CLAIM on behalf of JAMES E. PERRY DOCKET REGISTRY NO. 1 Syllabus 1. Terms of the arbitral convention stating that the contracting parties were inspired by a desire to have effected "an equitable settlement of the claims of their respective citizens, thereby affording them just and adequate compensation for their losses and damages" and requiring the Tribunal to decide claims "in accordance with the principles of international law, justice and equity were held to require the Tribunal to be guided "rather by broad conceptions than by narrow interpretations". 2. Failure to accord to an alien his rights under local law in matters of arrest, imprisonment, and preliminary investigation of a criminal charge considered to be a proper matter to be taken into account by an international tribunal in determining liability of the government under international law. 3. Same finding with respect to the improper appraisement of the evidence or the improper application of local law during judicial proceedings. 4. Arrest and imprisonment without proper order and continuation of imprisonment "through the failure of the authorities to give his case proper attention" was "a violation of the principle of respect for the personal liberty of the individual recognized by" the local law. 5. Damages for illegal imprisonment computed at the rate of $57.50 per day, basis of computation not stated. SUMMARY OF FACTS On October 28, 1910, the claimant was accused by his American employer, John Everhart, of robbery of certain jewelry and other valuables from a trunk in Everhart's 33 room. He was arrested, upon Everhart's verbal complaint to a Panamanian policeman, and was taken to the Colón jail. Certain valuable personal papers were taken from him by the police, and these were never returned. The following day, October 29, Everhart and two witnesses were heard by the Funcionario de Instrucción, but these witnesses testified only as to words spoken by the accused. On November 1, 1910, the accused was given a hearing although, under local law, this should have taken place within 24 hours after arrest. A magistrate's order of detention was not issued until November 7, despite the fact that article 1557 of the Colombian Judicial Code, then in force in Panama, required that such order be given within 12 hours after the arrest. On November 25, the deposition of Maria Weston was taken. In it she testified as to remarks made to her by Everhart and certain conversations she had with the accused. On the same day, Everhart appeared and stated that he had given a screwdriver to one of his employees, that the screwdriver had been stolen from the employee, and was later found in a twisted condition in a clothes closet in the room where the robbery was alleged to have been committed. The Funcionario de Instrucción retained the case for investigation until December 9, 1910, when he turned it over to the Agent of the Public Ministry of the Municipal District of Colón, who recommended that the case be forwarded to the Second Judge of the Circuit. The case was referred by the latter to the Superior Judge of the Republic on December 20, 1910. Article 340 of Law 105 of 1890 provided that an accused person must be released unless there is at least one competent witness, or indicios graves that the accused committed the crime. Article 1627 of the Judicial Code lays down the same requirements for the issuance of an order for formal trial. The United States contended that the testimony taken did not constitute indicios graves, and that since there was no witness to the alleged offence the arrest, imprisonment, and trial were in violation of municipal law, and conse quently of international law, for which the Government of Panama must be held liable. After a further series of delays, which formed one of the bases of the claim, during which no further evidence was adduced, the accused was tried by a jury which unanimously voted acquittal on April 21, 1911, almost 6 months after his allegedly illegal arrest. The nature of the delays are fully set forth in the Brief of the United States, pp. 39-62, together with a detailed discussion of the applicable provisions of the Panamanian law of criminal procedure. The claimant was confined during these 175 days in local jails, which appear, at that period, to have been obsolete, unsanitary, and neglected. The United States founded the claim on behalf of Mr. Perry upon his illegal arrest and imprisonment in violation of the laws of Panama, upon cruel and degrading treatment, including forced labor, while confined in obsolete prisons, upon the wrongful seizure and withholding of his valuable private papers and upon the unnecessary and illegal delays in the criminal proceedings, in violation of the applicable municipal law, and consequently of international law. The Government of Panama joined issue on all these points, but adduced no evidence of any nature in support of its denials except a letter from the President of the Supreme Court of Panama showing that a particular person (whose opinion, with respect to the improper procedure observed by the authorities, was attached to the Memorial of the United States as annex C, p. 156) was not a registered attorney. EXTRACTS FROM BRIEF OF UNITED STATES IV. THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF JAMES PERRY WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE LAW OF PANAMA. The Judicial Code of the Republic of Colombia was applicable in the Republic of Panama in 1910 and 1911. Libro III of título III, capítulo IV of that code related |