prisoners, that they would curse and abuse them and had no mercy whatever on them, were treated more like brutes than human beings; that all the prisons were crowded." P. 205.

Short also swore that "if the said James Perry was imprisoned in either of the places above mentioned prior to December 1, 1911, that he must have suffered a miserable life." P. 205.

The allegations of the Answer, on this issue, amount merely to technical denials that Perry was forced to do labor on public works or that he was treated inhumanely without indicating that the Agent had any evidence on this point other than that submitted by the United States and the regulations of the jails, which, however, he did not submit. Even had the regulations been filed with his Answer, and if it were shown that there were provisions therein prohibiting the employment of detained persons upon public works and requiring a certain standard of treatment of prisoners, it would certainly not constitute evidence that such alleged regulations were not violated in the case of Perry, especially in view of the abundant contrary evidence in the record proving that Perry was forced to do penal servitude, was imprisoned with desperate felons, and was treated inhumanely.

The fact that conditions existed in the prisons of Panama making possible, in 1910 and 1911, the treatment of a prisoner as above set forth was acknowledged even by the President of the Republic when, in December 1911, he referred to them as "the generally demoralized conditions previously existing", annex E-5, p. 209; and by the Secretary of Fomento, when he reported that "The Chiriqui prison, at the end of last year, presented an unpleasant aspect, as much because of the bad condition of the buildings, etc., as the lack of organization in its internal system."

In view of all of the evidence in the case, it is submitted that the record establishes that Perry was forced to do

penal servitude and prison labor of the most degrading type, and that he was treated inhumanely, and not merely as an accused person, subsequently admitted to be innocent. The treatment accorded him amounted to punishment of the worst type, and would have been censurable, even had he been convicted and was serving a sentence in expiation of a heinous crime.

X. UNDER THE FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE RECORD, THE UNITED STATES, ON BEHALF OF JAMES PERRY, IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA UNDER THE CONVENTION OF JULY 28, 1926.

The Agent for Panama has denied in his Answer that the United States is entitled to an award. This technical denial is made in general terms, Answer, pp. 5 and 6, and is supported by no explanation or amplification in justification thereof.

In the Memorial of the claim against the Government of Panama, various cases have been cited to show the legal basis for the claim.

In the case of Knotts v. Mexico, 1929 Opinions of the Commissioners under the Convention of 1923, pp. 312314, an award was made by the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, based upon an arrest, for taxes, unwarranted under the law of Mexico and an imprisonment of 3 hours. The Commission considered the Government of Mexico liable because of the violation of Mexican law in the illegal arrest and rendered an award. The facts of that claim are analogous to the facts in the instant claim in so far as there was an arrest without warrant of law. The illegal arrest of Perry, however, was a much graver violation of his personal liberty because he was arrested without any legal warrant or order of arrest whatever and was detained for 11 days before an order for his arrest was issued, whereas Knotts' arrest was preceded by an order of an official, who, however, acted without legal

authorization. The Knotts decision is one of many giving effect to the rule imposing international liability for the denial to aliens of the protection of local law, and for their illegal arrest and detention.

In the case of Dyches v. Mexico, 1929 Opinions of the Commissioners under the Convention of 1923, pp. 193-198, there were involved extensive delays in the trial of the accused in violation of the applicable law of criminal procedure, thereby unduly extending the period of his trial and the final decision of his case. The Commission found that according to the admission of the accused he was guilty of some crime, and that no complaint can be found with the final decision in the matter, but that the illegal and unjustified delays, to the prejudice of the accused, were such that the Government of Mexico must be held liable. The Commission, consequently, granted an award. The facts are analogous to the instant claim in so far as the illegal delays in the criminal procedure are concerned; but again the Perry case was much more aggravated because, under Panamanian law, Perry's original arrest and detention were illegal; there was insufficient evidence either to justify his arrest and detention or to justify his being held for trial at any stage of the proceedings, and he was finally acquitted of the offense with which he was accused. The Dyches case gives effect to the rule that it is a violation of international law not to afford the protection of local law to an alien, particularly in regard to matters of criminal procedure, and in the event that he is not granted such protection, there arises an obligation to make indemnification. In the present claim, the action of the police and judicial authorities, as above set forth, was in many instances clearly in violation of Perry's rights under Panamanian law, and therefore he is entitled to indemnification under international law for the unjust and illegal treatment meted out to him by Panamanian authorities.

In the case of Turner v. Mexico, 1927 Opinions of the Commissioners under the Convention of 1923, pp.

416-421, the Commission found that although the arrest of the accused was legal under Mexican law, there was a detention pending trial longer than was warranted by applicable provisions of the law of criminal procedure and, referring to the fact that Turner should have been treated as an innocent person during this time, found the Government of Mexico liable. In this decision, the statement of the Mexican Commissioner is interesting:

"It appears clear to me, notwithstanding the vagueness of the evidence presented by both sides in this case, that Turner was held prisoner without being brought to trial for a period which could be from three to five months more than he should have been, according to Mexican law, and that this fact, which means a violation of human liberty, renders Mexico liable conformably with principles of international law." At p. 421.

The Mexican Commissioner rightfully recognizes, in this statement, the violation of international law in the failure to accord an alien the full protection of local law, with a resulting violation of human liberty. The facts in the Turner case and the present case are analogous in so far as concerns liability for delays in the criminal procedure, but Perry's case was much more aggravated by the fact that his arrest and detention were also illegal.

Arbitral tribunals have on numerous other occasions rendered awards on the ground that aliens have not been granted the full protection of local law in matters of criminal procedure. Among such instances may be cited the decision in the case of Chazen v. Mexico, 1931 Opinions of the Commissioners under the Convention of 1923, pp. 20-35, which was joined in by all three Commissioners, Alfaro, Nielsen, and MacGregor.

In the case of Faulkner v. Mexico, 1927 Opinions, pp. 86-96, the Commission found that the conditions of the place of Faulkner's detention and imprisonment were filthy and unsanitary and that his confinement under such conditions was in conflict with international law and entailed liability of the Mexican Government. The Commission rendered an award. The prison conditions in that

case were quite similar to the conditions of the prisons in which Perry was illegally confined, and it is submitted that the treatment accorded Perry in this regard was likewise in conflict with the standards of international law. The decision in the Faulkner case is likewise of interest because of the consideration regarding the amount of damages to be awarded in international claims based upon illegal imprisonment and detention. Referring to the Topaz case, Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 331, the Commission in the Faulkner case held that a fair amount of indemnification would be at the rate of $150 a day, which, it is submitted, is a fair amount in the instant case in view of the illegality of the proceedings against James Perry and his illegal detention for 6 months under the conditions above discussed.

In the case of Roberts v. Mexico, ibid., pp. 100-106, the Commission found that the arrest of Roberts was not shown to have been illegal, but that there was unnecessary and illegal delay in the criminal proceedings and that Roberts was held in prison under such conditions as amounted to "cruel and inhumane imprisonment"-the prison conditions being unsanitary, one large room without furniture being used for numerous prisoners, the food being coarse, et cetera. There is an analogy of the facts in that case to the present case except that Perry's arrest and detention were illegal, and, therefore, the enormity of the offense against him of much greater proportions. The decision in the Roberts case and those above discussed show that, under international law, even had there been legal grounds for Perry's arrest and detention, still there was a violation of international law in the illegal delays attending the investigation and trial, in the obsolete, unsanitary, and unhealthful conditions of the prisons in which he was incarcerated, and in the otherwise illegal treatment accorded him.

The final citation of the Memorial, Moore's Dig., vol. VI, p. 773, relates to convict labor required on the part of one accused. The full section, reads as follows: