A/51/40
A/51/40
United Nations
Report of the
Human Rights Committee
Volume II
General Assembly
Official Records • Fifty-first Session
Supplement No. 40 (A/51/40)
A/51/40
Report of the
Human Rights Committee
Volume II
General Assembly
Official Records • Fifty-first Session
Supplement No. 40 (A/51/40)
United Nations • New York, 1997
NOTE
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.
The present document contains annexes VIII and IX of the report of the Human Rights Committee. Chapters I to VIII and annexes I to VII and X are contained in volume I.
ISSN 0255-2353
[Original: English]
[7 May 1997]
CONTENTS
Chapter Paragraphs Page
I. ORGANIZATIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS
A. States parties to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
B. Sessions of the Human Rights Committee
C. Election, membership and attendance
D. Solemn declaration
E. Working groups
F. Other matters
G. Staff resources
H. Publicity for the work of the Committee
I. Documents and publications relating to the work
of the Committee
J. Adoption of the report
II. METHODS OF WORK OF THE COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF
THE COVENANT: OVERVIEW OF PRESENT WORKING METHODS
A. Consideration of initial reports and periodic
reports
B. Overdue reports
C. Follow-up to the Committee's activities under
article 40
D. Observations of States parties on the Committee's
concluding comments
E. Cooperation with other treaty-monitoring bodies
F. Reports submitted by States parties under
article 40
III. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
A. Reports submitted by States parties under
article 40
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Paragraphs Page
B. Observations of States parties on the Committee's
concluding comments
C. Special decisions of the Committee concerning
reports of particular States
IV. STATES THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS
UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
V. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES
UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
A. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Hong Kong)
B. Sweden
C. Estonia
D. Mauritius
E. Spain
F. Zambia
G. Guatemala
H. Nigeria (discussion at the fifty-sixth session)
I. Nigeria (continued at the fifty-seventh session)
J. Brazil
K. Peru
VI. GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE
VII. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL
PROTOCOL
A. Progress of work
B. Growth of the Committee's caseload under the
Optional Protocol
C. Approaches to examining communications under the
Optional Protocol
D. Individual opinions
E. Issues considered by the Committee
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Paragraphs Page
F. Effective remedy provided by a State party during
examination of a communication
G. Remedies called for under the Committee's views
H. Non-cooperation by States parties in respect of
pending cases
VIII. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
Annexes
I. STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND TO THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS AND STATES THAT
HAVE MADE THE DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE COVENANT AS AT
28 JULY 1996
A. States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
B. States parties to the Optional Protocol
C. Status of the Second Optional Protocol, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty
D. States which have made the declaration under article 41 of
the Covenant
E. Implementation of the Covenant in the new States that
constituted parts of former States parties to the Covenant
II. MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 1995-1996
III. SUBMISSION OF REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY STATES
PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT DURING THE PERIOD
UNDER REVIEW
IV. STATUS OF REPORTS CONSIDERED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW AND
OF REPORTS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
V. GENERAL COMMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE COVENANT
General comment No. 25 (57)
VI. OBSERVATIONS OF STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 5,
OF THE COVENANT
France
VII. STATES PARTIES' DELEGATIONS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE REPORTS BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS
FIFTY-FIFTH, FIFTY-SIXTH AND FIFTY-SEVENTH SESSIONS
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
VIII. VIEWS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4,
OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL
AND POLITICAL RIGHTS .............................................. 1
A. Communication No. 373/1989, Lennon Stephens v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 18 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) .............. 1
B. Communication No. 390/1990, Bernard Lubuto v. Zambia (views
adopted on 31 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) .............. 11
Appendix ...................................................... 16
C. Communications Nos. 422-424/1990, Aduayom et al. v. Togo
(views adopted on 12 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ........ 17
Appendix ...................................................... 23
D. Communication No. 434/1990, Lal Seerattan v. Trinidad and
Tobago (views adopted on 26 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) 25
E. Communication No. 454/1991, Enrique García Pons v. Spain
(views adopted on 30 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) ....... 30
F. Communication No. 459/1991, Osbourne Wright and Eric Harvey v.
Jamaica (views adopted on 27 October 1995, fifty-fifth
session) ...................................................... 35
G. Communication No. 461/1991, George Graham and Arthur Morrison
v. Jamaica (views adopted on 25 March 1996, fifty-sixth
session) ...................................................... 43
H. Communication No. 480/1991, José Luis García Fuenzalida v.
Ecuador (views adopted on 12 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) 50
I. Communication No. 505/1992, Kéténguéré Ackla v. Togo (views
adopted on 25 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ................ 57
J. Communication No. 512/1992, Daniel Pinto v. Trinidad and
Tobago (views adopted on 16 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) . 61
K. Communication No. 519/1992, Lyndon Marriott v. Jamaica
(views adopted on 27 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) ....... 67
L. Communication No. 521/1992, Vladimir Kulomin v. Hungary
(views adopted on 22 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ......... 73
Appendix ...................................................... 83
M. Communication No. 523/1992, Clyde Neptune v. Trinidad and
Tobago (views adopted on 16 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) . 84
N. Communication No. 527/1993, Uton Lewis v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 18 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 89
Appendix ...................................................... 97
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
O. Communication No. 537/1993, Paul Anthony Kelly v. Jamaica
(views adopted on 17 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ........ 98
P. Communication No. 540/1993, Celis Laureano v. Peru (views
adopted on 25 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ................ 108
Q. Communication No. 542/1993, Katombe L. Tshishimbi v. Zaire
(views adopted on 25 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ......... 116
R. Communication No. 546/1993, Rickly Burrell v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 18 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 121
S. Communication No. 563/1993, Nydia Bautista de Arellana v.
Colombia (views adopted on 27 October 1995, fifty-fifth
session) ...................................................... 132
T. Communication No. 566/1993, Ivan Somers v. Hungary (views
adopted on 23 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 144
U. Communication No. 571/1994, Eustace Henry and Everald Douglas
v. Jamaica (views adopted on 25 July 1996, fifty-seventh
session) ...................................................... 155
V. Communication No. 586/1994, Josef Frank Adam v. the Czech
Republic (views adopted on 23 July 1996, fifty-seventh
session) ...................................................... 165
Appendix ...................................................... 173
W. Communication No. 588/1994, Errol Johnson v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 22 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ................ 174
Appendix ...................................................... 183
X. Communication No. 589/1994, Crafton Tomlin v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 16 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 191
Y. Communication No. 596/1994, Dennie Chaplin v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 2 November 1995, fifty-fifth session) .............. 197
Appendix ...................................................... 205
Z. Communication No. 597/1994, Peter Grant v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 22 March 1996, fifty-sixth session) ................ 206
AA.Communication No. 598/1994, Carl Sterling v. Jamaica
(views adopted on 22 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ........ 214
BB.Communication No. 599/1994, Wayne Spence v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 18 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 219
Appendix ...................................................... 223
CC.Communication No. 600/1994, Dwayne Hylton v. Jamaica (views
adopted on 16 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 224
Appendix ...................................................... 230
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
IX. DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DECLARING COMMUNICATIONS
INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ............................ 231
A. Communication No. 472/1991, J. P. L. v. France (decision
adopted on 26 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) .............. 231
B. Communication No. 557/1993, X. v. Australia (decision adopted
on 16 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ....................... 235
C. Communication No. 573/1994, Harry Atkinson et al. v. Canada
(decision adopted on 31 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) .... 243
D. Communication No. 584/1994, Antonius Valentijn v. France
(decision adopted on 22 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ..... 253
E. Communication No. 608/1995, Franz Nahlik v. Austria (decision
adopted on 22 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ............... 259
Appendix ...................................................... 263
F. Communication No. 638/1995, Edward Lacika v. Canada (decision
adopted on 3 November 1995, fifty-fifth session) .............. 265
G. Communication No. 645/1995, Vaihere Bordes et al. v. France
(decision adopted on 22 July 1996, fifty-seventh session) ..... 267
H. Communication No. 656/1995, V. E. M. v. Spain (decision adopted
on 30 October 1995, fifty-fifth session) ...................... 274
I. Communication No. 657/1995, Gerrit van der Ent v. the
Netherlands (decision adopted on 3 November 1995, fifty-fifth
session) ...................................................... 276
J. Communication No. 660/1995, Cornelis J. Koning v. the
Netherlands (decision adopted on 3 November 1995, fifty-fifth
session) ...................................................... 278
K. Communication No. 664/1995, Gesina Kruyt-Amesz et al. v. the
Netherlands (decision adopted on 25 March 1996, fifty-sixth
session) ...................................................... 280
X. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD
ANNEX VIII
Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4,
of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights
A. Communication No. 373/1989, Lennon Stephens v. Jamaica
(views adopted on 18 October 1995, fifty-fifth session)
Submitted by: Lennon Stephens [represented by counsel]
Victim: The author
State party: Jamaica
Date of communication: 20 July 1989 (initial submission)
Date of decision on admissibility: 12 October 1994
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 18 October 1995,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 373/1989, submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Mr. Lennon Stephens under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts its views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.
1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 20 July 1989 and subsequent correspondence) is Lennon Stephens, a Jamaican sentenced to death in 1984, currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at the Rehabilitation Centre in Kingston. He resubmits his complaint, which had earlier, on 26 July 1988, been declared inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author had not then sought leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On 6 March 1989, the Judicial Committee dismissed the author's petition for special leave to appeal. The author now claims to be a victim of violations by Jamaica of article 7, article 9, paragraphs 2 to 4, article 10, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5, of the Covenant. He is represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 The author is accused of having murdered George Lawrence in the Parish of Westmoreland, at approximately 11 a.m. on 22 February 1983. The victim's body was never recovered. The prosecution relied on the evidence of three witnesses, who had been working together with, or in the vicinity of, the author on the property of a Mr. Williston at Charlemont, Westmoreland. Thus, witness Linford Richardson testified that he saw the author and the deceased "wrestling" when the gun was discharged. The same witness said that he saw the author wrap the body in tarpaulin and carry it away. A second witness, Sylvester Stone,
testified that he heard an explosion, ran outside and saw the author standing "over a man" who was lying on the ground. The third witness, a contractor, stated that he had seen the author running after "a man" (whom he did not identify), that the author caught up with the man, upon which both stopped. The witness testified that the author then took something from his pocket and gestured with it in the direction of the other man, upon which there was an explosion and the other man dropped to the ground.
2.2 The author contended, in a sworn statement during the trial, that on the day in question he was working on the property of Mr. Williston when the deceased approached him with something shaped like a gun under his waist and asked to see Mr. Williston. The author challenged Mr. Lawrence in the belief that the latter intended to harm Mr. Williston, whereupon the deceased went for the gun. The author wrestled with the deceased, and during the fight, the gun went off and the deceased fell to the ground. The author went home, told his mother what had happened and then surrendered to the police.
2.3 After surrendering to the police on 22 February 1983, the author was detained. It is submitted that the investigating officer, Detective Inspector Ben Lashley, only cautioned him on 2 March 1983, that is, eight days later, telling him that "he was conducting investigations into a case of murder" and that it was alleged "that he shot one George Lawrence".
2.4 The author was subsequently accused of murder and tried in the Westmoreland Circuit Court on 21 and 22 February 1984. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death on 22 February 1984. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 February 1987, nearly three years later. As stated before, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the author's petition for special leave to appeal on 6 March 1989.
2.5 As to the course of the trial, the author contends that the trial judge failed to direct the jury properly on the issue of self-defence, although he had indicated that he would do so. He further indicates that one of the prosecution witnesses was the deceased's uncle, who had had previous serious but unspecified differences with the author.
2.6 Throughout the trial and appeal, the author was represented by legal aid attorneys. A London law firm represented him pro bono before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
2.7 The author contends that he has exhausted domestic remedies. He notes that while he could theoretically still file a constitutional motion, that remedy is not in reality available to him, as he is destitute and no legal aid is made available by the State party for the purpose of constitutional motions.
The complaint
3.1 Counsel submits that Mr. Stephens is a victim of a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant because of his detention, for 7 years and 10 months, on death row. He notes that between his conviction in February 1984 and his classification as a non-capital offender,a the author was confined to death row under deplorable conditions, constantly facing the prospect of imminent execution. Counsel notes that such a prolonged period of detention under conditions of constant anxiety and "agony of suspense" amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7. Reference is made to the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Pratt and Morgan, in which the complainants' prolonged detention on death row was held to be contrary to section 17 (1) of the Jamaican Constitution.b
3.2 Counsel further claims a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because of the bad conditions of detention the author was, and remains, subjected to. He does so by reference to two reports from two non-governmental organizations on prison conditions in Jamaica (May 1990) and on deaths and ill-treatment of prisoners at St. Catherine District Prison, where the author was detained until December 1992. The reports complain about gross overcrowding, total lack of sanitation and medical or dental care, inadequate food in terms of nutrition, quantity and quality, and lengthy confinement in cells.
3.3 It is submitted that the circumstances of the author's pretrial detention amount to a violation of article 9, paragraphs 2 to 4, of the Covenant. Thus, the trial transcript reveals that the author was detained on 22 February 1983 but only "cautioned" eight days later (2 March 1983). That situation, it is submitted, is contrary to article 9, paragraph 2, which requires that a general description of the reasons for the arrest must be given when it occurs and that, subsequently, the specific legal reasons must be provided. It is claimed that in view of the eight-day delay between arrest and "cautioning", the author was not "promptly informed of any charges against him".
3.4 The situation described above is also said to amount to a violation of article 9, paragraph 3: as Mr. Stephens was only charged eight days after being detained, he was not "promptly" brought before a judicial officer within the meaning of that provision. Reference is made to a number of views adopted by the Committee.c Consequently, his rights under article 9, paragraph 4, were also violated, as he was not afforded in due course the opportunity to obtain, on his own initiative, a decision on the lawfulness of his detention by a court of law.
3.5 It is submitted that a delay of almost three years (35 and a half months) between conviction and appeal amounts to a violation of article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5, of the Covenant. Counsel concedes that the reasons for the delay remain unclear despite many attempts by his law firm and the Jamaica Council for Human Rights to contact the author's lawyer for the trial and to ascertain the reasons for the delay. He emphasizes, however, that Mr. Stephens did nothing to cause, or contribute to, the delay between his conviction and the hearing of the appeal. The same delay is also said to constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, by reference to the Committee's views in Muñoz v. Peru, in which it was held that "the concept of a fair hearing necessarily entails that justice be rendered without undue delay".d
3.6 Finally, counsel submits that the author has been subjected to ill-treatment by prison warders of St. Catherine District Prison, in violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Thus, in the course of 1991, a warder allegedly hit the author over the head until he lost consciousness and had to be taken to hospital. In a questionnaire filled out by the author for the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, he notes that "he still has problems with his right eye as a result". The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman was contacted about the matter, and his office, in a letter dated 21 September 1993 addressed to counsel, replied that the issue "would receive the most prompt attention". However, no further action had been taken by the Ombudsman as of the spring of 1994. Counsel argues that the author has exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of the complaint, as the lack of replies from the Ombudsman and other bodies in Jamaica has made it virtually impossible to pursue the complaint further.
The State party's information on admissibility and the author's comments thereon
4.1 On 15 September 1989, the communication was transmitted to the State party under rule 86 of the rules of procedure of the Committee; the State party was requested not to execute the author while his case was pending before the Committee. The State party was further informed that additional clarifications were being sought from the author and his counsel. Some limited clarifications from the author were received in 1990 and 1991. During the Committee's forty-fifth session, in July 1992, it was decided to transmit the communication to the State party under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, seeking information and observations about the admissibility of the case. The request under rule 86 was reiterated. Both requests were transmitted to the State party on 5 September 1992.
4.2 In a submission dated 27 April 1993, the State party regrets that "in the absence of a communication setting out the facts on which the author's complaints are based, as well as the articles of the Covenant which are alleged to have been violated, it will not be possible to prepare a response for the Committee". The submission crossed with a reminder sent to the State party by the Committee on 6 May 1993; on 28 July 1993, the State forwarded an additional submission.
4.3 In the latter submission, the State party notes that "it appears that the author is complaining of breaches of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant". In the State party's opinion, that complaint is inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Thus, the author retains the right to seek constitutional redress for the alleged violation of his rights, by way of constitutional motion. Furthermore, the author would be entitled "to bring a civil action for damages for assault in relation to any injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of ill-treatment during his incarceration. This is another remedy to be exhausted before the communication is eligible for consideration by the Committee."
5.1 In his comments on the State party submissions, dated 17 March 1994, counsel puts forward several new claims, which are detailed in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 to 3.5 above. In particular, he submits that a constitutional motion would not be an available and effective remedy in the circumstances of the author's case, as Mr. Stephens is penniless and no legal aid is made available for constitutional motions.
5.2 Counsel's comments were transmitted, together with all the enclosures, to the State party on 5 May 1994, with a further request for comments and observations on counsel's submission. No further submission had been received from the State party as of 30 September 1994.
The Committee's admissibility decision
6.1 The Committee considered the admissibility of the communication during its fifty-second session. It noted the State party's criticism referred to in paragraph 4.2 above but recalled that, under the Optional Protocol procedure, it was not necessary for an individual who claims to be a victim of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant explicitly to invoke the articles of the Covenant. It was clearly apparent from the material transmitted to the State party that the author complained about issues related to his conditions of detention and his right to a fair trial.
6.2 The Committee noted that part of the author's allegations related to the instructions given by the judge to the jury with regard to the evaluation of evidence and the question of whether self-defence arose in the case. It reaffirmed that it is in principle for the appellate courts of States parties to review specific instructions to the jury by the judge, unless it is clear that said instructions were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. The material before the Committee did not show that the judge's instructions to the jury in the case suffered from such defects; in particular, the issue of self-defence was put to the jury in some detail. That part of the communication was therefore deemed inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
6.3 Concerning the claims under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, relating to prison conditions in general, the Committee first noted that counsel had addressed the issue of prison conditions merely by reference to two reports from non-governmental organizations on prison conditions in Jamaica, without considering Mr. Stephens' personal situation on death row or at the Rehabilitation Centre in Kingston. It is further not apparent that the complaints had ever been brought to the attention of the competent Jamaican authorities. Accordingly, those claims were inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Protocol.
6.4 The Committee noted counsel's contention that the eight years and 10 months which Mr. Stephens spent on death row amounted to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. While that issue had not been placed before the Jamaican courts by way of constitutional motions, it was uncontested that no legal aid was made available for that purpose and that the author was dependent on legal aid. In the circumstances, the Committee did not consider a constitutional motion to be an effective remedy in respect of that claim.
6.5 With respect to the claim of the author's ill-treatment on death row during 1991, the Committee noted the State party's claim that the case was inadmissible because of the author's failure to file a constitutional motion under section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution. It recalled that the author and his counsel attempted to have the alleged ill-treatment of Mr. Stephens investigated, in particular by the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, but without result as of early 1994. It further recalled that the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Jamaica had, in recent cases, allowed applications for constitutional redress in respect of breaches of fundamental rights, after the criminal appeals in those cases were dismissed. It also recalls, however, that the State party had repeatedly indicated that no legal aid was available for constitutional motions; as a result, the Committee concluded that, in the absence of legal aid, it was not precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), from considering that aspect of the case.
6.6 Similar considerations applied to the author's claim under article 9, paragraphs 2 to 4, and article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5. While it was possible in theory for the author to file a constitutional motion, he was effectively barred from doing so in the absence of legal aid. Mutatis mutandis, the considerations in paragraph 6.4 above applied.
6.7 On 12 October 1994, the Committee declared the communication admissible insofar as it appeared to raise issues under article 7, article 9, paragraphs 2 to 4, article 10, paragraph 1, and article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5, of the Covenant.
The State party's observations on the merits and the author's comments thereon
7.1 In a submission dated 27 January 1995, the State party challenges counsel's reliance on the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of