The government and Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) continued jousting over the Michael Gayle case at the weekend with both sides trading charges about the rights group’s appearance before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) last week to seek compensation for Gayle’s family.

The first salvo was fired by Attorney-General A J Nicholson, who accused JFJ of using the case “as an opportunity for publicity”.

“Frankly, I am personally surprised that Jamaicans for Justice would seek to use press releases, press conferences and other means to ventilate issues that are now subject to both quasi-judicial consideration and settlement negotiations,” Nicholson said in a news release issued Saturday.

“Of course, they may believe that this is their prerogative,” he added. “One may wonder, however, whether it is the best way to secure the interests of Michael Gayle’s estate and his loved ones.”

However, in a swift response, JFJ executive director, Dr Carolyn Gomes, said the group took “grave exception” to Nicholson’s characterisation of their five years of work on the case as an opportunity for publicity and questioned whether the government’s call for friendly settlement was “simply an attempt to delay proceedings”.

Nicholson issued the news release after a JFJ legal team went to Washington D C early last week to argue the compensation case before the IACHR.

Twenty-six year-old Michael Gayle of Olympic Gardens, who was of unsound mind, was beaten to death in August 1999 in a Saturday night altercation with police and soldiers manning a roadblock during a curfew.

The death certificate stated that Gayle died from peritonitis due to traumatic rupture of the stomach. His death resulted in demonstrations by citizens of Olympic Gardens.

In March 2002, JFJ presented a petition to the IACHR on behalf of Jennie Cameron, Michael Gayle’s mother. The rights group argued that the Jamaican government was in violation of its human rights obligations in regards to the fatal beating of Gayle and its failure to investigate, prosecute and sentence the state agents responsible for his death.

After a year-long series of arguments, the commission, in March 2003, judged the petition admissible.

At last week’s hearing, Jamaicans for Justice asked the IACHR to mediate in the face of the failure of Gayle’s family and the government to reach an agreement on reparations in “friendly settlement” discussions.

According to Gomes, the government had failed to respond to Gayle’s family on specific points.

But on Saturday, Nicholson reiterated that the administration had accepted liability for Gayle’s death and was “prepared to continue negotiations with the representatives of Michael Gayle’s family to reach a friendly settlement”.

However, he scolded JFJ for pursuing adversarial proceedings against the government at the IACHR, describing them as “contrary to the spirit of friendly settlement negotiations”. The government, Nicholson added, was willing to co-operate. “. I hope they are, too,” he said.

But Gomes, in her response, reminded the attorney-general that in the nine months since his Chamber wrote to the IACHR, indicating that it would wish to explore the possibility of a friendly settlement in the Michael Gayle matter, it has not provided “a single written or verbal proposal towards this end”.

“We wish also to remind the attorney-general that JFJ had suggested to his Chambers that the hearing at the commission on March 2nd, 2004 would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to “respond to [JFJ’s] proposal with a concrete proposal for friendly settlement”. JFJ also suggested to his Chambers that the hearing would also provide the commission with an opportunity to “facilitate a constructive dialogue”.

Dr Gomes added that under the commission’s rules of proceedings, most matters before it are conducted by exchange of written arguments. She said that when one or other party to the petition asks for, and is granted, an opportunity for an oral hearing at a session of the IACHR, it is expected that both parties will avail themselves of the opportunity to put their case.

Added Dr Gomes: “It is in fact almost unheard of for one party to absent itself from a hearing. The absence of the government of Jamaica on March 2nd, 2004 is an embarrassment in front of the entire international community.”

But Nicholson countered that as a matter of general practice the government does not participate in hearings before the IACHR.

“Normally we respond to the commission through diplomatic channels, and present full responses in these cases,” he said.

“Jamaicans for Justice should be aware that this is the usual practice; so if they try to imply that we were absent out of disrespect for Michael Gayle’s family or for the commission, this would be simply misleading,” he said.