DOCSLIB.ORG

World Pre-Trial/Remand Imprisonment List (Second Edition) Roy Walmsley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
World Pre-Trial/Remand Imprisonment List (Second Edition) Roy Walmsley World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List (second edition) Roy Walmsley Introduction Key points The World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List gives CC Two and a half million people in pre-trial detention and details of the number of prisoners held in pre-trial other forms of remand imprisonment are recorded in this detention and other forms of remand imprisonment in 211 List. In addition it is believed that there are about 250,000 independent countries and dependent territories. It also such prisoners in China and, taking account of those in the shows the percentage of pre-trial/remand prisoners within countries on which official information is unavailable and of each national prison population and the pre-trial/remand those pre-trial detainees in police facilities who are omitted population rate (the number of pre-trial/remand prisoners from national totals, there will be close to three million per 100,000 of the national population). Information is also held in pre-trial detention and other forms of remand given on the trend in the pre-trial/remand population rate. imprisonment throughout the world. An estimate is made of the total world pre-trial/remand CC The total includes some 480,000 in the United States, population and attention is drawn to differences in the 255,000 in India, 195,000 in Brazil, 116,000 in Russia, level of pre-trial/remand imprisonment across the world. 107,000 in Mexico, 70,000 in the Philippines, 66,000 in The information is the latest available at the beginning of Thailand, 55,000 in Iran, 50,000 in both Indonesia and May 2014. Pakistan, 48,000 in Turkey, 47,000 in Bangladesh, 44,000 The International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS) in South Africa, 40,000 in Colombia, 37,000 in both Nigeria published in November 2013 the tenth edition of the and Peru, 35,000 in Venezuela, 32,000 in Morocco and World Prison Population List. This World Pre-trial/Remand 31,000 in Argentina. Imprisonment List (like the World Female Imprisonment CC In a majority of countries (56%) the proportion of the List, the second edition of which was published in 2012) total prison population who are in pre-trial/remand provides information about a specific section of the imprisonment is between 10% and 40%. But pre-trial/ prison population; both of them complement the World remand prisoners constitute more than 40% of the prison Prison Population List and the information which the ICPS population in about half the countries of Africa and the publishes and updates monthly in the World Prison Brief Americas and in South Central Asia and Western Asia. section of its website (www.prisonstudies.org). CC The countries with the highest proportion of the total prison In providing information about prisoners held in pre-trial population in pre-trial/remand imprisonment are: Comoros and other forms of remand imprisonment, this List refers (92%), Libya (87%), Liberia and Bolivia (both 83%), to those persons who, in connection with an alleged Democratic Republic of Congo (82%), Benin, Congo and offence or offences, are deprived of liberty following Lebanon (all 75%), Monaco (73%), Paraguay (72.5%), Haiti a judicial or other legal process but have not been (71%), Cameroon and Yemen (both 70%), Nigeria (69%), definitively sentenced by a court for the offence(s). They Bangladesh (68%), Philippines, Uruguay and Venezuela (all will be in one of five stages, although not all legal systems 67%) and India and Pakistan (both 66%) and not all cases will involve all five stages: • the ‘investigation’ stage, when they are being CC In a majority of countries (55%) the pre-trial/remand interrogated to see if there is justification for bringing a population rate is below 40 per 100,000 of the national court case against them; population. However, in the Americas only three countries do not exceed that level and thirteen countries have rates • the ‘awaiting trial’ stage, after the investigation has of more than 150 per 100,000. ended and a decision has been taken to bring a court case; CC Guam, the U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean, has the highest rate in the world, with 272 per 100,000 of the island’s • the ‘trial’ stage, while the trial is actually taking place; population, followed by Panama (261), Grenada (209), Belize • the stage when they have been convicted by the court (202), U.S. Virgin Islands (195), Uruguay (194), Antigua but not yet sentenced – the ‘convicted unsentenced’ & Barbuda (186), St Kitts & Nevis (181), Curacao (169), stage; and Seychelles (163), Barbados (162), Bahamas (159), Trinidad & Tobago (157), U.S.A. (153) and Anguilla-U.K (150). • the ‘awaiting final sentence’ stage, when they have been provisionally sentenced by the court but are CC The available trend information shows that the pre-trial/ awaiting the result of an appeal process which occurs remand population rate (the proportion of the national before the definitive sentence is confirmed. population that are in pre-trial/remand imprisonment) has grown in 98 countries and fallen in 80. In Africa and Asia The World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List has been it has fallen in more countries than it has grown but in compiled, like the World Prison Population List, from a Europe and Oceania it has grown in more countries than variety of sources. In almost all cases the original source it has fallen and in the Americas the rate has grown in 32 is the national prison administration of the country countries and fallen only in seven. concerned, or else the Ministry responsible for the prison administration. 1 World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List (second edition) Table 1 AFRICA Total number Date Percentage Estimated Pre-trial/remand Trend information in pre-trial/ of total national population rate (pre-trial/remand remand prison population (per 100,000 of population rate) imprisonment population (at date shown) national pop’n) Northern Africa Algeria 5,500 8/12 10.0% 36.57m 15 2000 32; 2004 31; 2008 20 Egypt 6,392 31/12/06 9.9% 73.61m 9 2001 16; 2005 12 Libya 4,440 15/9/13 87.2% 6.21m 71 2004 121; 2007 110; 2010 104 Morocco 32,626 30/9/12 46.2% 32.65m 100 2000 79; 2005 87; 2010 95 Sudan 3,893 /13 20.4% 37.96m 10 2003 4; 2011 7 Tunisia 13,000 11/13 52.0% 10.88m 119 not available Western Africa Benin 5,174 /10 74.9% 8.85m 58 2002 46; 2007 67 Burkina Faso 2,418 31/12/13 41.5% 18.17m 13 2000 11; 2005 10; 2010 12 Cape Verde 399 /12 29.6% 494,000 81 1999 65; 2010 66 Côte d’Ivoire c. 3,916 31/12/13 c. 44.0% 20.55m c. 19 2002 22; 2007 17 Gambia c. 300 31/12/13 c. 30.0% 1.88m c. 16 1999 8; 2009 14 Ghana 3,012 7/10/13 21.4% 26.25m 11 2001 11; 2005 17; 2010 14 Guinea (Conakry) c. 1,690 /13 c. 65.0% 11.75m c. 14 2002 17; 2008 18 Liberia c. 1,516 /13 c. 83.0% 4.29m c. 35 2007 23; 2009 29 Mali 2,492 /13 50.2% 15.30m 16 2002 25; 2011 17 Mauritania 807 /13 48.5% 3.89m 21 2010 19 Niger 3,845 /13 54.0% 17.83m 22 2007 27; 2010 16 Nigeria 36,983 30/6/13 68.7% 170.23m 22 2000 22; 2005 20; 2010 22 Senegal 3,491 21/12/12 41.4% 13.24m 26 2000 18; 2005 19; 2008 23 Sierra Leone 1,913 18/9/13 58.3% 6.12m 31 2005 14; 2009 19 Togo 2,648 /13 61.8% 6.41m 41 not available Central Africa Angola 9,487 11/11 47.7% 19.81m 48 1999 29; 2003 23 Cameroon 16,800 12/11 70.0% 21.41m 78 2003 76; 2008 76 Chad 3,064 31/12/11 63.4% 12.26m 25 2005 20 Congo (Brazzaville) c. 975 31/12/12 75.0% 4.39m c. 22 not available Dem Rep of Congo c.18,000 /10 c. 82.0% 62.19m c. 29 not available Gabon c. 1,166 /13 c. 33.3% 1.67m c. 70 2006 78 Sao Tome e Principe 25 30/9/13 12.9% 194,000 13 2002 53; 2006 45; 2010 49 South Sudan c. 3,600 6/11 c. 45.0% 10.38m c. 35 not available Eastern Africa Burundi 4,035 31/12/13 51.8% 9.13m 44 2002 77; 2005 66; 2010 69 Comoros 189 10/13 91.7% 740,000 26 not available Djibouti c. 275 /13 c. 50.0% 873,000 c. 32 1999 47; 2011 44 Ethiopia 15,723 2009-10 14.0% 82.44m 19 1999-2000 48; 2004-05 33 Kenya 18,720 10/12 36.0% 42.97m 44 2001 45; 2005 61; 2009 51 Madagascar c. 9,921 /13 53.0% 22.48m c. 44 1999 88; 2005 78; 2010 38 Malawi 1,957 4/9/13 15.6% 16.35m 12 2001 19; 2005 17; 2010 8 Mauritius 1,052 16/1/13 39.5% 1.32m 80 2000 33; 2005 67; 2009 59 Mozambique 5,108 9/13 32.6% 25.10m 20 1999 49; 2008 23 Rwanda 3,952 31/12/12 7.1% 11.41m 35 not available Seychelles 144 13/8/12 24.3% 88,500 163 2006 33; 2010 148 Tanzania 17,224 17/10/13 50.1% 49.17m 35 2000 54; 2005 52; 2010 44 Uganda c.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prisons in Yemen
    [PEACEW RKS [ PRISONS IN YEMEN Fiona Mangan with Erica Gaston ABOUT THE REPORT This report examines the prison system in Yemen from a systems perspective. Part of a three-year United States Institute of Peace (USIP) rule of law project on the post-Arab Spring transition period in Yemen, the study was supported by the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau of the U.S. State Department. With permission from the Yemeni Ministry of Interior and the Yemeni Prison Authority, the research team—authors Fiona Mangan and Erica Gaston for USIP, Aiman al-Eryani and Taha Yaseen of the Yemen Polling Center, and consultant Lamis Alhamedy—visited thirty-seven deten- tion facilities in six governorates to assess organizational function, infrastructure, prisoner well-being, and security. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Fiona Mangan is a senior program officer with the USIP Governance Law and Society Center. Her work focuses on prison reform, organized crime, justice, and security issues. She holds degrees from Columbia University, King’s College London, and University College Dublin. Erica Gaston is a human rights lawyer with seven years of experience in programming and research in Afghanistan on human rights and justice promotion. Her publications include books on the legal, ethical, and practical dilemmas emerging in modern conflict and crisis zones; studies mapping justice systems and outcomes in Afghanistan and Yemen; and thematic research and opinion pieces on rule of law issues in transitioning countries. She holds degrees from Stanford University and Harvard Law School. Cover photo: Covered Yard Area, Hodeida Central. Photo by Fiona Mangan. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Pre-Trial Detention
    Detention Monitoring Tool Factsheet Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal detention should be the exception rather than the procedure. rule. At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent reasonable suspicion of the person having committed of the total prison population worldwide. They are the offence, and where detention is necessary and legally presumed innocent until proven guilty but may proportionate to prevent them from absconding, be held in conditions that are worse than those for committing another offence, or interfering with the convicted prisoners and sometimes for years on end. course of justice during pending procedures. This means that pre-trial detention is not legitimate where Pre-trial detention undermines the chance of a fair these objectives can be achieved through other, less trial and the presumption of innocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Imprisonment: Where?
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. IMPRISONMENT: WHERE? -- --- - --5 DEC "1 '\918 Imprisonment: where? Institutions (prisons and remand houses) to which persons* sentenced to tenns of imprisonment may be committed There are various types of t)(ison in the Netherlands, each type being intended for a particular category of piisoner, for instance young persons or aduits, prisoners serving short-term or long-term sentenQ~S, men or women. Selection for any of these institutions takes into account: - age; - length of sentence. Another important factor is whether or not the person concerned wa~ already in custody when sentenced (i.e. on remand in a rgrnand house). Age As far as age is concerned, a distinction is drawn between adults (persons aged 23 and over} and young p1'lrsons (the 18 -23 age-group; in some cases, persons under 18 Or ;:,VGii persons of23 and 24). length of sentence When distinguishing between persons serving short-term and long-term sentences, the actual du ration of the sentence is taken into account, that is to say, the sentence imposed less any period spent in custody awaiting trial or sentence (Le. in preliminary detention). The length of sentence is important since, as already * the only establishment to which women sentenced to imprisonment are committed Is the Rotterdam Women's Prison; the information given in this pamphlet, therefore, refers only to male prisoners. 1 stated, a number of institutions are intended for prisoners serving short-term sentences and a number of others for those serving long-term sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Trial Detention Addressing Risk Factors to Prevent Torture and Ill-Treatment
    Detention Monitoring Tool Second edition FACTSHEET Pre-trial detention Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment ‘Long periods of pre-trial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons, exacerbating the existing problems as regards conditions and relations between the detainees and staff; they also add to the burden on the courts. From the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress.’ (UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture)1 1. Definition and context 2. What are the main standards? Remand prisoners are detained during criminal Because of its severe and often irreversible negative investigations and pending trial. Pre-trial detention is effects, international law requires that pre-trial detention not a sanction, but a measure to safeguard a criminal should be the exception rather than the rule. procedure. Pre-trial detention is only legitimate where there is a At any one time, an estimated 3.2 million people are reasonable suspicion of the person having committed behind bars awaiting trial, accounting for 30 per cent of the offence, and where detention is necessary and the total prison population worldwide. In some countries, proportionate to prevent them from absconding, pre-trial detainees reportedly constitute the majority of committing another offence, or interfering with the course the prison population, and in some settings even over of justice during pending procedures. This means that 90 per cent of detainees.2 They are legally presumed pre-trial detention is not legitimate where these objectives innocent until proven guilty but may be held in conditions can be achieved through other, less intrusive measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Prior to Adjudication
    CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal justice assessment toolkit 2 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna CUSTODIAL AND NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES Detention Prior to Adjudication Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit UNITED NATIONS New York, 2006 The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations, the Secretariat and Institutions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Belgian 2006 OSCE Chairmanship concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................ 1 2. OVERVIEW: GENERAL AND STATISTICAL DATA.................................................... 5 2.1 DETENTION TRENDS AND PROFILE OF PROCESS .................................... 5 2.2 LEGAL REPRESENTATION ............................................................................. 6 2.3 PROFILE OF DETAINEES................................................................................ 7 2.4 KEY CHALLENGES: OVERCROWDING, TB, AND HIV .................................. 7 2.5 QUALITY OF DATA........................................................................................... 8 3. LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oral Argument Of: Page
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ------------------- AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 19-251 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) OF CALIFORNIA, ) Respondent. ) -------------------) THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, ) Petitioner, ) v. ) No. 19-255 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) OF CALIFORNIA, ) Respondent. ) ------------------- Pages: 1 through 110 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: April 26, 2021 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 www.hrccourtreporters.com Official - Subject to Final Review 1 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 ------------------- 3 AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, ) 4 Petitioner, ) 5 v. ) No. 19-251 6 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 7 OF CALIFORNIA, ) 8 Respondent. ) 9 -------------------) 10 THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, ) 11 Petitioner, ) 12 v. ) No. 19-255 13 ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 14 OF CALIFORNIA, ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 ------------------- 17 Washington, D.C. 18 Monday, April 26, 2021 19 20 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 21 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States 22 at 10:00 a.m. 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 DEREK L. SHAFFER, ESQUIRE, Washington, D.C.; on behalf 4 of the Petitioners. 5 ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR, Acting Solicitor General, 6 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for 7 the United States, as amicus curiae, 8 supporting vacatur and remand. 9 AIMEE A. FEINBERG, Deputy Solicitor General, 10 Sacramento, California; on behalf of the 11 Respondent. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation Official - Subject to Final Review 3 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF: PAGE: 3 DEREK L.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrest, Remand and Awaiting Trial Syndrome in Criminal Justice: Fixing the Jigsaw to End Prison Congestion
    ARREST, REMAND AND AWAITING TRIAL SYNDROME IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: FIXING THE JIGSAW TO END PRISON CONGESTION A PAPER PRESENTED BY: HON. JUSTICE PETER. A. AKHIHIERO LL.B (HONS) IFE; LL.M LAGOS; B.L. AT THE LAW WEEK OF THE EKPOMA BRANCH OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (N.B.A) HELD AT EKPOMA ON FRIDAY 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 ARREST, REMAND AND AWAITING TRIAL SYNDROME IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE: FIXING THE JIGSAW TO END PRISON CONGESTION 1.01 INTRODUCTION: A viable criminal justice system is expected to secure the lives and property of members of the society. Crime prone societies will invariable result in low productivity, strife, discord, lawlessness and indiscipline. It is an invitation to the status of a failed State. This presentation will focus on the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria with particular references to the issues of arrest, remand and the challenges of awaiting trial suspects. In his dissertation on the subject of personal freedom, the Rt. Honourable Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls posited thus: “It must be matched with social security, by which I mean, the peace and good order of the community in which we live. The freedom of the just man is worth little to him if he can be preyed upon by the murderer or the thief. Every society must have the means to protect itself from marauders. It must have powers to arrest, to search and to imprison those who break its laws. So long as those powers are properly exercised, they are the safeguards of freedom. But powers may be abused, and if those powers are abused, there is no tyranny like them.”1 In safeguarding our freedoms, we need an efficient and effective criminal justice system that will protect us from the unwholesome activities of miscreants in our society.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Remand for Women
    Reset: Rethinking remand for women Key points • The presumption of innocence and the right • Under a law redolent of Victorian values, too to liberty are fundamental principles of a fair many women are remanded to prison for their criminal justice system. Remanding a person “own protection” to prison runs contrary to these key notions • The current approach to remand hearings and should be an exceptional measure penalises women – remand decision-making • Too often women are inappropriately needs to be rethought and reformed to remanded into custody – almost two-thirds of enable judges and magistrates to take a women remanded to prison by magistrates distinct approach to women are either found not guilty or are given a • Remand decisions for women are critically community outcome important and often complex and demanding. • The vast majority of women remanded to They need to be acknowledged as such prison to await trial or sentence could safely • In order to make fair and appropriate remand be released on bail, to the advantage of their decisions, judges and magistrates need families, their communities and the wider guidance and good information about those criminal justice system appearing before them, particularly women, • Being remanded to prison is a particularly and about the services they can access in devastating and punitive experience for the community women, and it is damaging to any children • The Howard League for Penal Reform is who depend on them working for significant legislative and practice • Foreign national and Black, Asian and reform of remand processes to ensure that minority ethnic women are even more likely women are only remanded to prison in the to be remanded without sufficient reason most exceptional and serious cases.
    [Show full text]
  • LIST of PRISONS (Updated 29/09/11)
    LIST OF PRISONS (Updated 29/09/11) PRISON ADDRESS TELEPHON FAX & CATEGORY E EMAIL HMP ACKLINGTON Nr. MORPETH, (01670) (01670) M C Northumberland 762300 762301 NE65 9XF HMP ALTCOURSE * Higher Lane, Fazakerley, (0151) 522 (0151) M L www.hmpaltcourse.co. LIVERPOOL L9 7LH 2000 522 2121 uk HMYOI ASHFIELD * Shortwood Road, (0117) 303 (0117) M J http://www.serco.com/ Pucklechurch BRISTOL 8000 303 8001 markets/homeaffairs/of BS16 9QJ fendermanagement/juv enilecustody/ashfield/in dex.asp HMP ASKHAM Askham Richard, YORK (01904) (01904) F O GRANGE YO23 3FT 772000 772001 HMYOI AYLESBURY Bierton Road, (01296) (01296) M YOI AYLESBURY, 444000 444001 Buckinghamshire HP20 1EH HMP BEDFORD St. Loyes Street, (01234) (01234) M L BEDFORD MK40 1HG 373000 273568 HMP BELMARSH Western Way, (020) 8331 (020) M L A Thamesmead, LONDON 4400 8331 4401 SE28 0EB HMP BIRMINGHAM * Winson Green Road, (0121) 345 (0121) M L www.hmpbirmingham.c BIRMINGHAM B18 4AS 2500 345 2501 o.uk HMP BLANTYRE Goudhurst, (01580) (01580) M C HOUSE CRANBROOK, Kent TN17 213200 213201 2NH HMP BLUNDESTON LOWESTOFT, Suffolk (01502) (01502) M C NR32 5BG 734500 734501 HMYOI BRINSFORD New Road, Featherstone, (01902) (01902) M YOI WOLVERHAMPTON 533450 533451 WV10 7PY HMP BRISTOL 19 Cambridge Road, (0117) 372 (0117) M L Horfield, BRISTOL BS7 3100 372 3113 8PS KEY 1 YOI – young offenders J – juveniles RC - remand centre RES – resettlement L – local HC – holding centre IRC – immigration removal centre CL – closed O open S-O – semi-open M – males F – females A B C D - Prisoner categories (see Prison Service
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Knell Tolls for Reparations in in Re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring 2008 THE DEATH KNELL TOLLS FOR REPARATIONS IN IN RE AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVE DESCENDANTS LITIGATION * CHRISTINA E. LUTZ Cite as: Christina E. Lutz, The Death Knell Tolls for Reparations in In re African- American Slave Descendants Litigation, 3 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 532 (2008), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v3-2/lutz.pdf. INTRODUCTION The Seventh Circuit, in its recent decision, In re Slave Descendants Litigation, dismissed the claims of plaintiffs seeking disgorgement of the profits earned by Northern companies as a result of their illegal involvement in slavery.1 It is the latest in a long line of reparations cases dismissed by courts for various reasons, including lack of standing and statute of limitations. Part One of this Comment outlines the history of Northern involvement in slavery. Part Two traces the legal hurdles faced by African American plaintiffs during and after the statutory time period in which to bring reparations claims. Part Three explores the law of reparations, and the relevant case law. Part Four of this Comment delineates the holdings of the district court and the Seventh Circuit opinion in Slave Descendants. Part Five explains the various tolling doctrines available to courts to remedy time-barred claims. Part Six * J.D. candidate, May 2008, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.A. 2000, Swarthmore College. 1 In re African American Slave Descendants Litigation (“Slave Descendants”), 471 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2006). 532 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 3, Issue 2 Spring 2008 outlines the manner in which the court should have applied the standard for equitable estoppel, and the considerations of efficiency, equity, and history such an application would have satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Detention
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 14079 06 June 2016 Administrative detention Report1 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Rapporteur: Lord Richard BALFE, United Kingdom, European Conservatives Group Summary The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights stresses the importance of the right to liberty and security guaranteed in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is worried that administrative detention has been abused in certain member States for purposes of punishing political opponents, obtaining confessions in the absence of a lawyer and/or under duress, or apparently for stifling peaceful protests. Regarding administrative detention as a tool to prevent terrorism or other threats to national security, the committee recalls that purely preventive detention of persons suspected of intending to commit a criminal offence is not permissible and points out that mere restrictions (as opposed to deprivation) of liberty are permissible in the interests of national security or public safety and for the prevention of crime. All member States concerned should refrain from using administrative detention in violation of Article 5. Instead, they should make use of available tools respecting human rights in order to protect national security or public safety. Giving examples of such tools, the committee recalls their legal requirements, including a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality. 1. Reference to committee: D oc. 12998, Reference 3900 of 1 October 2012. F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Doc. 14079 Report Contents Page A. Draft resolution......................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Explanatory memorandum by Lord Richard Balfe, rapporteur.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Response of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein to The
    CPT/Inf (2002) 34 Response of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Liechtenstein from 31 May to 2 June 1999 The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein has requested the publication of the CPT's report on the visit to Liechtenstein from 31 May to 2 June 1999 (see CPT/Inf (2002) 33) and of its response. The response, translated into English by the Liechtenstein authorities, is set out in this document. The German text of the response can be found on the CPT's website (www.cpt.coe.int). Strasbourg, 27 November 2002 Working Group Assistance to Detainees and Execution of Sentences Report to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on the questions, recommendations and comments arisen during the visit to Vaduz Prison and Police Station from 31st May to 2nd June, 1999 The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein wishes to give the following response to the questions, recommendations and comments stated in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) dated 9th December, 1999. B. Police custody 1. Preliminary remarks 8. Criminal suspects under detention by the police without a written instruction by the investigating judge are presented to the latter within 48 hours. Those criminal suspects under detention due to a judge’s written order are presented to the investigating judge within 24 hours.
    [Show full text]