The Court recalls that, as held in Henerico v. Tanzania,26 the Respondent
State bears the duty to act on judicial matters with due diligence and
expediency when the case is not complex, and the Applicant is in custody,
and does not contribute to delays.27 The Court further notes that delays in
proceedings involving serious crimes and facing – “well founded fear” of –
the death sentence are likely to cause anxiety and psychological distress,
and constitute inhuman and degrading treatment.28
108. Reference to the record reveals that the Respondent State justified the
delays mainly by advancing the practice of “first in first out” which is
observed in domestic courts. This Court considers that factors pertaining to
the operations of domestic courts should be justified with details on how
they apply to the circumstances of the Applicant.29 In the present case, the
Applicant being in custody and charged with murder which carries the death
penalty, docket management constraints put forward by the Respondent
State do not sufficiently justify why his trial only commenced after more than
six (6) years after his arrest.
109. Having affirmed the finding of undue delay, this Court stresses the causal
link between such delay and alleged suffering of the Applicant. As
established earlier in this judgment, the Applicant was charged two (2) years
after his arrest. Having pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, he had to
wait one (1) more year for the medical report to be produced, and about
three (3) years due to adjournments on prosecution request to summon
witnesses and contact a medical expert. In the circumstances, the average
person would suffer anxiety and depression as they deal with the
uncertainty inherent in the waiting. Notably, in this case, it appears that the
Applicant entertained not just “well founded fear” but certainty of execution.
26
See also Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), § 124.
Gozbert Henerico v. Tanzania, op. cit., § 86.
28 Al Saadon v. United Kingdom, ECHR, Application no. 61498/08, Judgment of 2 March 2010, §§ 136,
137; Bayarri v. Argentina IHRL 3060 (IACHR 2008) Judgment of 30 October 2008, §§ 81-87.
29 Ibid, 88.
27
29