Human-rights cases

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award

No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Jordan);No violation of Article 3+13 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Article 13 - Effective remedy;Right to an effective remedy);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) (Conditional) (Jordan);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Expulsion;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing) (Conditional) (Jordan)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae;Ratione temporis);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objections dismissed;Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Continuing situation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;General measures)

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Trial within a reasonable time);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Findings Regarding Department of Justice Investigation of Lauderdale County Youth Courts Meridian Police Department, and Mississippi Division of Youth Services Dear All: We write regarding the United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) investigation of allegations that the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (“MPD”), and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (“DYS”) are violating the - 2- constitutional rights of juveniles in Meridian who are referred for law enforcement action by public schools. On December 1, 2011, we notified the City of Meridian and Lauderdale County of our intent to conduct an investigation of MPD and the Youth Court pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”). On June 29, 2012, we notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of our investigation to include DYS. This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations to resolve the alleged constitutional violations in the administration of juvenile justice, we will not delay in filing for relief in federal court. We find reasonable cause to believe that these agencies’ administration of juvenile justice violates the constitutional rights of children in the City of Meridian and the County of Lauderdale under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.1 Based on the serious and longstanding nature of the violations, as well as these agencies’ refusal to cooperate with our investigation and provide reasonable access to information, we believe a federal lawsuit against the government entities and agents responsible for administering juvenile justice is necessary to vindicate the rights of the children in Meridian and Lauderdale County. Our preferred course of action would be to avoid contested litigation through your cooperation in our ongoing investigation and joint efforts to remedy constitutional deficiencies. SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations, DOJ, on behalf of the United States, will file a complaint in federal district court within 60 days. The suit would be filed against the City of Meridian, the County of Lauderdale, Lauderdale County Youth Court, Youth Court Judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young in their official capacities, the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (collectively referred to as “the entities”). It would allege the following causes of action: (1) The City of Meridian Violates the Fourth Amendment by Arresting Children Without Assessing Probable Cause; (2) Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges Violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process in the Youth Court Process; (3) Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process Rights in the Probationary Process; and 1 We have not yet reached a conclusion regarding whether any of the entities are violating the equal protection rights of children, or children's rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our investigation of these issues is ongoing. - 3- (4) The City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate Children’s Right to Substantive Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the basis for each allegation is described more fully below, in sum, the entities named above help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline, whereby, following referral of students who attend school in the Meridian Public School District (“District”) to law enforcement, the MPD, Youth Court, and DYS administer juvenile justice without regard

findings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions of confinement at the St. Tammany Parish Jail ("St. Tammany" or "Jail"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIPA"). During our investigation, we assessed St. Tammany's compliance with the Constitution, which requires the Jail to provide prisoners with humane conditions of confinement, including adequate mental health care. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIPA, we now write to inform you of our findings that St. Tammany fails to comply with the Constitution and of the steps St. Tammany needs to take to meet its obligations under the law. As described more fully below, we conclude that conditions of confinement at St. Tammany violate the constitutional rights of prisoners. In particular, we find that prisoners confined at St. Tammany do not receive adequate mental health care, including proper suicide prevention. As we were conducting our investigation, St. Tammany reported to us that it had begun to make necessary changes to its mental health care program. Many of these changes are consistent with or responsive to our critique and suggestions at the end of our onsite visit to the Jail. In October 2011, Jail officials submitted a letter detailing purported changes in policies, practices, and procedures including in the areas of mental health and substance abuse screening and assessment; the implementation of a suicide database and suicide watch log; increased psychiatric staffing, including hiring a masters-level social worker; abandoning its use of booking cages for housing prisoners with suicidal ideation; constructing five suicide-resistant cells, including one outfitted for physical restraints; eliminating its policy that allowed prisoners to self-administer medications; redrafting the mental health sections of its policies and -2- procedures; and expanding its quality improvement program. More recently, St. Tammany has provided information that will be of use to us in verifying the claimed structural and operational changes at the Jail. In our opinion, these purported changes are both significant and long overdue. St. Tammany has been cooperative throughout our investigation and receptive to our preliminary findings and initial recommendations. We commend St. Tammany’s stated efforts in enhancing mental health care at the facility. The changes described in the October 2011 letter, however, are a small part of the comprehensive reform necessary to ensure that St. Tammany provides treatment to prisoners in a manner that comports with the Constitution. Many of the changes described are either in the planning stages or too newly-initiated to allow for close assessment. Other announced changes have encountered barriers in implementation, and some of our concerns remain unaddressed. Institutional reform can only occur after deficient, broken systems are repaired, and we are encouraged that the Jail is taking some necessary steps to repair its deficient, broken mental health care system. St. Tammany is an integral part of the community’s public safety system. The constitutional treatment of prisoners in St. Tammany is not only an important legal obligation, but will have a direct effect of the success of prisoners on release and on public safety. As a result, we believe that a court enforceable agreement will be necessary to ensure sustainable reform. We look forward to beginning discussions with the Parish in the coming months to find an appropriate resolution. I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We have concluded that St. Tammany is deliberately indifferently to the mental health care needs of its prisoners. St. Tammany fails to provide minimally adequate mental health care to prisoners at St. Tammany in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This failure has led to the unneces

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Cameroon);Violation of Art. 3 (susbtantive aspect);Violation of Art. 13+3;Violation of Art. 5-1-f;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 6-2

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 5-3

Violation of Art. 5-1

Violation of Art. 5-1-c

No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-3;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Non-violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissble;No violation of Art. 6-1

Violation of Art. 5-5

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time)

Remainder inadmisible;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 11;Non-pecuniary damage - award