had gone to the office of WASA and informed them verbally that she had

moved. During the investigation Mrs. X had no evidence to prove how long she lived at #4 Courtney Crescent. Neither could she prove that she had informed WASA that she had moved. This was important because the law Chapter 185, Sec 71 requires: “A consumer who wishes the supply of water to his premises to be discontinued shall give not less than twenty-four hours’ notice in writing to the authority.” The Ombudsman nevertheless was able to obtain a 50% reduction of the bill for the complainant. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

LONG OUTSTANDING TAX CASE RESOLVED

CASE NOTE

CASE NO 201 Mr. X complained against the Income Tax Department In a letter of 22 February, 2000, he stated: “In as much as correspondence seems ineffective, I am obliged to seek your assistance in recovering excess tax from as far back as 1991, which has reached an embarrassing level.” On the 24 February 2000 the Ombudsman first queried the matter with the Income Tax Department. On 6 September, 2000 the Ombudsman recommended to the Commissioner of Income Tax that the matter be concluded one way or the other. In this case the Ombudsman did not think he should get involved in seeking to determine whether any detail of the complainant’s tax assessment was justified or not. What he did emphasize to the Income Tax Commissioner was that the matter had been pending for too long, and a settlement should be reached with the tax payer as soon as possible. The matter was completed on 20 October, 2000, when the Commissioner delivered a refund voucher to be delivered to the complainant. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

HELPFUL MEDIATION BY THE OMBUDSMAN

CASE NOTE CASE NO 344 A Mediation Mr. Fredrick Casildo and his brother Francis sought the assistance of the Ombudsman to obtain a plane ticket to Houston, Texas, from Mr. Bob Pennil. Background On 21 March 1989 Mr. Bob Pennil driving a vehicle that belonged to the Belize Defence Force and while being a member of that force caused injuries to Francis Casildo resulting in a broken jaw among others. Francis Casildo had to seek medical help for his broken jaw in the United States of America in Houston, Texas. This was done with help from the Government of Belize, because Mr. Pennil at the time was as agent of the Government of Belize, being a member of the Belize Defence Force. However, recently one of the screws in the reconstructed jaw of Francis Casildo became loose. To effect this repair he has to return to Houston, Texas. He and his family lack the resources. Therefore his request for help from Mr. Pennil to supply airline tickets for Francis and his elder brother Fredrick. Response from Bob Pennil When Mr. Lionel Castillo, Investigator, requested help from Mr. Pennil, he agreed to help with the airfare for Francis Casildo only, provided that all the persons concerned sign a disclaimer agreeing that this would be the last claim made against Mr. Pennil. The Disclaimer At first Fredrick Casildo was reluctant to sign, arguing that by so doing they would kill whatever chance they had of taking a successful suit against Mr. Pennil to court. The Ombudsman pointed out that the accident had occurred eleven years ago and was now statute barred. He explained that the choice therefore was between getting something now or nothing. After a while Fredrick Casildo agreed to sign. It was duly signed and witnessed and forms part of this file.

Signed:

Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

NATIONAL LANDS FOR PRODUCTIVE PURPOSES:-

CASE NOTE CASE NO 302 After preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman learned that Mr. X has never had a lease on the land he was claiming was his. Furthermore, the Ombudsman learned that he had served time in prison for illegal entry and possession of Indian Hemp. A visit to the land convinced the Ombudsman that its being in a fairly isolated place suited it for cultivation or illegal drugs. Therefore the Ombudsman decided to close this case.

FOR PENSION PURPOSES A SERGEANT IS A SOLDIER… CASE NOTE

CASE NO. 226 This case concerned a grievance that was only perceived – the fact that another soldier of lower rank got the same retirement benefits that he was going to receive. Chapter 106, Sec 2 clarifies this matter: a soldier is defined as any soldier from the rank of warrant Officer and below. Therefore for pension benefits a sergeant is a soldier; so is a Warrant Officer, and so a corporal. Theoretically speaking a soldier could end up receiving more pension benefits than a Warrant Officer depending on length of service. Signed: Paul Rodriguez (Ombudsman)

INFORMAL COMPLAINTS SAMPLES

1. Legal Representative of Mc Cormick’s manufacturer’s of SEASON ALL have written Mr. Arturo Fuentes of 41 Lord’s Bank, Ladyville, threatening to sue him if he continues to use their trade name SEASON ALL. Mr. Fuentes appealed to him for advice, and the Ombudsman drafted a letter for him explaining that the words “season all” are used loosely in Belize to mean any salt that is seasoned, but promising to cease and desist immediately.

2. Following upon complaints about the loud noise proceeding from OKIS Disko in Benque Viejo Del Carmen, the Ombudsman and the Mayor of Benque Viejo visited Inspector Broaster of the Benque Police Formation. He promised to abate the nuisance. According to Mayor Sosa, this past weekend was quieter than before.

3. Mr. Lloyd Joseph of Bermudian Landing came to complain that while he was locked up for something that he was falsely accused of, Channel 7 came and took his picture along with some men accused of burglary. As a result of the story Channel 7 ran his friends and acquaintances have been viewing him with suspicion. Believing that his reputation has been damaged by the Channel 7 report, he was asking for a clarification from the television station. The Ombudsman called Mr. Jules Vasquez of Channel 7 and he promised to run a clarification.

4. The Ombudsman interceded when Bruce Diaz, father of Paul Diaz, of an apartment address on Faber’s Road, complained that he had brought uniforms and books for St. Ignatius Beginner’s class because he had been promised a place for his son by the Principal of the Lower Division, but now they were not willing to accept him. The child was accepted by the school after the Ombudsman raised the matter with the Principal.

5. Ms. X of Steadfast Village, Stann Creek District, sought the intervention of the Ombudsman. Her foster son A is alleged to have raped a woman. He wanted to turn himself in but is afraid to be beaten up. 6 Sept. a person called on his behalf, and right away the Ombudsman called San Ignacio Police and got a reassurance from OIC Martinez that the suspect would be treated humanely.

6. Ms. Grethel Jones of 122 Bruce St., Hattieville, Belize District, brought her son Kennon Lewis and Shawn Bainton, both of Hattieville, both fugitives, to seek advice. The Ombudsman advised them to give themselves up. Accordingly he called CPL. Casey of the Hattieville Station and expressed to him the fear of the young men that they would be beaten up. Cpl. Casey assured the Ombudsman that they would be charged and taken to court quickly.

N.B. 6 Sept. This is the 3rd & 4th fugitive that have turned themselves in to the Police through the Ombudsman.

7. Mr. N of Lover’s Lane, Orange Walk Town, came to seek assistance from the Ombudsman. His older brothers have allegedly sold a family property, part of which he lives on. Now they are asking him to remove himself within a month’s time. The Ombudsman told Mr. N that he should tell his brother that this is a matter that has to be settled in court. In the meantime, however, he should go to the Registry and find out whether his father left a will, and if so, whether there has been registered letters of administration. When Mr. N checked at the Registry, he got a copy of a will benefiting his two brothers.

8. Mr. Lauriano Bautista came to appeal to the Ombudsman to intervene on his behalf. He was bitten by a dog in Orange Walk Town belonging to a certain Mr. Mesa. Following the treatment for the dog bite he has been suffering from reactions. He has applied to Social Security for sickness benefits, because he has not been able to work for 2 weeks. The Ombudsman called the Belize City Office of Social Security and was informed that claims are usually processed in five days. He therefore advised Mr. Bautista to return to the office of Social Security.

9. Shawn Roland came to seek the advise of the Ombudsman regarding a matter that he took to court in a civil suit. He lent a lady friend $1500.00. In court she denied this and the Magistrate dismissed the case. The Ombudsman explained that in order to win a case in court he had to provide proof, like witnesses, or a signed statement by the lady saying that she had borrowed the money.

10. The Mother of Onesimo Caliz, a policeman (PC 64), who died on 17 September 2000, came to seek the advice of the Ombudsman. She believes that her son died by foul play and that a man spoke to her the morning her son died. He claimed that there were many policemen on the verandah, when her son fell or was pushed; but the police have claimed that the verandah was empty. The Ombudsman advised her to look for that person before returning to Inspector Vernon of C.I.B.

11. Ms. H came to the Ombudsman to seek advice and to warn him of a Spiritual

Healer who charges exorbitant fees for his services. He was charging her $1200.00 for treatment against “something that had been done” to her. She only had $300.00 and he gave her a gargle, saying that she had to produce at least $500.00 more to continue the healing. The Ombudsman advised her to go to church and forget about the spiritual healer.

12. Mr. Terence Sutherland of More Tommorow Village, Cayo District, sought the advice of the Ombudsman. He and friends secured a barge which had gotten loose on the river. He believes that he should be compensated for his troubles. The Ombudsman agreed with him but told him that was a matter between him and the owner of the barge, and he should get a lawyer to represent him.

13. Mr. Carlos Twist, came to the Ombudsman to seek advice. Recently a pit bull attacked him at the Cor. Of Dean & West St. The dog injured him and caused him to be injured. The Ombudsman advised him to go to court and sue the owner.

14. The relatives of Mark Henry complained to the Ombudsman that he was beaten up by the Police. When the Ombudsman checked with the Police at about 10:30 P.M, Sgt. Ramirez informed him that even his legal representative Mr. Hubert Elrington had to leave him because he was completely out of control. On Wednesday morning the Ombudsman checked out the Police story with Attorney Hubert Elrington. He confirmed what the Police were claiming.

15. Mr. M came to seek advice and help because the police were looking for him to

arrest him for raping a 13 yr. old school girl. Investigation by the Ombudsman showed that Mr. M. was being sought for an alleged rape he committed a year ago. The case was not heard and he was released, but the DPP has brought the matter back. The Ombudsman advised Mr. M. to get a lawyer.

(Speech at SJC sixth form 23 November 2000)

POLICE BRUTALITY

To understand properly the phenomenon of police brutality we have to scrutinize it in the context of the Constitution and the laws of Belize. The Constitution defines what it means to be Belizean or be a citizen of the country of Belize. In this discussion it is important to realize that the Constitution is the written expression of the social contract by which the people living within the 8,800 square miles of this Central American territory agree to live. It is an agreement that starts by telling us what are the fundamental principles that undergird the structure of this community that we call Belize. Among them are listed as most fundamental the following:

1. Belief in the Supremacy of God, the Creator; 2. Respect for the principles of Social Justice;

3. The will of the people is the only basis for legitimate government;

4. Respect for moral and spiritual values;

5. Policies of state which protect and safeguard the unity, freedom,

sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belize and eliminate all forms of discrimination.

The above are contained in the Preamble of the Belize Constitution, which makes it abundantly clear that Belize is founded upon principles derived from Judaeo – Christian philosophy and theology. This is its great strength, but is also potentially the source of its weakness because the chief Judaeo – Christian book, the Bible, is so rich and plentiful with ideas; and some seem contradictory to others. If some of you are wondering: what does all this verbiage have to do with police brutality, don’t become impatient; we’ll get to the point; but first we are laying the foundation of what will come later in this structure of understanding.

A good example of contradiction is the debate over the death penalty. There is a school of thought in our community that strongly supports the execution of the death penalty. Using the Mosaic law of a tooth for a tooth, the argument is made that if one person sheds the blood of another; justice cannot be satisfied unless the killer’s blood is also shed. The other party to this argument against is the Christian option of not returning evil for evil but turning the other cheek rather than retaliating. However, it is very curious that some of the very persons who argue vehemently in favour of abolishing the death penalty, without realizing the inconsistency, support the right of a mother to decide whether the baby in her womb should live or die. Similarly, some of the same people who carry out massive campaigns spending millions to protect the booby bird will not contribute a single penny for feeding the starving children of India, Africa and Latin America. No doubt there is confusion, because there is no harmonized worldview and metaphysical vision that is based on basic principles that have been derived from reason analysing reality, and from will and intellect disciplined and informed by faith. In my own intellectual and metaphysical journey through life to this point, there was a time when I merely accepted the existence of a Supreme Being because my reason told me that the opposite, the non-existence of a first cause was more ridiculous. However, I then thought that existent though he or it was; he certainly did not care about us, much less me. To move from that point of not knowing to certitude about his existence was a matter of divine intervention. The infusion and reception of that grace has been followed by a re-assessment of many things. Where before there was a vision of a world that was completely lost in its confusion, there has been shown to me the many points of light. Curiously those have not always emanated from where they were expected, but from quite unfamiliar places. One of them has been the Constitution of Belize, a secular, worldly document of state, not really primarily concerned with the propagation of religious values of faith, but with depicting the broad framework of what Belizean life should be. For the sake of memory those principles are here repeated: belief in God – Creator, respect for social justice, the supremacy of the will of the people,

respect for moral and spiritual values, respect for the sovereignty of Belize and rejection of all forms of discrimination. Upon the above principles each one of us may build the intellectual edifice that may become a fortress of strength within. Thinking them through carefully may bring us to that place where we may be able to prioritise all our values in accordance with the need of the human being to be in harmony with himself. All self conscious thought and actions must be a unified expression of what he or she is, an “I” that is not torn hither and yon by philosophical contradictions. Briefly and quickly, let us look at the city of man, the state of Belize, that this charter document describes. It is a building that has three main chambers: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. These three branches of government each perform its own unique functions and should operate independently of each other. Practically, independence is not always the case. For example, it is from the Legislative, the House of Representatives, from which the Executive is drawn. The Judiciary, on the other hand, is appointed by the Executive. Theoretically speaking, among these three there should be careful, measured balletic steps of checking and balancing. Practically speaking, this is difficult to achieve because the head of the Executive selects the person to be appointed as Chief Justice. Also, while according to House rules, any member of the House of Representative may move a motion, but in practice it is only bills that are sponsored by a Minister that reach the floor of the House. The Prime Minister also selects the Chief Executive Officers and Heads of departments. These are appointed by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. One of these is the Commissioner of Police. His role is not defined by the Constitution, but merely mentioned. However, it is in one of the statutes of the land, in ch.109, known as the Police act, that the role is defined. Therein is described the functions, duties, powers etc. of the Police. One of these is the power to arrest. Let us go back to the Constitution. Whereas in Section 3 the fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined (life, liberty, security of the person, and the protection of the law); in Section 4 are described the limitations on those rights and freedoms. For instance, although the right to life is

protected, the execution of the sentence of a court for a capital offence is not a violation of that right. However, bear in mind that this forms part of the controversy in the debate on the death penalty; for elsewhere (Section 7) the Constitution prohibits cruel and inhumane punishment. Subsection (2) of the same Section 4 legitimises the use of force, including to the death, to protect life or property. Of course, I believe in this regard there must be a measure of gravity of matter; for I would not feel justified in killing anyone to avoid losing my ideal, or a dog or a cat. Subsection (b) and (d) are very significant; (b) authorizes the use of force to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape; (d) authorizes the use of force (by the Police) to prevent the commission of a crime. This brings us to the definition of “police brutality”. What does this mean? Are the Police always being brutal when they shove, club, shoot at, injure or kill a person? Is a person’s constitutional right of the integrity and inviolability of the person violated when a policeman grabs him by the hair to fend him off from grabbing his pistol? Does a policeman violate a person’s right to life, if he shoots him when he is trying to escape after committing a robbery? Does the policeman violate a person’s right to life if he shoots him while he is in the act of raising a knife to stab his neighbour? There are important, seemingly contradictory principles on both sides of the debate on each of these questions. They are at point and counter-point: your right versus my right. The logical corollary is that no right is unlimited. Only on a completely deserted island could the right of an individual be regarded as absolute and unquestioned. In reality there must be some kind of harmony between your rights and mine. In other words, my right ends where yours begin; and I must at that meeting point assume my responsibility and duty to respect your right. It may even become incumbent upon me to be proactive in defending your right, for in doing so I promote my own self-interest to have my rights respected. Because the police officer acts in the name of society to provide the checks and balance on the over-extension of rights, he is empowered to use measured, physical force to protect the individual and society from the violations of those who would disregard the limitations of his own rights and trespass into the domain that is the rights of others. Basically this is the place where crime is at, when one individual invades the territory that is the rights of another. To prevent that invasion, under certain circumstances, the policeman may even use force that may result in fatality.

Speaking personally, notwithstanding what has been said above, I believe that the police and society in general must also use the principle of proportionality in dealing with concrete instances of violations of rights. I do not think it would be morally acceptable to me to shoot a man in the back who is riding off with my bicycle. A bicycle is steel or aluminum. It will rust and fall to pieces; but a human being is invaluable. However, conceivably a person might escape a charge of criminal homicide in such a case. It might hinge on whether he could convince a court of law that his livelihood and that of his family depended on that bicycle. Here, I would like to introduce the idea of priority of values. This has become a live issue to me in the context of the recent, not yet completed U.S. Presidential elections. In my view the two candidates seemed to be talking more or less of solving the same issues with somewhat similar methods. There is one exception that I consider crucial and defining: Gore is pro-choice; Bush is pro-life. In other words, Gore supports the right of women to have abortions; Bush does not. Gore thinks it is morally acceptable for a mother to kill her unborn baby; Bush says: No, Sir. If I were American, I would have supported Bush, for I would hope that I never would prefer a positive evil to a possible one. The argument locally is that Bush might be sad news for third would countries. This is merely a possible evil. Put that against the definite abomination that killing unborn babies is. The Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War was all about the immorality of singling out a defenceless group for extermination based on their race. What is abortion but the singling out of a group of defenceless humans simply because it is not convenient to their parents for them to appear on this earth now? Anyhow, to return to the matter of Police Brutality. The best way to avoid police violence is to be law-abiding and also to seem to be law-abiding. If you are in the habit of hanging out, or if you are in the habit of hanging with others who have strayed to the other side of the tracks, my advice would be to remember the old adage: “Birds of a feather flock together.” Whether that is completely true or not may be debated, but neither am I going to presume to tell you what to do. It may be that you may think that you are the only one who can influence a friend for good. But be sensible and discreet, for if your friend is busted for drugs while you are in his company, you also will be and will have the distinct displeasure of inhabiting that cell commonly described by a word starting with the letter P.

Also, believe me, don’t ever think that drugs are cool. Let me tell you how cool they are. Now and again I see on the streets a young man wandering aimlessly about. He is young, but he doesn’t look young. He looks like a complete wreck. When my daughter graduated from high school, she introduced me to him as the one who would be her escort to the prom. I couldn’t help thinking that he might also be a perfect match to escort her to the altar of matrimony. Every time I see this walking zombie I am filled with rage against those who have turned this promising young knight in shining armour to a little more than vegetable matter. My helpless rage turns to heartache, and quietly in my soul I cry for him and all the young vibrant souls that drugs have deceitfully transported to the land of waste, dark days and darker nights, unfulfilled dreams and permanent frustration. They look for a fix of release into forgetfulness but quickly return to dirt and pain and hopelessness. Finally, to return to the topic, the Police do violate their sacred trust when they use excessive force, and they must be disciplined when they do. However, we believe that with proper moral and ethical training the incidence of abuse would fall to a bare minimum. Better training, therefore, should be the watch word of the Police Department. Thank You!

CONCIENTIZANDO LA POLICIA… (Discurso que se llevó acabo en la Sexta Forma Colegio de San Juan, Ciudad de Belice, el 23 de noviembre, 2000) Brutalidad Policiaca Para comprender bien el fenomeno de la brutalidad policiaca tenemos que investigarlo

bien en el contexto de la Constitución y las leyes de Belice.

La Constitución define lo que significa ser Beliceño o ser un ciudadano del país de

Belice. En esta discusion es muy importante realizar que la Constitución es la

manifestación escrita del contrato social aceptado por la poblacion habitando este

territorio Centro Americano de 8,867 millas cuadradas. Es un acuerdo que empieza por

decirnos cuales son los principios fundamentales que consolidan la estructura de esta

comunidad que llamamos Belice. Entre ellos esta en lista lo mas fundamental:-

1. Creencia en la Supremacía de Dios, el Creador;

2. Respeto a los principios de la justicia social;

3. La voluntad de la gente es la unica base para un gobierno legitimo;

4. Respeto a los valores morales y espirituales;

5. Costumbres de el estado que protegen y salvaguardan la union,

libertad, soberania, y la integridad territorial de Belice y elimine

toda forma de descriminacion.

Lo anterior aparece en el preâmbulo de la Constitución, que declara que Belice es

fundado en principios de Filosofia y Teologia Judea - Cristiana. Esto es su fuerza

mayor, pero tambien potencialmente puede ser su debilidad ya que el libro principal, la

biblia es tan rico y abundante en ideas y en muchos parece contradictorio.

Si hay alguien que se esta preguntando que tiene que ver toda esta palabreria con la

brutalidad policiaca, no se impaciente, ya llegaremos al punto, pero primero estoy

fundamentando lo que ha de venir mas adelante en la estructura del la comprension.

Un buen ejemplo contradictorio es el debate sobre la pena de muerte. Hay una escuela

de pensamiento que apoya fuertemente la ejecucion de la pena de muerte. Si usamos

la ley de Moises - diente por diente, el argumento es que si una persona derrama

sangre de otro; no puede ser saciado la justicia si el asesino no es castigado

debidamente. La otra parte a este argumento esta en contra y eso es la opcion del

cristianismo que no se debe hacerse mal por mal pero que a la vez se debe dar la otra

mejia y no vengarse.

Sin embargo, es muy curioso que las mismas personas que argumentan

vehementemente a favor de la abolición de la pena capital sin pensar la inconsistencia,

apoyan el derecho de la madre a decidir si el niño en su vientre debe vivir o morir.

Igualmente, algunas de las mismas personas que hacen grandes campanias gastando

millones de dolares para proteger al pajaro loco no contribuyen un solo centavo para

aquellos niños muertos de hambres en la India, Africa y Latino America.

Sin lugar a duda hay confusion, porque no hay armonia en el parecer mundial ni vision

metafisica que se base en principios elementales que emanan de la realidad, y del

deseo y del intelecto diciplinado e informado por la fé.

En mi propia jornada intelectual y metafisica, por la vida hacia este punto, hubo una vez

cuando yo vagamente acepte la existencia de un ser Supremo porque mi razon me dice

que lo contrario, lo no-existente de una primera causa era mas ridículo. Sin embargo,

yo pense que apesar de que el o ese fuera; ciertamente a el no le importabamos,

mucho menos yo. Partiendo de ese punto de no saber con certeza sobre su existencia

fue una cosa de divina intervencion. La infusion y recibimiento de esa gracia se ha

llevado acabo por un asesoramiento de muchas cosas. A donde antes habia una vision

de un mundo que estaba completamente perdido en mi confusion se me ha mostrado

muchos punto claros. Curiosamente eso no ha surgido en donde mas se esperaba,

pero de lugares desconocidos. Uno de ello ha sido la Constitución de Belice, un

secular, documento mundanal de estado, que no le importa lo concernido con la

propagacion de valores religiosos y fé, pero representando amplio marco de lo que

debe ser la vida Beliceña.

Para recordarse esos principios se vuelven a repetir, creer en Dios - Creador, respeto a

la justicia social, la supremacia de la voluntad del pueblo, respeto a los valores

morales, espirituales, respeto a la soberania Beliceña y rechazo a todas formas de

descriminacion.

Sobre estos principios ya mencionados cada uno de nosotros podemos construir el

edificio intelectual que llegara a ser una fuerte fortaleza de voluntad propia.

Analizandolo cuidadosamente podria traernos a ese lugar en donde podamos priorizar

todos nuestros valores segun la necesidad del ser humano para estar en armonia

consigo mismo. Todo pensamiento y accion conciente debe ser una expresion

unificada de lo que es el o ella, un "yo" que no se ha roto aqui o alla por contradiciones

filosoficas.

Veamos muy breve y rapidito la ciudad del hombre, el estado de Belice, que esta carta

magna describe. Es un organismo con tres camaras, el poder ejecutivo, el poder

legislativo, y el poder judicial.

Estos tres ramos de gobierno en la cual cada uno ejerce su funcion singular

independientemente del otro. Practicamente ser independiente no es el caso. Por

ejemplo, es del poder legislativo, la Casa de Representantes, de la cual el poder

Ejecutivo se deriva. El poder judicial por el otro lado es nombrado por el poder

ejecutivo.

Hablando teóricamente entre estos tres poderes debe haber medidas cuidadosamente

y pasos silenciosos en el balance y control. Practicamente hablando es muy dificil de

lograr ya que el cabecia del poder Ejecutivo selecciona a la persona y lo nombra como

jefe de tribunal de justicia. Tambien segun reglas de la Cámara, cualquier miembro de

la Camara de Representantes puede presentar una moción, mayormente solo

proyectos de ley los Ministros traen y se pasa la casa ya que ellos son los promotores

de tal ley. El primer ministro tambien elije a los oficiales Executivos y jefes de

departamentos. Estos oficiales son nombrados por el Gobernador General con la

recomendacion del Primer Ministro. Uno de esto es el Comisionado de Policia. Su

papel no se define en la Constitucion, solo se hace mencion. Sin embargo, esta en

uno de los estatutos del pais, en el capitulo 109 conocido como la ley Policiaca y ahi si

se define su papel. En ese respecto se describe las funciones, obligaciones, poderes,

etcetera de el policia. Uno de estos poderes es el poder de detencion o arresto.

Volvamos a la Constitucion. Mientras que en la seccion 3 los derechos y libertades

fundamentales estan consagrados (vida, libertad, seguridad de la persona, y la

proteccion de la lay); en la section 4 se describe las restriciones en esos derechos y

libertades. Por ejemplo, apesar que el derecho a la vida esta protegida, la ejecucion de

sentencia de una Corte para una pena capital no esta violando este derecho. Sin

embargo, tome en cuenta que esto forma parte de la controversia en el debate de pena

de muerte; mientras (seccion 7) de la Constitución prohíbe el castigo cruel y inhumano.

Subseccion (2) de la misma seccion 4 legitimisa el uso de fuerza, incluyendo la muerte,

protejer la vida y propiedad. Por supuesto yo creo, en ese respecto que se debe haber

un asunto sumamemte grave cual no me sentiria justificado en matar a alguien para no

perder mi ideal o por decir asi, mi perro o mi gato. Subseccion (b) y (d) son muy

significativos; (b) autoriza el uso de fuerza para llevar acabo un arresto legitimo, o para

prevenir la fuga, (d) autoriza el uso de fuerza (por el policía) para prevenir que se

cometa el homicidio. Todo esto nos trae a lo que es "brutalidad policiaca" Que

significa esto?

Sera que los policias siempre son brutales cuando empujan, apalean, disparan, hieren

o matan a una persona? Sera que los derechos constitucionales de una persona son

violados cuando un policía lo toma por el cabello para detenerlo que no tome su arma?

Sera que el policía viola el derecho de vida a la persona, si el le dispara cuando el

ladron esta tratando de escapar despues de haber cometido algun robo? Sera que el

policía viola el derecho humano si le dispara cuando el delincuente esta en el acto de

tomar su arma blanca para apuñalar a su vecino?

Hay importantes causas aparentemente contradictorias en ambas partes del debate en

cada una de estas cuestiones. Estan al punto y contra punto: tu derecho versus mi

derecho. El resultado logico es que ningun derecho es ilimitado. Solo en una isla

desierta el derecho de un individuo puede ser tomado como absoluto y indisputable.

En realidad debe haber alguna clase de harmonia entre tus derechos y los mios. En

otras palabras, mi derecho termina en donde el tuyo empieza y yo en dado punto debo

asumir responsabilidades y deberes en respetar tus derechos. Puede llegar a ser

obligatorio en mi ser proativo y defender tu derecho, ya que al hacerlo yo tambien

muestro mis intereses en tener mis derechos respetados. Ya que el policía actua en el

nombre de la sociedad para proveer el control y balance sobre la extension de

derechos, ellos estan comisionados en medida para ejercer su fuerza fisica para

protejer el individuo y la sociedad de violaciones de aquellos que impiden las

limitaciones de sus derechos y traspasar en el dominio que es el derecho de otro.

Basicamente, aqui es en donde esta el crimen, cuando un individuo invade el teritorio

de el derecho ajeno. Para prevenir esta invasion bajo alguna circumstancia el policía

puede usar su fuerza que resulte en alguna fatalidad.

Personalmente hablando, apesar de todo lo que se ha mencionado, yo creo que el

policía y la sociedad en general deben usar tambien la propocionalidad cuando traten

en circumstancias concretas de violacion de derechos. Yo no creo que moralmente es

aceptable que yo dispare a un hombre por la espalda que esta robando una bicicleta.

Una bicicleta es de hierro y aluminio. Se va a oxidar y se hara pedazos; pero un ser

humano es de un valor incalculable. Sin embargo de un modo imaginable una persona

puede escapar de un cargo de crimen homicida en tal caso. Puede depender en si el

puede convencer a la corte que su vida y la de su familia dependen de esa bicicleta.

Aqui me gustaria introducir la idea de prioridad de valores. Ha llegado a ser un tema

para mi en el contexto de el reciente, aun no terminado elecciones Presidenciales de

E.U.A. En mi parecer los dos candidatos parecen hablar mas o menos y en resolver

los mismos problemas con metodos casi iguales.

Hay una excepcion que yo considero crucial y determinante: Gore es pro-seleccion,

Bush es pro-vida. En otras palabras Gore apoya el derecho de la mujer en el aborto;

Bush no las apoya. Gore cree que es moralmente aceptable para una madre matar a

su bebe no nacido; Bush dice, no señor. Si yo fuese americano yo habria apoyado a

Bush, porque creo que yo nunca hubiese preferido a un mal positivo a uno posible. El

argumento local es que Bush puede ser una mala noticia para los paises del tercer

mundo. Esto solo es un mal posible. Pon eso en contra de los horrores que es matar a

un niño no nacido. El juicio de Nuremburgo despues de la segunda guerra mundial fue

todo sobre la inmoralidad singular de un grupo por destruir a la gente por su raza. Que

es el aborto sino el individualismo de un grupo que destruye humanos indefensos

simplemente porque no es conveniente para sus padres que ellos aparescan en esta

tierra?

De cualquier manera, regresar al tema de la brutalidad policiaca. La mejor manera de

evitar la violencia policiaca es ser ciudadano observante de la ley. Si te gusta la calle y

estas en el habito de mala compania mi consejo sera que recuerden el viejo refran:

"dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres." Si eso es completamente cierto o no,

puede ser debatido. Pero yo no puedo presumir en decirte lo que tienes que hacer.

Puede ser que pienses que solamente tu eres la unica persona para influenciar a un

amigo de verdad. Se siempre sensible y discreto porque si a tu amigo lo atrapan con

droga estando tu en su compania, tu tambien estaras en ese lugar penoso

compartiendolo tambien y es comunmente descrito y empieza con la letra P.

Creeme, jamas pienses que las drogas son buenas. Dejame decirte como de buenos

pueden ser.

De vez en cuando veo en las calles a un joven andando sin meta alguna. El es joven,

pero no parece joven, parece un desastre total. Cuando mi hija se graduo de la

secundaria, ella me presento a el como el que la llevaria al baile de gala (prom). Yo no

puedo dejar de pensar que tambien seria el hombre perfecto para llevarla hacia el altar

para casarse con ella. Cada vez que veo este sonambulo pasar me enfuriezsco con

aquellos que hicieron de este prometedor joven caballero con su brillante armadura,

algomas que un vegetal. Mi fuerza se vuelve dolor de corazon, y calladamente en mi

ser lloro por el y todos aquellos jovenes que alguna vez estuvieron llenos y vibrantes en

espiritu y en el cual la droga los ha llevado a la tierra de perdicion, dias obscuras y

noches en tinieblas, sueños no realizados y frustraciones permanentes. Ellos buscan

un alivio en olvidar pero rapidamente regresan a la basura, el dolor y desesperanza.

Finalmente, regresar al tema, el policía si viola su sagrada obligacion cuando

usan fuerzas excesisivas y deben ser disciplinados cuando se propasan.

Mientras tanto, creemos, que con un buen entrenamiento moral y etico el

incidente de abuso llegaria a minimizar. Asi que mejores entrenamientos, debe

ser la palabra clave del Departamento Policiaca.

Muchas Gracias.

JUSTICE AND THE COMMON MAN AN ADDRESS TO THE BENCH AND BAR

SUMMIT 2000

By The Ombudsman Radisson Fort George

JUSTICE AND THE COMMON MAN

HAMLET IN ACT III, SC 1 AGONISES: “TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION.”

Although he is a person of some influence and power, yet he is helpless to have his wrong righted; because the person he is convinced has wronged him is far more powerful than he, being the king who ruled in an age when regal power was absolute. Hamlet is here contemplating to end it all with a “bare bodkin”’ because on top of all the ordinary ills of life, he has to bear “the insolence of office” and “the law’s delay.” Hamlet does not use the “bare bodkin “ on himself and admits: “And thus the native hue of resolution is sickled o’er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action.” However, he does not give up on his determination to bring to justice his stepfather and uncle, the man who because of his lechery and ambition, killed his own brother and married his wife, Hamlet’s mother. He spends a long time organizing the acting out of a play depicting a scene exactly corresponding to how be believes his father was murdered. He anticipates that through this dramatization the conscience of his stepfather will be touched, and when he shows his guilt, he will become judge, jury and executioner. Of course, I could never recommend Hamlet’s way of achieving justice to any one, for I believe in the system. Although perhaps flawed, it may bring even the mighty to their knees, for most of us believe that no one is above the law. In that place where my heart and my head meet there is that faith and trust and hope that through our judicial system most wrongs can be righted. How may this be ever more effectively achieved? First, there is required from every practitioner who is a partner in this great enterprise to admit that in practice the system is flawed because of human weakness, for while we may philosophically proclaim that contemporary life does not permit any absolutes, meaning mostly moral absolutes, in effect there is one all powerful idol which continues to hold sway throughout the civilised world. We all speak in common humour about the “almighty dollar” and although the saying is vulgar it is nevertheless full of truth; for the dollar is universally exalted to the highest heavens The establishment of a Legal Aid office was one little step toward destroying the hegemony of Mammon in Belize. However, so far it is sometimes a very weak, uncertain move toward justice, because there is still a requirement that the suppliant must pay a deposit up front, even if reduced.

The other day a poor woman came to me asking: “Sir, do you think I could get back my money? I went to Legal Aid and paid $300.00. But when the case was heard in court, the lawyer did not even show up.” Perhaps, we should look more closely at “pro bono”. I do fully realize that it is money that makes the mail run and that sacrificium will not pay the secretary, the electricity or repair the computer. However, I am convinced that unless those of us in society who are privileged by money or position do more for the common good, our country will become a colder, more savage jungle where none of us will be safe. The recent brutal slaying of a young woman of considerable wealth reminded me how urgent it is for us to act far more frequently “propter salutem nostram” if not “pro bono”. Secondly, it is urgent that we realize that every single player in the system must carry out his/her role with increasing steadfastness and dedication. The time honoured symbols for the Courts is the scale of justice and the blindfolded woman. Symbolising the ideal that no one is above the law and that justice is forever fair, no matter who you are. Perhaps in our contemporary context a different icon is necessary to reflect the truth that the above noble ideals are not achievable unless the administrators of justice are up to the task. This introduces the all important human element – the agents of justice: the judge, or magistrate, the prosecutor, the defender, the arresting officer, the juror. All of these must be prepared and competent, and most of all, motivated to do their best. With the greatest respect, I would like to submit that now and again there may be deficiencies in all the players. For instance, recently a complaint was put to me: - “Sir, from 1993 I put a civil case in court. The case was tried in 1998 and concluded. But, Sir, up to this date I have yet to know what the judgment was.” What did Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, have to say about “the law’s delay”.? If a citizen does not get justice from our Supreme Court, whither is he going to turn? Whither? The prosecutor too must have his wits about him and keep up todate with the new laws; and with a conscientious, meticulous resolve make effort to bring his utmost ingenuity to understand the wrong that has been done and how to present that to the court so that the plaintiff will receive justice. Where is that justice if a child who is raped goes to court only to hear that her violator is merely charged with damaging a dress costing $15.00? Obviously, the proper procedures may not have been followed. I would be most reluctant to even imagine that any

deliberate attempt was made to not bring the correct charge against the alleged rapist, for some unworthy reason. The defender, the defense counsel in obedience to the highest ethical standards of his noble profession must also do all that he can, with a good conscience, to bring about justice for his client. I merely ask the question, far be it from me to be so presumptious as to image myself as the conscience of this august gathering. But, I must tell you that recently a person came to me who had been awarded compensation in a Supreme Court case. The person said, in substance. “After the court case, I went to my lawyer and he said that I would have to pay him some money for him to file the papers for me to be paid. I pointed out that he was to receive a percentage.” I must confess my total ignorance of the workings of the Belize Bar Association. However, from my position of not really knowing, I would still dare to ask if this association of most learned men has any mechanisms in place to regulate its members, at least to some minimum extent. It has never happened, as far as I know, that any attorney in Belize has ever been taken to court for malpractice. I imagine that such a case would be extremely expensive, and out of the range of the pockets of the common man. I would like to suggest that the principle of “propter salutem nostram” requires that this is an area that we need to work on to render malpractice superfluous. The police also must do their part lawfully and efficiently. The other day I was watching the news and I felt: “Boy, I really have something to praise the Police about.” A top ranking officer was shown amidst all the loot that they had recovered from the robbers and thieves. The following day just at the moment when I was about to write a congratulatory note two persons gained access into my office and complained: - “Sir, I am blind, hardly a person who would go about stealing. Yesterday morning I was still asleep when I heard a knocking at the door. Since I cannot see, I did not get up right away, but they knocked harder and my wife also got up. When we looked out the window my wife saw the police. Yes, Sir I said: “What is it you want?” We have come to search for drugs, weapons and ammunition. “Come in, Sirs, but do you have a search warrant? They showed me a piece of paper which I could not read. Then they searched. Of course, they found no drugs, weapons, or ammunition. But they took some things we had in a room. Some of them are old stuff, but there were a few new items we just received from my daughter in the States….” My spirit to congratulate the Police was then dampened, for I was wondering may the Police invade my house or yours without a warrant, simply on the pretext of searching for drugs? I do trust that their seizures of citizens’ goods were based on reasonable cause that issued from some professional, preliminary

investigation. I bring up this matter not in the spirit of condemning. I can’t, for I do not know all the facts, but by so doing I wish to express an increasing concern for the diminished use of the search warrant. If this citizen’s goods were seized unjustifiably, he will have to cross a barren desert before they are returned to him. And Court bailiffs play a most important role, but they must perform their functions efficiently and effectively. I have received a few complaints which tell this story: case concluded, compensation awarded. But they have yet to receive a single penny, for the police have not delivered the warrant. In my first meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, after being appointed, it was suggested that I might want to have an office in the Supreme Court Building. I replied “no”. The Supreme Court is a place that the vast majority of Belizeans of my generation have regarded with awe, respect, and fear. Quite a number of younger folk would also boast: I have never been to court, and I do not intend to put my feet into that building for any reason whatever. However, the Supreme Court Building of Belize is beautiful in its simplicity. It is made up of two facades of equal geometric proportions and shape with a main hall joining the two together. The faces remind me of the scales of justice; the main hall the balance that justice represents; and the tower is lady justice, ensconced there to ensure that the scales tip wherever fact and truth may fall. But, this building also evokes memories of a fort, like those of the Romans, the greatest colonial masters until the British came along, who built them at every outpost as they pushed into what they called barbarian lands. However, their experience taught them that the fort itself, packed though it was with the most efficient military machine of the day, was not enough to withstand the incursions of jealous and hostile warriors. The forests all around for miles had to be cleared so that every movement of a sniper or guerilla forces could be detected. Engineers and soldiers worked together to keep extending the boundaries of civilization. You men of the whig and the law must now increasingly become like the engineers of Rome, not merely manning the ramparts but occasionally leaving the fortress to extend the fight against the contemporary barbarians who prey on society through drugs, dishonesty and other forms of disregard for the canons of civilized behaviour. Belize has now enlisted another soldier to man the ramparts – the Ombudsman. A hybrid creature, he is oversight agent of the Executive, Officer of Parliament, and awarded the status of judge of the Supreme Court, in certain respects. His role is mainly defined in Act No 7 of 1994. When the Political Reform Commission submitted its report, its recommendation on the Ombudsman was

that the role be worked as described in that ordinance for the time being, a position that pleased me. Although he has the status of judge; like the members of the Bar Association, he has no executive power. Like them, also, notwithstanding that he has no executive power, he must not merely man the ramparts; but move out into the perimeters of civilization. Speaking personally, I do not believe in any secular utopia, and I do not think Atlantis ever existed. However, I do believe most fervently in the City of God, the New Jerusalem. In that place there will be justice, but also there will be far more mercy and compassion. This probably explains why I felt so excited when I heard a few weeks ago about a conference on penology and human rights. The enthusiasm overcame all shyness in begging for an invitation. I did get one, but became disappointed in the attendance. I thought the concept of alternate sentences would be discussed, as for instance, imposing some other rehabilitative measure instead of sentencing a 16 year old to 6 months in Hattieville for smoking one stick of weed. “The quality of mercy is not strained.” Civilisation cannot endure without justice but neither can democracy survive without mercy and compassion, for it is through their doors that we will bring along the poor, the disadvantaged, and the marginalized, whose children will not allow us to live in peace, unless the oppressor’s whip is used, which we know is not a viable option in a world that is driving toward a culture of respect for all human rights. Therefore “propter salutem nostram” is merely a fancy way of saying that if nothing else motivates us to be more proactive at least enlightened self-interest should.

LA JUSTICIA Y EL HOMBRE COMUN

HAMLET EN ACTO 3, ESCENA 1 AGONIZA:

“SER O NO SER, ESE ES EL ASUNTO”

Aunque él es una persona de considerable influencia y poder, aún así se

halla incapáz de lograr que se corrija el mal que se ha hecho contra él;

porque la persona, la cual él se halla convencido que le ha hecho mal es

mucho más poderoso que él, siendo el rey quien reinaba en una época

cuando el poder real era absoluto. Hamlet se halla aquí considerando poner

fín a todo, ya de que para colmar todas las desgracias ordinarias de la vida,

tiene que aguantar “la insolencia del cargo” y “el retraso de la ley”.

Hamlet no utiliza “el liso puñal” sobre sí mismo y admite: “Y de tal forma

el tinte nativo de resolución es segado sobre la pálida sombra del

pensamiento, y empresas de gran inclinación y momento, a este aspecto sus

corrientes se vuelven torcidas y pierden el impulso de la acción.”

Sin embargo, no se da por vencido en su determinación de traer a la justicia

a su padrastro y tío, el hombre, quien a causa de su lujuria y ambición, dio

muerte a su propio hermano y se casó con su esposa, la madre de Hamlet.

Pasa bastante tiempo organizando la actuación de un drama que muestra una

escena exáctamente correspondiente a la forma en la que él cree que su

padre fue asesinado. Anticipa que por medio de esta dramatisación tocará la

conciencia de su padrastro, y cuando éste muestre su culpabilidad, él se

convertirá en juez, jurado y ejecutor.

Por supuesto, yo jamás podría recomendar a nadie la manera de Hamlet de

lograr justicia, ya de que yo creo en el sistema. Aunque quizá tenga sus

fallas, tiene la capacidad de traer aún al mas poderoso a sus rodillas, ya de

que la mayoría de nosotros creemos que nadie se halla por encima de la ley.

En ese lugar donde mi corazón y mi mente se unen, existe esa fé y confianza

y esperanza que por medio de nuestro sistema judicial se puede corregir la

mayoría de las faltas. Cómo puede lograrse esto de manera mucho más

efectiva?

Primeramente, se requiere que todo practicante, socio de esta gran empresa

admita de que en la práctica el sistema tiene sus fallas a causa de la debilidad

humana, ya de que mientras quizá nosotros filosóficamente proclamamos

que la vida contemporánea no permite absolutos, de hecho existe un ídolo

todo poderoso que continúa ejerciendo dominio atravéz del mundo

civilizado. Todos hablamos en chiste común de que “poderoso caballero es

Don Dinero”, y aunque el dicho es vulgar, sin embargo es muy verdadero;

ya de que el dinero es exaltado universalmente hasta los mas altos cielos.

El establecimienmto de una oficina de Ayuda Legal fue un pequeño paso

hacia destruír el dominio de Don Dinero en Belice. Sin embargo, hasta el

momento ha sido un paso muy debil e incierto hacia la justicia, porque aún

existe un requisito de que el suplicante debe de pagar un depósito por

adelantado, aunque ha sido reducido.

El otro día una mujer pobre vino y me preguntó: “Señor, cree usted de que

podría conseguir mi dinero de vuelta? Fuí al centro de Ayuda Legal y pagué

$300.00. Pero cuando el caso salió en la corte, el abogado ni siquiera se

presentó.”

Quizá, debemos de examinar más de cerca el “pro bono”. Me doy plena

cuenta de que es el dinero que hace que funcione el correo, y que el

sacrificium no pagará el salario de la secretaria, la cuenta de electricidad ni

las reparaciones de la computadora. Sin embargo, estoy convencido de que

a menos que aquellos de nosotros en la sociedad quienes nos hallamos

privilegiados por dinero o posición hagamos más para el bienestar común,

nuestro país se convertirá en una jungla mas fría y mas salvaje donde

ninguno de nosotros se hallará a salvo. El reciente brutal asesinato de una

joven de considerable riqueza me recordó lo urgente que actuemos mucho

mas frecuentemente “propter salutem nostram” sino, de hecho, “pro bono”.

Segundo, es urgente que nos demos cuenta de que cada uno de los

participantes en el sistema lleve a cabo su papel con cada vez más serieded y

dedicación.

Los símbolos eternos para las cortes son la balanza y la mujer vendada. Simbolizando el ideal que nadie se halla por encima de la ley y que la justicia es siempre equilibrada, no importa de quien se trate. Quizá en nuestro contexto contemporáneo sea necesario un símbolo diferente para reflejar la realidad de que esos ideales nobles no pueden ser logrados a menos que los administradores de justicia sean completamente competentes.

Esto introduce el muy importante elemento humano – los agentes de la

justicia: el juez, el magistrado, el fiscal, el abogado defensor, el oficial de

arresto, el miembro del jurado. Todos estos deben estar preparados y ser

competentes y encima de todo, motivados a dar lo mejor de sí mismos en el

desempeño de sus deberes.

Con el más grande respeto, me gustaría sugerir que de vez en cuando quizá

surgan deficiencias en todos los participantes.

Por ejemplo, recientemente me llegó la siguiente queja:

Señor, desde 1993 llevé un caso civil ante la corte. El caso fue escuchado en

1998 y concluyó. Pero, Señor, hasta el día de hoy yo ignoro cual fue el

resultado de ese juicio.”

Qué fue lo que Hamlet, el Príncipe de Dinamarca, tuvo para decir acerca del

“retraso de la ley”? Si un ciudadano no recibe justicia de nuestra Corte

Suprema, adonde más puede ir? Adonde?

El fiscal también debe desplegar buen juicio y mantenerse al día con las

nuevas leyes; y con una resolución concienzuda y meticulosa hacer un

esfuerzo de lograr que su mayor ingenuidad comprenda el mal que se ha

cometido y cómo presentar eso a la corte de tal manera que el demandante

reciba justicia. Dónde está esa justicia si un niño que es violado va a la

corte solo para oír que su violador solo es hallado culpable de dañar un

vestido de $15.00? Salta a la vista que quizá no se siguieron los

procedimientos adecuados. Yo tendría mucho trabajo en solamente

imaginarme que se llevó a cabo un intento deliberado para no colocar la

acusación correcta contra el supuesto violador por alguna liviana razón.

El acusado, el abogado de defensa en obediencia a las mas elevadas normas

de ética de su noble profesión, también debe de hacer todo a su alcance, con

una buena conciencia, para lograr que se haga justicia a su cliente.

Solamente formulo la pregunta, ni imaginar siquiera de que sea yo tan

presuntuoso como para creerme la conciencia de esta respetable reunión.

Pero, debo de decirles de que recientemente vino a mí una persona quien

había sido otorgada una compensación en un caso en la Corte Suprema. La

persona dijo, en esencia, “Luego de concluído el caso en la corte, hablé con

mi abogado y me dijo de que yo tendría que pagarle una cantidad de dinero

para que el archivara los documentos para que así se me pagara lo debido.

Yo le dí a ver de que él recibiría un porcentaje.”

Debo de confesar mi total ignorancia de de la forma en que funciona la

Asociación de Abogados de Belice. Sin embargo, desde mi pocisión de no

realmente saber, aún así me atrevo a preguntar si esta asociación de expertos

caballeros tiene algún mecanismo en funciones para regularizar las

actividades de sus miembros, por lo menos hasta un límite mínimo. Nunca

ha sucedido, hasta donde yo sé, que algún abogado en Belice halla sido

llevado ante los tribunales por mal práctica. Me imagino que tal caso sería

carísimo y mas allá de la capacidad del hombre común. Me gustaría sugerir

que el principio de “propter salutem nostram” requiere que esta sea un area

sobre la cual necesitamos trabajar para hacer de la mal práctica algo que

halla pasado de moda.

La policía también debe hacer su parte legal y eficientemente.

El otro día estaba yo viendo las noticias y pensé en mis adentros: “Caramba,

tengo algo por lo cual elogiar a la policía”. Un alto official fue mostrado

entre todos los artículos robados que fueron recuperados de las manos de

ladrones y asaltantes. Al otro día justo en el momento en que me preparaba

para escrivir una nota de felicitaciones, dos personas llegaron hasta mi

oficina y se quejaron de la siguiente forma:

Señor, soy ciego, difícilmente el tipo de persona que andaría robando. Ayer

por la mañana mientras todavía me halla dormido, tocaron a mi puerta. Ya

de que no puedo ver, no me levanté imediatamente, pero tocaron más duro y

mi esposa también se levantó. Cuando miramos por la ventana, mi esposa

vió la policía. “Sí Señor,” dije, “qué es lo que quieren?” “Hemos venido

buscando drogas, armas y municiones”. “Entren, señores, pero tienen una

autorisación de registro?” Ellos me mostraron un pedazo de papel que por

supuesto yo no podía leer. Entonces procedieron a registrar. Por supuesto

que no hallaron ni drogas, ni armas ni municiones. Pero se llevaron algunas

cosas que teníamos en un cuarto. Algunas son cosas viejas pero había

algunas cosas nuevas que acabábamos de recibir de mi hija en los Estados

Unidos….”

Mi entusiasmo por felicitar a la Policía entonces murió, ya que me puse a

pensar en voz alta si entonces la policía podría invadir mi casa o la suya sin

una debida autorisación, sencillamente bajo el pretexto de andar buscando

drogas? Confío de que lo que la confiscación de artículos de los ciudadanos

se basó en una causa razonable que fue expedida a raíz de alguna

investigación profesional, preliminar. Saco a la luz este asunto no en el

espíritu de condenar. No puedo, porque no estoy al tanto de todos los

hechos, pero al hacerlo, deseo expresar una creciente preocupación por el

uso cada vez mas escaso de la autorisación de registro.

Si los artículos de este ciudadano fueron confiscados injustamente, este

tendrá que cruzar un árido desierto antes de verlos de nuevo.

Y los alguaciles de la corte desempeñan un papel de suma importancia, pero

estos deben desempeñar sus deberes eficiente y efectivamente. He recibido

algunas quejas que relatan esta historia: caso concluído, compensación

otorgada. Pero las personas todavía no han recibido un solo centavo, ya que

la policía no ha producido la orden de detención.

En mi primera reunión con el Secretario del Gabinete, luego de que se me

nombró, se sugirió de que tal vez se me daría una oficina en el Edificio de la

Corte Suprema. Respondí: “no”. La Corte Suprema es un lugar que la gran

mayoría de Beliceños de mi generación miran con temor reverente, respeto y

admiración. Muchos de los jovenes también quizá dirían con orgullo:

Nunca he estado en la corte, y no tengo intenciones de poner mis pies dentro

de ese edificio por ninguna razón en absoluto.

Sin embargo, el edificio de la Corte Suprema de Belice es bello en su

sencilléz. Es compuesto de dos fachadas de proporciones y tamaño

geométricamente iguales, con una sala principal uniéndolas. Las fachadas

me recuerdan a la balanza de la justicia; la sala principal el equilibrio que

representa la justicia; y la torre es la Señora Justicia, resguardada allí para

asegurar que la balanza se incline adonde sea que se halle los hechos y la

verdad.

Pero, este edificio también trae recuerdos de una fortaleza, como aquellas de

los Romanos, los mas grandes amos coloniales hasta que llegaron los

Británicos, quienes las construyeron en cada puesto de avanzada a medida

que se adentraban en lo que ellos llamaban, las tierras bárbaras. Sin

embargo, su experiencia les enseñó que la fortaleza misma, repleta como

estuviera con la maquinaria militar mas eficiente del día, no era suficiente

para hacer frente a las incursiones de guerreros celosos y hostiles. La jungla

por millas a la redonda tenía que ser arrasada para que se pudiera detectar

todo movimiento de fuerzas guerrilleras o franco tiradores. Ingenieros y

soldados trabajaron juntos para continuar extendiendo los límites de

civilisación.

Ustedes miembros del partido y de la ley, deben ahora más que nunca ser

como los ingenieros de Roma, no méramente manteniendo guardia sobre los

baluartes, sino que ocasionalmente saliendo de la fortaleza para extender la

lucha contra los bárbaros contemporáneos quienes atacan a la sociedad por

medio de drogas, deshonestidad, y otras formas de falta de respeto a los

principios de conducta civilizada.

Belice ahora tiene en sus filas a otro soldado para vigilar los baluartes – el

Protector del Interés Público (de aquí en adelante referido como el

Ombudsman). Una criatura híbrida, es agente supervisor del Ejecutivo,

Oficial de parlamento, y otorgado la pocisión de juez de la Corte Suprema,

en algunos aspectos. Su papel es principalmente definido en el Acta No. 7

de 1994. Cuando la Comisión para Reforma Política entregó su reporte, su

recomendación en cuanto al Ombudsman era de que su papel sería como

aquel descrito en ese decreto por tiempo limitado, una pocisión que me

causó placer. Aunque tiene el estado legal de juez; al igual que los

miembros de la Abogacía, no tiene poder ejecutivo alguno. Como ellos,

también, aunque no tenga poder ejecutivo, no debe solo de mantener guardia

sobre los baluartes, sino también desplazarse dentro de los perimetros de la

civilisación.

Hablando personalmente, no creo en ninguna utopia seglar, y no creo que

jamás halla existido Atlántida. Sin embargo, creo suma y fervientemente en

la Ciudad de Dios, la Nueva Jerusalén. En ese lugar habrá justicia, pero

también habrá mucha mas justicia y compasión. Esto quizá explique porqué

me sentí tan entusiasmado cuando escuché hace algunas semanas acerca de

una conferencia sobre penología y derechos humanos. El entusiasmo venció

toda timidéz de pedir una invitación Conseguí una, pero me desilusinó la

asistencia. Creí de que el concepto de condenas alternativas sería discutido,

como por ejemplo, imponer alguna otra medida de rehabilitación en vez de

sentenciar a un joven de 16 años a 6 meses en prisión en Hattieville por

fumarse un cigarrillo de mariguana. “La calidad de la misericordia no es

forzada”.

La Civilisación no puede perdurar sin la justicia, pero tampoco puede la

democracia sobrevivir sin misericordia y compasión, ya de que es atravéz

de sus puertas que traeremos al pobre, al de escasos recursos, al aíslado de la

sociedad, cuyos hijos no permitirán que nosotros vivamos en páz a menos

que se utilize el látigo del opresor, lo cual sabemos que no representa una

opción viable en un mundo que se dirige hacia una cultura de respeto para

todos los derechos humanos. Por lo tanto, “propter salutem nostram” es tan

solo una manera adornada de decir que si nada más nos motiva a ser más

proactivos, por lo menos auto interés esclarecido, debería.

Mensaje Navideño La Pascua es la celebracion del Nacimiento de Jesu Christo. Hace 20 sigles el

hijo del padre todopodereso se vistio con nuestra humanidad y se volvio hombre.

Este fenomeno historico es la causa de nuestra alegria.

Imagense que siendo pobre, algun dia se llegase a su casa un principe, muy

guapo y rico para casarse con su hija. Seria este evento gran causa para la

alegria. La realidad navideña es mucho mas que esto, porque Dios

todopoderoso por su encarnacion se hizo hermano de todo ser humano. Usted

es hermano de Dios. Ella es hermana de Dios. í Yo say hermano de Dios!

íEntonces cuan grande es nuestra dignidad! Esta creyencia es la base del

concepto de los derechos humanos. Y por eso, la persona que lucha para llevar

acabo el trabajo de los derechos humanos esta haciedo un trabajo casi divino.

Dediquemosnos con mas fuerza a esta cultura del respeto de todos, sean lo que

sean.

NECESITA AYUDA?

EL OMBUDSMAN QUIZA PUEDA AYUDARLE

SI PIENSA QUE USTED HA SIDO

TRATADO INJUSTAMENTE POR CUALQUIER

AUTORIDAD DE GOBIERNO

Publicado por el Ombudsman de Belice

Impreso en Belice por Impresoras Gubernamentales

QUE ES UN OMBUDSMAN?

Un Ombudsman es un Comisionado Parlamentario independiente nombrado

por el Gobernador-General actuando de acuerdo con recomendaciones de

ambas Cámaras de la Asamblea Nacional.

CON QUE ASUNTOS TRATA EL OMBUDSMAN?

El Ombudsman investiga quejas hechas por cualquier persona o conjunto de

personas quienes dicen haber experimentadio injusticia, agravio, o abuso

(incluyendo cualquier acto de falta de cortesía o negativa a actuar, o

cualquier acto motivado por discriminación basado en religión, idioma, raza,

color o credo), o quien dice que una autoridad ha sido culpable de

corrupción u otra fechoría o maldad.

Quejas solo serán recibidas por el Ombudsman con respecto a las siguientes

autoridades gubernamentales:

- Un Ministerio, departamento o agencia de Gobierno

- La Fuerza de Defensa de Belice

- Un Ayuntamiento o Junta Municipal

- Otros organismos legales o autoridades, incluyendo cualquier

empresa en la cual el gobierno o agencia de gobierno sea

propietario del no menos de 51%

COMO PUEDE AYUDAR EL OMBUDSMAN?

El Ombudsman investiga las circumstancias dando lugar a la queja para así

poder establecer los hechos. Habiendo logrado esto, él forma su opinión

independiente, e informa al oficial principal de la autoridad correspondiente

acerca del resultado de la investigación, y puede, según lo vea necesario

hacer recomendaciones para que se tome acción dentro de un período

específico.

Si no se toma acción dentro del tiempo específico, o dentro de un tiempo

razonable, el Ombudsman enviará un reporte especial a la Asamblea

Nacional. Mientras que éste es el alcance de los poderes del Ombudsman

para hacer valer una recomendación, la mayoría de sus recomendaciones

generalmente tienen buena posibilidad de ser aceptadas.

Muchas quejas son resueltas a la satisfacción de todos antes que surja la

necesidad de una recomendación formal.

En algunos casos, particularmente quejas acerca de retrasos, el Ombudsman

puede ser capáz de resolver el asunto informal y rápidamente.

OCASIONES EN QUE EL OMBUDSMAN NO PUEDE AYUDAR.

El Ombudsman no puede investigar quejas acerca de:

1. El inicio o conducta de procedimientos civiles o criminales en

cualquier corte de ley en Belice o ante cualquier corte internacional o

tribunal.

2. Cualquier acción tomada con respecto a órdenes o directrices a la

Fuerza de Defensa de Belice o sus miembros, o cualquier

procedimiento bajo el Acta de Defensa.

3. Acción tomada por el Ministro responsable por asuntos externos

relacionados a la extradición de una persona.

4. Cualquier decisión o acción por parte del Gobernador-General o la

Comisión de Servicios Públicos relacionados al nombramiento,

remoción o control diciplinario de cualquier persona.

5. La concesión de honores, condecoraciones y privilegios bajo el Acta

Nacional de Honores y Condecoraciones.(No. 22 de 1991)

6. Cualquier asunto que afecta la seguridad relaciones externas de

Belice.

7. Cualquier asunto implicando las acciones de cualquier organisación

del sector privado.

PUEDE UN OMBUDSMAN NEGARSE A TRATAR CON ALGUNA

QUEJA?

El Ombudsman puede negarse a investigar cuando:

En su opinión la persona debiera primero tratar de resolver el asunto

directamente con la autoridad correspondiente. Muchas veces quejas

pueden resolverse de esta manera sin que surga la necesidad de que

intervenga el Ombudsman.

La persona tiene a su alcance un remedio alterno razonable dentro de

los límites de la ley.

El demandante ha aplazado por mucho tiempo presentar la queja ante

el Ombudsman.

La queja es considerada trivial, o frívola, fastidiosa o no hecha de

buena fé.

Se considere que la persona no tiene suficiente interés personal en la

queja.

Teniendo en cuenta las circumstancias de la queja, no sea necesaria

ninguna investigación o mas investigación.

COMO PUEDO PRESENTAR UNA QUEJA?

Sencillamente ponga por escrito: –

lo que usted cree que se ha hecho mal

lo que le ha sucedido a usted como resultado

lo que usted cree debe de hacerse para enderezar el asunto

el nombre de la autoridad correspondiente

el nombre, dirección y número telefónico donde se le pueda contactar

a usted

Y envíe esto, junto con toda la correspondencia relevante, al Ombudsman.

La dirección se halla en la última página de este folleto.

Si usted desea conversar con alguien acerca de su queja antes de ponerla por

escrito o si tiene dificultad en poner el asunto por escrito, llame o visite la

oficina del Ombudsman y solicite ayuda.

CUANTO COSTARA?

Ni un solo centavo. No hay cobro por presentar una queja.

MANERA EN LA QUE SE PROCESA UNA QUEJA

Se recibe carta de queja en la oficina del Ombudsman

Carta reconociendo recibo es enviada al demandante

El Ombudsman repasa la queja para determinar si es un asunto que puede ser

investigado, y siendo así el caso, atravéz de cual oficina puede ser manejada

la queja.

Si el Ombudsman decide

investigar la queja los

documentos son referidos

al oficial de investigación identificado

en la carta de reconocimiento.

Si el Ombudsman decide no

investigar la queja, se le avisará

por escrito al demandante en

cuanto a las razones por las cuales

el asunto no puede ser examinado

por el Ombudsman. También se le

avisará al demandante de posibles

remedios alternos disponibles.

Aviso de Aviso de investigación

investigación enviado al departamento

enviado al demandante u organisación correspondiente.

Reporte e información

recibida del departamento

u organisación.

Material asesorado por

oficial investigador y el

Ombudsman y se obtiene

mas información según sea

necesario.

Atravéz de todo el proceso de

investigación al demandante se le

mantiene informado del progreso.

El Ombudsman se forma

su punto de vista

profesional

(a) Queja es sostenida (b) Queja no es sostenida

Se le avisa al departamento

al departamento u organisación

y se le invita a comentar

sobre los hallazgos.

Se le avisa al

demandante

y se le invita a comentar

sobre los hallazgos

Se reciben y se consideran Se reciben y consideran

comentarios comentarios

Después de considerar los comentarios recibidos, el Ombudsman forma una

opinión final en cuanto a la queja y avisa al demandante y el departamento u

organisación correspondientes.

OMBUDSMAN

La Oficina del Ombudsman se encuentra localizada en:

56 Regent Street

Belize City

Teléfono:

Oficina: (02) 70967

(02) 70985

Después de horas normales de trabajo:

Las horas de trabajo son:

9:00 am - 1:00 pm

2:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Número de fax: (02) 70967

Paul Rodriguez

Ombudsman

HOW DO WE FIGHT CORRUPTION? According to the SOURCE BOOK, “the elements of a serious and concerted reform effort must therefore include: “ 1) a clear commitment by political leaders to combat corruption

whenever it occurs and to submit themselves to scrutiny; “ 2) primary emphasis on prevention of future corruption and on

changing systems (rather than indulging in witch hunts); “3) the adoption of comprehensive anti-corruption legislation

implemented by agencies of manifest integrity (including investigators, prosecutors, and adjudicators);

“4) the identification of those government activities most prone to

corruption and a review of both substantive law and administrative procedures;

“5) a program to ensure that salaries of civil servants and political

leaders adequately reflect the responsibilities of their posts and are as comparable as possible with those in the private sector;

“6) a study of legal and administrative remedies to be sure that they

provide adequate deterrence; “7) the creation of a partnership between government and civil society

(including the private sector, professions, religious organizations); “8) making corruption a “high risk” and “low profit” undertaking.

NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEMS Note: this chapter is a condensation of the Transparency International Source Book.

Corruption is found in every society. Something has gone wrong in the relationship between society and the state, corruption is becoming pervasive. We read about it everyday – public service has been replaced by private greed, and national integrity systems, intended to contain corruption, are failing. However, combating corruption is not an end in itself, it is not a blinkered crusade to right the wrongs of the world. Rather, the struggle against malfeasance is part of the broader goal of creating more effective, fair and efficient government. Reformers are not just concerned with countering corruption per se, but with reversing its negative impact on development and society as a whole. The wise reformer knows that corruption can never be entirely eliminated. Under many realistic conditions, it will simply be too expensive to do so. A single-minded focus on prevention can have a negative impact on personal freedoms and fundamental human rights. Corrupt programs and services may be difficult to eliminate entirely; bureaucratic discretion (which often opens the door to corrupt decision-making) may continue to be necessary for effective administration; and stronger enforcement and deterrence is anything but cheap. Thus, the aim is to realize a fundamental increase in honesty – and so the efficiency and fairness – of government. So where should anti-corruption efforts start? The obvious point of entry is to gain an understanding of the underlying causes, loopholes and incentives which feed corrupt practice at any level. Understanding begins by dispelling the myth that corruption is a matter of “culture”. In most cultural contexts, public gifts are made openly and transparently; the Swiss numbered bank account is not a part of any country’s traditional culture; the people who live in societies where corruption is supposedly a “part of the way of life” generally bitterly resent the practice; and, bribes and payoffs are almost invariably illegal and criminal under the laws of the “cultures” involved. The next step is to ask the question what are the main types of corruption? The first type is “petty” or “survival” corruption practiced by civil servants who may be grossly underpaid and depend on small rents from the public to feed their families and pay school fees. There are some who would argue that this type of corruption helps firms and individuals circumvent government requirements – reducing delays and avoiding burdensome regulations and taxes. This view sees payoffs as nothing more than the “grease” needed to operate in a difficult environment. If not vigorously attacked, however, small-scale, facilitating bribes can feed on themselves to produce a corrupt spiral. Frequently too, petty

corruption is simply a downwards projection of much more damaging forms of corruption at higher levels. The “grand” corruption of high public officials often involves large, international bribes and “hidden” overseas bank accounts. It is frequently fostered by exporters from countries (in particular, the industrialized countries) which may offer tax breaks for the bribes paid and refuse to regard the trans-border corruption of public officials as being criminal behaviour. But this is not to say that corruption is limited to situations where the rules are either inefficiently restrictive or overly lax. Incentives to make and ask for pay-offs occur whenever a government official has economic power over a private firm or individual. It does not matter whether the power is justified or unjustified. Once a pattern of successful payoffs is institutionalized, corrupt officials have an incentive to raise the size of bribes demanded and to search for alternative ways to extract payments. Officials may refuse to serve clients unless a bribe is paid. They may design a major procurement project at too large a scale and with too much specialized equipment as a way of generating large bribes and keeping them hidden. They may accept payments to reveal secret information on privatization projects and to favour insiders. None of these examples represents the efficient use of pricing mechanisms in the public sector. All of them involve poor public and private choices and risk imposing large costs on society – costs which are often shouldered by those who can least afford to bear the burden. As such, governments and private citizens should not respond with tolerance. Instead, they must move vigorously to strengthen their national integrity systems. The policy response to combating corruption has several elements common to every society:

Reform of substantive programs;

Changes in the structure of government and its methods of assuring accountability;

Changes in moral and ethical attitudes;

And, perhaps most importantly, the involvement and support of government, the private business sector, and civil society.

Here accountability and attitude change are emphasized over the reform of programs to reduce corrupt incentives. Why? Because an integral part of the holistic approach to combating corruption is the concept of service delivery – bringing the public service closer to the “customer” (the public) and enhancing its cost-effectiveness through mechanisms of transparency and increased accountability. Accountability measures can often be put into effect relatively quickly and can help create a situation where corruption is no longer tolerated by most officials and citizens. Secondly, the techniques for introducing greater

accountability are relatively well-understood and appear to be transferable between nations. By contrast, substantive policy reform, involving such tasks as reform of the regulatory and tax systems and the elimination of unjustified bribe-generating programs, is likely to be a more difficult and time consuming task. It is not a “quick win” situation upon which a series of reforms can be built. It is also an undertaking that must be geared to the particular needs and problems of each individual nation state-an undertaking which cannot be fully addressed within these confines. Successful anti-corruption reform efforts have been rare and unfortunately the failures have been numerous. This should not be viewed as discouraging, but rather as a learning process…

The elements of a serious and concerted reform efforts therefore include:

1. a clear commitment by political leaders to combat corruption wherever it

occurs and to submit themselves to scrutiny; 2. primary emphasis on prevention of future corruption and on changing

systems (rather than indulging in witch-hunts); 3. the adoption of comprehensive anti-corruption legislation implemented

by agencies of manifest integrity (including investigators); 4. the identification of those government activities most prone to corruption

and a review of both substantive law and administrative procedures; 5. a program to ensure that salaries of civil servants and political leaders

adequately reflect the responsibilities of their posts and are as comparable as possible with those in the private sector;

6. a study of legal and administrative remedies to be sure that they provide adequate deterrence;

7. the creation of a partnership between government and civil society (including the private sector. Professions, religious organizations);

8. making corruption a “high risk” and “low profit” undertaking.

Bearing all of those points in mind, the development of a coherent, comprehensive strategy must involve an attack on several fronts. Most countries, however, will not be able to do everything at once. Dedicated reformers need to decide where the greatest problems lie and what kinds of policies will be most effective. They also need to recognize the interconnections between different strategies: removing controls on the freedom of the press will have little impact if reporters do not have adequate access to government data, as will anti-corruption laws if law enforcement is weak and corrupt. Five main areas of reform which can help implement an overall anti-corruption strategy are: 1. public programs, 2. government reorganization, 3. law

enforcement, 4. public awareness, and, 5. the creation of institutions to prevent corruption.

1. Public Programs

The discretionary power of Public officials, and the corresponding opportunities for abuse of power, can be reduced through a broad set of reforms targeting the reorganization and reform of public programs. These changes will not simply diminish the incentive to pay bribes but also streamline business transactions of all sorts and improve people’s access to public services generally. Reforms may include eliminating corrupt programs which do not enjoy a strong public policy justification- some programs may have little to recommend their continuance beyond their ability to produce personal benefits for officials! Another option is to simplify programs and procedures to make them more efficient. Eliminating “gatekeepers” who are in a position to collect illegal tolls from users, or streamlining the steps required to gain government approvals, serves to reduce the opportunities for delay and discretion – the breeding ground of corrupt practice. What are the other options for program reform? When payments by clients would actually help to improve efficiency and would not violate distributive justice norms – legalize the sale of government services to the highest qualified bidders. Minimize areas of bureaucratic discretion. When discretion must be retained, officials should be given clear, written guidelines on the exercise of their duties. Privatization of state enterprises can also reduce corrupt opportunities within government. Reduce the “monopoly power” of bureaucrats by providing rival sources of supply – let people apply for a driver’s license at any motor vehicle office or let businesses obtain operating licenses from any of several officials or offices. Conversely, give police forces overlapping jurisdictions so that no officials can guarantee a lawbreaker that he/she will not be arrested. 2. Government Reorganization The list of potential reforms to government programs is a long one. Rather than involving the reform of specific programs, preventing corruption through government reorganization involves changing the way the government actually does business. How can this be achieved? By paying a living wage to civil servants and politicians so that an honest career in government is a reasonable choice for qualified people.

By demystifying and depersonalizing government – informing citizens of their legal rights in dealing with government, publishing staff manuals which are easily accessible to department users and contractors, and minimizing face-to-face contact by introducing random elements (such as staff rotation) so that users cannot predict the officials with whom they may be dealing. The range of options for changing governments’ ways of operating is extensive. A few suggestions include:

Develop internal financial management systems that ensure adequate and effective controls over the use of resources;

Establish other types of internal oversight mechanisms to provide speedy and effective review of contentious decisions;

Assure the adequacy of judicial review of agency actions;

Make managers at all levels responsible for the activities of their subordinates;

Increase the effectiveness of supervision to enable superior officers to check and control the work of their staff;

Conduct surprise checks on the work of officers;

Require officials at management levels to certify that those they supervise comply with civil service regulations and laws;

Purge payrolls to eliminate “ghosts” and make their reappearance more difficult;

Implement effective monitoring of the assets, incomes, and liabilities of officials with decision-making powers;

Provide complaints channels to enable junior officials to complaint about their superior’s corruption;

Ensure that the press is free to expose corruption;

Establish mechanisms for civil society to be involved in a continuous process of government review;

Poll the public periodically on its perceptions of government service delivery;

Establish an open, genuinely competitive and transparent system of public procurement;

Involve “outsiders” (i.e. independent individuals who are not part of “the system”);

Force speedy decision-making in order to eliminate delay during which corruption can take place;

Encourage professional bodies (accountants, auditors, lawyers) to declare that participation in corrupt activities (including money-laundering) is unprofessional conduct and that corrupt members will be liable to expulsion or disbarment;

Require all gifts, hospitality etc. received by government officials and all political donations to be reported and recorded;

Review and enforce appropriate “conflict of interest” regulations (including the introduction of ethics programs and periodic group discussions of real-life ethical dilemmas drawn from their own experiences);

And, build coalitions of interest in support of corruption prevention, drawing on the private business sector and civil society.

3. Law Enforcement

No matter what the options are, reform within public programs and procedures cannot occur in isolation. Credible legal constraints must exist to back up administrative reform. Yet, in many countries neither the prosecutors nor the judiciary are well-respected, and the underlying laws are weak and ineffective. Several types of reforms need to be considered to strengthen the enforcement of anti-corruption incentives. Independent investigators, prosecutors, and adjudicators can be established in such a manner that they perform their professional duties in a transparently independent fashion and enforce the rule of law against all who breach it. Adequate powers of investigation and prosecution (consistent with international human rights norms) should also be provided for, including access to all government documentation, international mutual legal assistance arrangements with relevant countries, and a reexamination of the laws of evidence and the penalties for corruption to determine if they are appropriate to modern realities. Transparent mechanisms which lift any immunities which high public officials enjoy by reason of their office can also be integrated into the reform of enforcement measures, so can the development of channels for effective complaint-making, whether internally with the public service or by a member of the public, procedures for punishing those involved in corruption within the state but who are outside the jurisdiction of the state should also be seriously considered in the anti-corruption reform effort. Civil penalties, black-listing of corrupt firms, extradition arrangements, and other legal provisions which enable the profits of the corrupt to be seized and forfeited, inside or outside the country, are all powerful disincentives for the would-be corrupt.

4. Public Awareness

A common factor to all anti-corruption efforts, whether these efforts involve reforming public programs, reorganizing government, or strengthening enforcement, is that they must enjoy public support. Anti-corruption campaigns cannot succeed unless the public is behind them. If ordinary people and businesses at all levels of society are used to dealing with the state through a system of “payoffs”, it will be difficult to change attitudes. Yet such changes are essential if fundamental change is to occur.

People need to understand the seriousness of the corruption problem and what can be done about it – civil society groups (religious leaders, business organizations, professional associations and ad hoc groups), in partnership with government and the private sector, have an important role to play in raising public awareness of the harm done by corruption. Several steps can be taken. One of the first should be to ascertain what the public perception is regarding existing levels of corruption and where corruption takes place in order to provide a baseline against which the progress of anti-corruption reform can be measured. Secondly, the legal and administrative environment should provide an enabling environment for a free press. The freedom of the press will be aided by several measures, such as passing Freedom of Information laws giving private citizens, including journalists, access to government information; repealing or revising anti-defamation laws and “insult” laws to ensure that these cannot be used to threaten and fetter the press; ending press and media censorship; raising the professional standards of journalists; ending government discrimination (such as controlled access to newsprint, advertising) of certain media; and, ensuring that state-owned media employees can maintain professional standards of independence and responsibility.

5. Creation of Institutions

In addition, the environment in which civil society operates should be appropriate to a free and democratic society. Nongovernmental organizations and other civil society institutions should be easy to establish, (subject to concerns for the fraudulent use of the nonprofit format) and registration provisions should be simple and inexpensive, and registration should be a right, not a privilege.

A nation that is serious about fighting corruption may also need to establish new institutions or strengthen existing ones to specifically carry out some functions in the anti-corruption mandate. Although a number of different models exist, each must ensure that the institution is adequately staffed and funded. Otherwise, the long list of ineffective anti-corruption showpieces common throughout the world will only get longer. The options include establishing an Independent Commission Against Corruption, such as the one that exists in Hong Kong, with broad investigative and prosecutorial powers and a public education mandate. Such a Commission must be genuinely independent of the country’s rulers but subject to the rule of law or it risks becoming a force for repression in its own right. Another option is to strengthen the Office of the Auditor-General and the Office of the Ombudsman. The office-holders must be appointed in

a way that ensures the independence and professionalism of the office and reports stemming from these offices must be given widespread publicity, and the government must act to implement recommendations. Establishing an Office of the Contractor General would provide independent oversight of government contracting and performance. An Elections Commission may be needed to ensure independent and impartial review that does not favour any political party or group. The Commission would require transparency in all aspects of the elections system (except, of course, the casting of individual ballots), foster public participation in the monitoring process to build confidence, and provide for training political party officials to ensure their familiarity with the system and enable them to monitor it professionally. In addition, strengthened legislative mechanisms for accountability such as a public Accounts Committee is required to ensure public access to oversight proceedings.

Conclusion

What is one to do with all of this information? When a group of individuals in a country seeks to put the reduction of corruption on the policy agenda, how should they actually proceed? The sources of political power and policy influence will differ from system to system, but here are some suggestions which may apply to many different scenarios.

Begin by establishing a national integrity working group which draws together all the stakeholders within government together with coalition partners from outside government.

Then, analyze the existing frame work and identify areas for reform in order to develop an overall plan which includes short-term, medium term and long-term goals (including a public awareness-raising program), and assign responsibilities for follow-up action and reporting back to the working group.

Publicize the establishment of the working group and its overall plan and solicit inputs from the wider public.

Continue by seeking endorsement of the plan by the political leadership. Hold regular meetings of the working group and give appropriate publicity to its work, paying particular attention to achieving some “quick wins” to build public confidence. In the drive to implement anti-corruption reform – with all of its processes and procedures, choices and options – it is important to remember that it

is a long-term process which must be openly supported from the top and one in which attitudes and conduct must be taught and reinforced at all levels. Reform should initially only tackle issues where it can be most effective or where there is the most added value, bearing in mind the importance of timing and sequencing, and of building the public’s confidence in the transparency and accountability of the state.