WPCH ^ ~MYi[[?wY#;z`ڐ H!n|['_/J1$d!kTχqV" ?VO+kRrygK& -kͼ*e=맩\H% ^\ǫ*]q 9ߺ[2@wirSiu^rڮX yˎ~L'yBkKYH<+DtBN]AI0G67lǐn~j3RCO}j tF oGt`NJf3/߀ߪ:&"T%z',{ ßw_cO0m2;᫛7wP5tFii<^wd{cR+_8;L 'UA0 %" 0z" 0" I# 0=Z# 0F# 0P# 1-$ 0$ 1n% 0s&*' 0+E, 0, 0- 0T. 0&. 0& / 0&F/ 0&l/ 0&/ 0&/ 0&/ 0&0 0&*0 0(P0 0(x0 00 B22 D3O22 0H3 0C*4 A Mm4 B'4 0 4U+:m8 1 o89 0 : 0;Z> 0U@7A 0UB7C 07EF^3GH 0ZI^LcM 0#NYP@R^R6T 0: UYFWXM7Y 0ZY^S>_` 0}a 0"b 0vb 0%c 0c 0d 0Ee 0f 0f 0g 0zfh 0h 0i 0lj 0=k 0 l 0l 0m nno>Yn@U 0o>YC@!w!4! 0=!! 0K#$&,1'](:)"<*o^*t+"A-c-..92."k/4/"0"0,1122kf34"s55",6"N6:p67R8t9:P;<8/=g>"D?;f?"@ 0Q@ 1BBnB 0FG 1mGH mHV1 P8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..`   V$8Document[4]Document Style.. .   V ]8Document[6]Document Style8..  V 8Document[5]Document Style0..  V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   V1 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..`   z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. lE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. ) `CG Times'  &9711977.CVR 2 0mt (F):.A/51/40 (Vol. II) Suppl)(290 final pages  R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style( "   ( !($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( $ ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?t2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper &  'S(USUS.,'F` X'   $Xr[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^rXX?>('*dE*??>('*dE*?\\1\\2\\3\\4\\5\\6\\7\\8\\910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'   PM0HeadingChapter Heading@..    2I.3  Ԁ   Ԉ tZ 4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..   2I.3  Ԁ  0..LH6SubheadingSubheading   2A.3  ..    &$1&$2&$3&$4&$5&$6&$7&$8&$9(&10(&11j(.BorderPlaces border around the page X  X X  X G=8($Z L`".@@@G       Q=>>>>:*&Z Lp!(- @@Q       K Kd8888'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'   ($     :;<9A<< c dea0ukstyleFormat standard with headers and footers definitionUKUS.,  TRX3'3'3' Letter3'TX  +88@: fX fXC A $#C--B$882 X$<6X9`("Courier NewTT$57=EMS[ci121.(a)(i)a.(1)(a)i)a)  CS)USUS.,'F` X'   @:88r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r@$$$  13  ڄ(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'   (4landscapecodes for tables in landscape with headers/footers   TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'T  +EIL(  FS*USUS.,'F` X'   $X(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r=G>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'     HS"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r/...(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'     JS'USUS.,'F` X'   $X(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r=K>>>>QA=z|P.p p  @@EP.pP-Hz(2S$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'     HS"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r T '(  $X(o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=M>>>>QA=z|P.$# p  @@EP.  -8   HS"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r4landsuppllandscape with bottom centered pagination  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'TXH(XO T J'  $X(Xo[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=P>>>>QA=z|\ p  @@E\z@ H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ(B0landtoplandscape with header including top center pagination  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'T  +R]T$ O C)  $X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=S>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... T J'  $X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=U>>>>QA=z| 0\ p  @@E 0\~^D/\@ H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ@HHHhD2landbondlandscape with bond header  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'TWY$ O C)  $X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=X>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... C J'  $X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo~=>>>>B2.Z|P. @@EP.P-HD~=0frstyleFormat standard with headers and footers definitionFRUS.,  TRX3'3'3' Letter3'TXX  +88@:C A $#C--[\]$882 X$ C)  @:88o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo""X#/... I '(  @:88o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo X A/56/789 X  Fran ais Page  1    J'  @:88o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoA/56/789 X Fran aisPage  1  p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Leftb* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` T4Heading 1Centred Heading@a..a  h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph Font        88K ,toc 1toc 1   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  88K ,toc 2toc 2   ` !        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 3toc 3  ` !        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 4toc 4   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 5toc 5  h!        5+ ` hp x (#5  88K ,toc 6toc 6   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  8! ,toc 7toc 7            88K ,toc 8toc 8   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  88K ,toc 9toc 9   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  @;K 0index 1index 1  ` !        5+ ` hp x (#5  @8K 0index 2index 2   ` !        5+ ` hp x (#5  P5K 8toa headingtoa heading   !        5+ ` hp x (#5  @-" 0captioncaption       FR  US       ^:_Equation Ca_Equation Caption         <>N9711977E<><>A/51/40(Vol.II)(Suppl)<><><>pWPC  9513 ,, XF}G"?!   ?  ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? >? ?0 0 0  ??? ?        ?  ? ?   ? ??      ?8 ? ~   ??? ? ??? ? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ?? ??? ?0? x??????~??<???????????? ? ???8x???? ??????x  ?x ?   ?@ #? # #??>???????????? ?????`?`?  ?~??????????????????B8<BpC???C???C??B?B?`B??B??B???B??B???C???B???C??C??C*?C?G?C?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? p?>? <~p??>>x??>?8??<>8??<~??8?8???? ??? ?? ?? > <?   |? ??  x? ?? p?? ??? ?? `?? ?????????????????        ?   ?   ?   ? ?   ?       ?   ? p?#@x?#/?#??>?>?~?????????@ ????? ????????????????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??   ? ?  ? ?? 8? >???   ? ?  ? `?  `?  p?  p? 0? p?? x? p? ? 0?.??? 0? 0?? 0x  x ? x ?8 ?8 ?<  <   '  -  -?  -?=  ?0?  ?0?? -?`x?? #p? #` ? ? -?-?!? !?? ?! ??? ??  ?    ?~? ?~????? 0? ?  ? ?? >?? <? 8? ? ? ?@ `   ?x   ~  8  ? ??????????????? ?? ? ???? p?? ??`?< >? ?0~ 0?  ? ? ??? ???????????????? ?  ?? ?????`??? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ???? ?   ??   ?   ?  ?  ? ?   ??  ? ?   ~        ? ??  >   ?   ??       8  `  ?? ???   ?  ?    ?p    ?   ?     ?  ?   ?   ??    ?   ?? ?   ?    8 ?  _   ?               ?  ? @  ? ?  8 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (GrUNLOGO1.WPG* `CG TimesWPC  9513 ,, XF}G"?!   ?  ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? >? ?0 0 0  ??? ?        ?  ? ?   ? ??      ?8 ? ~   ??? ? ??? ? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ?? ??? ?0? x??????~??<???????????? ? ???8x???? ??????x  ?x ?   ?@ #? # #??>???????????? ?????`?`?  ?~??????????????????B8<BpC???C???C??B?B?`B??B??B???B??B???C???B???C??C??C*?C?G?C?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? p?>? <~p??>>x??>?8??<>8??<~??8?8???? ??? ?? ?? > <?   |? ??  x? ?? p?? ??? ?? `?? ?????????????????        ?   ?   ?   ? ?   ?       ?   ? p?#@x?#/?#??>?>?~?????????@ ????? ????????????????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??   ? ?  ? ?? 8? >???   ? ?  ? `?  `?  p?  p? 0? p?? x? p? ? 0?.??? 0? 0?? 0x  x ? x ?8 ?8 ?<  <   '  -  -?  -?=  ?0?  ?0?? -?`x?? #p? #` ? ? -?-?!? !?? ?! ??? ??  ?    ?~? ?~????? 0? ?  ? ?? >?? <? 8? ? ? ?@ `   ?x   ~  8  ? ??????????????? ?? ? ???? p?? ??`?< >? ?0~ 0?  ? ? ??? ???????????????? ?  ?? ?????`??? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ???? ?   ??   ?   ?  ?  ? ?   ??  ? ?   ~        ? ??  >   ?   ??       8  `  ?? ???   ?  ?    ?p    ?   ?     ?  ?   ?   ??    ?   ?? ?   ?    8 ?  _   ?               ?  ? @  ? ?  8 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (GuUNLOGO1.WPG\^)indows7($      {=$USUS.,'F` X'  +@:88Ҁ  *  ڀ  '882 F^' .ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended.(2=$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'   +@:88Ҁ  0  ڀ  {=$USUS.,'F` X'  +@:88Ҁ  *  ڀ  '882 F^' .ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended. C)  @ 8  8 882   @ .$    ڄ " !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews. C)  @ 8  8 88, H  @ .$    ڄ 0 !  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberJulioPradoVallejodidnottakepartintheapprovaloftheCommittee'sviews.      e !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberTamsBndidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews.ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended. j !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews.ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended.      C)  @ 8  8 882 H  @ .$    ڄ       / !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication.      * !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberTamsBndidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication.           " !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews. C)  @ 8  8 882 H  @ .$    ڄ {$  882   ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended. a !  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews.ThreeindividualopinionsofsixCommitteemembersareappended. C)  @ 8  8 882   @ .$    ڄ      {$   882 H  ThetextofanindividualopinionoftwoCommitteemembersisappended.           0 !  @ 8  8  882 H  +    Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews. C)  @ 8  8  882 H  @ .$    ڄ  !  @ 8  8 882   +      Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyoneCommitteememberisappended. j !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnottakepartintheadoptionoftheviews.ThetextofanindividualopinionofoneCommitteememberisappended. 0 !  @ 8  8 882 H  +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberElizabethEvattdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. C)  @ 8  8 882   @ .$    ڄ . !  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberChristineChanetdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. !  @ 8  8 882   Ԁ    ڀThetextofanindividualopinionoffiveCommitteemembersisappended.      1 !  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ڀPursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberChristineChanetdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication.     ("2$ 3!USUS.,'F` X'   +@:88Ҁ  0  /  5u{13Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|c) `CG Timesc PE37P<6X9`("Courier NewTTd6X@`7@) `CG TimesTT PE37P* `CG TimesTTxx PE37xP* `CG TimesTT PE37P) `CG TimesTTO PE37P(3$USUS.,'F` X'  # e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)U 3!USUS.,'F` X'   UKUS.,q( $$$$Z%A/51/40=sQA=z (  ` @@EOOO߈   ` h   m UnitedNations  `  i   #aPddxDD y mtxDD y yxDDReportofthe i HumanRightsCommitteetm  ytxDDm  tmVolumeII#dPaPGeneralAssembly   b mtbbOfficialRecordsttbtbtbbԀFiftyfirstSession   SupplementNo.40(A/51/40)  |  ttbt    MA/51/40       AMm Reportofthe    HumanRightsCommitteeVolumeIIb mtbbGeneralAssemblyM y  OfficialRecordsttbtbtbbԀFiftyfirstSession s  SupplementNo.40(A/51/40)**)gs=vQA=z (  ` @@Ev*FFv*F--++)UnitedNationsttbtbtbbԀNewYork,1997 -+    ., ttbt'RlF^'44  @  1NOTE   SymbolsofUnitedNationsdocumentsarecomposedofcapitalletterscombinedwithfigures.MentionofsuchasymbolindicatesareferencetoaUnitedNationsdocument. ThepresentdocumentcontainsannexesVIIIandIXofthereportoftheHumanRightsCommittee.ChaptersItoVIIIandannexesItoVIIandXarecontainedinvolumeI.#/#//-  @,ISSN0255-2353#dddP  /-   ?eaUKUK.,  TRX3'3'3' Letter3'TX  +8484@: fX fXC A $ C--B$882 R^$  8@:@dd8H#[Original:English] X H#[7May1997]@\\/CONTENTS$ 88t882$Chapter t ParagraphsPage 8  .38 8 P"88<3 I.  ORGANIZATIONALANDOTHERMATTERS  L    A.  StatespartiestotheInternationalCovenanton x       CivilandPoliticalRights  LP"P"XP" H     B.  SessionsoftheHumanRightsCommittee  LP"P"XP"     C.  Election,membershipandattendance  LP"P"XP" 0    D.  Solemndeclaration  <<KP"P"XP" (    E.  Workinggroups  LP"P"XP" p   F.  Othermatters  LP"P"XP" h   G.  Staffresources  LP"P"XP"    H.  PublicityfortheworkoftheCommittee  LP"P"XP" P   I.  Documentsandpublicationsrelatingtothework H ЀoftheCommittee  L    J.  Adoptionofthereport  LP"P"XP" `  II.  METHODSOFWORKOFTHECOMMITTEEUNDERARTICLE40OF X  ЀTHECOVENANT:OVERVIEWOFPRESENTWORKINGMETHODS  L (!   A.  Considerationofinitialreportsandperiodic p# Ѐreports  L @$   B.  Overduereports  LP"P"XP" 8!&   C.  FollowuptotheCommittee'sactivitiesunder " ( Ѐarticle40  L #P!)   D.  ObservationsofStatespartiesontheCommittee's H%"+ Ѐconcludingcomments  L &#,   E.  Cooperationwithothertreatymonitoringbodies  LP"P"XP" '`%.   F.  ReportssubmittedbyStatespartiesunder X)'0 Ѐarticle40  L (*'1 44 III.  SUBMISSIONOFREPORTSBYSTATESPARTIESUNDER +p)3 ЀARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANT  L ,@*4  h-+5   A.  ReportssubmittedbyStatespartiesunder X Ѐarticle40  L (    @)CONTENTS(continued)3 88t8 8 P"3Chapter t ParagraphsPage  38 8 P"88<3&    B.  ObservationsofStatespartiesontheCommittee's @ Ѐconcludingcomments  L h   C.  SpecialdecisionsoftheCommitteeconcerning  ЀreportsofparticularStates  L  ' IV.  STATESTHATHAVENOTCOMPLIEDWITHTHEIROBLIGATIONS x   ЀUNDERARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANT  L H    V.  CONSIDERATIONOFREPORTSSUBMITTEDBYSTATESPARTIES   ЀUNDERARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANT  L  `    A.  UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthern X  ЀIreland(HongKong)   (    B.  Sweden    p   C.  Estonia    h   D.  Mauritius  L    E.  Spain    P   F.  Zambia    H   G.  Guatemala  L    H.  Nigeria(discussionatthefiftysixthsession)  LP"P"XP" 0   I.  Nigeria(continuedatthefiftyseventhsession)  LP"P"XP" (!   J.  Brazil   L p#   K.  Peru    h %  VI.  GENERALCOMMENTSOFTHECOMMITTEE  L "' 44 VII.  CONSIDERATIONOFCOMMUNICATIONSUNDERTHEOPTIONAL #P!) ЀPROTOCOL    x$ "*   A.  Progressofwork  L &#,   B.  GrowthoftheCommittee'scaseloadunderthe '`%. ЀOptionalProtocol   (0&/   C.  Approachestoexaminingcommunicationsunderthe (*'1 ЀOptionalProtocol  L *(2   D.  Individualopinions  LP"P"XP" ,@*4  h-+5   E.  IssuesconsideredbytheCommittee  LP"P"XP" X    @)CONTENTS(continued)3 88t8 8 P"3Chapter t ParagraphsPage  38 8 P"88<3H8 8,  P"8 8 P"H,,,  F.  EffectiveremedyprovidedbyaStatepartyduring @ ,,,    examinationofacommunication  L h ,,,  G.  RemediescalledforundertheCommittee'sviewsL  ,,,  H.  NoncooperationbyStatespartiesinrespectof  P  Ѐpendingcases   x   88 ,VIII.  FOLLOWUPACTIVITIESUNDERTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOL  L   @0Annexes  `  dd ,I.  STATESPARTIESTOTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVILAND X  ,,,  POLITICALRIGHTSANDTOTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLSANDSTATESTHAT,,,  HAVEMADETHEDECLARATIONUNDERARTICLE41OFTHECOVENANTASAT,,,  28JULY1996  L p ,,,  A.  StatespartiestotheInternationalCovenantonCiviland h ЀPoliticalRights   8 ,,,  B.  StatespartiestotheOptionalProtocol    ,,,  C.  StatusoftheSecondOptionalProtocol,aimingatthe x  Ѐabolitionofthedeathpenalty   H ,,,  D.  Stateswhichhavemadethedeclarationunderarticle41of  ЀtheCovenant   ` ,,,  E.  ImplementationoftheCovenantinthenewStatesthat X  ,,,    constitutedpartsofformerStatespartiestotheCovenantP"P"XP" (!  ,II.  MEMBERSANDOFFICERSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE,19951996P"P"XP" p#  ,III.  SUBMISSIONOFREPORTSANDADDITIONALINFORMATIONBYSTATES h % ЀPARTIESUNDERARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANTDURINGTHEPERIOD̀UNDERREVIEW   "'  ,IV.  STATUSOFREPORTSCONSIDEREDDURINGTHEPERIODUNDERREVIEWAND #P!) ЀOFREPORTSSTILLPENDINGBEFORETHECOMMITTEE   x$ "* dd ,V.  GENERALCOMMENTSUNDERARTICLE40,PARAGRAPH4,OFTHECOVENANTP"P"XP" &#, ,,,  GeneralcommentNo.25(57)   '`%.  ,VI.  OBSERVATIONSOFSTATESPARTIESUNDERARTICLE40,PARAGRAPH5, X)'0 ЀOFTHECOVENANT   (*'1 ,,,  France   +p)3  ,VII.  STATESPARTIES'DELEGATIONSTHATPARTICIPATEDINTHE h-+5 ЀCONSIDERATIONOFTHEIRRESPECTIVEREPORTSBYTHECOMMITTEEATITS̀FIFTYFIFTH,FIFTYSIXTHANDFIFTYSEVENTHSESSIONS   (    @)CONTENTS(continued)0 88t88, P"0 t Page38 8,  P"88<3  E8 8,  #88, P"E88 ,VIII.  VIEWSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEEUNDERARTICLE5,PARAGRAPH4, @ ,,,  OFTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLTOTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVIL,,,  ANDPOLITICALRIGHTS..............................................""Y#1 8 ,,,  A.  CommunicationNo.373/1989,LennonStephensv.Jamaica(views  ,,,    adoptedon18October1995,fiftyfifthsession)..............""Y#1  P  ,,,  B.  CommunicationNo.390/1990,BernardLubutov.Zambia(views H   ,,,    adoptedon31October1995,fiftyfifthsession)..............L"L"X#11   ,,,    Appendix......................................................L"L"X#16   ,,,  C.  CommunicationsNos.422424/1990,Aduayometal.v.Togo 0  ,,,    (viewsadoptedon12July1996,fiftyseventhsession)........L"L"X#17 X  ,,,    Appendix......................................................L"L"X#23 (  ,,,  D.  CommunicationNo.434/1990,LalSeerattanv.Trinidadand p ,,,    Tobago(viewsadoptedon26October1995,fiftyfifthsession)L"L"X#25 @ ,,,  E.  CommunicationNo.454/1991,EnriqueGarcaPonsv.Spain 8 ,,,    (viewsadoptedon30October1995,fiftyfifthsession).......L"L"X#30  ̀,,,  F.  CommunicationNo.459/1991,OsbourneWrightandEricHarveyv. P ,,,    Jamaica(viewsadoptedon27October1995,fiftyfifth,,,    session)......................................................L"L"X#35 H ,,,  G.  CommunicationNo.461/1991,GeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrison  ,,,    v.Jamaica(viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixth,,,    session)......................................................L"L"X#43 0 ,,,  H.  CommunicationNo.480/1991,JosLuisGarcaFuenzalidav. (! ,,,    Ecuador(viewsadoptedon12July1996,fiftyseventhsession)L"L"X#50 " ,,,  I.  CommunicationNo.505/1992,KtngurAcklav.Togo(views @$ ,,,    adoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession)................L"L"X#57 h % ,,,  J.  CommunicationNo.512/1992,DanielPintov.Trinidadand "' ,,,    Tobago(viewsadoptedon16July1996,fiftyseventhsession).L"L"X#61 " ( ,,,  K.  CommunicationNo.519/1992,LyndonMarriottv.Jamaica x$ "* ,,,    (viewsadoptedon27October1995,fiftyfifthsession).......L"L"X#67 H%"+ ,,,  L.  CommunicationNo.521/1992,VladimirKulominv.Hungary &$- ,,,    (viewsadoptedon22March1996,fiftysixthsession).........L"L"X#73 '`%. ,,,    Appendix......................................................L"L"X#83 (0&/ ,,,  M.  CommunicationNo.523/1992,ClydeNeptunev.Trinidadand (*'1 ,,,    Tobago(viewsadoptedon16July1996,fiftyseventhsession).L"L"X#84 *(2 ,,,  N.  CommunicationNo.527/1993,UtonLewisv.Jamaica(views ,@*4 ,,,    adoptedon18July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............L"L"X#89 h-+5 ЀAppendix......................................................L"L"X#97 X   ( @)CONTENTS(continued)0 88t88, #0 t Page088,  #88<0  ?88,  #88, #?,,,  O.  CommunicationNo.537/1993,PaulAnthonyKellyv.Jamaica @ ,,,    (viewsadoptedon17July1996,fiftyseventhsession)........L"L"X#98 h ,,,,,,  P.  CommunicationNo.540/1993,CelisLaureanov.Peru(views  ,,,    adoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession)................!!W#108  P  ,,,  Q.  CommunicationNo.542/1993,KatombeL.Tshishimbiv.Zaire H   ,,,    (viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession).........!!W#116   ,,,  R.  CommunicationNo.546/1993,RicklyBurrellv.Jamaica(views  `  ,,,    adoptedon18July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............!!W#121 0  ,,,  S.  CommunicationNo.563/1993,NydiaBautistadeArellanav. (  ,,,    Colombia(viewsadoptedon27October1995,fiftyfifth,,,    session)......................................................!!W#132 p ,,,  T.  CommunicationNo.566/1993,IvanSomersv.Hungary(views h ,,,    adoptedon23July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............!!W#144 8 ,,,  U.  CommunicationNo.571/1994,EustaceHenryandEveraldDouglas  ,,,    v.Jamaica(viewsadoptedon25July1996,fiftyseventh,,,    session)......................................................!!W#155 x  ,,,  V.  CommunicationNo.586/1994,JosefFrankAdamv.theCzech  ,,,    Republic(viewsadoptedon23July1996,fiftyseventh,,,    session)......................................................!!W#165 ` ЀAppendix......................................................!!W#173 0 ,,,  W.  CommunicationNo.588/1994,ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica(views (! ,,,    adoptedon22March1996,fiftysixthsession)................!!W#174 " ЀAppendix......................................................!!W#183 p# ,,,  X.  CommunicationNo.589/1994,CraftonTomlinv.Jamaica(views h % ,,,    adoptedon16July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............!!W#191 8!& ,,,  Y.  CommunicationNo.596/1994,DennieChaplinv.Jamaica(views " ( ,,,    adoptedon2November1995,fiftyfifthsession)..............!!W#197 #P!) ЀAppendix......................................................!!W#205 x$ "* ,,,  Z.  CommunicationNo.597/1994,PeterGrantv.Jamaica(views &#, ,,,    adoptedon22March1996,fiftysixthsession)................!!W#206 &$- ,,,  AA.  CommunicationNo.598/1994,CarlSterlingv.Jamaica (0&/ ,,,    (viewsadoptedon22July1996,fiftyseventhsession)........!!W#214 X)'0 ,,,  BB.  CommunicationNo.599/1994,WayneSpencev.Jamaica(views *(2 ,,,    adoptedon18July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............!!W#219 +p)3 ЀAppendix......................................................!!W#223 ,@*4  h-+5 ,,,  CC.  CommunicationNo.600/1994,DwayneHyltonv.Jamaica(views X ,,,    adoptedon16July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............!!W#224 ( ЀAppendix......................................................!!W#230  @)CONTENTS(continued)- 88t88, #- t Page 8 38 8,  |#88<3 ,IX.  DECISIONSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEEDECLARINGCOMMUNICATIONS  ЀINADMISSIBLEUNDERTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLTOTHEINTERNATIONAL,,,  COVENANTONCIVILANDPOLITICALRIGHTS............................P"P"X|#231 x   ,,,  A.  CommunicationNo.472/1991,J.P.L.v.France(decision   ,,,    adoptedon26October1995,fiftyfifthsession)..............P"P"X|#231   ,,,,,,  B.  CommunicationNo.557/1993,X.v.Australia(decisionadopted X  ,,,    on16July1996,fiftyseventhsession).......................P"P"X|#235 (  ,,,,,,  C.  CommunicationNo.573/1994,HarryAtkinsonetal.v.Canada @ Ѐ(decisionadoptedon31October1995,fiftyfifthsession)....P"P"X|#243 h ,,,,,,  D.  CommunicationNo.584/1994,AntoniusValentijnv.France  Ѐ(decisionadoptedon22July1996,fiftyseventhsession).....P"P"X|#253 P ,,,  E.  CommunicationNo.608/1995,FranzNahlikv.Austria(decision H Ѐadoptedon22July1996,fiftyseventhsession)...............P"P"X|#259  ЀAppendix......................................................P"P"X|#263  ,,,  F.  CommunicationNo.638/1995,EdwardLacikav.Canada(decision 0 Ѐadoptedon3November1995,fiftyfifthsession)..............P"P"X|#265 X  ,,,  G.  CommunicationNo.645/1995,VaihereBordesetal.v.France " Ѐ(decisionadoptedon22July1996,fiftyseventhsession).....P"P"X|#267 p# ,,,,,,  H.  CommunicationNo.656/1995,V.E.M.v.Spain(decisionadopted 8!& ,,,    on30October1995,fiftyfifthsession)......................P"P"X|#274 "' ,,,  I.  CommunicationNo.657/1995,GerritvanderEntv.the #P!) ЀNetherlands(decisionadoptedon3November1995,fiftyfifth,,,    session)......................................................P"P"X|#276 H%"+ ,,,,,,  J.  CommunicationNo.660/1995,CornelisJ.Koningv.the '`%. ЀNetherlands(decisionadoptedon3November1995,fiftyfifth,,,    session)......................................................P"P"X|#278 X)'0 ,,,  K.  CommunicationNo.664/1995,GesinaKruytAmeszetal.v.the *(2 ЀNetherlands(decisionadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixth,,,    session)......................................................P"P"X|#280 ,@*4  h-+5 dd ,X.  LISTOFDOCUMENTSISSUEDDURINGTHEREPORTINGPERIOD X 3 8,  88, |#3  p @.ANNEXVIIÌViewsoftheHumanRightsCommitteeunderarticle5,paragraph4,  ЀoftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivil p @)andPoliticalRights @ ̀A.CommunicationNo.373/1989,LennonStephensv.Jamaica  0 , (viewsadoptedon18October1995,fiftyfifthsession),#,# '882 H8,'Submittedby:   H LennonStephens[representedbycounsel] x   Victim:     H Theauthor   Stateparty:   H Jamaica  `  Dateofcommunication: H 20July1989(initialsubmission) X  Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: H 12October1994   2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe @ InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Meetingon18October1995,   2 HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.373/1989,submitted P totheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.LennonStephensundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitby  theauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty, 2 Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol. X  1. 2 Theauthorofthecommunication(initialsubmissiondated20July1989and " subsequentcorrespondence)isLennonStephens,aJamaicansentencedtodeathin1984,currentlyservingasentenceoflifeimprisonmentattheRehabilitationCentreinKingston.Heresubmitshiscomplaint,whichhadearlier,on26July1988,beendeclaredinadmissibleonthegroundofnon-exhaustionofdomesticremedies,sincetheauthorhadnotthensoughtleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.On6March1989,theJudicialCommitteedismissedtheauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.TheauthornowclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticle7,article9,paragraphs2to4,article10,paragraph1,andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheCovenant.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor '`%. 2.1 2 TheauthorisaccusedofhavingmurderedGeorgeLawrenceintheParishof X)'0 Westmoreland,atapproximately11a.m.on22February1983.Thevictim'sbodywasneverrecovered.Theprosecutionreliedontheevidenceofthreewitnesses,whohadbeenworkingtogetherwith,orinthevicinityof,theauthoronthepropertyofaMr.WillistonatCharlemont,Westmoreland.Thus,witnessLinfordRichardsontestifiedthathesawtheauthorandthedeceased"wrestling"when h-+5 thegunwasdischarged.Thesamewitnesssaidthathesawtheauthorwrapthebodyintarpaulinandcarryitaway.Asecondwitness,SylvesterStone,  ( testifiedthatheheardanexplosion,ranoutsideandsawtheauthorstanding"overaman"whowaslyingontheground.Thethirdwitness,acontractor,statedthathehadseentheauthorrunningafter"aman"(whomhedidnotidentify),thattheauthorcaughtupwiththeman,uponwhichbothstopped.Thewitnesstestifiedthattheauthorthentooksomethingfromhispocketandgesturedwithitinthedirectionoftheotherman,uponwhichtherewasanexplosionandtheothermandroppedtotheground.2.2 2 Theauthorcontended,inaswornstatementduringthetrial,thatonthe  dayinquestionhewasworkingonthepropertyofMr.WillistonwhenthedeceasedapproachedhimwithsomethingshapedlikeagununderhiswaistandaskedtoseeMr.Williston.TheauthorchallengedMr.LawrenceinthebeliefthatthelatterintendedtoharmMr.Williston,whereuponthedeceasedwentforthegun.Theauthorwrestledwiththedeceased,andduringthefight,thegunwentoffandthedeceasedfelltotheground.Theauthorwenthome,toldhismotherwhathadhappenedandthensurrenderedtothepolice.2.3 2 Aftersurrenderingtothepoliceon22February1983,theauthorwas (  detained.Itissubmittedthattheinvestigatingofficer,DetectiveInspectorBenLashley,onlycautionedhimon2March1983,thatis,eightdayslater,tellinghimthat"hewasconductinginvestigationsintoacaseofmurder"andthatitwasalleged"thatheshotoneGeorgeLawrence".2.4 2 TheauthorwassubsequentlyaccusedofmurderandtriedintheWestmoreland  CircuitCourton21and22February1984.Hewasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathon22February1984.HisappealwasdismissedbytheCourtofAppealon4February1987,nearlythreeyearslater.Asstatedbefore,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedtheauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappealon6March1989.2.5 2 Astothecourseofthetrial,theauthorcontendsthatthetrialjudge ` failedtodirectthejuryproperlyontheissueofself-defence,althoughhehadindicatedthathewoulddoso.Hefurtherindicatesthatoneoftheprosecutionwitnesseswasthedeceased'suncle,whohadhadpreviousseriousbutunspecifieddifferenceswiththeauthor.2.6 2 Throughoutthetrialandappeal,theauthorwasrepresentedbylegalaid @$ attorneys.ALondonlawfirmrepresentedhimprobonobeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.2.7 2 Theauthorcontendsthathehasexhausteddomesticremedies.Henotesthat " ( whilehecouldtheoreticallystillfileaconstitutionalmotion,thatremedyisnotinrealityavailabletohim,asheisdestituteandnolegalaidismadeavailablebytheStatepartyforthepurposeofconstitutionalmotions.Thecomplaint &$- 3.1 2 CounselsubmitsthatMr.Stephensisavictimofaviolationofarticles7 (0&/ and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenantbecauseofhisdetention,for7yearsand10months,ondeathrow.HenotesthatbetweenhisconvictioninFebruary1984andhisclassificationasanon-capitaloffender,atheauthorwasconfinedto *(2 deathrowunderdeplorableconditions,constantlyfacingtheprospectofimminentexecution.Counselnotesthatsuchaprolongedperiodofdetentionunderconditionsofconstantanxietyand"agonyofsuspense"amountstocruel h-+5 andinhumantreatmentwithinthemeaningofarticle7.ReferenceismadetothejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofPratt ( andMorgan,inwhichthecomplainants'prolongeddetentionondeathrowwasheld  tobecontrarytosection17(1)oftheJamaicanConstitution.b p 3.2 2 Counselfurtherclaimsaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,ofthe h Covenant,becauseofthebadconditionsofdetentiontheauthorwas,andremains,subjectedto.Hedoessobyreferencetotworeportsfromtwonon-governmentalorganizationsonprisonconditionsinJamaica(May1990)andondeathsandilltreatmentofprisonersatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,wheretheauthorwasdetaineduntilDecember1992.Thereportscomplainaboutgrossovercrowding,totallackofsanitationandmedicalordentalcare,inadequatefoodintermsofnutrition,quantityandquality,andlengthyconfinementincells.3.3 2 Itissubmittedthatthecircumstancesoftheauthor'spretrialdetention 0  amounttoaviolationofarticle9,paragraphs2to4,oftheCovenant.Thus,thetrialtranscriptrevealsthattheauthorwasdetainedon22February1983butonly"cautioned"eightdayslater(2March1983).Thatsituation,itissubmitted,iscontrarytoarticle9,paragraph2,whichrequiresthatageneraldescriptionofthereasonsforthearrestmustbegivenwhenitoccursandthat,subsequently,thespecificlegalreasonsmustbeprovided.Itisclaimedthatinviewoftheeightdaydelaybetweenarrestand"cautioning",theauthorwasnot"promptlyinformedofanychargesagainsthim".3.4 2 Thesituationdescribedaboveisalsosaidtoamounttoaviolationof P article9,paragraph3:asMr.Stephenswasonlychargedeightdaysafterbeingdetained,hewasnot"promptly"broughtbeforeajudicialofficerwithinthemeaningofthatprovision.ReferenceismadetoanumberofviewsadoptedbytheCommittee.cConsequently,hisrightsunderarticle9,paragraph4,were  alsoviolated,ashewasnotaffordedinduecoursetheopportunitytoobtain,onhisowninitiative,adecisiononthelawfulnessofhisdetentionbyacourtoflaw.3.5 2 Itissubmittedthatadelayofalmostthreeyears(35andahalfmonths) " betweenconvictionandappealamountstoaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheCovenant.CounselconcedesthatthereasonsforthedelayremainuncleardespitemanyattemptsbyhislawfirmandtheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightstocontacttheauthor'slawyerforthetrialandtoascertainthereasonsforthedelay.Heemphasizes,however,thatMr.Stephensdidnothingtocause,orcontributeto,thedelaybetweenhisconvictionandthehearingoftheappeal.Thesamedelayisalsosaidtoconstituteaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,byreferencetotheCommittee'sviewsinMuozv.Peru, x$ "* inwhichitwasheldthat"theconceptofafairhearingnecessarilyentailsthatjusticeberenderedwithoutunduedelay".d &#, 3.6 2 Finally,counselsubmitsthattheauthorhasbeensubjectedtoill '`%. treatmentbyprisonwardersofSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,inviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Thus,inthecourseof1991,awarderallegedlyhittheauthorovertheheaduntilhelostconsciousnessandhadtobetakentohospital.InaquestionnairefilledoutbytheauthorfortheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights,henotesthat"hestillhasproblemswithhisrighteyeasaresult".TheOfficeoftheParliamentaryOmbudsmanwascontactedaboutthematter,andhisoffice,inaletterdated21September1993 h-+5 addressedtocounsel,repliedthattheissue"wouldreceivethemostpromptattention".However,nofurtheractionhadbeentakenbytheOmbudsmanasofthespringof1994.Counselarguesthattheauthorhasexhaustedavailabledomesticremediesinrespectofthecomplaint,asthelackofrepliesfromtheOmbudsmanandotherbodiesinJamaicahasmadeitvirtuallyimpossibletopursuethecomplaintfurther.TheStateparty'sinformationonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scommentsthereon  4.1 2 On15September1989,thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStateparty  P  underrule86oftherulesofprocedureoftheCommittee;theStatepartywasrequestednottoexecutetheauthorwhilehiscasewaspendingbeforetheCommittee.TheStatepartywasfurtherinformedthatadditionalclarificationswerebeingsoughtfromtheauthorandhiscounsel.Somelimitedclarificationsfromtheauthorwerereceivedin1990and1991.DuringtheCommittee'sfortyfifthsession,inJuly1992,itwasdecidedtotransmitthecommunicationtotheStatepartyunderrule91oftherulesofprocedure,seekinginformationandobservationsabouttheadmissibilityofthecase.Therequestunderrule86wasreiterated.BothrequestsweretransmittedtotheStatepartyon5September1992.4.2 2 Inasubmissiondated27April1993,theStatepartyregretsthat"inthe h absenceofacommunicationsettingoutthefactsonwhichtheauthor'scomplaintsarebased,aswellasthearticlesoftheCovenantwhichareallegedtohavebeenviolated,itwillnotbepossibletopreparearesponsefortheCommittee".ThesubmissioncrossedwitharemindersenttotheStatepartybytheCommitteeon6May1993;on28July1993,theStateforwardedanadditionalsubmission.4.3 2 Inthelattersubmission,theStatepartynotesthat"itappearsthatthe  authoriscomplainingofbreachesofarticles7and10oftheCovenant".IntheStateparty'sopinion,thatcomplaintisinadmissibleonthegroundsofnon-exhaustionofdomesticremedies.Thus,theauthorretainstherighttoseekconstitutionalredressfortheallegedviolationofhisrights,bywayofconstitutionalmotion.Furthermore,theauthorwouldbeentitled"tobringacivilactionfordamagesforassaultinrelationtoanyinjuriesheallegedlysustainedasaresultofilltreatmentduringhisincarceration.ThisisanotherremedytobeexhaustedbeforethecommunicationiseligibleforconsiderationbytheCommittee."5.1 2 InhiscommentsontheStatepartysubmissions,dated17March1994, " ( counselputsforwardseveralnewclaims,whicharedetailedinparagraphs3.1and3.3to3.5above.Inparticular,hesubmitsthataconstitutionalmotionwouldnotbeanavailableandeffectiveremedyinthecircumstancesoftheauthor'scase,asMr.Stephensispennilessandnolegalaidismadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.5.2 2 Counsel'scommentsweretransmitted,togetherwithalltheenclosures,to (0&/ theStatepartyon5May1994,withafurtherrequestforcommentsandobservationsoncounsel'ssubmission.NofurthersubmissionhadbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyasof30September1994.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision ,@*4  h-+5 6.1 2 TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringits X fiftysecondsession.ItnotedtheStateparty'scriticismreferredtoinparagraph4.2abovebutrecalledthat,undertheOptionalProtocolprocedure,itwasnotnecessaryforanindividualwhoclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofanyoftherightssetforthintheCovenantexplicitlytoinvokethearticlesoftheCovenant.ItwasclearlyapparentfromthematerialtransmittedtotheStatepartythattheauthorcomplainedaboutissuesrelatedtohisconditionsofdetentionandhisrighttoafairtrial.6.2 2 TheCommitteenotedthatpartoftheauthor'sallegationsrelatedtothe  P  instructionsgivenbythejudgetothejurywithregardtotheevaluationofevidenceandthequestionofwhetherselfdefencearoseinthecase.ItreaffirmedthatitisinprinciplefortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitisclearthatsaidinstructionswerearbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjusticeorthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthejudge'sinstructionstothejuryinthecasesufferedfromsuchdefects;inparticular,theissueofselfdefencewasputtothejuryinsomedetail.Thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforedeemedinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.3 2 Concerningtheclaimsunderarticles7and10oftheCovenant,relatingto h prisonconditionsingeneral,theCommitteefirstnotedthatcounselhadaddressedtheissueofprisonconditionsmerelybyreferencetotworeportsfromnon-governmentalorganizationsonprisonconditionsinJamaica,withoutconsideringMr.Stephens'personalsituationondeathroworattheRehabilitationCentreinKingston.ItisfurthernotapparentthatthecomplaintshadeverbeenbroughttotheattentionofthecompetentJamaicanauthorities.Accordingly,thoseclaimswereinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheProtocol.6.4 2 TheCommitteenotedcounsel'scontentionthattheeightyearsand10months 0 whichMr.Stephensspentondeathrowamountedtoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.WhilethatissuehadnotbeenplacedbeforetheJamaicancourtsbywayofconstitutionalmotions,itwasuncontestedthatnolegalaidwasmadeavailableforthatpurposeandthattheauthorwasdependentonlegalaid.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteedidnotconsideraconstitutionalmotiontobeaneffectiveremedyinrespectofthatclaim.6.5 2 Withrespecttotheclaimoftheauthor'silltreatmentondeathrowduring "' 1991,theCommitteenotedtheStateparty'sclaimthatthecasewasinadmissiblebecauseoftheauthor'sfailuretofileaconstitutionalmotionundersection25oftheJamaicanConstitution.ItrecalledthattheauthorandhiscounselattemptedtohavetheallegedilltreatmentofMr.Stephensinvestigated,inparticularbytheOfficeoftheParliamentaryOmbudsman,butwithoutresultasofearly1994.ItfurtherrecalledthattheSupreme(Constitutional)CourtofJamaicahad,inrecentcases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecasesweredismissed.Italsorecalls,however,thattheStatepartyhadrepeatedlyindicatedthatnolegalaidwasavailableforconstitutionalmotions;asaresult,theCommitteeconcludedthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,itwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthataspectofthecase. h-+5 6.6 2 Similarconsiderationsappliedtotheauthor'sclaimunderarticle9, X paragraphs2to4,andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5.Whileitwaspossibleintheoryfortheauthortofileaconstitutionalmotion,hewaseffectivelybarredfromdoingsointheabsenceoflegalaid.Mutatismutandis, p theconsiderationsinparagraph6.4aboveapplied.6.7 2 On12October1994,theCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissible 8 insofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle7,article9,paragraphs2to4,article10,paragraph1,andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheCovenant.&  TheStateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandtheauthor'scommentsthereon H   7.1 2 Inasubmissiondated27January1995,theStatepartychallengescounsel's   relianceonthejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthe'H ŻcaseofPrattandMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaicainrespectofhis 0  argumentunderarticle7oftheCovenant(lengthofdetentionondeathrow).ByreferencetotheCommittee'sownviewsof6April1989inthiscaseinwhichithadbeenheldthatdelaybyitselfwasnotenoughtoconstituteabreachofarticle7oftheCovenant,etheStatepartycontendsthatthePrivyCouncil's p judgementinPrattandMorgandoesnotremovethenecessityofdeterminingona @ casebycasebasiswhetherdetentionondeathrowformorethanfiveyearsviolatesarticle7.Intheauthor'scase,hisfailuretoexhaustdomesticremediesexpeditiouslytoalargeextentresultedinthedelayintheexecutionofthecapitalsentenceagainsthim,priortoreclassificationofhisconvictiontonon-capitalmurder.7.2 2 Astotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraphs2to4,theState H partyarguesthatthecircumstancesoftheauthor'sarrestanddetentionnamely,thathegavehimselfuptothepolice"inrespectofthemurderofMr.Lawrence"weresuchastomakehimfullyawareofthereasonsforarrestanddetention.Inthecircumstances,andgiventhedifficultiesthepoliceexperiencedinlocatingthebodyofthedeceased,theperiodoftimetheauthorspentinpolicecustody(eightdays)mustbedeemedreasonable.FortheStateparty,thefactthattheauthorsurrenderedtothepolicereinforcesthatpoint.7.3 2 TheStatepartycontendsthatthereisnosubstantiationtosupportthe @$ author'sclaimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5.Inparticular,thereissaidtobenoevidencethatthecauseofthedelaywasattributabletoanactoromissiononthepartofthejudicialauthoritiesofJamaica.7.4 2 AstotheallegedilltreatmentofMr.Stephensondeathrowduring1991, x$ "* theStatepartyobserves,inasubmissionof13March1995,thattherewasnoviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,sincetheinjuriessufferedbytheauthorresultedfromthe"useofreasonableforcebyawardertorestraintheapplicantwhohadattackedthewarder".Suchuseofreasonableforce,theStatepartymaintains,doesnotconstituteabreachofarticles7and10,paragraph1.Itaddsthatthewarderinquestionhadtoseekmedicaltreatmenthimselfasaresultoftheauthor'sattackonhim.8.1 2 Inhiscomments,counselreaffirmsthatMr.Stephenswassubjectedto +p)3 inhumananddegradingtreatmentbyvirtueofhisconfinement,foreightyearsand10months,ondeathrow.Hepointsinparticulartothelengthofthedelay h-+5 andtheconditionsondeathrow,andsubmitsthatanexecutionthatwouldhavetakenplacemorethanfiveyearsafterconviction"wouldundoubtedlyresultinpainandsuffering",whichispreciselywhytheJudicialCommitteerecommendedcommutationtolifeimprisonmenttoalldeathrowinmatesinJamaicaincarceratedforfiveyearsormore.8.2 2 Counseldismissesasirrelevantthatsomeofthedelaysinexecutionofthe 8 sentencemayhavebeenattributabletoMr.StephensandadducesthePrivyCouncil'sownargumentinPrattandMorgan,inwhichitisheldthat"[i]fthe  appellateprocedureenablestheprisonertoprolongtheappellatehearingsoveraperiodofyears,thefaultistobeattributedtotheappellatesystemthatpermitssuchdelaysandnottheprisonerwhotakesadvantageofit".8.3 2 Counselreiteratesthathisclientwasdetainedforeightdays,"presumably   incommunicado",withoutbeingtoldthathewasbeingchargedformurder.HereferstotheCommittee'sgeneralcommentNo.8(16),onarticle9,whichnotesthatdelaysunderarticle9,paragraph3,mustnotexceedafewdaysandthatpretrialdetentionshouldbeanexception.Hefurtherobservesthatarequirementtogivereasonsatthetimeofthearresthasbeenimposedundercommonlawandisnowlaiddowninsection28ofthePoliceandCriminalEvidenceActof1984.WhileheacceptsthatMr.StephensvoluntarilywentwithhismothertotheMontegoBaypolicestationto"reporttheincidentofthedeathofGeorgeLawrence",hedoesnotacceptthatitwasreasonableinthecircumstancestodetaintheauthorforeightdayswithoutcharge.8.4 2 Inthiscontext,hecontendsthatarticle9,paragraph2,imposesthe P obligation(a)togivereasonsatthetimeofthearrestand(b)toinformthepersonarrested"promptly"ofanychargesagainsthim.On22February1983,theonlyinformationtheauthorwasgivenwasthathewasunderdetention"untilthepoliceobtainedmoreinformation".That,itissubmitted,doesnotsatisfytherequirementsofarticle9,paragraph2.8.5 2 Astotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,counselrefersto X  theCommittee'sjurisprudencewhichemphasizesthatdelaysbetweenarrestandpresentationtoajudicialofficershouldnotexceedafewdays.fHealso " pointsoutthatinanindividualopinionappendedtooneofthoseviewsbyCommitteememberB.Wennergrenitwassubmittedthattheword"promptly"doesnotpermitadelayofmorethantwoorthreedays.g h % 8.6 2 Finally,counselarguesthatarticle9,paragraph4,entitlesanyperson "' subjecttoarrestordetentiontochallengethelawfulnessofthatdetentionbeforeacourtwithoutdelay.HerefutestheStateparty'sargumentthattherewasnodenialofMr.Stephens'righttodosobythejudicialauthoritiesbutratherafailureonthepartoftheauthorhimselftoexercisetherighttoapplyforwritofhabeascorpus.8.7 2 Inafurthersubmissiondated21April1995,counselcontendsthatwithout '`%. providingtheevidenceofanofficialreportoftheincidentinvolvingbeatingsoftheauthorbyawarderin1991,theStatepartycannotdismisstheauthor'sclaimthathewassubjectedtoinhumananddegradingtreatment.HearguesthattheStateparty'srelianceontheuseof"reasonableforce"torestraintheapplicantwhohadattackedawarderismisleading,asbotharticle3oftheUnitedNationsCodeofConductforLawEnforcementOfficialsandtheCorrectionalRulesofJamaicaprescribebehaviourwhichpromotesthe h-+5 rehabilitationandhumanetreatmentofdetainees,implyingthatforcemaybeusedonlywhen"strictlynecessary".8.8 2 Counselreferstoareportpreparedin1983bytheParliamentaryOmbudsman p ofJamaica,inwhichheobservedthatJamaicanprisonrulesweresystematicallybrokenandthattherewere"mercilessandunjustifiablebeatings"ofinmatesbyprisonwarders.Furthermore,theJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightsissaidtohavebeeninundatedwithcasesofabuseofprisonerssinceitwascreatedin1968.Inaddition,counselpointsoutthatseveralprisonershavediedfollowingclashesbetweenwardersandinmates;thecircumstancesofthedeathsofinmatesoftenremainunclearandsuspicious.Otherprisonersaresaidtobetargetedforabusesimplybecausetheywerewitnessestobeatingsandkillingsbyprisonwarders.Foursuchincidentshadoccurred:on28May1990(deathofthreeinmatesasaresultofinjuriesinflictedbyprisonstaff),on30June1991(fourinmateskilledbyotherinmates,whoreportedlyhadbeenpaidbyprisonwarders)andon4May1993andon31October1993(fourinmatesshotdeadintheircells).8.9 2 Itissubmittedthatinthelightofthishistoryofviolenceinthedeath  rowsectionofSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,theStatepartyhasinnowayshownthattheauthorwasnotavictimofviolationsofarticles7and10,paragraph1,inthecourseof1991.Byreferencetorule173oftheCorrectionalRulesofJamaicaandrule36oftheUnitedNationsStandardMinimumRulesfortheTreatmentofPrisoners,whichdealwithinternalcomplaintsprocedures,counselsubmitsthatprisonersinJamaicadonotreceiveadequateredressfromtheprisons'internalcomplaintsprocedures.Someofthemmaybesubjectedtoretaliatorymeasuresiftheytestifyagainstwarderswhohavecommittedabuses.HereiteratesthathehasneverbeenabletoobtainacopyoftheinvestigationintothebeatingsofMr.Stephensandcontinuestoquestionthatthewarderwhoinjuredhisclientused"nomoreforcethan[was]necessary"(rule90oftheCorrectionalRulesofJamaica).Examinationofthemerits X  9.1 2 TheHumanRightsCommitteehasexaminedthepresentcommunicationinthe " lightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asitisrequiredtodounderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol,andbasesitsviewsonthefollowingfindings.9.2 2 TheCommitteehasnotedtheauthor'scontentionthathisrightsunder "' articles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenanthavebeenviolatedbecauseofthebeatingshewassubjectedtoondeathrowbyaprisonwarder.Itobservesthatwhiletheauthor'sallegationinthisrespecthasremainedsomewhatvague,theStatepartyitselfconcedesthattheauthorsufferedinjuriesasaresultofuseofforcebywarders;theauthorhasspecifiedthatthoseinjuriesweretohisheadandthathecontinuestohaveproblemswithhisrighteyeasaresult.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheStatepartyhasfailedtojustify,inamannersufficientlysubstantiated,thattheinjuriessustainedbytheauthorweretheresultoftheuseof"reasonableforce"byawarder.ItfurtherreiteratesthattheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoinvestigate,asexpeditiouslyandthoroughlyaspossible,incidentsofallegedilltreatmentofinmates.OnthebasisoftheinformationbeforetheCommittee,itappearsthattheauthor'scomplainttotheombudsmanwasacknowledgedbutwasnotinvestigatedthoroughlyorexpeditiously.Inthecircumstancesofthecase,theCommitteeconcludes h-+5 thattheauthorwastreatedinawaycontrarytoarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.3 2 TheCommitteehasnotedcounsel'sargumentthattheeightyearsand p 10monthsMr.Stephensspentondeathrowamountedtoinhumananddegradingtreatmentwithinthemeaningofarticle7.Itisfullyawareoftheratio h decidendiofthejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilof 8 2November1993inthecaseofPrattandMorgan,whichhasbeenadducedby  counsel,andhastakennoteoftheStateparty'sreplyinthisrespect.9.4 2 Intheabsenceofspecialcircumstances,noneofwhicharediscerniblein x   thepresentcase,theCommitteereaffirmsitsjurisprudencethatprolongedjudicialproceedingsdonotperseconstitutecruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,andthat,incapitalcases,evenprolongedperiodsofdetentionondeathrowcannotgenerallybeconsideredtoconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment.hIntheinstantcase,alittleoverfiveyearspassed 0  betweentheauthor'sconvictionandthedismissalbytheJudicialCommitteeofhispetitionforspecialleavetoappeal;hespentanotherthreeyearsandninemonthsondeathrowbeforehissentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentundertheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Actof1992.Sincetheauthorwas,atthattime,stillavailinghimselfofremedies,theCommitteedoesnotconsiderthatthatdelayconstitutedaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.9.5 2 Theauthorhasallegedaviolationofarticle9,paragraph2,becausehe  wasnotinformedpromptlyofthereasonsforhisarrest.However,itisuncontestedthatMr.Stephenswasfullyawareofthereasonsforwhichhewasdetained,ashehadsurrenderedtothepolice.TheCommitteefurtherdoesnotconsiderthatthenatureofthechargesagainsttheauthorwasnotconveyed"promptly"tohim.Thetrialtranscriptrevealsthatthepoliceofficerinchargeoftheinvestigation,adetectiveinspectorfromtheparishofWestmoreland,cautionedMr.StephensassoonaspossibleafterlearningthatthelatterwasbeingkeptincustodyattheMontegoBaypolicestation.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsnoviolationofarticle9,paragraph2.9.6 2 Astotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,itremainsunclear " onwhichexactdaytheauthorwasbroughtbeforeajudgeorotherofficerauthorizedtoexercisejudicialpower.Inanyevent,onthebasisofthematerialavailabletotheCommittee,thiscouldonlyhavebeenafter2March1983,i.e.morethaneightdaysafterMr.Stephenswastakenintocustody.Whilethemeaningoftheterm"promptly"inarticle9,paragraph3,mustbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis,theCommitteerecallsitsgeneralcommentonarticle9ianditsjurisprudenceundertheOptionalProtocol, #P!) pursuanttowhichdelaysshouldnotexceedafewdays.Adelayexceedingeightdaysinthepresentcasecannotbedeemedcompatiblewitharticle9,paragraph3.9.7 2 Withrespecttotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraph4,itshould '`%. benotedthattheauthordidnothimselfapplyforhabeascorpus.Hecouldhave,afterbeinginformedon2March1983thathewassuspectedofhavingmurderedMr.Lawrence,requestedapromptdecisiononthelawfulnessofhisdetention.Thereisnoevidencethatheorhislegalrepresentativedidso.Itcannot,therefore,beconcludedthatMr.Stephenswasdeniedtheopportunitytohavethelawfulnessofhisdetentionreviewedincourtwithoutdelay. h-+5 9.8 2 Finally,theauthorhasallegedaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(c) X and5,onaccountofthedelaybetweenhistrialandhisappeal.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotesthatduringthepreparationbyaLondonlawyeroftheauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,Mr.Stephens'legalaidrepresentativeforthetrialwasrequestedrepeatedlybutunsuccessfullytoexplainthedelaysbetweentrialandthehearingoftheappealinDecember1986.Whileadelayofalmosttwoyearsand10monthsbetweentrialandappealinacapitalcaseisregrettableandamatterofconcern,theCommitteecannot,onthebasisofthematerialbeforeit,concludethatthedelaywasprimarilyattributabletotheStatepartyratherthantotheauthor.10. 2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,ofthe   OptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitrevealaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles7,9,paragraph3,and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.11. 2 TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatMr.Stephensisentitled,under (  article2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toanappropriateremedy,includingcompensationandfurtherconsiderationofhiscasebytheStateparty'sParoleBoard.12. 2 Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol, 8 theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@1Notes h %  2 aUndertheoffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Actof1992. "'  2 bPrivyCouncilAppealNo.10of2November1993. #P!)  2 cSeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortysixthSession, H%"+ SupplementNo.40(A/46/40),annexXI.D,communicationNo.253/1987(Kellyv. &#, Jamaica),viewsadoptedon8April1991,andappendixII;andibid.,Forty &$- seventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.I,communication '`%. No.277/1988(TernJij;nv.Ecuador),viewsadoptedon26March1992. (0&/  2 dIbid.,FortyfourthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/44/40),annexX.D, (*'1 communicationNo.203/1986,viewsadoptedon4November1988,para.11.3. 2 eIbid.,annexX.F,communicationsNos.210/1986and225/1987(Prattand ,@*4 Morganv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon6April1989,para.13.6. h-+5 Ї 2 fIbid.,FortysixthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/46/40),annexXI.D, X communicationNo.253/1987(Kellyv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon8April1991, ( para.5.8;andibid.,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),  annexIX.I,communicationNo.277/1988(TernJij;nv.Ecuador),viewsadopted p on26March1992,para.5.3. 2 gIbid.,FortysixthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/46/40),annexXI.D, 8 appendixII. 2 hIbid.,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.F,  P  communicationsNos.270/1988and271/1988(BarrettandSutcliffev.Jamaica), x   viewsadoptedon30March1992,para.8.4. 2 iIbid.,ThirtyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/37/40),annexV,   generalcommentNo.8(16),para.2.  (   ?eaUKUK ,  TRX3'X3'3' Letter3' LetterTXX  ++8888@:@:@:@: ff ffC A $$AC--BB-882 882 4-  &  ԀB.CommunicationNo.390/1990,BernardLubutov.Zambia(views X Ѐadoptedon31October1995,fiftyfifthsession)*),viewsadoz y  *      ( Submittedby:BernardLubuto p Victim:Theauthor h 'XStateparty:Zambia  Dateofcommunication:1January1990(initialsubmission)  P  Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:30June1994 H    2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe   InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Meetingon31October1995, X   2 HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.390/1990,submitted  totheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.BernardLubutoundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitby 8 theauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty, 2 Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol. P 1. 2 TheauthorofthecommunicationisBernardLubuto,aZambiancitizen, H currentlyawaitingexecutionattheMaximumSecurityPrisoninKabwe,Zambia.Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor ` 2.1 2 Theauthorwassentencedtodeathon4August1983foraggravatedrobbery, X  committedon5February1980.On10February1988,theSupremeCourtofZambiadismissedhisappeal.2.2 2 Theevidenceledbytheprosecutionduringthetrialwasthat,on @$ 5February1980,theauthorandtwoco-accusedrobbedMarcelJosephMortierofamotorvehicle(aDatsunvanette).Oneoftheco-accusedheldMr.Mortieratgunpoint,whilesteppingintohiscar.Theauthorandtheotherco-accusedwerestandingnearbyinthebushes.ThemanwiththegunfiredshotsatoneofMr.Mortier'slabourers,whohadbeeninthecarandtriedtorunawayfromthespot.Themanthendroveoffwiththecar,withMr.Mortierstillinit.Mr.Mortierthenthrewhimselfoutofthevehicleandfelltotheground.Shotswerefiredathimbutdidnothithim.Theauthorwaslateridentifiedatanidentificationparadeandtheprosecutionproducedastatementsignedbytheauthor,inwhichheadmitshisinvolvementintherobbery.2.3 2 Theauthortestifiedduringthetrialthathehadbeenarrestedbythe X)'0 policeontheeveningof4February1980,afterafightinatavern.Hewaskeptinthepolicestationovernight;inthemorningof5February,whenhewas *(2 abouttobereleased,hewastoldthatarobberyhadtakenplace.Hewastakentoanoffice,whereoneofMr.Mortier'slabourerssaidthatheansweredthedescriptionoftherobber.Theauthorwasthenreturnedtothecells,butkeptdenyinganyinvolvementintherobbery.On7February1980,heparticipatedinanidentificationparadeandwasidentifiedasoneoftherobbersbythelabourerwhomhehadmetearlieratthepolicestation.2.4 2 Theauthor'stestimonywasrejectedbytheCourtonthebasisofthe  entriesinthepoliceregister,whichshowed,interalia,thattheauthorwas  arrestedlateintheeveningof5February1980.Thecomplaint H   3.1 2 Theauthorclaimsthatthetrialagainsthimwasunfair,sincethejudge   acceptedallevidenceagainsthim,althoughacarefulexaminationwouldhaveshowndiscrepanciesinthestatementsmadebythewitnesses.Hefurtherclaimsthathislegalaidlawyeradvisedhimtopleadguiltyandthat,whenherefused,thelawyerfailedtocrossexaminethewitnesses.Theauthorclaimsthatthedeathsentenceimposedonhimisdisproportionate,sincenoonewaskilledorwoundedduringtherobbery.3.2 2 Theauthorclaimsthathewastorturedbythepolicetoforcehimtogivea h statement.Heallegesthathewasbeatenwithahosepipeandcablewires,thatstickswereputbetweenhisfingersandthathisfingerswerethenhitonthetable,andthatagunwastiedwithastringtohispenisandhewasthenforcedtostandupandwalk.Theallegationswereproducedatthetrial,butthejudgeconsidered,onthebasisoftheevidence,thattheauthor'sstatementtothepolicewasgivenfreelyandvoluntarily.3.3 2 AlthoughtheauthordoesnotinvoketheprovisionsoftheCovenant,it  appearsfromtheallegationsandthefactswhichhesubmittedthatheclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyZambiaofarticles6,7and14oftheCovenant.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision (! 4.1 2 TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringits p# fiftyfirstsession.ItnotedwithconcernthelackofcooperationfromtheStateparty,whichhadnotsubmittedanyobservationsonadmissibility.4.2 2 TheCommitteeconsideredinadmissibletheauthor'sclaimsconcerningthe "' conductofthetrial.Itrecalledthatitis,inprinciple,notfortheCommitteetoevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcaseanditfoundthatthetrialtranscriptdidnotsupporttheauthor'sclaims.Inparticular,itappearedfromthetrialtranscriptthatauthor'scounseldidinfactcrossexaminethewitnessesagainsttheauthor.4.3 2 TheCommitteeconsideredthatthelengthoftheproceedingsagainstthe '`%. authormightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph3(c),and,asregardstheappeal,article14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.TheCommitteefurtherconsideredthattheauthor'sclaimthattheimpositionofthedeathsentencewasdisproportionate,sincenoonewaskilledorwoundedduringtherobbery,mightraiseissuesunderarticle6,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,andthathisclaimthathewastorturedbythepolicetoforcehimtogiveastatementmightraiseissuesunderarticle7oftheCovenantwhichshouldbeexaminedonthemerits. h-+5 Ї4.4 2 Consequently,on30June1994,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthe X communicationadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles6,7and14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheCovenant.TheStatepartywasrequested,underrule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,nottocarryoutthedeathsentenceagainsttheauthorwhilehiscommunicationwasunderconsiderationbytheCommittee.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandtheauthor'scommentsthereon  5.1 2 Bysubmissionof29December1994,theStatepartyacknowledgesthatthe  P  proceedingsinMr.Lubuto'scasetookratherlong.TheStatepartyrequeststheCommitteetotakeintoconsiderationitssituationasadevelopingcountryandtheproblemsitencountersintheadministrationofjustice.Itisexplainedthattheinstantcaseisnotanisolatedoneandthatappealsinbothcivilandcriminalcasestakeconsiderabletimebeforetheyaredisposedofbythecourts.AccordingtotheStateparty,thisisduetothelackofadministrativesupportavailabletothejudiciary.Judgeshavetowriteouteverywordverbatimduringthehearings,becauseofthelackoftranscribers.Therecordsarelatertypedoutandhavetobeproofreadbythejudges,causinginordinatedelays.TheStatepartyalsoreferstothecostsinvolvedinpreparingthecourtdocuments.5.2 2 TheStatepartyfurtherpointsoutthatcrimehasincreasedandthenumber h ofcasestobedecidedbythecourtshavemultiplied.Becauseofthedifficulteconomicsituationinthecountry,ithasnotbeenpossibletoensureequipmentandservicesinordertoexpeditethedisposalofcases.TheStatepartysubmitsthatitistryingtoimprovethesituationandthatithasrecentlyacquiredninecomputersandexpectstoget40more.5.3 2 TheStatepartyconcludesthatthedelayssufferedbytheauthorinthe  determinationofhiscaseareinevitablebecauseofthesituationexplainedabove.TheStatepartyfurthersubmitsthattherehasbeennoviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,intheinstantcase,sincetheauthor'sappealwasheardbytheSupremeCourt,beitwithdelay.5.4 2 Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthattheimpositionofthedeathsentencewas " disproportionatesincenoonewaskilledorwoundedduringtherobbery,theStatepartysubmitsthattheauthor'sconvictionwasinaccordancewithZambianlaw.TheStatepartyexplainsthatarmedrobberiesareprevalentinZambiaandthatvictimsgothroughatraumaticexperience.Forthatreason,theStatepartyseesaggravatedrobberyinvolvingtheuseofafirearmasaseriousoffence,whetherornotapersonisinjuredorkilled.Finally,theStatepartysubmitsthattheauthor'ssentencewaspronouncedbythecompetentcourts.5.5 2 Furthermore,theStatepartypointsoutthatunderarticles59and60of H%"+ theConstitution,thePresidentoftheRepublicofZambiacanexercisetheprerogativeofmercy.Theauthor'scasehasbeensubmittedandadecisionisawaited.TheStatepartyfurtherstatesthatthedelayinthehearingoftheappealandthefactthatnoonewasinjuredintheattackaretakenintoaccountbytheAdvisoryCommitteeontheexerciseoftheprerogativeofmercy.5.6 2 Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewastorturedbythepolicein *(2 ordertoforcehimtogiveastatement,theStatepartysubmitsthattortureisprohibitedunderZambianlaw.Anyvictimoftorturebythepolicecanseekredressunderboththecriminalandcivillegalsystems.Inthiscase,the h-+5 authordidnotmakeuseofanyofthosepossibilities,andtheStatepartysuggeststhat,hadtheauthor'sallegationsbeentrue,hiscounselatthetrialwouldhavecertainlyadvisedhimtodoso.5.7 2 TheStatepartyfurtherexplainsthat,ifduringtrialanaccusedalleges @ thathewastorturedbythepoliceinordertoextractaconfession,theCourtisobligedtoconducta"trialwithinatrial"todeterminewhethertheconfessionwasgivenvoluntarilyornot.Intheauthor'scase,suchatrialwithinatrialwasheld,butitappearedfromthetestimoniesgiventhattheaccusedclaimedthattheyweremerelyorderedtosignastatementwithouthavingmadeaconfession.TheCourtthencontinuedwiththemaintrial,andthequestionofwhethertheauthormadeastatementornotwasdecideduponthebasisofalltheevidenceattheendofthetrial.Itappearsfromthetrialtranscriptthatthejudgeconcludedthattheauthorhadnotbeenassaulted.Hebasedhisconclusiononthefactthattheinvestigatingmagistrate,beforewhomtheauthorandhisco-accusedappearedon8February1980,hadnotrecordedanyinjuriesormarksofbeatingnorhadtheauthorcomplainedtohimaboutmaltreatment;hefurthertookintoaccountdiscrepanciesintheauthor'stestimonyaswellasevidenceledbythepoliceofficersthattheaccusedhadbeencooperative.Therewasnorecordoftheauthorhavingbeenmedicallytreatedforinjurieswhichmighthavebeencausedbymaltreatment.5.8 2 Finally,theStatepartyconfirmsthat,pursuanttotheCommittee's 8 request,theappropriateauthoritieshavebeeninstructednottocarryoutthedeathsentenceagainsttheauthorwhilehiscaseisbeforetheCommittee.6. 2 InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,theauthorexplainsthat x  hefirstappearedbeforeajudgeon4July1981,andthatthetrialwasthenadjournedseveraltimesbecausetheprosecutionwasnotready.AttheendofJuly1981,thecasewastransferredtoanotherjudge,whodidnotproceedwithit;onlyon22September1982,againbeforeadifferentjudge,didthetrialactuallystart.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee (! 7.1 2 TheCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofall p# theinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.7.2 2 TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorwasconvictedandsentencedtodeath "' underalawthatprovidesfortheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyforaggravatedrobberyinwhichfirearmsareused.Theissuethatmustaccordinglybedecidediswhetherthesentenceintheinstantcaseiscompatiblewitharticle6,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,whichallowsfortheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyonly"forthemostseriouscrimes".Consideringthatinthiscaseuseoffirearmsdidnotproducethedeathorwoundingofanypersonandthatthecourtcouldnotunderthelawtakethoseelementsintoaccountinimposingsentence,theCommitteeisoftheviewthatthemandatoryimpositionofthedeathsentenceunderthosecircumstancesviolatesarticle6,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.7.3 2 TheCommitteehasnotedtheStateparty'sexplanationsconcerningthedelay +p)3 inthetrialproceedingsagainsttheauthor.TheCommitteeacknowledgesthedifficulteconomicsituationoftheStateparty,butwishestoemphasizethat h-+5 therightssetforthintheCovenantconstituteminimumstandardswhichallStatespartieshaveagreedtoobserve.Article14,paragraph3(c),statesthatallaccusedshallbeentitledtobetriedwithoutdelay,andthatrequirementappliesequallytotherightofreviewofconvictionandsentenceguaranteedbyarticle14,paragraph5.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheperiodofeightyearsbetweentheauthor'sarrestinFebruary1980andthefinaldecisionoftheSupremeCourt,dismissinghisappeal,inFebruary1988,isincompatiblewiththerequirementsofarticle14,paragraph3(c).7.4 2 Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathewasheavilybeatenandtorturedupon  P  arrest,theCommitteenotesthatthatallegationwasbeforethejudgewhorejecteditonthebasisoftheevidence.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheinformationbeforeitisnotsufficienttoestablishaviolationofarticle7intheauthor'scase.8. 2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,ofthe 0  OptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticles6,paragraph2,and14,paragraph3(c),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.9. 2 TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatMr.Lubutoisentitled,underarticle2, h paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toanappropriateandeffectiveremedy,entailingacommutationofsentence.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtotakeappropriatemeasurestoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.10. 2 Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol, H theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]  #P!) @\\/Appendix X H#[Original:English]@( ( IndividualopinionofCommitteememberNisukeAndo @  2 IdonotopposetheCommittee'sviewsinthepresentcase.However,withrespecttothestatementintheviewsthat"useoffirearmsdidnotproducethedeathorwoundingofanyperson",Iwouldliketoaddthefollowing: 2 Certaincategoriesofactsareclassifiedas"crimes"becausetheycreateagravedangerwhichmayresultindeathorirreparableharmtomanyandunspecifiedpersons.Suchcrimesincludebombingofbusyquarters,destructionofreservoirs,poisoningofdrinkingwater,gassinginsubwaystationsandprobablyespionageinwartime.Inmyview,theimpositionoftheseverestpunishment,includingthedeathpenaltywhereapplicable,couldbejustifiedagainstthosecrimes,eveniftheydonotresultforonereasonoranotherinthedeathoforinjurytoanyperson.llG#(Signed)NisukeAndo h    ЀC.CommunicationsNos.422424/1990,Aduayometal.v.Togo X Ѐ(viewsadoptedon12July1996,fiftyseventhsession)| y  *      ( Submittedby:  AdimayoM.Aduayom,SofianouT.Diassoand p  2     YawoS.DobouVictims:    Theauthors 8 Stateparty:  Togo  Datesofcommunications:31July1990,31July1990and x   Ѐ1August1990,respectively(initial̀submissions)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:30June1994  `   2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe X  InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Meetingon12July1996, p  2 HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationsNos.422/1990, h 423/1990and424/1990,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMessrsAdimayoM.Aduayom,SofianouT.DiassoandYawoS.DobouundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitby x  theauthorsofthecommunicationsandtheStateparty, 2 Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.  1. 2 TheauthorsofthecommunicationsareAdimayoM.Aduayom, 0 SofianouT.DiassoandYawoS.Dobou,threeTogolesecitizenscurrentlyresidinginLom.TheauthorsclaimtobevictimsofviolationsbyTogoofarticles9and19oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforTogoon30June1988.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthors h % 2.1 2 TheauthorofcommunicationNo.422/1990,Mr.Aduayom,isateacheratthe "' UniversityofBenin(Togo)inLom.Hestatesthathewasarrestedon18September1985bythepoliceinLomandtransferredtoaLompenitentiaryon25September1985.Hewaschargedwiththeoffenceoflse-majest(outrage x$ "* auChefdel'Etatdansl'exercicedesafonction),andcriminalproceedingswere H%"+ institutedagainsthim.However,on23April1986,thechargesagainsthimweredroppedandhewasreleased.Thereafter,heunsuccessfullyrequestedhisreinstatementinthepostofma3treassistantattheUniversity,whichhehad '`%. heldpriortohisarrest.2.2 2 TheauthorofcommunicationNo.423/1990,Mr.Diasso,alsowasateacherat (*'1 theUniversityofBenin.Hewasarrestedon17December1985byagentsofthe *(2 Togolesegendarmerienationale,allegedlyonthegroundthathewasin X possessionofpamphletscriticizingthelivingconditionsofforeignstudentsinTogoandsuggestingthatmoney"wasted"onpoliticalpropagandawouldbebetterspentonimprovingthelivingconditionsin,andtheequipmentof,Togoleseuniversities.HewastakentoaLomprisonon29January1986.Hewasalsochargedwiththeoffenceoflse-majest,buttheMinistry,afterconcedingthatthechargesagainsthimwereunfounded,releasedhimon2July1986.Thereafter,hehasunsuccessfullysoughtreinstatementinhisformerpostofadjunctprofessorofeconomicsattheUniversity.2.3 2 TheauthorofcaseNo.424/1990,Mr.Dobou,wasaninspectorinthe x   MinistryofPostandTelecommunications.Hewasarrestedon30September1985andtransferredtoaLomprisonon4October1985,allegedlybecausehehadbeenfoundreadingadocumentoutliningindraftformthestatutesofanewpoliticalparty.Hewaschargedwiththeoffenceoflse-majest.On23April1986,however,thechargesweredroppedandtheauthorwasreleased.Subsequently,heunsuccessfullyrequestedreinstatementinhisformerpost.2.4 2 Theauthors'wagesweresuspendedunderadministrativeproceduresafter  theirarrest,onthegroundthattheyhadunjustifiablydesertedtheirposts.2.5 2 Withrespecttotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,the h authorsstatethattheysubmittedtheirrespectivecasestotheNationalCommissiononHumanRights,anorgantheyclaimwasestablishedforthepurposeofinvestigatingclaimsofhumanrightsviolations.TheCommission,however,didnotexaminetheircomplaintsandsimplyforwardedtheirfilestotheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppeal,which,apparently,hasnotseenfittoexaminetheircases.TheauthorofcaseNo.424/1990additionallycomplainsaboutthedelaysintheprocedurebeforetheCourtofAppeal;thus,hewassentdocumentssubmittedbytheMinistryofPostandTelecommunicationssomesevenmonthsaftertheirreceiptbytheCourt.Thecomplaint X  3.1 2 Theauthorsclaimthatboththeirarrestandtheirdetentionwascontrary " toarticle9,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.ThatwasimplicitlyconcededbytheStatepartywhenitdroppedallthechargesagainstthem.TheyfurthercontendthattheStatepartyhasviolatedarticle19inrespecttothem,becausetheywerepersecutedforhavingcarried,readordisseminateddocumentsthatcontainednomorethananassessmentofTogolesepolitics,eitheratthedomesticorforeignpolicylevel.3.2 2 Theauthorsrequestreinstatementinthepoststheyhadheldpriortotheir x$ "* arrest,andrequestcompensationunderarticle9,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthors'comments &$- andclarifications '`%. 4.1 2 TheStatepartyobjectstotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationsonthe X)'0 groundthattheauthorshavefailedtoexhaustavailabledomesticremedies.ItobservesthattheprocedureisregularlyengagedbeforetheCourtofAppeal.InthecasesconcerningMessrsAduayomandDiasso,theemployer(theUniversityofBenin)didnotfileitsownsubmission,sothattheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealcannotpasssentence.Withrespecttothecaseof h-+5 Mr.Dobou,theauthorallegedlydidnotcommentonthestatementoftheMinistryofPostandTelecommunications.TheStatepartyconcludesthatdomesticremedieshavenotbeenexhausted,sincetheAdministrativeChamberhasnothandeddownadecision.4.2 2 TheStatepartyalsonotesthattheAmnestyLawof11April1991decreedby h thePresidentoftheRepublicconstitutesanotherremedyfortheauthors.ThelawcoversallpoliticalcasesasdefinedbytheCriminalCode("infractions  caractreoud'inspirationpolitique,prvuesparlalgislationpnale")which  occurredbefore11April1991.Article2oftheAmnestyLawexpresslyallowsforreinstatementinpublicorprivateoffice.AmnestyisgrantedbythePublicProsecutor("ProcureurdelaRpubliqueoujugechargduMinistrePublic") H   withinthreedaysaftertherequest(article4).Accordingtoarticle3,thepetitionundertheseprovisionsdoesnotpreventthevictimfrompursuinghisclaimsbeforetheordinarytribunals.5.1 2 AfterarequestforfurtherclarificationsformulatedbytheCommittee X  duringitsfortyninth(1993)session,theauthors,bylettersdated23December,15Novemberand16December1993,respectively,informedtheCommitteethattheywerereinstatedintheirpostspursuanttotheLawof11April1991.Mr.Diassonotesthathewasreinstatedwitheffectfrom27May1991,theotherswitheffectfrom1July1991.5.2 2 Theauthorsnotethattherehasbeennoprogressintheproceedingsbefore  theAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealandthattheircasesappeartohavebeenshelved,aftertheirreinstatementundertheAmnestyLaw.Theyargue,however,thatthelawwasimproperlyappliedtotheircases,sincetheyhadneverbeentriedandconvictedforcommittinganoffencebuthadbeenunlawfullyarrested,detainedandsubsequentlyreleasedafterthechargesagainstthemweredropped.Theyaddthattheyhavenotbeenpaidarrearsontheirsalariesfortheperiodbetweenarrestandreinstatement,duringwhichtheyweredeniedtheirincome.5.3 2 AsregardsthestatuteoftheUniversityofBenin,theauthorssubmitthat, (! althoughtheUniversityis,atleastintheory,administrativelyandfinanciallyautonomous,itisinpracticeunderthecontroloftheState,as95percentofitsbudgetisstatecontrolled.5.4 2 TheauthorsrefutetheStateparty'sargumentthattheyhavefailedto 8!& exhaustdomesticremedies.Inthiscontext,theyarguethattheproceedingsbeforetheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealarewhollyineffective,sincetheircaseswereobviouslyfiledaftertheirreinstatementundertheAmnestyLaw,andnothinghashappenedsince.Theydonot,however,indicatewhethertheyhavefiledcomplaintswithaviewtorecoveringtheirsalaryarrears.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision '`%. 6.1 2 TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringits X)'0 fiftyfirstsession.ItnotedwithconcernthatnoreplyhadbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyinrespectofarequestforclarificationontheissueofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,whichhadbeenaddressedtoiton26October1993. h-+5 6.2 2 TheCommitteenotedtheauthors'claimsunderarticle9andobservedthat X theirarrestanddetentionoccurredpriortotheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforTogo(30June1988).ItfurthernotedthattheallegedviolationshadcontinuingeffectsaftertheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforTogo,inthattheauthorsweredeniedreinstatementintheirpostsuntil27Mayand1July1991,respectively,andthatnopaymentofsalaryarrearsorotherformsofcompensationhadbeeneffected.TheCommitteeconsideredthatthosecontinuingeffectscouldbeseenasanaffirmationofthepreviousviolationsallegedlycommittedbytheStateparty.Itthereforeconcludedthatitwasnotprecludedrationetemporisfromexaminingthe  P  communicationsandconsideredthattheymightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph5,article19andarticle25(c),oftheCovenant.6.3 2 TheCommitteetooknoteoftheStateparty'sargumentthatdomestic   remedieshadnotbeenexhausted,aswellasoftheauthors'contentionthattheprocedurebeforetheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealwasineffective,becausenoprogressintheadjudicationoftheircaseswasmadeaftertheirreinstatementundertheAmnestyLaw,andthatindeedsaidcasesappearedtohavebeenfiled.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteedidnotconsiderthatanapplicationtotheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealconstitutedanavailableandeffectiveremedywithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.6.4 2 On30June1994,therefore,theCommitteedeclaredthecommunication  admissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph5,article19andarticle25(c),oftheCovenant.Itfurtherdecided,pursuanttorule88,paragraph2,ofitsrulesofprocedure,todealjointlywiththeauthors'communications.Examinationofthemerits  7.1 2 ThedeadlineforthesubmissionoftheStateparty'sobservationsunder 0 article4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolexpiredon10February1995.NosubmissionhasbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty,inspiteofareminderaddressedtoiton26October1995.TheCommitteeregretstheabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStatepartyasfarasthemeritsoftheauthors'claimsareconcerned.Itisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartymustfurnishtheCommittee,ingoodfaithandwithintheimparteddeadlines,withalltheinformationatitsdisposal.ThistheStatepartyhasfailedtodo;inthecircumstances,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthors'allegations,totheextentthattheyhavebeenadequatelysubstantiated.7.2 2 Accordingly,theCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationsinthe H%"+ lightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.7.3 2 Theauthorscontendthattheyhavenotbeencompensatedforthetimethey (0&/ werearbitrarilyarrested,contrarytoarticle9,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.TheprocedurestheyinitiatedbeforetheAdministrativeChamberoftheCourtofAppealhavenot,onthebasisoftheinformationavailabletotheCommittee,resultedinanyjudgementordecision,beitfavourableorunfavourabletotheauthors.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeseesnoreasontogobackonitsadmissibilitydecision,inwhichithadheldthatrecoursetotheAdministrative h-+5 ChamberoftheCourtofAppealdidnotconstituteanavailableandeffectiveremedy.Astowhetheritisprecludedrationetemporisfromconsideringthe ( authors'claimunderarticle9,paragraph1,theCommitteewishestonotethatitsjurisprudencehasbeennottoentertainclaimsundertheOptionalProtocolbasedoneventswhichoccurredaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenantbutbeforetheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolfortheStateparty.SomeofthemembersfeelthatthejurisprudenceoftheCommitteeonthisissuemaybequestionableandmayhavetobereconsideredinanappropriate(future)case.Intheinstantcase,however,theCommitteedoesnotfindanyelementswhichwouldallowittomakeafindingundertheOptionalProtocolonthelawfulnessoftheauthors'arrests,sincethearreststookplaceinSeptemberandDecember1985,respectively,andtheauthorswerereleasedinAprilandJuly1986,respectively,priortotheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforTogoon30June1988.Accordingly,theCommitteeisprecludedratione   temporisfromexaminingtheclaimunderarticle9,paragraph5.  `  7.4 2 Inrespectoftheclaimunderarticle19oftheCovenant,theCommittee X  observesthatithasremaineduncontestedthattheauthorswerefirstprosecutedandlaternotreinstatedintheirposts,between1986and1991,interalia,for  havingreadand,respectively,disseminatedinformationandmaterialcriticaloftheTogoleseGovernmentinpowerandofthesystemofgovernanceprevailinginTogo.TheCommitteeobservesthatfreedomofinformationandofexpressionarecornerstonesofanyfreeanddemocraticsociety.Itisoftheessenceofsuchsocietiesthatitscitizensmustbeallowedtoinformthemselvesaboutalternativestothepoliticalsystem/partiesinpowerandthattheymaycriticizeoropenlyandpubliclyevaluatetheirgovernmentswithoutfearofinterferenceorpunishment,withinthelimitssetbyarticle19,paragraph3.OnthebasisoftheinformationbeforetheCommittee,itappearsthattheauthorswerenotreinstatedinthepoststheyhadoccupiedpriortotheirarrestbecauseofsuchactivities.TheStatepartyimplicitlysupportsthisconclusionbyqualifyingtheauthors'activitiesas"politicaloffences",whichcamewithinthescopeofapplicationoftheAmnestyLawof11April1991;thereisnoindicationthattheauthors'activitiesrepresentedathreattotherightsandthereputationofothers,ortonationalsecurityorpublicorder(article19,paragraph3).Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle19oftheCovenant.7.5 2 TheCommitteerecallsthattheauthorswereallsuspendedfromtheirposts h % foraperiodofwelloverfiveyearsforactivitiesconsideredcontrarytotheinterestsoftheGovernment;inthiscontext,itnotesthatMr.Dobouwasacivilservant,whereasMessrsAduayomandDiasso,wereemployeesoftheUniversityofBenin,whichisinpracticestatecontrolled.AsfarasthecaseofMr.Dobouisconcerned,theCommitteeobservesthataccesstopublicserviceongeneraltermsofequalityencompassesaduty,fortheState,toensurethatthereisnodiscriminationonthegroundofpoliticalopinionorexpression.Thisappliesafortioritothosewhoholdpositionsinthepublicservice.Therightsenshrinedinarticle25shouldalsobereadtoencompassfreedomtoengageinpoliticalactivityindividuallyorthroughpoliticalparties,todebatepublicaffairs,tocriticizetheGovernmentandtopublishmaterialwithpoliticalcontent.7.6 2 TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorsweresuspendedfromtheirpostsfor +p)3 alleged"desertion"ofthesame,afterhavingbeenarrestedforactivitiesdeemedtobecontrarytotheinterestsoftheStateparty'sGovernment. h-+5 Mr.Dobouwasacivilservant,whereasMessrsAduayomandDiassowereemployeesoftheUniversityofBenin,whichisinpracticestatecontrolled.Inthecircumstancesoftheauthors'respectivecases,anissueunderarticle25(c)arisesinsofarastheauthors'inabilitytorecovertheirpostsbetween30June1988and27Mayand1July1991,respectively,isconcerned.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotesthatthenon-paymentofsalaryarrearstotheauthorsisaconsequenceoftheirnon-reinstatementinthepoststheyhadpreviouslyoccupied.TheCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle25(c)intheauthors'casefortheperiodfrom30June1988to27Mayandto1July1991,respectively.8. 2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,ofthe H   OptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsasfoundbytheCommitteerevealviolationsbyTogoofarticles19and25(c)oftheCovenant.9. 2 Pursuanttoarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorsare X  entitledtoanappropriateremedy,whichshouldincludecompensationdeterminedonthebasisofasumequivalenttothesalarywhichtheywouldhavereceivedduringtheperiodofnon-reinstatementstartingfrom30June1988.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.10. 2 Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,  theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenanttoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttoitsviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]  @$ @\\/Appendix X H#[Original:English]@ IndividualopinionofCommitteememberFaustoPocar @  2 WhileIconcurwiththeCommittee'sfindingsontheissuesraisedbytheauthors'claimsunderarticles19and25(c),IcannotsubscribetotheCommittee'sconclusionsonissuesraisedunderarticle9,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.Onthisissue,theCommitteearguesthatsinceitisprecludedrationetemporisfromestablishingthelawfulnessoftheauthors'arrestand H   detentionunderarticle9,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,itisalsoprecludedrationetemporisfromexaminingtheirclaimtocompensationunderarticle9,   paragraph5.Icannotsharetheseconclusions,forthefollowingreasons. 2 First,itismypersonalviewthattheclaimunderarticle9,paragraph1,couldhavebeenconsideredbytheCommitteeeveniftheallegedfactsoccurredpriortotheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforTogo.AsIhadtheopportunitytoindicatewithregardtoothercommunications,andinmoregeneraltermswhentheCommitteediscusseditsgeneralcommentonreservations(seeCCPR/C/SR.1369,para.31),theOptionalProtocolprovidesforaprocedurewhichenablestheCommitteetomonitortheimplementationoftheobligationsassumedbyStatespartiestotheCovenant,butithasnosubstantiveimpactontheobligationsassuch,whichmustbeobservedasfromtheentryintoforceoftheCovenant.Inotherwords,itenablestheCommitteetoconsiderviolationsofsuchobligationsnotonlywithinthereportingprocedureestablishedunderarticle40oftheCovenant,butalsointhecontextoftheconsiderationofindividualcommunications.FromthemerelyproceduralnatureoftheOptionalProtocolitfollowsthat,unlessareservationisenteredbyaStatepartyuponaccessiontotheProtocol,theCommittee'scompetencealsoextendstoeventsthatoccurredbeforetheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforthatState,providedsucheventsoccurredorcontinuedtohaveeffectsaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenant. 2 Butevenassuming,asthemajorityviewdoes,thattheCommitteewasprecludedrationetemporisfromconsideringtheauthors'claimunderarticle9, @$ paragraph1,oftheCovenant,itwouldstillbeincorrecttoconcludethatitisequallyprecluded,rationetemporis,fromexaminingtheirclaimunderarticle9, 8!& paragraph5.Althoughtherighttocompensation,towhichanypersonunlawfullyarrestedordetainedisentitled,mayalsobeconstruedasaspecificationoftheremedywithinthemeaningofarticle2,paragraph3,i.e.theremedyfortheviolationoftherightsetforthinarticle9,paragraph1,theCovenantdoesnotestablishacausallinkbetweenthetwoprovisionscontainedinarticle9.Rather,thewordingofarticle9,paragraph5,suggeststhatitsapplicabilitydoesnotdependonafindingofviolationofarticle9,paragraph1;indeed,theunlawfulnessofanarrestordetentionmayderivenotonlyfromaviolationoftheprovisionsoftheCovenant,butalsofromaviolationofaprovisionofdomesticlaw.Inthelattercase,therighttocompensationmayexistindependentlyofwhetherthearrestordetentioncanberegardedasthebasisforaclaimunderarticle9,paragraph1,providedthatitisunlawfulunderdomesticlaw.Inotherwords,forthepurposeoftheapplicationofarticle9,paragraph5,theCommitteeisnotprecludedfromconsideringtheunlawfulnessofanarrestordetention,evenifitmightbeprecludedfromexaminingitunder h-+5 otherprovisionsoftheCovenant.ThisalsoapplieswhentheimpossibilityofinvokingotherprovisionsisduetothefactthatarrestordetentionoccurredpriortotheentryintoforceoftheCovenantor,followingthemajorityview,priortotheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocol.Sinceinthepresentcasetheunlawfulnessoftheauthors'arrestanddetentionunderdomesticlawisundisputed,Iconcludethattheirrighttocompensationunderarticle9,paragraph5,oftheCovenanthasbeenviolated,andthattheCommitteeshouldhavemadeafindingtothiseffect.F#(Signed)FaustoPocar x       ЀD.CommunicationNo.434/1990,LalSeerattanv.Trinidad X ЀandTobago(viewsadoptedon26October1995,fifty ( Ѐfifthsession)  Submittedby:LalSeerattan[representedbycounsel] @ Victim:Theauthor 8 Stateparty:TrinidadandTobago  Dateofcommunication:17December1990(initialsubmission) x   Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:17March1994    2 TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe  `  InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Meetingon26October1995, (   2 HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.434/1990,submitted p totheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.LalSeerattanundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights, 2 Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitby  theauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty, 2 Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol. x  1. 2 TheauthorofthecommunicationisLalSeerattan,aTrinidadiancitizen  currentlydetainedattheStateprisoninPortofSpain.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyTrinidadandTobagoofarticle14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor (! 2.1 2 Theauthorstatesthaton27December1982hewasarrestedandtakeninto p# custodyinconnectionwiththemurder,on26December1982,ofMotieRamoutar;on28December1982,hewaschargedwiththemurder.Theauthorfurtherstatesthaton29August1983,afterthepreliminaryexaminationwhichlastedeightmonths,themurderchargewasreducedtomanslaughterbytheexaminingmagistrateandhewasreleasedonbail.On18September1984,hewasrearrestedandbroughttotrialonamurdercharge.HewastriedintheHighCourtofPortofSpainbetween6and11March1986,wasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeath.2.2 2 Theprosecutionreliedmainlyonevidencegivenbythesonandthewifeof &$- thedeceased.Thedeceased'ssontestifiedthatwhenheandhisparentsreturnedhomeatabout7p.m.on26December1982,hisfather'semployee,oneB.,wasstandinginfrontoftheauthor'shouse;hewasapparentlydrunkandwasshoutingthreatsattheauthorandhisfamily.WhenhisfathersoughttopacifyB.,theauthor'swifecameoutandtoldhisfatherthathewasresponsibleforB.'smisbehaviour.Thedeceased'ssonfurthertestifiedthathethensawtheauthorrunningoutofthehouse,holdingaharpoonlikepieceofironandchasinghisfather,whoseescapewasblockedbyafence.Theauthorstabbedhis h-+5 fatherseveraltimesandthenranaway.Hisevidencewasinessencecorroboratedbyhismother.2.32 .2Thepathologisttestifiedthattheinjuriesofwhichthedeceaseddiedcouldhavebeeninflictedwiththeweaponthathadbeendescribedbytheeyewitnesses.2.42 .2Theauthorgavesworntestimonyandindicatedthathewasrelyingonacautionedstatementwhichhehadgiventothepoliceon27December1982.InthatstatementtheauthorhadsaidthatB.andoneJ.,whohadalsobeenpresentatthelocusinquo,hadthrownstonesathishouse,thatB.hadthreatenedhimandthathehadaskedthedeceasedtotakeB.home.ThedeceasedhadthentriedtopacifyB..WhenB.andthedeceasedhadstartedtofight,heandhisfamilyhadleftandhadspentthenightatthehouseofoneS.P..Hefurthertestifiedthatrelationsbetweenhimselfandthedeceasedandhisfamilyhadalwaysbeencordial.2.52 .2Theauthor'swife,whotestifiedonhisbehalf,gaveadifferentversionoftheincident.ShestatedthatB.andthedeceasedhadinsultedherandthatthedeceasedandhisfamilyhadthrownstones,afterwhichsheandherhusbandhadleft.Shedeniedthatherhusbandhadbeenoutinthestreetthatnight,asshehadsaidinherearlierstatementtothepolice.Inlightofherevidence,thejudgealsoputtheissueofprovocationtothejury.Anotherwitnessappearedontheauthor'sbehalf,buthistestimonywasofnoparticularsignificancetothecase,ashehadonlyheardthevoiceoutsideandcouldnotsaywhowerethepersonsinvolved.2.62 .2TheCourtofAppealofTrinidadandTobagodismissedtheauthor'sappealon9March1987.HispetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon26May1988.On3December1992,awarrantfortheexecutionoftheauthoron8December1992wasissued.On7December1992,attorneysinTrinidadandTobagofiledaconstitutionalmotiononbehalfoftheauthor,mainlyonthegroundthatexecutingtheauthoraftersuchprolongeddelaywouldviolatehisconstitutionalrights.Theauthorwasgivenastayofexecutionpendingtheoutcomeofaconstitutionalmotioninanothercasewhichconcernedthesameissue.2.72 .2On4January1994,theauthorwasinformedthathisdeathsentencehadbeencommutedtolifeimprisonmentbyorderofthePresidentofTrinidadandTobago,asaresultofthefindingsoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofEarlPrattandIvanMorganv.theAttorneyGeneralofJamaica.aThecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimsthathisattorneydidnotrepresenthimadequatelyandthat,asaresult,histrialwasunfair.bHestatesthathehadwantedtoadmitthecrimeanddefendhimselfbyinvokinglegitimateselfdefenceonaccountofthreefullyearsofprovocationthatprecededthecrimeinwhichthedeceasedandhisfamilyhad,amongotherthings,beatenhisdaughter.Hepointsoutthat,bypleadingguiltytomanslaughteratthepreliminaryhearing,hehadalreadyadmittedthecrimebutthatatthetrialhisattorney"tookhimoffthescene"bybasingthedefenceonalibi.HecomplainsthathisattorneyneverchallengedtheabsenceofforensicevidencebeforetheHighCourt,thathedidnotverifywhathiswifehadpreviouslysaidtothepoliceandthathedidnotraiseanyobjectionsagainsttheabsenceofthephotographer,whohadtakenpicturesofthelocusinquo.cTheauthorfurthercomplainsthathisattorneysimplyabandonedtheappeal,ashedidnotargueanygroundsofappealonhisbehalf.dInthiscontext,theauthoraddsthatdespitethis,"he(theattorney)stillhadthegutstotelltheChiefJusticethatIamalreadyinprisonandifhe(theChiefJustice)couldgivemeafiveyearprisontermbecausemycasewasreallyoneofprovocation".3.22 .2Counselsubmitsthatthereareseveralfactorsintheauthor'scasewhichgivereasontobelievethathedidnotreceiveafairtrial.Withregardtotheabsenceofscientificevidenceatthetrial,counselconcedesthatitisopenforthedefencetocommentontheabsenceofsuchevidenceinordertounderminetheprosecutioncasebutthatthedefencewouldnormallynotdemandthatitbeproduced.Theabsenceofscientificorotherevidencewas,however,ofparticularimportanceintheauthor'scase,sincetheprosecution'scaserestedentirelyupontheidentificationoftheauthorbythedeceased'ssonandwifeinconditionsofpartialdarknessandwhenoneofthosewitnesses,namely,thewifeofthedeceased,hadpooreyesightandwasnotwearingherglasses.Furthermore,giventhewitnesses'closerelationshiptothedeceasedandthehistoryofbadrelationsbetweenthetwofamilies,therewasamplereasontoquestionthereliabilityofthewitnesses.Counselfurthersubmitsthatinthosecircumstancesthejudgeoughttohavewarnedthejurytobecautious.Instead,thejudgesaid:"Idonotthink[...]thatyouwouldhaveanydifficultyintheidentificationofthepeopleinvolved."Accordingtocounsel,thatamountedtoamisdirectionwhichresultedinanunfairtrial.3.32 .2Counselfurtherpointsoutthatcrucialwitnessesinthecase,likeB.,J.andS.P.,werenotcalledtocourttotestifyandthattherewasadelayofmorethanthreeyearsbetweentheauthor'sarrestandthetrial.Hesubmitsthatsuchadelayisparticularlyundesirableincasesinwhichidentificationbywitnessesisthemainissue.Theaboveissaidtoamounttoviolationsofarticle14oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility4.2 .2Bysubmissionof10September1993,theStatepartyconfirmsthattheauthorhasexhaustedalldomesticremediesinhiscriminalcase.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision5.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftiethsession.5.22 .2TheCommitteeconsideredinadmissibletheauthor'sclaimsrelatingtotheevaluationofevidenceandtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury.TheCommitteerecalledthatitisinprinciplefortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenant,andnotfortheCommittee,toevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcaseortoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitcanbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjusticeorthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionsortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.5.32 .2TheCommitteefurtherconsideredthattheauthorandhiscounselhadfailedtosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,thecontentionthattheauthorwasnotadequatelyrepresentedduringthetrialandonappeal,andthathistrialwasunfairbecausecrucialwitnessesinthecasewerenotcalledtotestifyincourt.5.42 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheperiodbetweentheauthor'sinitialarrest,on27December1982,andhisconvictionon11March1986,mightraiseanissueunderarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant,whichshouldbeconsideredonthemerits.5.52 .2Consequently,on17March1994,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.FurtherinformationreceivedfromtheStateparty6.2 .2TheStateparty,bysubmissionof19April1995,confirmsthattheauthor'ssentencehasbeencommuted,on31December1993,tolifeimprisonment.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee7.12 .2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationprovidedbytheparties.Itnoteswithconcernthat,followingthetransmittaloftheCommittee'sdecisiononadmissibility,theStatepartyhaslimiteditselftoinformingtheCommitteeaboutthecommutationoftheauthor'sdeathsentenceandthatnoinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyclarifyingthematterraisedbythepresentcommunication.TheCommitteerecallsthatitisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,thataStatepartyexamineingoodfaithalltheallegationsbroughtagainstitandthatitprovidetheCommitteewithalltheinformationatitsdisposal.InthelightofthefailureoftheStatepartytocooperatewiththeCommitteeonthematterbeforeit,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations.7.22 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheinformationbeforeitshowsthattheauthorwasarrestedon27December1982,thathewasreleasedonbailon29August1983afterthepreliminaryexaminationofthecasehadbeenconcluded,thathewasrearrestedon18September1984,thatthetrialagainsthimcommencedon6March1986andthathewasconvictedandsentencedtodeathon11March1986.AlthoughitisnotclearfromthematerialbeforetheCommitteewhethertherewereoneortwopreliminaryenquiries,orwhethertheoriginalcommittalwasformanslaughterormurder,theCommitteeconsidersthat,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,theperiodofoverthreeyearsbetweentheauthor'sinitialarrestandthetrialagainsthimdoes,intheabsenceofanyexplanationsfromtheStatepartyjustifyingthedelay,amounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.8.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.9.2 .2Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Seerattanwithaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteehasnotedthattheStatepartyhascommutedtheauthor'sdeathsentenceandrecommendsthat,inviewofthefactthattheauthorhasspentover10yearsinprison,ofwhichsevenyearsandninemonthshavebeenspentondeathrow,theStatepartyconsidertheauthor'searlyrelease.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.10.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aPrivyCouncilAppealNo.10of1993;judgementdeliveredon2November1993.2 .2bTheauthorwasrepresentedbythesameattorneyatallstagesofthejudicialproceedingsagainsthim,i.e.preliminaryhearing,trialandappealtotheCourtofAppeal.2 .2cItappearsfromthenotesofevidenceofthetrialthatthephotographerhadleftthecountryandthattheauthor'sattorneymadeanapplicationtovisitthelocusinquo.Theprosecutionobjectedbecausetheauthor'shousehadburneddownaftertheincident.Theapplicationwasthenwithdrawn.2 .2dItappearsfromthewrittenjudgementoftheCourtofAppealthattheattorneyadmittedbeforetheCourtofAppealthat,havingexaminedtheevidenceinthecaseaswellasthejudge'ssumminguptothejury,hecouldfindnogroundtoargueonhisclient'sbehalf.TheCourtofAppealagreedwiththeattorneybutstatedthat"fortherecordweshoulddealbrieflywiththefactsofthecase". ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO  ( A $(}882   ǀE.CommunicationNo.454/1991,EnriqueGarcaPonsv.Spaiǹ(viewsadoptedon30October1995,fiftyfifthsession)882 HSubmittedby: . H .HH .HEnriqueGarcaPons . . . . . .Allegedvictim:H .HH .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HSpainDateofcommunication:H .HH .H29December1990(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H30June19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon30October1995,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.454/1991,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.EnriqueGarcaPonsundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorsofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisEnriqueGarcaPons,aSpanishcitizenbornin1951,currentlyresidinginBadalona,Spain.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbySpainofarticle14,paragraph1,article25(c),andarticle26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Thefactsassubmitted2.12 .2Theauthorisacivilservant,assignedtothesubofficeoftheNationalEmploymentAgency(InstitutoNacionaldeEmpleo)inthemunicipalityofBadalona.On20December1986,hewasappointedsubstitutefortheDistrictJudgeofBadalona,afunctionwhichheperformeduntil16October1987;followinghisnomination,herequestedhisemployer,theMinistryofLabourandSocialSecurity,toformalizehischangeofstatusandtocertifythathewas,intermsofadministrativestatus,assignedto"specialservices".TheMinistrydidnotgranthisrequest.2.22 .2Laterin1987,theauthorwasagainappointedsubstituteDistrictJudgeofBadalona;hedidnot,however,assumehisfunctions,sincethepostofDistrictJudgehadbeentakenupbyanewjudge.Theauthorthereforerequestedunemploymentbenefits(prestacionesdedesempleo).Again,herequestedtheformalrecognitionofhisadministrativestatus,buthisemployerdidnotprocesshisrequest.Thesamesituationprevailedin1988;theauthorthereforefiledacomplaintwiththecompetentadministrativetribunalagainsttheInstitutoNacionaldeEmpleo,requestingunemploymentbenefits.On27May1988,theJuzgadodeloSocialNo.9(Barcelona)rejectedhisrequestbecausetheauthorwasfreetoresumehisformerpostandthereforedidnotsatisfytherequirementsundertheunemploymentbenefitsscheme.Itwasarguedthatwhattheauthorintendedwastoleavehispostatthelowerscaleinordertoclaimunemploymentbenefitsatahigherscale,whilepreparinghisentranceintoajudicialcareer.̇2.32 .2On11May1989,theInstitutoNacionaldeEmpleodeclaredtheauthortobeon"voluntaryleaveofabsence"sincetheendof1986.Theauthorcontestedthatdecisionandcontinuedtoassume,whenevercalledupontodoso,thefunctionsofasubstitutedistrictjudge.Hearguedthatsinceallsubstitutejudgescontributetounemploymentbenefitinsurance,hehimselfshouldbeabletobenefitfromitscoverage.Heappealedonthosegroundsagainstthedecisionof27May1988totheTribunalSuperiordeJusticiadeCataluawhich,on30April1990,dismissedhisappeal.2.42 .2On22June1990,theauthorfiledanappeal(recursodeamparo)withtheConstitutionalTribunal.On21September1990,theConstitutionalTribunalrejectedhiscomplaint.TheauthorrepetitionedtheConstitutionalTribunalon10November1990,pointingoutthathewastheonlysubstitutejudgeinallofSpaintowhomunemploymentbenefitshadbeendeniedandthatthatsituationviolatedhisconstitutionalrights.On3December1990,theConstitutionalTribunalconfirmeditsearlierdecision.Withthis,theauthorsubmits,availabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Thecomplaint3.2 .2Theauthorallegesthatheisavictimofdenialofequalitybeforethecourts,asprovidedforinarticle14oftheCovenant;ofdiscriminationinaccesstopublicservice,inviolationofarticle25(c);andofdiscriminationbecauseofdenialofunemploymentbenefits,incontraventionofarticle26.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononadmissibility4.2 .2Inasubmissiondated17September1991,theStatepartystatedthat"thecommunicationofMr.GarcaPonssatisfies,inprinciple,theconditionsofadmissibilitysetforthinarticles3and5,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol...andthatitisnotincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant".Whilenotobjectingtothecommunication'sadmissibility,itindicatedthatitwould,induecourse,makesubmissionsonthemerits.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision5.12 .2Beforeconsideringanyclaimcontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.5.22 .2TheCommitteefoundthattheauthorhadsubstantiatedhisallegations,forpurposesofadmissibility,andwassatisfiedthatthecommunicationwasnotinadmissibleunderarticles1,2,and3oftheOptionalProtocol.ItfurthernotedthattheStatepartyconcededthatdomesticremedieshadbeenexhausted.6.2 .2On30June1994,theHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinasmuchasitmayraiseissuesunderarticles14,25and26oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'ssubmissionsonthemerits7.12 .2Initssubmissionsof13Februaryand15June1995,theStatepartycontestsanyviolationsoftheCovenant.Astothefactsofthecase,theStatepartyindicatesthattheauthorisnotunemployed,butisacivilservant,andthatalthoughonseveraloccasionshehasbeengivenleavetoassumethepostofasubstitutejudge,hehasalwaysbeenabletoreturntohisestablishedpost;thus,hehasneverbeenunemployedand,accordingly,cannotqualifyforunemploymentbenefits.Theauthor'ssubmissionsuffersfromthecontradictionbetweenhisdesiretobeajudgeonapermanentappointmentandhisunwillingnesstogiveupthesecurityofhisstatusascivilservantinhiscurrentposition.7.22 .2Astotheauthor'sallegationthatheistheonlyunemployedsubstitutejudgewhodoesnotreceiveunemploymentbenefits,theStatepartystatesthattheauthorhasnotcitedasingleexampleofapersoninthesamecircumstancesashimself,i.e.acivilservantontemporaryleavefromanestablishedpost,whohasbeentreateddifferently.Onlythoseunemployedsubstitutejudgesreceiveunemploymentbenefitswhoare,infact,unemployed.Thisisnottheauthor'ssituation.Norcanheexpecttheadoptionofspeciallegislationforhimselftoallowhimtoretainhiscivilservicepostwhilenotperformingitsfunctionsand,instead,preparingforcompetitiveexamswhilereceivingunemploymentbenefitsonhisexpiredsubstitutejudgeassignment.7.32 .2Withregardtoanallegedviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant,theStatepartyaffirmsthattheauthorhashadequalaccesstoallSpanishcourts,includingtheConstitutionalCourt,andthatallofhiscomplaintswereexaminedfairlybythecompetenttribunals,asevidencedintherespectivejudgementsandothersubmissions.Admittedly,theauthordisagreeswiththedispositionofhiscase,buthehasnotsubstantiatedaclaimthatproceduralguaranteeswerenotobservedbythevariousinstancesinvolved.7.42 .2Astotheallegedviolationofarticle25oftheCovenant,theStatepartypointsoutthatatnotimeinthemanyproceedingsengagedinbytheauthordidheinvoketherightprotectedunderarticle25oftheCovenant.Moreover,thatissueisnotgermanetothecase,whichfocusesnotontherightofequalaccesstopublicservicebutontheallegeddenialofunemploymentbenefits.Theauthor'scomments8.12 .2Inhiscomments,dated29Marchand29July1995,theauthorreiterateshisclaimtobeavictimofdiscriminationandcontendsthattherelevantSpanishlawsareincompatiblewiththeCovenant,inparticularthe1987rulesandcircular10/86oftheUnderSecretaryintheMinistryofJusticeconcerningthestatusofsubstitutejudges.Hefurtherallegesthatthelackofpermanenceandtheinsecurityofsubstitutejudgesendangerstheindependenceofthejudiciary.8.22 .2HerejectstheStateparty'scontentionthathehasprimarilyeconomicconcernsandexpectsspeciallegislationforhimself.Farfromhavingearnedsubstantiallymoreasajudge,hewascompelledtoreturntohiscivilservicepostinordertoattendtohisminimumneeds.Hefurtherstressesthat,duringvariousperiodsfrom1986to1992,heservedasadevotedsubstitutejudgeandpaidunemploymentinsurance.Hecontendsthattherelevantlegislationandpracticeshouldbeadjustedtoensurethatpersonswhopayunemploymentinsurancebenefittherefromwhenthetermsoftemporaryemploymentend,notwithstandingthepossibilityofreturningtoanotherpostinthecivilservice.8.32 .2Theauthorconcludesthatsinceheistheonlysubstitutejudgewhodoesnotreceiveunemploymentbenefits,heisavictimofdiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.&  Reviewofadmissibilityandexaminationofthemerits9.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.'  9.22 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsconcerningarticle25(c)oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhassubmittedthattheauthorneverinvokedthesubstanceofthatrightinanyproceedingsbeforeSpanishtribunals;theauthorhasnotclaimedthatitwouldnothavebeenopentohimtoinvokethatrightbeforethelocalcourts.Therefore,pursuanttorule93,paragraph4,oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,theCommitteesetsasidethatpartofitsadmissibilitydecisionconcerningarticle25oftheCovenantanddeclaresitinadmissiblebecauseofnonexhaustionofdomesticremedies.9.32 .2Beforeaddressingthemeritsinthecase,theCommitteeobservesthat,althoughtherighttosocialsecurityisnotprotected,assuch,intheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,issuesundertheCovenantmaynonethelessariseiftheprincipleofequalitycontainedinarticles14and26oftheCovenantisviolated.9.42 .2Inthiscontext,theCommitteereiteratesitsjurisprudencethatnotalldifferentiationintreatmentcanbedeemedtobediscriminatoryundertherelevantprovisionsoftheCovenant.aAdifferentiationwhichiscompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantandisbasedonreasonablegroundsdoesnotamounttoprohibiteddiscrimination.9.52 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorclaimstobetheonlyunemployedsubstitutejudgewhodoesnotreceiveunemploymentbenefits.TheinformationbeforetheCommitteereveals,however,thattherelevantcategoryofrecipientsofunemploymentbenefitsencompassesonlythoseunemployedsubstitutejudgeswhocannotimmediatelyreturntoanotherpostuponterminationoftheirtemporaryassignments.Theauthordoesnotbelongtothatcategory,sinceheenjoysthestatusofacivilservant.IntheCommittee'sopinion,adistinctionbetweenunemployedsubstitutejudgeswhoarenotcivilservantsonleaveandthosewhoarecannotbedeemedarbitraryorunreasonable.TheCommitteethereforeconcludesthattheallegeddifferentiationintreatmentdoesnotentailaviolationoftheprincipleofequalityandnondiscriminationenunciatedinarticle26oftheCovenant.9.62 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsconcerningarticle14,theCommitteehascarefullystudiedthevariousjudicialproceedingsengagedinbytheauthorinSpain,aswellastheirdisposition,andconcludesthattheevidencesubmitteddoesnotsupportafindingthathehasbeendeniedafairhearingwithinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol,findsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotrevealaviolationbySpainofanyprovisionoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]&  @ .Notes2 .2aSeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortysecondSession,SupplementNo.40(A/42/40),annexVIII.D,communicationNo.182/1984(ZwaandeVriesv.theNetherlands),viewsadoptedon9April1987,para.13;andibid.,'  FiftiethSession,SupplementNo.40(A/50/40),vol.II,annexX.K,communicationNo.516/1992(Simuneketal.v.theCzechRepublic),viewsadoptedon19July1995,para.11.5.2 .2 . . F.CommunicationNo.459/1991,OsbourneWrightand2 .2 . . EricHarveyv.Jamaica(viewsadoptedon󀀀27October1995,fiftyfifthsession)Submittedby: . H .HH .HOsbourneWrightandEricHarvey2 .2 . . H .HH .H[representedbycounsel]Victims: . . H .HH .HTheauthorsStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .H27February1991(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H17March19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon27October1995,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.459/1991,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMessrsOsbourneWrightandEricHarveyundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorsofthecommunication,theircounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorsofthecommunicationareOsbourneWrightandEricHarvey,twoJamaicancitizensatthetimeofsubmissionawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.TheyclaimtobevictimsofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,10and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theyarerepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsassubmitted2.12 .2TheauthorswerechargedwiththemurderofTimothyClarkeinDecember1980andwerecommittedfortrialinOctober1981.InJuly1983,attheconclusionoftheirtrial,thejurydidnotreturnaunanimousverdictandaretrialwasordered.TheretrialtookplaceintheHomeCircuitCourtofKingston.On29April1988,theauthorswerefoundguiltyandsentencedtodeath.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedtheirappealson10October1988andproducedawrittenjudgementon15November1988.InFebruary1991,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedtheauthors'petitionforspecialleavetoappeal.Withthat,itissubmitted,domesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.2.22 .2Attrial,thecasefortheprosecutionwasthattheauthorsandoneortwoothermen,on2November1980,afterhavingrobbedabutcherof20,000Jamaicandollars,stoppedavehicleinthedistrictofPepper,parishofSt.Elizabeth,underthepretextofneedinghelp.Theyshotandwoundedthedriver,StanvilleBeckford,andthenshotandkilledTimothyClarke,apassenger,whowastryingtoescape.Mr.Beckfordtestifiedthat,beforelosingconsciousness,hesawMr.WrightshootingMr.Clarke.KennethWhite,whohadbeentalkingwiththebutcherpriortotherobbery,identifiedMr.Harveyasoneoftheparticipants.Thebutcher,aMr.Francis,madedockidentificationsofbothMr.WrightandMr.Harveyasparticipantsintherobbery.AccordingtothetestimonygivenbyDetectiveSergeantAshmanduringthepreliminaryhearing,Mr.Wright,afterhisarreston2November1980,admittedthecrime,indicatedthehidingplaceofthemurderweaponanddirectedthepolicetotheaddressesofhisaccomplices,Mr.HarveyandoneMr.Campbell.MoneywasfoundonbothMr.WrightandMr.Harvey,inbundlesof200Jamaicandollars.Thebutcher'swatchwasfoundonMr.Harvey.Atthetimeoftheretrial,DetectiveAshmanhaddied,andhisdepositionwasadmittedasevidence.2.32 .2Thedefencewasbasedonalibi.Mr.Wrightstatesthathewasathisgirlfriend'shouseallmorningandthatheonlyleftherplaceintheafternoontobuysomevegetablesandtodeposit500Jamaicandollarsinhismother'ssavingaccount.Itwasthenthathewasarrested.Hedenieshavingadmittedhisparticipationinthekillingtothepolice.Mr.HarveystatesthatheisafishermanandthathewasatOldHarbourBay,mendinghisfishingnets,on2November1980andthathedidnotknowMr.WrightorMr.Campbell.Hewasarrestedon4November1980,whenhewasjustabouttogotosea.Hedenieshavingbeeninpossessionofthebutcher'swatchorofanywatchsimilartoit.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorsclaimthattheydidnothaveafairtrial.Moreparticularly,theyallegethatthejudge'ssummingupwasbiasedinfavouroftheprosecution.ThejudgeallegedlydidnotgiveproperguidancetothejuryonhowtoassesstheevidentialvalueofDetectiveAshman'sdeposition,andfailedtowarnthejuryofthedangersoftheadmissibilityoftheevidencecontainedinthedeposition,particularlyinthelightoftheinabilityofthedefendantstosubjecttheevidencetocrossexamination.DetectiveAshmangavehisdepositionatthepreliminaryhearingbeforetheGunCourtin1981.AlthoughMr.Harveywasrepresentedbyalawyer,nolawyerwaspresentforMr.WrightandnoeffectivecrossexaminationofMr.Ashman'sevidencetookplaceduringthepreliminaryhearing.Thejudge,inhissummingup,conveyedtheimpressionthattheauthors'failuretocrossexamineMr.Ashmanduringthepreliminaryinquiryjustifiedconclusionsadversetothem,withouttakingintoaccounttheabsenceofalawyerforMr.WrightandthepossiblelackofinstructionsforMr.Harvey'scounsel.ThejudgefurtherdidnotsufficientlyexplainthedangerofdockidentificationsanddidnotproperlydrawtheattentionofthejurytoirregularitiesduringtheidentificationparadeheldforMr.Harvey.Mr.HarveyclaimsthathewasidentifiedbyMr.Whiteonlyatasecondidentificationparade,whichwasunfairlyconductedsincethewitnesswasgivenanopportunitytoseehimbeforetheparadewasheld.Mr.HarveywasfurtheronlyidentifiedbyMr.BeckfordandMr.Francisindockidentificationsthattookplacemorethansevenyearsaftertheevent;bothwitnesseshadfailedtoidentifyhimattheidentificationparade.Mr.WrightclaimsfurthermorethatMr.Beckford'sdockidentificationofhimwasfraughtwithdangers,sinceMr.BeckfordhademployedMr.Wrightfiveyearsbeforeandtheemploymenthadendedindisagreement.Thefailureofthejudgetogiveproperinstructionstothejurywithregardtotheseissuesissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.3.22 .2Itisalsoallegedthatthejudgerefusedtoallowthedefencetocallawitnesstoprovethecontentsofthepolicestationdiary,whichcontainedimportantreferencesthatwouldtestthecredibilityofMr.Ashman'suncorroboratedstatement.Itissubmittedthatthedefencelearnedtheidentityofthepoliceofficerwhomadetheentryinthediaryonlyduringthecourseofthetrial,despiteearliereffortstoobtaininformationatthepolicestation.Thedefencethereforehadnoopportunitytohavethepoliceofficerreadybeforethecommencementofthetrial.Thewitnessarrivedafterthedefencehadcompleteditscasebutbeforethejudgehadstartedhissummingup.Theauthorsclaimthattherewasthereforenoreasonforthejudgetorefusetohavethewitnessheardandtohavethecontentsofthepolicediaryputtothejury.Itisstatedthatthejudge'srefusaltoallowthewitnesstobeheardviolatesarticle14,paragraphs1and3(e),oftheCovenant.3.32 .2Theauthorsfurtherclaimthatarticle14,paragraph3(c),hasbeenviolatedintheircase,sincetheywereconvictedsomeeightyearsaftertheincident.Theycontendthatthereisnoreasonableexcuseforthatdelay.Theauthorsattachascheduleofthecasehistory,whichshowsthatatrialdatewassetonnumerousoccasionsbutwasthenpostponedtoalaterdatebecauseoftheabsenceofeitheraccused,defencelawyersorwitnesses.Inthiscontext,theauthorsnotethatMr.Wrightwasreleasedfromcustodyon23February1984,afterhavingbeenacquittedonanothercharge.Hedidnotvolunteertoappearandwasrearrestedinthesummerof1986.Thetrialwasnotheldimmediatelyin1986,butpostponeduntilApril1988.Thedelayissaidtobedetrimentaltothedefenceinviewoftheprosecution'srelianceondockidentificationsoftheaccused,madeeightyearsaftertheincidenttookplace.Also,inMr.Wright'scase,hismainalibiwitness,histhengirlfriend,whogaveevidenceatthefirsttrial,couldnolongerbefound.DetectiveAshmandiedbetweenthetwotrials,andtheevidencefromhisdepositioncouldnot,therefore,besubjectedtocrossexamination.Inthiscontext,counselnotesthat,atthehearingbeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,theirLordshipsstatedthattheywerenotinapositiontocommentontheinefficiencyofthejudicialmachineryinJamaica.3.42 .2Theauthorsalsoclaimthattheirrightsunderarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(d)oftheCovenanthavebeenviolated.TheyclaimthattheysufferedfromalackofadequatelegalrepresentationthroughouttheentirejudicialprocessinJamaica.Mr.Harveysubmitsthathewasrepresentedbyaprivatelyretainedlawyerduringthefirsttrial,butthathedependedonlegalaidfortheretrial.HeclaimsthatthelegalaidattorneywhorepresentedhimdidnottakeastatementfromhimandthathemethimforthefirsttimeinApril1988,atthebeginningofthetrial.Mr.Wrightdependedonlegalaidfortheentireprocess;hewasnotrepresentedatthepreliminaryhearing.Itissubmittedthatthelackofpreparationofthedefenceledtoafailuretoproperlycrossexaminetheprosecutionwitnesses,tolackofcommunicationbetweentheauthorsandtheirlawyersandtothelackofattendanceofwitnessesforthedefence.ThatissaidtoreflectthefundamentalinadequacyoftheJamaicanlegalaidsystem.Inthiscontext,theauthorsnotethatduringtheretrialthejudgecriticizedthedefenceonseveraloccasionsfornotdoingtheirworkproperly.3.52 .2Asregardstheappeal,itissubmittedthatMr.Wrightwasnotinformedaboutthedateoftheappealhearing,thathislawyerdidnotconsulthimbeforethehearingandthatheonlylearnedabouttheappealwhenhislawyerinformedhimthatithadfailed.Mr.Harveystatesthathewasinformedbyhislawyer,on17August1988,thathewasnotabletorepresenthimbeforetheCourtofAppeal.Asecondletter,dated18October1988,informedhimthathisappealwasdismissed.Itappearedthathislawyerhadrepresentedhimatthehearing,despitehisearlierstatementthathewouldnot,andhadconcededthathecouldnotsupporttheappeal.Itisarguedthatthatlefttheauthorswithouteffectiverepresentationattheappeal,therebyviolatingtheirrighttoafairtrial.3.62 .2TheauthorsalsoclaimthatthelengthoftheirdetentionindeplorablecircumstancesconstitutesaviolationoftheCovenant,notablyofarticle10,paragraph1.ReferenceismadetoareportpreparedbyanongovernmentalorganizationdescribingtheconditionsprevailingondeathrowinJamaica.Itisstatedthattheauthorsaregiveninsufficientfoodoflownutritionalvalue,thatthereisnoaccesstorecreationalandsportsfacilitiesandthattheauthorsspendanexcessiveamountoftimelockedupincells.Mr.WrightsubmitsthathefellillandhadtobetakentoSpanishTownHospitalinMarch1991.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononadmissibilityandtheauthors'commentsthereon4.2 .2Bysubmissionof18November1991,theStatepartyarguedthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleonthegroundoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.Itconcededthattheauthorshadexhaustedtheircriminalappealpossibilities,butarguedthattheyhadfailedtopursuetheremedyprovidedbytheJamaicanConstitution.Inthisconnection,theStatepartysubmittedthatarticles6,7and14oftheCovenantwerecoterminouswithsections14,17and20oftheConstitution.Section25oftheConstitutionprovidesthatanypersonwhoallegesthatanyofhisbasicrightshavebeenviolatedmayapplytotheSupremeCourtforredress.5.2 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselreferredtotheCommittee'sjurisprudencethat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,theconstitutionalmotionisnotaremedythatneedstobeexhaustedforpurposesofadmissibilityofacommunicationundertheOptionalProtocol.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationatitsfiftiethsession.6.22 .2WithregardtotheStateparty'sclaimthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleonthegroundoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies,theCommitteerecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.TheCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,inrecentcases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecaseshadbeendismissed.However,theCommitteealsorecalledthattheStatepartyhadindicatedonseveraloccasionsathatnolegalaidwasmadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,constituteanavailableremedywhichneededtobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,theCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.32 .2TheCommitteeconsideredinadmissiblethepartoftheauthors'claimswhichrelatedtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejurywithregardtotheevaluationoftheevidenceandthevalueoftheidentifications.TheCommitteereiteratedthatitwasinprinciplefortheappellatecourtsofStatesparties,andnotfortheCommittee,toreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitwasclearthattheinstructionswerearbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationsofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthejudge'sinstructionstothejuryintheinstantcasesufferedfromsuchdefects.6.42 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheallegedlackoflegalrepresentationforMr.Wrightatthepreliminaryhearingandtheclaimthatcounselinfactabandonedtheappealwithoutpriorconsultationwiththeauthors,aswellasthedelayofalmostfiveyearsbetweenthefirsttrialandtheretrial,mightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraphs3(b),(c)and(d),oftheCovenant,whichshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.6.52 .2TheCommitteeconsideredinadmissibletheauthors'claimthattheirlengthystayondeathrow,underallegedlydeplorablecircumstances,violatedtheCovenant,sincetheauthorshadfailedtoshowwhatstepstheyhadtakentobringthecomplainttotheattentionoftheauthoritiesinJamaica.7.2 .2Accordingly,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraphs3(b),(c)and(d),oftheCovenant.Underrule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,theStatepartywasrequestednottocarryoutthedeathsentenceagainsttheauthorswhiletheircommunicationwasunderconsiderationbytheCommittee.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandtheauthors'comments8.12 .2Bysubmissionof7November1994,theStatepartystatesthatitismakinginquiriesintoMr.Wright'sallegationthathewasnotrepresentedatthepreliminaryhearing.Asregardstheclaimthattheperiodoffiveyearsbetweentheendofthefirsttrialandthebeginningoftheretrialconstitutesunduedelayinviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),theStatepartyarguesthatthedelaywasnotwhollyattributabletotheState.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthattheretrialwaspostponedonseveraloccasionsbecauseoftheabsenceofeitherdefencecounselortheaccused,andpointsoutthatMr.Wrightwasatlargefortwoyears,duringwhichperiodtheretrialcouldnotproceed.8.22 .2Withregardtotheappeal,theStatepartysubmitsthatanexaminationoftheCourtofAppeal'srecordsshowsthatcounselforMr.Wrightdidinfactarguetheappealonhisbehalf.Moreover,theStatepartystatesthatthereisnoindicationthatMr.Wrighteversignalledhisdissatisfactionwithhislegalrepresentationtotherelevantauthoritiesandthat,inthosecircumstances,theStatepartycannotbeheldresponsiblefortheallegedimproperrepresentation.8.32 .2On15September1995,theStatepartyinformstheCommitteethattheauthors'sentenceshavebeencommutedtolifeimprisonment.9.12 .2InhisresponsetotheStateparty'ssubmission,Mr.Wrightreiteratesthathislegalaidcounselwasabsentatthepreliminaryhearingandthatthemagistrateshouldeitherhaveadjournedthehearingorprovidedhimwithanewlegalaidlawyer.Asregardsthedelayinobtainingaretrial,Mr.Wrightacknowledgesthathewasatlargefortwoyears,duringwhichhecouldnotbebroughttotrial.Hesubmits,however,thatthatdoesnotexplainwhytheretrialagainsthiscodefendantdidnottakeplaceandwhyittookanothertwoyearsafterhisrearresttobeginwiththeretrial.Asregardstheappeal,Mr.Wrightstatesthathehasneverclaimedthathiscounseldidnotarguetheappealbutonlythathewasnotinformedbeforehandwhentheappealwasgoingtotakeplaceandthereforehadnooccasiontoconsultwithhiscounsel.9.22 .2Counselfortheauthors,bysubmissionof3April1995,arguesthat,takingintoaccountthatthepreliminaryhearingtookplace14yearsago,theStatepartywillneverbeabletoexplainsatisfactorilywhythepreliminaryhearingproceededintheabsenceofMr.Wright'slegalrepresentative.Inthiscontext,counselrecallsthatMr.Wrightwasonly18yearsoldatthetimeandnotfamiliarwiththecriminalprocess.Atthehearinghefailedtocrossexaminetheprosecutionwitnesses,inparticularDetectiveAshman.Thefailuretocrossexaminewasheldagainstthedefencebythejudgeattheauthors'retrial,whentheopportunitytocrossexamineDetectiveAshmannolongerexisted.Inthiscontext,itisstatedthatDetectiveAshmanwascrossexaminedatthefirsttrialbutthatnotranscriptofthefirsttrialwasavailableattheretrial.Itissaidthattheinformationcontainedinthetranscriptmighthavehelpedtoassessthevalueoftheidentificationevidenceandthattheabsenceofthetrialtranscriptseriouslyprejudicedtheauthors'defence.9.32 .2ItisfurtheracceptedthattheStatepartycannotbeheldresponsibleforthetwoyears'delayintheretrialforMr.Wrightwhilehewasatlarge.However,counselpointsoutthattheretrialwasorderedinJuly1983andthatMr.WrightwasreleasedfromcustodyinFebruary1984,andarguesthattherewasnoreasonwhytheretrialcouldnothavetakenplacebeforeFebruary1984.Alternatively,afterMr.Wright'srearrestinearly1986,therewasnoreasonwhyatrialdatecouldnothavebeenfixedimmediately.Counselarguesthat,asaconsequenceofthedelay,theauthors'defencewasseriouslyprejudiced,sinceDetectiveAshman'sevidencecouldonlybereadandnotcrossexamined,dockidentificationstookplacesevenyearsaftertheeventandMr.Wright'smainalibiwitnesswasnowheretobefound.9.42 .2AsregardsMr.Harvey,counselreferstohissubmissionsmadeforMr.WrightaboveandaddsthatthereisnoreasonwhyMr.HarveycouldnothavebeentriedevenwhileMr.Wrightwasatlarge.Counselpointsoutthat,attheretrial,Mr.Harveywasidentifiedinthedockbytwoofthewitnessessevenyearsaftertheevent,butthatthesamewitnesseshadbeenunabletoidentifyhimatanidentificationparadeshortlyaftertheincident.Further,attheretrial,thealibiwitnesscalledforMr.HarveycouldnotexactlyrememberthedatewhenhehadbeenwithMr.Harvey,therebyweakeninghisevidence.Itissubmittedthat,iftheretrialhadbeenheldearlier,thewitness'memorymighthavebeenclearer.9.52 .2CounselrecallsthatcounselforMr.HarveyonappealconcededthattherewerenomeritstotheappealandarguesthatthefactualabandonmentoftheappealbyMr.Harvey'slawyerconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(d)oftheCovenant.Examinationofthemerits10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasstatedthatitwillinvestigateMr.Wright'sallegationaboutthelackoflegalrepresentationatthepreliminaryhearingbuthasnotprovidedanyfurtherinformation.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconsidersthatitisundisputedthatMr.Wrightwasnotrepresentedbycounselatthepreliminaryhearingofthechargesagainsthim.TheCommitteeaffirmsthatlegalassistancemustbemadeavailabletoanaccusedwhoischargedwithacapitalcrime.Thisappliesnotonlytothetrialandrelevantappeals,butalsotoanypreliminaryhearingsrelatingtothecase.TheCommitteenotesthatthereisnoindicationthatthelackofrepresentationatthepreliminaryhearingwasattributabletoMr.Wright.TheCommitteefindsthereforethatthefailuretomakelegalrepresentationavailabletoMr.Wrightatthepreliminaryhearingconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant.10.3TheCommitteenotesthatthefirsttrialagainsttheauthorsendedon29July1983withahungjuryandthataretrialwasordered.Itappearsfromthefilethatatrialdatewassetfor22February1984andthatthetrialwaspostponedbecausetheaccusedWrightwasnolongerincustody.AlthoughMr.Harveyremainedavailablefortrialandregularhearingswerebeingheldthroughoutandtrialdatesweresetonseveraloccasions,theretrialdidnotstartuntil26April1988,22monthsafterMr.Wright'srearrest.TheCommitteefindsthat,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,suchadelaycannotbedeemedcompatiblewiththeprovisionsofarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.10.4Mr.Wrighthasclaimedthathiscounseldidnotconsultwithhimbeforehandabouttheappealandthatthatindicatesthathewasnoteffectivelyrepresented.TheCommitteenotesthatMr.Wrightwasrepresentedattheappealbythelawyerwhodefendedhimattrial,andthatcounselfiledandarguedseveralgroundsofappeal,challengingseveraldecisionsmadebythejudgeandquestioninghisdirectionstothejury.Inthesespecificcircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatMr.Wright'srighttoaneffectiverepresentationonappealhasnotbeenviolated.10.5AsregardsMr.Harvey'sclaimthathewasnoteffectivelyrepresentedonappeal,theCommitteenotesthattheCourtofAppealjudgementshowsthatMr.Harvey'slegalaidcounselfortheappealconcededatthehearingthattherewasnomeritintheappeal.TheCommitteerecallsthatwhilearticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenantdoesnotentitletheaccusedtochoosecounselprovidedtohimfreeofcharge,theCourtshouldensurethattheconductofthecasebythelawyerisnotincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.WhileitisnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgement,theCommitteeconsidersthatinacapitalcase,whencounselfortheaccusedconcedesthatthereisnomeritintheappeal,theCourtshouldascertainwhethercounselhasconsultedwiththeaccusedandinformedhimaccordingly.Ifnot,theCourtmustensurethattheaccusedissoinformedandgivenanopportunitytoengageanothercounsel.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthat,intheinstantcase,Mr.Harveyshouldhavebeeninformedthathiscounselwasnotgoingtoargueanygroundsinsupportoftheappeal,sothathecouldhaveconsideredanyremainingoptionsopentohim.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatMr.Harveywasnoteffectivelyrepresentedonappeal,inviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(d).10.6TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstthesentenceispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsgeneralcommentNo.6(16),theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat"theproceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefence,andtherighttoreview[ofconvictionandsentence]byahighertribunal".bInthepresentcase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithoutlegalrepresentationforMr.Wrightatthepreliminaryhearing,withoutduerespectfortherequirementthatanaccusedbetriedwithoutunduedelay,andwithouteffectiverepresentationforMr.Harveyonappeal,therehasconsequentlyalsobeenaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),(c)and(d),andconsequentlyofarticle6,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12.2 .2TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatOsbourneWrightandEricHarveyareentitled,underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatinthecircumstancesofthecase,thisentailstheirrelease.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aSee,forexample,OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.J,communicationNo.283/1988(Littlev.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon1November1991;ibid.,FortyninthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/49/40),vol.II,annexIX.A,communicationNo.321/1988(Thomasv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993;andibid.,annexIX.G,communicationNo.352/1989(Douglas,GentlesandKerrv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993.2 .2bIbid.,ThirtyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/37/40),annexV,generalcommentNo.6(16),para.7.ǀG.CommunicationNo.461/1991,GeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrisoǹv.Jamaica(viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixth̀session)* ~   Submittedby: . H .HH .HGeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrison2 .2 . . H .HH .H[representedbycounsel]Victims: . . H .HH .HTheauthorsStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .H18March1991(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H12October19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon25March1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.461/1991,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMessrsGeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrisonundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorsofthecommunication,theircounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorsofthecommunicationareGeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrison,twoJamaicancitizensatthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.Afterthesubmissionofthecommunication,Mr.MorrisondiedduringanincidentatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,on31October1993.Mr.Graham'ssentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmenton29May1995.TheauthorsclaimtobethevictimsofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6,7and14,paragraphs1,3and5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theyarerepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthors2.12 .2Theauthorswerejointlychargedwiththemurder,on8May1984,ofoneO.B.On16April1986,afteratriallastingthreedays,theywerefoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathintheHomeCircuitCourtofKingston.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedtheirapplicationforleavetoappealon12October1987.On13December1990,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedtheirpetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.Withthat,itissubmitted,availabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.InDecember1992,theauthors'offencewasclassifiedascapitalmurderundersection7oftheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Act,1992.2.22 .2O.B.wasshotinhisparents'flat,inthepresenceofhisparentsandthreesisters.Thecaseagainsttheauthorsrestedontheevidencegivenbyoneofthevictim'ssisters,S.B.,whoidentifiedtheauthorsfromthedock;noidentificationparadewasheld.S.B.testifiedthaton8May1984,atabout7p.m.,fivearmedmenhadforcedtheirwayintotheflat;amongthesemensherecognizedGeorgeGraham,whomsheknewbyhisnickname"Money-man",andArthurMorrison,whomshealsoknew.GeorgeGrahamallegedlysaid"Don'tshootbecausebabyisinside"andthentriedtopullO.B.outoftheflat.O.B.resistedandranintoanadjacentbedroom,wherehisfatherwas.Thenagroupofabout15menenteredtheflat,allofthemarmed,andArthurMorrisonallegedlysaid:"Mekwekilltheboy".O.B.wasshottwiceintheheadbytwoothermen;hisfatherdidnotidentifyanyofthem.S.B.furthertestifiedthat,uponleaving,oneofthemengrabbedhersister'sgoldenchain,butthatanothermanorderedhimtogiveitbacksince"theyhadnotcometorob,buttokill".2.32 .2Theprosecutionarguedthat,althoughtheauthorshadnotactuallykilledO.B.,theywereparticipantsinajointplanorconspiracytomurderhimandwerethereforeguiltyofmurderonthebasisofthedoctrineofcommondesign.Theauthorsmadeanunswornstatementfromthedock,claimingthattheyhadbeenelsewhereatthetimeofthecrime.Atthecloseoftheprosecution'scase,Mr.Graham'slegalrepresentativemadeasubmissionof"nocasetoanswer",whichwasdismissedbythejudge.Inhersumming-uptothejury,thejudgepointedout,interalia,thatitwasnotnecessarytoholdanidentificationparadewhentheeyewitnessalreadyknewtheaccused.2.42 .2Throughoutthejudicialproceedings,theauthorswererepresentedbylegalaidlawyers.Itappearsfromthetrialtranscriptthattheattorneysassignedtotheauthorsforthetrialhadpreviouslyappearedtogetherforbothauthorsandfortwootheraccusedpersons.Ontheopeningdayofthetrial,oneoftheattorneysindicatedthattheyhadsubsequentlydividedthecaseandthatheandjuniorcounselwouldrepresentMr.MorrisonandthethirdattorneywouldrepresentMr.Graham;hefurtherindicatedthattheattorneyappearingforMr.Grahamcouldnotbepresentthatdayand,uponrequestofthejudge,agreedtoholdforhim.Thenextmorning,beforecrossexaminationofthefirstwitness,itwasannouncedthatthefirstattorneywouldberepresentingMr.MorrisonandthesecondMr.Graham.Thethirdattorneyapparentlywithdrewfromthedefence.2.52 .2Onappeal,theauthorswererepresentedbyadifferentlawyer.BeforetheCourtofAppeal,counselstatedthat,afterhavingcarefullyexaminedtheevidenceandthejudge'ssumming-up,hecouldfindnogroundsofappealtoargueonhisclients'behalf.Afterreviewingthecase,theCourtofAppealagreedwithcounselanddismissedtheapplicationforleavetoappeal.ItappearsfromthewrittenjudgementthattheappealwasscheduledtobeheardbytheCourtofAppealon26May1987butthatanapplicationhadbeenmadeto"takethematteroutofthelistfortwoweekstoobtaintheservicesofseniorcounsel".Itfurtherappearsthat"fivemonthslaterthesituationhadnotaltered"andthatthentheabovementionedcounselhadbeenassigned.2.62 .2ALondonlawfirmrepresentedtheauthorsprobonobeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.Theprincipalgroundsfortheauthors'petitionsforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwerethatthetrialjudgehadmisdirectedthejuryontheissueofidentificationand/orrecognitionevidenceandontheissueofcommondesign.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Inrespectofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,theauthorsclaimthatthejudgefailedproperlytodirectthejuryonissuesrelatingto"commondesign".Theyfurthercontendthatthejudgefailedtowarnthejuryoftheriskoferrorsinidentificationorrecognitionevidence.3.22 .2Astothepreparationandconductofthedefenceatthetrial,Mr.Morrisoncomplainedthattheattorneyshadneverdiscussedthecasewithhimortakeninstructionspriortothetrial.ItisstatedthatneitherMr.MorrisonnorMr.Grahamwereconsultedaboutthechangeofcounselwhichtookplaceontheseconddayofthetrial.Mr.Grahamcomplainsthathehadonlyminimalopportunitytogivesubsequentinstructionsandthat,inthecircumstances,theconductofhisdefencewasdeficient.3.32 .2Inrespectoftheirappeal,bothauthorscomplainthattheirrequesttoberepresentedbyseniorcounselwasignoredandthatcounselassignedtothemforthepurposeoftheappealwasnotoftheirownchoosing.Theyarguethatinanappealagainstconvictionandsentenceinvolvingthedeathpenalty,therighttoafairtrialincludestherighttorepresentationeitherbycounselofone'sownchoiceorbycounselofsufficientseniorityandexperiencetopresentsuchanappealcompetentlyandcarefully.Theauthorsfurtherclaimthattheywerenotinformedthatcounselhadbeenassignedtothem,thattheyneversaworspoketohimandthatcounselabandonedtheappealwithouttheirconsent.Inthiscontext,theauthorsaddthattheyweredeniedtheopportunitytodefendthemselvesinperson,astheirrequesttobepresentatthehearingoftheappealwaseitherignoredorrefused.Itissubmittedthat,becausetheauthorsweredeniedtherighttorepresentationoftheirchoosingortobepresentattheappeal,andcounselabandonedtheappeal,theywerealsodeprivedoftheirrighttoaneffectivereviewoftheirconvictionandsentencebytheCourtofAppeal.3.42 .2Finally,theauthorsclaimthatthetimespentondeathrow,togetherwiththeanxietyandmentalstresssufferedandbeingkeptinthedarkastowhetherornottheauthoritieswouldcontinuetheirpolicyofsuspendingexecutions,amounttocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentinviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.Moreover,theresumptionofexecutionsaftersuchaperiodofsuspensionofexecutionsunrelatedtojustifiablelegalargumentsissaidtoconstituteaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononadmissibility4.2 .2Initssubmissionof11February1993,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleongroundsofnon-exhaustionofdomesticremedies.ItconcedesthattheauthorshaveexhaustedtheircriminalappealpossibilitiesbutarguesthattheyhavefailedtopursuetheremedyprovidedforundertheJamaicanConstitution.Inthiscontext,theStatepartysubmitsthatarticle14,paragraphs1,3(d)and5,oftheCovenantarecoterminouswithsections20and110oftheConstitution.Section25oftheConstitutionprovidesthatanypersonwhoallegesthatanyofhisbasicrightshavebeenviolatedmayapplytotheSupremeCourtforredress.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision5.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationatitsfiftysecondsession.5.22 .2TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'scontentionthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleonthegroundoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies,anditrecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.TheCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,inrecentcases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecaseshadbeendismissed.However,theCommitteealsorecalledthattheStatepartyhadindicatedonseveraloccasionsthatnolegalaidwasmadeavailableforsuchpurposes.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesofthecase,constituteanavailableremedywhichmustbeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,therefore,theCommitteefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.5.32 .2Astotheauthors'claimsunderarticles6and7oftheCovenant,theCommittee,havingnotedthattherewerenofurtherremediesavailabletotheauthors,consideredthatthoseallegationsshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.5.42 .2Astotheauthors'claimofunfairtrialbecauseofthetrialjudge'sallegedfailureproperlytodirectthejuryontheissuesofcommondesignandidentificationevidence,theCommitteereaffirmedthatitwasinprinciplefortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenant,andnotfortheCommittee,toevaluatethefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.Similarly,itwasnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudgeunlessitcouldbeascertainedthatthoseinstructionswereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgehadmanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthejudge'sinstructionstothejuryortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.Thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.5.52 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorshadfailedtosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,theirclaimthatthepreparationandconductoftheirdefenceattrialwereinadequate.TheinformationbeforetheCommitteerevealedthatMr.MorrisonwasrepresentedbythesameattorneywhohadrepresentedbothhimandMr.Grahamatthepreliminaryhearing,thatMr.Grahamhadraisednoobjectionswhenitwasdecidedthatjuniorcounselwouldrepresenthimandthatnocomplaintwasmadetothetrialjudgebyoronbehalfoftheauthorsthattimeorfacilitiestopreparetheirdefencehadbeeninadequate.Furthermore,theauthorsfailedtoindicatehowtheirattorneyswouldhaveactedagainsttheirinstructions,andtherewasnoindicationthatMr.Morrison'sattorneyorjuniorcounselrepresentingMr.Grahamhadactednegligentlyinthedischargeoftheirprofessionalduties.Accordingly,thatpartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.5.62 .2Astotheauthors'allegationsaboutthepreparationandconductoftheirdefenceonappeal,andastowhether,inthecircumstances,theauthorsshouldhavebeenallowedtoattendthehearingoftheirapplicationforleavetoappeal,theCommitteeconsideredthatthatmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraphs1,3(b)and(d)and5,oftheCovenant;accordingly,thoseallegationsshouldbeexaminedontheirmerits.5.72 .2Finally,theCommitteenotedfromtheinformationreceivedfromathirdpartythatMr.Morrisonhaddiedon31October1993,almostoneyearbeforetheadoptionofthedecisiononadmissibility,anditrequestedtheStatepartytoconfirmthatinformationandtoclarifythecircumstancessurroundingMr.Morrison'sdeath.6.2 .2Accordingly,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticles6,7and,inrespectoftheconductoftheauthors'appeal,article14,paragraphs1,3(b)and(d)and5,oftheCovenant.Underrule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,theStatepartywasrequestednottocarryoutthedeathsentenceagainstMr.GrahamwhilethecommunicationwasunderconsiderationbytheCommittee.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandcounsel'scomments7.12 .2TheStateparty,bysubmissionof27July1995,deniesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenantintheauthors'case.Inthisconnection,itreferstotheCommittee'sdecisioninthecaseofPrattandMorganv.Jamaica,inwhichtheCommitteeheldthat"prolongedjudicialproceedingsdonotperseconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment".aInthiscontext,theStatepartyobservesthatitisnotenoughtoassertthatalongstayondeathrowconstitutescruelandinhumantreatment:thecircumstancesofaparticularcasemustshowspecificfactorswhichrenderthetreatmentcruelorinhuman.7.22 .2TheStatepartysubmitsthattheauthorshavefailedtoprovidegroundsfortheirallegationthatarticle6oftheCovenanthasbeenviolatedintheircase.7.32 .2Asregardstheauthors'representationonappeal,theStatepartystatesthattherecordsoftheCourtofAppealshowthatcounselwhorepresentedMr.Morrisonattrialconfirmed,byletterof30April1986,thathewouldrepresenttheauthorsatthehearingoftheirappeal.Byfurtherletterof27May1987,counselrequestedthathisnameberemovedfromthelist,ashehadbeeninformedthattheauthorswereintheprocessofinstructingseniorcounsel.Byletterof25June1987,theCourtofAppealinformedMr.MorrisonaccordinglyandrequestedhimtoadvisetheCourtofthenameofcounselretained.Noreplywasreceivedfromtheauthor,andasecondsimilarletterwassenttotheauthorson31August1987,informingthemthattheircasewouldbeheardduringtheMichaelmasterm,tobeginon21September1987,andrequestingthemtoinformtheCourtofthenameoftheircounselortoindicateiftheywereunabletoretaincounsel.Again,noreplywasreceived,andinSeptember1987theCourtissuedalegalaidcertificateandassignedanexperiencedcounseltorepresenttheauthors.TheStatepartyconcludesfromtheabovethattheauthorshadampleopportunitytoretaincounseloftheirchoiceandthattheappointmentoflegalaidcounselinthespecificcircumstancesdidnotconstituteabreachoftheCovenant.7.42 .2Asregardstheallegationsoftheconductoftheappeal,theStatepartyarguesthatoncecompetentcounselhasbeenappointed,themannerinwhichthecaseisconductedisnottheresponsibilityoftheState.7.52 .2Finally,theStatepartystatesthatitwillprovidetheCommitteewithinformationonthecircumstancessurroundingthedeathofMr.Morrisonassoonasitisavailable.7.62 .2InJanuary1996,theStatepartyinformedtheCommitteethatMr.Graham'ssentencehadbeencommutedtolifeimprisonmenton29May1995.8.12 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselreferstothePrivyCouncil'sdecisioninPrattandMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaicaof2November1993andinvitestheCommitteetoadoptthePrivyCouncil'sopinionthat"inanycaseinwhichanexecutionistotakeplacemorethanfiveyearsaftersentencetherewillbestronggroundsforbelievingthatthedelayissuchastoconstituteinhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment".8.22 .2Asregardstherepresentationonappeal,counselindicatesthatheisseekingfurtherinstructionsfromtheauthorsandrequestscopiesofthecorrespondencereferredtobytheStateparty.Counselreiteratesthattheauthors'representativeonappealwasappointedwithouttheauthorsbeinginformedandmaintainsthatthatamountstoaviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee9.2 .2TheCommitteeregretsthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoprovideinformationonthecircumstancesofMr.Morrison'sdeath,asrequestedbytheCommitteeinitsdecisiononadmissibility.88 H10.1 .TheCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2 .InviewofthecommutationofMr.Graham'sdeathsentence,theCommitteeneednotaddresscounsel'sargumentthattheexecutionofthedeathsentencewouldconstituteaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.10.3 .Counselfortheauthorshasclaimedthatthetimespentbytheauthorsondeathrowamountstocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.TheCommitteereferstoitspriorjurisprudence,aandinparticulartoitsviewsinrespectofcommunicationNo.588/1994(Johnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996(seesectionWbelow),andstatesthatitremainsthejurisprudenceoftheCommitteethatdetentionondeathrowforaspecificperiodoftimedoesnotamounttoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenantintheabsenceofsomefurthercompellingcircumstances.Intheinstantcase,neithertheauthornorhiscounselhavepointedtocompellingcircumstances,overandabovethelengthofthedetentionondeathrow,thatwouldrenderthedetentioncruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.TheCommitteethereforeconcludesthattherehasbeennoviolationofarticle7.10.4 .Asregardstheauthors'allegationsconcerningthepreparationandconductoftheappeal,theCommitteenotesthatitisundisputedthatthehearingoftheappealwaspostponedonseveraloccasionsinordertoallowtheauthorstoretaincounsel.Eventually,intheabsenceoffurtherinformationfromtheauthorsastowhowouldrepresentthem,theCourtofAppealdecidedtoappointalegalaidcounsel.TheauthorshavearguedthattheywerenotinformedbytheCourtthatalegalaidcounselhadbeenappointedforthemandthatappointedcounselfactuallywithdrewtheappealwithouthavingconsultedorinformedthem.TheCommitteenotesthatitappearsfromthewrittenjudgementoftheCourtofAppealthattheCourtdidreviewthecasepropriomotu.10.5 .TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudence(see,interalia,sectionF,para.10.5,above)thatunderarticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant,thecourtshouldensurethattheconductofacasebythelawyerisnotincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.WhileitisnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgement,theCommitteeconsidersthat,particularlyinacapitalcase,whencounselfortheaccusedconcedesthatthereisnomeritintheappeal,theCourtshouldascertainwhethercounselhasconsultedwiththeaccusedandinformedhimaccordingly.Ifnot,theCourtmustensurethattheaccusedissoinformedandgivenanopportunitytoengageothercounsel.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatintheinstantcase,Mr.GrahamandMr.Morrisonshouldhavebeeninformedthattheirlegalaidcounselwasnotgoingtoargueanygroundsinsupportoftheappealsothattheycouldhaveconsideredanyremainingoptionsopentothem.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatMr.GrahamandMr.Morrisonwerenoteffectivelyrepresentedonappeal,inviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(d).10.6 .TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstthesentenceispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsgeneralcommentNo.6(16),theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat"theproceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefence,andtherighttoreview[ofconvictionandsentence]byahighertribunal".bInthepresentcase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithoutadequaterepresentationoftheauthorsonappeal,therehasconsequentlyalsobeenaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.88, H11., .,TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(d),andconsequentlyofarticle6,paragraph2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12., .,Astheauthors'rightswereviolated,theyareentitledtoaremedy.However,theStatepartyhascommutedMr.Graham'sdeathsentencetolifeimprisonment.TheCommitteeconsidersthatcommutationofthedeathsentenceconstitutesanadequateremedy,pursuanttoarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,fortheviolationofarticle6.Asregardstheviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d),theStatepartyshouldprovideanappropriateremedy.TheCommitteestressesthedutyoftheStatepartytoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes, .,aSeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyfourthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/44/40),annexX.F,communicationsNos.210/1986and225/1987,viewsadoptedon6April1989,para.13.6., .,bIbid.,ThirtyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/37/40),annexV,generalcommentNo.6(16),para.7. ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO  ( A $(882   ǀH.CommunicationNo.480/1991,JosLuisGarcaFuenzalidàv.Ecuador(viewsadoptedon12July1996,fiftyseventh󀀀πsession)*    882 HSubmittedby: . 0H .HJosLuisGarcaFuenzalida[representedbyx# .x#x# .x#x# .x#x# .x#counsel]Victim: . . H .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HEcuadorDateofcommunication:H .HH .H4November1991[dateofinitialletter]Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H15March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon12July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.480/1991,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.JosLuisGarcaFuenzalidaundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisJosLuisGarcaFuenzalida,aChileancitizen,currentlyresidinginQuito.Atthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunication,hewasimprisonedattheCrcelNo.2inQuito.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyEcuadorofarticles3,7,9and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbytheEcumenicalHumanRightsCommission,anon-governmentalorganizationinEcuador.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthorisahairdresserbyprofession.Hewasdetainedon5July1989andchargedtwodayslaterwiththerape,on5May1989,ofoneD.K.,aUnitedStatesPeaceCorpsvolunteer.Heclaimstobeinnocentandarguesthathehasneverhadsexualrelationswithanywoman.TheauthorwastriedbytheTribunalCuartodePichincha.On11April1991,hewasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentenced,on30April1991,toeightyears'imprisonment.On2May1991,theauthorappealedtotheSuperiorCourt,demandingthenullityandcassationofthejudgement.Therequestfornullitywasrejectedbythecourtandtheappealoncassationwasnotresolvedwithintheperiodof30daysestablishedbylaw.AfterwaitingfortwoyearsandsixmonthsforadecisionbytheCourtofCassation,theauthorwithdrewhisappealoncassationinexchangeforhisrelease.HewasreleasedonparoleinOctober1994.2.22 .2Withregardtohisarrest,theauthorstatesthaton5July1989,atapproximately7p.m.,hewasdetainedbypoliceofficers,throwntothefloorofavehicleandblindfolded.Fromthesubmissionitisnotclearwhetheranarrestwarranthadbeenissued.Theauthorapparentlydidnotknowthereasonforhisarrestandinitiallysupposeditwasinconnectionwithdrugs.Itwasnotuntiltwodayslaterthathelearnedabouttheallegedrape.Hewasinterrogatedregardinghiswhereaboutsonthedayoftherape.Heclaimstohavebeensubjectedtoseriousilltreatment,includingbeingleftshackledtoabedovernight.Itisalsoallegedthat,incontraventionofEcuadorianlawandpractice,samplesofhisbloodandhairweretaken.2.32 .2Itisallegedthatduringtheeveningof6July1989,theauthorwasblindfoldedandthatabrinesolutionwaspouredintohiseyesandnostrils.Theauthorallegesthatatsomepointoftheinterrogationtheblindfoldfellfromhiseyesandhewasabletoidentifyanofficerwho,theauthorclaims,hadagrudgeagainsthimfromapriordetentiononsuspicionofmurderingahomosexualfriend.2.42 .2Thatsameevening,hewastakentotheCriminalInvestigationDepartmentofPichincha(SICP),wherehewassubjectedtodeaththreatsuntilheconsentedtosignanincriminatorystatement.However,itisclearfromthejudgementthattheauthor,duringhistrial,deniedboththechargesandthevoluntarinessofthestatement.Thejudgementreflectsthattheauthormadebeforethejudgealonganddetailedstatementofthefactsconcerninghisdetentionandconfessionunderduress.2.52 .2Theauthorclaimsthathelearnedofthefactsoftherapeonlywhenchargeswerereadtohimon7July1989,justbeforehewasputonanidentificationparadeinwhichthevictimidentifiedhim.Theauthorfurtherallegesthat,beforehewasputontheidentificationparade,hewastakentohishousetoshower,shaveanddress,asinstructedbythepolice.Theauthoralsoclaimsthatthepolicetookseveralpiecesofunderwearfromhishouse,whichwerethenusedasevidenceagainsthim,despitethetestimonybyawitness,MC.M.P.,thattheybelongedtoher.2.62 .2Finally,theauthorallegesthatonSaturday,8July1989,hewasshotinthelegbyapoliceofficerinwhatthepoliceclaimedwasanattempttoescapeandtheauthorclaimswasasetup.Hewashospitalizedwithleginjuriesandclaimsthatthepsychologicaltorturecontinuedwhilehewasinthehospital.AnaffidavitgivenduringthetrialbyamemberoftheEcuadorianHumanRightsCommissionwhovisitedtheauthorinthehospitalstates:"Iwasabletoseethatthereweretwowoundsononeofhislegscausedbyabullet.Ialsosawseveralcigaretteburnsonhischestandhand."Thissamepersonfurtherstatesintheaffidavit:"ItalkedtoapatientwhowasinthebednexttoMr.Garca'sandaskedhimwhetheritwastruethatapoliceofficerhadbeenharassingMr.Garca.Herepliedthathehadindeedheardthatperson(thepoliceofficer)threatenMr.Garca."2.72 .2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,duringthenightof5May1989,D.K.wasabductedbyanassailantandforcedintoacar.Thevictimwaskeptonthefloorofthecarandrepeatedlysexuallyassaulted.Finally,thevictimwasthrownoutofthecarandleftontheroadside.ThevictimreportedtheincidenttotheConsulateoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,whichreportedittothepolice.Duringthetrialthepoliceclaimedthattheyhadfoundthevictim'sunderwearintheauthor'shouse.2.82 .2Astotheexhaustionofdomesticremediesinrespectofthephysicalabusetowhichtheauthorwasallegedlysubjected,itisstatedthatalawyerfiledacomplaintagainstthepoliceofficersontheauthor'sbehalf.Thereisnofurtherinformationconcerningthestatusoftheinvestigationofthecomplaint.̇&  Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimstobethevictimofaviolationofarticle3inconjunctionwitharticle26oftheCovenant,owingtothedifficultiesheencounteredin'  retainingalawyer,allegedlybecauseofhishomosexuality.3.22 .2Theauthoralsoclaimstohavesufferedrepeatedviolationsofarticle7,becausehewassubjectedtotortureandilltreatmentfollowinghisarrest.ThiswascorroboratedduringthetrialbyamemberoftheEcuadorianEcumenicalHumanRightsCommission.3.32 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsaviolationofarticle9,becausehewassubjectedtoarbitraryarrestanddetention,sinceheclaimsthathewasnotinvolvedintherape.3.42 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsthathistrialwasunfairandinviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.Inthisrespect,counselcontendsthattheaccusedwasconvictednotwithstandingthecontradictoryevidencecontainedinthestatementgivenbythevictimherself,whodescribedherassailantasbeingverytallandhavingapockmarkedface.Theauthor,whomthevictimidentified,isshort,measuringonly1.50metres,andhasnopockmarksonhisface.3.52 .2Theauthoralsoclaimsthat,inviewofthesubmissionbythevictimofalaboratoryreportonsamplesofbloodandsementakenfromherandsamplesofbloodandhairtakenfromhimagainsthiswillandshowingtheexistenceofanenzymewhichtheauthordoesnothaveinhisblood,herequestedthecourttoorderanexaminationofhisownbloodandsemen,arequestwhichthecourtdenied.3.62 .2Moreover,theauthorcomplainsaboutthedelaysinthejudicialproceedings,inparticularthefactthathisappealoncassationhadnotbeendealtwithintheperiodprovidedforbylawandthat,aftermorethantwoandahalfyearsofwaitingforthedecisionoftheCourtofCassation,hefinallyhadtoabandonthatrecourseinordertoobtainhisreleaseonparole.TheCommittee'sdecisiononadmissibility4.2 .2On26August1992,thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStateparty,whichwasrequestedtosubmittotheCommitteeinformationandobservationsinrespectofthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunication.Despitetworeminderssenton10May1993and9December1994,nosubmissionhadbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty.5.12 .2Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.5.22 .2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterhadnotbeenexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.5.32 .2TheCommitteenotedwithconcerntheabsenceofcooperationfromtheStateparty,despitethetworemindersaddressedtoit.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteefoundthatitwasnotprecludedfromconsideringthecommunicationunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.̇5.42 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorhadnotsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,thathehadbeenunequallytreatedowingtohishomosexualityandthatthathadbeenthecauseofhisdifficultyinretainingalawyer.Thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforedeclaredinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.5.52 .2Withrespecttotheauthor'scomplaintthathehadbeensubjectedtotortureandilltreatment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,asattestedtobyamemberoftheEcuadorianEcumenicalHumanRightsCommissionduringthetrial,theCommitteefoundthatthefactsassubmittedbytheauthor,whichhadnotbeencontestedbytheStateparty,mightraiseissuesunderbotharticles7and10oftheCovenant.IntheabsenceofanycooperationfromtheStateparty,theCommitteefoundthattheauthor'sclaimsweresubstantiated,forthepurposesofadmissibility.5.62 .2Withregardtotheallegationsthattheauthorhadbeensubjectedtoarbitrarydetention,inviolationofarticle9oftheCovenant,theCommitteefoundthatthefactsassubmittedweresubstantiated,forthepurposesofadmissibility,andshouldaccordinglybeconsideredontheirmerits,especiallywithregardtothewarrantofarrestandthemomentatwhichtheauthorwasinformedofthereasonsforhisarrest.5.72 .2Inrespectoftheauthor'sallegationsthattheevidenceinhiscasewasnotproperlyevaluatedbytheCourt,theCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratedthatitwasgenerallyfortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenanttoevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.Accordingly,thatpartofthecommunicationwasdeclaredinadmissibleasbeingincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.5.82 .2Theauthoralsosubmittedinformationconcerningtheproceduresatthetrialandthedelaysofovertwoandahalfyearsencounteredintheappealoncassation,which,theCommitteefound,raisedissuesunderarticle14oftheCovenanttobeexaminedonthemerits.6.2 .2On15March1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleandthattheStatepartyandtheauthorshouldberequestedtosubmitcopiesofthearrestwarrantandofanyrelevantresolutionsandjudgementsinthecase,aswellasmedicalreportsandinformationaboutinvestigationsintotheallegedphysicalabuseofMr.Garca.TheStateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandcommentsbytheauthor7.12 .2TheStateparty,on18October1995,submittedtotheCommitteesomedocumentsrelatingtothecase,withoutsubmittingareplytotheauthor'scommunication.7.22 .2Fromthepolicereport,itappearsthatthepolicegiveaversionofthefactsconcerningtortureandilltreatmentwhichdiffersfromtheauthor'sversion.TheStatepartyexplainsthatitwasunabletoquestiontheaccusedpoliceofficerbecauseheisnolongerinthepoliceforceandithasbeenimpossibletolocatehim.7.32 .2Thejudgementagainsttheauthorrevealsthatthejudgebelievedthepoliceversionandminimizedtheimportanceofthestatementmadebyanunwhovisitedtheauthorinthehospital,thecontentofwhichisreferredtoinparagraph2.6above.̇7.42 .2WithregardtoMr.Garca'slegwound,theStatepartyinsiststhattheshotwasfiredinconnectionwithanescapeattempt:02 .2 ."Withregardtothewoundsufferedbythedetainee,itisnotedthatduringaninvestigationcarriedoutonSaturday,8July,inBosmedianostreet,wheretheotherpersoninvolvedallegedlylived,hetookadvantageoftheinattentionoftheofficersguardinghimtomakeasuddenandprecipitateescape;thepersonsresponsibleforthedetaineeshoutedafterhimandthenfiredshots,oneofwhichhithim,causingafractureoftheleftfemur,asaresultofwhichhewastakentotheEugenioEspejohospitalformedicaltreatment;thewoundwasneverinflictedintheofficesoftheformercriminalinvestigationserviceofPichincha;itisalsonotedthatthereisastatementsignedinthepresenceofDr.HildaMaraArgelloL.,secondprosecutorinthePichinchacriminalcourt,onthisincident."ThedocumentssubmittedbytheStatepartydonotindicatethatthecourtconductedanyinvestigationwhatsoeverintothecircumstancesinwhichMr.Garcawaswounded,suchas,forexample,questioningthewitnesseswho,accordingtothepolice,sawtheauthorattempttoescape.7.52 .2TheStatepartyalsosubmittedthetextofreportNo.4271SIC-Pof8July1989,drawnupbyClaudioGuerra;thereportshowsthatMr.GarcawasarrestedonThursday,6July1989,at10a.m.bypoliceofficersonthebasisofpreviousinvestigations,andthatthepoliceconfiscatedawoman'sundergarment,identifiedasbelongingtoMissD.K.,inMr.Garca'shome.AcopyofastatementbyMr.Garca,dated7July1989,admittingtohavingcommittedtherapeandtohavingtakenMissK'sundergarment,andofanotherstatementdated9July1989admittinghisattempttoescape,havebeensubmitted,bothstatementshavingbeenmadebeforeDr.HildaArgello,secondprosecutorofthePichinchacriminalcourt.Acopyofanotedated8July1989byofficer06isalsoattached,describingtheescapeattemptandindicatingthatotherwitnessescanconfirmthefacts,inparticularthatshotshadfirstbeenfiredintheairbeforethefleeingdefendantwaswounded.AcopyofthestatementbyMissD.K.,dated7July1989,hasbeensubmittedregardingtheidentificationparadeorganizedon6July1989inwhichsheimmediatelyidentifiedMr.Garcaamongagroupof10men,andwasabsolutelysurethatthemaninfrontofherwasindeedthemanwhohadrapedher.AmedicalreportonMr.Garca'shospitalizationisalsoincluded.Anotherattachedpolicereportstatesthat,priortotheinvestigation,somephotographsweresenttoMissK.,butthephotographofMr.Garcawasfirstsentbyfacsimile,andMissK.statedinatelephoneconversationfromtheUnitedStatesthat:"ThislooksthemostlikehimofanyofthephotographsIhaveseen."7.62 .2ItisnotedthatMr.Garcawasreleasedonparoleon5October1994andwasrequiredtoreporttotheprisoncentreeveryweek.Mr.Garcahasnotdoneso,andithasnotbeenpossibletolocatehim,sinceheisnotresidingathislastaddress.7.72 .2TheStatepartysubmitteddocumentsindicatingthatMr.Garcawasarrestedon6July1989,tobeinvestigatedforthecrimeofrapecommittedagainstMissD.K.,aUnitedStatesnational,on5May1989.TheregisterofaliensshowsthatMr.GarcawasmarriedtoanEcuadorianwoman.TheStatepartyhasnotsentthetextsofthearrestwarrantforMr.Garcaorofthejudgements.8.12 .2Inaletterof29December1995,theEcumenicalHumanRightsCommission,whichisrepresentingMr.Garca,referstoastatementmadebytheauthorinthepresenceofthejudgein1989inwhichhemaintainsthatheisinnocent,denieshavingtriedtoescapeandaccusesofficer06ofhavingfiredathiminaninterrogationroom,afterfirstplacingahandkerchiefonhisleg.Hemaintainsthathisconfessionwasobtainedbymeansoftorture.Thisstatementisfoundintherecordofproceedings.8.22 .2ItisarguedthatifthepoliceforceitselfisresponsibleforcarryingoutaninvestigationofacomplaintlikeMr.Garca's,thenotoriousespritdecorpsoftheforcegivesrisetolies,andthepolicearealwaysvindicatedintheendsoastoavoidpenalties.Examinationofthemeritsofthecase9.12 .2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformation,materialsandlegaldocumentssubmittedbytheparties.Theconclusionsithasreachedarebasedonthefollowingconsiderations.9.22 .2WithregardtothearrestandimprisonmentofMr.Garca,theCommitteehasconsideredthedocumentssubmittedbytheStateparty,whichdonotshowthatthearrestwasillegalorarbitraryorthatMr.Garcahadnotbeeninformedofthereasonsforhisarrest.Consequently,theCommitteecannotmakeadeterminationontheallegedviolationofarticle9oftheCovenant.9.32 .2Withregardtotheallegationsofilltreatmentperpetratedbyapoliceofficer,theCommitteeobservesthattheyweresubmittedbytheauthortotheCuartodePichinchacriminalcourt,whichrejectedthem,asisshownbythejudgementof30April1991.Inprinciple,itisnotfortheCommitteetoquestiontheevaluationoftheevidencemadebynationalcourts,unlessthatevaluationwasmanifestlyarbitraryorconstitutedadenialofjustice.ThematerialsmadeavailabletotheCommitteebytheauthordonotdemonstratetheexistenceofsuchshortcomingsintheprocedurefollowedbeforethecourts.9.42 .2Thefiledoesnot,however,revealanyevidencethattheincidentinwhichtheauthorsufferedabulletwoundwasinvestigatedbythecourt.Theaccompanyingmedicalreportneitherstatesnorsuggestshowthewoundmighthaveoccurred.Giventheinformationsubmittedbytheauthorandthelackofinvestigationoftheseriousincidentinwhichtheauthorwaswounded,theCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant.9.52 .2Withregardtothetrialinthecourtoffirstinstance,theCommitteefindsitregrettablethattheStatepartyhasnotsubmitteddetailedobservationsabouttheauthor'sallegationsthatthetrialwasnotimpartial.TheCommitteehasconsideredthelegaldecisionsandthetextofthejudgementdated30April1991,especiallythecourt'srefusaltoorderexperttestimonyofcrucialimportancetothecase,andconcludesthatthatrefusalconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(e)and5,oftheCovenant.9.62 .2Withregardtotheinformationsubmittedbytheauthorconcerningdelaysinthejudicialproceedings,inparticularthefactthathisappealwasnotdealtwithintheperiodprovidedforbylaw,andthat,afterwaitingmorethantwoandahalfyearsforadecisiononhisappeal,hehadtoabandonthatrecourseinordertoobtainconditionalrelease,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotofferedanyexplanationorsentcopiesoftherelevantdecisions.Referringtoitspriorjurisprudence,theCommitteereiteratesthat,inaccordancewitharticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhastoensurethatthereisnounduedelayintheproceedings.TheStatepartyhasnotsubmittedanyinformationthatwouldjustifythedelays.TheCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),aswellasofarticle14,paragraph5,sincetheauthorwasobligedtoabandonhisappealinexchangeforconditionalrelease.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actinginaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,considersthatthefactsbeforeitrevealviolationsbyEcuadorofarticles7,10,paragraph1,and14,paragraphs3(c)and(e)and5,oftheCovenant.11.2 .2Inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasanobligationtoprovideaneffectiveremedytotheauthor.IntheCommittee'sview,thatentailscompensation,andtheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethattherewillbenosuchviolationsinfuture.12.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingapartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinaperiodof90days,informationonthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttoitsviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,Spanishbeingtheoriginalversion.]ǀI.CommunicationNo.505/1992,KtngurAcklav.Togò(viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession)Submittedby: . H .HH .HKtngurAcklaVictim: . . H .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HTogoDateofcommunication:H .HH .H11October1991(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H30June19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon25March1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.505/1992,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.KtngurAcklaundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandbytheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisKtngurAckla,aTogolesecitizencurrentlyresidinginLom.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyTogoofarticles1,paragraphs1and2;2,paragraph3(a),(b)and(c);7;9,paragraphs1,2,3and5;10,paragraph1;12,paragraph4;and17,paragraphs1and2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforTogoon30June1988.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthor,formerlyapolicesuperintendent,wasdismissedfromhispostbydecisionof13May1986;accordingtohim,thedecisionwasunjustifiableandarbitrary,andbasedonfabricatedchargesofgraveprofessionalmisbehaviour(fautegravedeservice).Mr.Acklahimselfrequestedtheestablishmentofadisciplinarycommitteetoinvestigatehiscase,butthatrequestwasnotfollowedupon.2.22 .2On29May1987,theauthorwasarrestedathisresidence,uponorderoftheStateparty'sPresident,GnassingbEyadma.Hewasdetainedforeightdays,apparentlywithoutcharges.Onthethirddayofhisdetention,hewasabletocontactthePresident.Accordingtotheauthor,hewasdetainedbecausethePresidentheldpersonalgrudgesagainsthim.Theauthorcontendsthatduringhisdetention,hishouseandotherpropertieswereseizedandturnedovertohisformerwife.2.32 .2Priortohisreleaseon6June1987,Mr.AcklawasnotifiedofthePresident'sdecisiontodenyhimtherighttoenterthedistrictofLaKozah(interdictiondesjour)andhisnativetownofKara,situatedinthatdistrict.On24July1987,thepoliceoncemoretriedtoarresthimwhenhereturnedtoKaratoretrievesomepersonaleffects.Hemanagedtoescapeandsubsequentlyrequestedhissistertoretrievehisbelongings;shewasunabletodoso.TheauthoraddsthathewasinformedinJune1990thatthepolicehadonceagainvisitedhishomeinhisnativetownandransackedit.2.42 .2Astotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthornotesthathesentover40communicationstotheTogoleseauthorities,requestinghisreinstatementinthepolice,aliftingoftheinterdictiontoentertheLaKozahdistrictandhisnativevillage,andtherestitutionofhisestate.Hedidnotreceiveareply.Healsounsuccessfullydiscussedhiscasewithtwoministers.Astostepstakentoexhaustavailableremediesbeforethelocalcourts,Mr.AcklastatesthathesentapetitiontoanunspecifiedcourtinchargeoflabourdisputesandthatanexaminingmagistrateinformedhimthathewasnotcompetenttoinvestigatethevalidityofanorderofPresidentEyadma.ThemagistrateallegedlytoldhimthatonlythePresidentcouldreinstatehiminthepoliceforce.AftersubmittinghiscomplainttotheHumanRightsCommittee,theauthorappealedtothePresidentoftheCourtofAppeal,whoissaidtohaverepliedthattheadministrativetribunaldidnotfunctioninTogo,owingtothelackofqualifiedjudges.2.52 .2Theauthoraddsthathesoughthelpfromvariouslocalorganizations,includingtheTogolesehumanrightscommission,tonoavail.Heconcludesthatnoeffectiveremediesexistandthathecannotdefendhimselfagainstabiasedanddiscriminatoryjudicialsystem.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorseekstherestitutionofhisproperty,inparticularofhishome,aswellascompensationforthelostrevenuederivedfromtherentalofhishome,totalling1,078,000CFAfrancsbythebeginningof1992.HechallengesthedecisiontodenyhimaccesstotheLaKozahdistrictandhisnativevillage,whichremainsinforce,andtherefusaloftheChiefofNationalSecurity,datingfrom1991,toreinstatehiminhisfunctions.3.22 .2Mr.Acklafurthercomplainsaboutarbitraryandunlawfulinterferenceswithhisprivacy,familyhomeandcorrespondenceandaboutunlawfulattacksonhishonourandreputation.Furthermore,theseizureofhishomeandhisunemploymenthavepreventedhimfrommeetingbothhisownmedicalexpensesandthefeesfortheeducationofhischildren.Headdsthatheisnowunabletopayforappropriatelegalrepresentation.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononadmissibilityandtheauthor'scommentsthereon4.2 .2Initssubmissionunderrule91,dated20October1992,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorhasbeenreinstatedinthepoliceforce,atahighergrade.Asaresult,theStatepartysubmits,theauthor'scomplainttotheHumanRightsCommitteeshouldbeconsideredmoot.5.12 .2Inhiscomments,theauthorconfirmsthathewasreinstatedinthepoliceforceon26May1992andthat,whiletherewereinitialquestionsabouthisgrade,hewaslaterreclassifiedatahigherlevel.Ontheprivatelevel,however,therehavebeennochanges:neitherhispropertynorthesumsderivedfromitsrental(1,228,000CFAfrancsasofmidJanuary1993)havebeenrestituted,andtheorderprohibitinghimfromvisitingtheLaKozahdistrictandhisnativevillageremainsinforce.5.22 .2Inthelattercontext,theauthornotesthat,on9January1993,hevisitedhishouseinKaraathisownrisk,havingdecidedtosellittoalocalmerchant.Uponhisarrival,hewasthreatenedbyhisexwifeandhersons,whosoughttohavehimarresteduponordersofthemayorofKaraandtriedtodiscouragethepotentialbuyerofthehouse.Asaresult,Mr.Acklawasunabletosellthehouse.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationatitsfiftyfirstsession.TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'scontentionthatasMr.Acklawasreintegratedinthepolice,hiscomplaintshouldbeconsideredmoot,butconsideredthattheauthor'sclaimsrelatingtoarbitraryarrestanddetention,toexpropriationofhishouseandtotherestrictionsonhisfreedomofmovementweredistinctfromhisclaimsrelatedtohisdismissal,in1986,fromthecivilservice,andthushadnotbecomemoot.6.22 .2TheCommitteenotedthattheauthor'sclaimsunderarticles7,9and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenantrelatedtoeventsthatoccurredpriorto30June1988,thedateofentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolfortheStateparty.Inthisrespect,therefore,theCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasinadmissiblerationetemporis.6.32 .2Concerningtheauthor'sclaimrelatingtothefailureoftheauthoritiestorestitutehispropertyandtherentsderivedfromunlawfulrentalthereof,theCommitteenotedthat,irrespectiveofthefactthattheconfiscationtookplacepriortothedateofentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforTogo,therighttopropertywasnotprotectedbytheCovenant.Accordingly,theCommitteedecidedthatthisclaimwasinadmissiblerationemateriae,underarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.42 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorhadfailedtosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimsunderarticles1and2oftheCovenantandconcludedthatthefactsassubmitteddidnotraiseissuesunderthoseprovisions.6.52 .2Astotheauthor'sclaimunderarticle17,theCommitteenotedthatonthebasisoftheinformationgivenbytheauthor,whichhadremaineduncontested,interferenceswithhishome,hisprivacyandhishonourandreputationcontinuedafter30June1988.However,therewasnothingtoindicatethattheauthorhadsoughttohavethatissueadjudicatedbeforethedomestictribunalsand,inparticular,beforethecivilcourts;hisgeneralizedclaimthathewasdefencelessagainstabiasedandpartialjudicialsystemhadnotbeenfurthercorroborated.TheCommitteeconsideredthatmeredoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofcivilremediesdidnotabsolvetheauthorfromattemptingtoexhaustthem.Inthisrespect,theCommitteeconcludedthattheauthorhadnotsatisfiedtherequirementsofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.6.62 .2Finally,astotheauthor'sclaimunderarticle12oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadnotcontestedthattheprohibition,pronouncedagainsttheauthor,toentertheLaKozahdistrictandtovisithisnativevillagewasstillinforce.TheCommitteenotedthattheauthorhadsoughttobringthemattertotheattentionofthejudicialauthorities,whohadrepliedthatadministrativetribunalswereinoperativeinTogo.Inthosecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludedthatnoeffectiveremedywasavailabletoMr.Ackla.7.2 .2Accordingly,on30June1994theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseanissueunderarticle12oftheCovenant.̇IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee8.2 .2ThedeadlineforthesubmissionoftheStateparty'sobservationsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolexpiredon10February1995.NosubmissionhasbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty,inspiteoftworemindersaddressedtoiton14Julyand31August1995.TheCommitteeregretstheabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStatepartyasfarasthemeritsoftheauthor'sclaimsareconcerned.Itisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartymustfurnishtheCommittee,ingoodfaithandwithintheimparteddeadlines,withalltheinformationatitsdisposal.IntheabsenceofinformationfromtheStateparty,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheextentthattheyhavebeensubstantiated.9.2 .2Accordingly,theCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheonlyadmissibleissue,whichhastobeexaminedonthemerits,istheauthor'suncontestedallegationthatheisunderprohibitionofenteringthedistrictofLaKozahandhisnativevillage,whichformspartofthatdistrict.Article12oftheCovenantestablishestherighttolibertyofmovementandfreedomtochooseresidenceforeveryonelawfullywithintheterritoryoftheState.IntheabsenceofanyexplanationfromtheStatepartyjustifyingtherestrictionstowhichtheauthorhasbeensubjected,pursuanttoparagraph3ofarticle12,theCommitteeisoftheopinionthattherestrictionoftheauthor'sfreedomofmovementandresidenceisinviolationofarticle12,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle12,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,Mr.Acklaisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy.IntheCommittee'sopinion,thatremedyshouldentailmeasurestoimmediatelyrestoreMr.Ackla'sfreedomofmovementandresidence,aswellasappropriatecompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatePartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]ǀJ.CommunicationNo.512/1992,DanielPintov.Trinidad̀andTobago(viewsadoptedon16July1996,fiftỳseventhsession)Submittedby: . H .HDanielPintoVictim: . . H .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HTrinidadandTobagoDateofcommunication:H .H24June1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H25October19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon16July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.512/1992,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.DanielPintoundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandbytheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisDanielPinto,aTrinidadiancitizencurrentlyservingasentenceoflifeimprisonmentattheCarreraConvictPrisoninTrinidadandTobago.AdeathsentenceimposedonhiminJune1985wascommutedtolifeimprisonmentbythePresidentofTrinidadandTobagoinNovember1992.InrespectofanearliercasesubmittedbytheauthortotheCommittee,theCommitteehadfound,initsviews,athattheauthorhadbeensentencedtodeathwithoutenjoyingtherighttoafairtrial,andithadexpressedtheviewthathewasentitledtoaremedyentailinghisrelease.Inthepresentcommunication,theauthorassertsthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoimplementtheCommittee'sviewsandthatheisthevictimofnewviolationsofhishumanrightsbyTrinidadandTobago.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Inhissubmissionof24June1992,theauthorcomplainsabouttheprisonconditionsandthetreatmentheissubjectedtoinprison.Hestatesthat,inspiteofrepeatedrecommendationsoftheprisondoctorduringthepastfouryears,theprisonauthoritieshavefailedtotakehimtohospital,inspiteofnumerousappointmentsscheduledatlongintervals,whichapparentlywereallcancelled.Asaresult,theauthorcontends,heisgraduallybecomingblind.2.22 .2Mr.Pintofurtherclaimsthatforover8yearsoutof10yearsinprison,hehasbeenpreventedbytheprisonauthoritiesfromreceivingurgentlyneededdentaltreatment.Thathascausedconsiderablepainanddiscomfort.Inaddition,hisrepeatedcomplaintsaboutnervousdisordershaveallegedlybeenignored.2.32 .2Inhisinitialsubmission,whilestillondeathrow,theauthorcomplainedthathewaskeptinaprisonwingwhereitwasimpossibletodistinguishbetweendayandnight,andthathewasbeingdeniedthedailyhourofrecreationandexerciseoutdoors,tothedetrimentofhishealth.Sincethecommutationofhissentence,heclaims,thegeneralconditionsofhisdetentionhavenotimproved.Sometimeeitherlatein1992orearlyin1993,hewastransferredtoanislandprison(CarreraConvictPrison),whereviolationsoftheprisoners'rightsaresaidtobecommonandconditionsofdetentiondeplorable.Inparticular,theauthorclaimsthatheisbeing"victimizedandoppressed"becauseofhishumanrightscomplaintstovariousorganizations.Healsocomplainsthattheprisonauthoritiesinterferewithhismailandhiscorrespondence,suppressingwhateverhewouldliketosendthatiscriticaloftheirattitudeandactivities.Thecomplaint3.2 .2AlthoughtheauthordoesnotinvokespecificprovisionsoftheCovenant,ittranspiresfromtheabovethatheclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant,onaccountoflackofmedicaltreatmentandhisconditionsofdetention,andofarticle17,becauseoftheallegedinterferencewithhismailandcorrespondence.TheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsandtheauthor'scomments4.12 .2Inasubmissiondated4March1993,theStatepartyobservesthattheauthorhasfailedtocomplainabouttheaboveeventstothecompetentnationalauthorities.Thus,hehasneitherfiledaformalcomplaintwiththeprisonadministrationnorpetitionedthePresident.TheStatepartyaddsthatitbecameawareofsomeofthemattersthroughinformationreceivedfromtheauthor"onrequest",andthatremedialactionwas"simultaneouslyinitiated".4.22 .2TheStatepartyobservesthattheprocedureofcomplaintsaboutconditionsofdetentionorothereventsinprisonisgovernedbyrules278,279and280oftheprisonrules.Thus,rule278stipulatesthatarrangementsmustbemadetorecordanyrequestfromaprisonertoseeeitherthesuperintendent,deputysuperintendentorassistantsuperintendent.Rule279laysdownthattheaforementionedprisonofficialsmusthearapplicationsfromprisoners"ataconvenienthouroneveryday,otherthanSaturdayandSunday".Finally,rule280statesthat"[p]etitionsfromprisonersshallbesubmittedintheprescribedformandshallbeforwarded,alongwiththecommentsoftheSuperintendent,totheInspectorforhiscomments,beforebeingforwarded...tothePresident".Itissubmittedthattheauthordidnotuseanyofthesechannels.4.32 .2Withregardtotheauthor'seyetreatment,theStatepartyprovidesthefollowingchronology:02 .2Theauthor'sinitialrequestfortreatmentwasmadetotheprison'smedicalofficeron26August1986.HeattendedtheeyeclinicofthePort-of-SpainGeneralHospitalthereafterandwasgivenglasseson18September1987,atgovernmentexpense.Anewrequestforanewpairofglasseswasfiledon21February1992.Mr.Pintowasreferredtotheeyeclinicandgivenappointmentsfor12Marchand21May1992;apoliceescortwasunavailableonthosedates,andtheauthorcouldnotkeeptheappointments.Hedid,however,attendtheclinicon6August1992,andanotherappointmentwasscheduledfor6December1992.4.42 .2Fordentaltreatment,theauthor'sinitialrequestwasfiledinAugust1987.Adentistrecommendedfillingsandpartialdenturesatacostof$2,045.Thiswasapprovedon4September1987,butowingtofinancialconstraints,onlythefillingswerecompletedon10October1987.On10October1989,theauthormadeanotherrequestfordentaltreatment.Again,adentistrecommendedanextractionandtwofillingsatacostof$265.Approvalforthetreatmentwassubsequentlygranted,buton14August1992(!),theauthorrefusedthetreatment.4.52 .2Astotheauthor'snervousdisorders,itissubmittedthat,Mr.Pintowasexaminedbytheprison'smedicalofficeron11September1985andgivencontinuousmedicationuntil2February1986.Onanunspecifiedsubsequentdate,theauthoragainsawthemedicalofficeraboutthesameproblemandwasprescribedmedicationuntil4April1989.4.62 .2TheStatepartynotesthattheauthorwasgivenageneralmedicalexaminationon13October1992andfoundmentallyandphysicallyfit.Themedicalcertificatenotesmerelyaminorcomplaintrelatedtomildmyopiaandtomildlowerbackpain.4.72 .2TheStatepartyrejectsas"totallyfalse"theauthor'sclaimthatheis(was)confinedtoaprisonareawhereitisimpossibletodistinguishbetweendayandnightandthatheisbeingdenieddailyrecreation.Itsubmitsthatprisonersoftheauthor'sstatusarerelocatedregularlywithinthesectionoftheprisontheyoccupy.Lightingandventilationofthecellsaresaidtobeadequate,enablingtheoccupantstodiscerndayornight.Likeotherprisonersinthesamesection,theauthorbenefitsfromonehourofdailyrecreation,whichissometimesbutrarelycancelledowingtobadweather.TheStatepartycontendsthattheauthor'sclaims"areadeliberateattempttomisrepresenttothe...Committeethatasaprisonerheisundergoingunduehardshipswhichwill...weighheavilyintheeventofareprieve".4.82 .2Inasubsequentsubmissionof19May1993,theStatepartynotesthaton12November1992,theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentwithhardlabourbythePresidentofTrinidadandTobago.5.12 .2TheauthorwasprovidedwithanopportunitytorespondtotheStateparty'ssubmission.Ashedidnotreplywithintheprescribeddeadline,areminderwassenttohimon19August1993.IntwolettersdatedMay1994,theauthorcomplainsthathehadpreparedrepliestotheStateparty'ssubmissionandhandedthemtotheActingAssistantSuperintendent(?)whointurnforwardedthemtotheDeputyCommissionerforPrisons.Atthatlevel,theauthorsubmits,hisreplywas"suppressed".5.22 .2Intwootherlettersdated13Mayand5September1994,theauthorcomplainsthathedoesnotreceivethecorrespondencefromtheCommittee'ssecretariatinrespectofthepresentcommunication.Itwouldappearthattwosecretariatlettersdated3Mayand26August1994didnotreachhim.Finally,hereferstoafive-pagedocumentdated28May1994,whichhesubmittedinreplytotheStateparty'ssubmissionandwhichheclaimsinturndidnotreachtheCommittee.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftysecondsession.ItnotedtheStateparty'scontentionthattheauthorhadnotavailedhimselfoftheprocedureslaiddowninrules278to280oftheTrinidadianprisonrules.Ontheotherhand,itobservedthattheauthorhadbroughthisgrievancestotheattentionofthedomesticauthorities.Givenhissituation,firstondeathrowandafter13November1992asapersonservingatermoflifeimprisonment,itcouldnotbeheldagainsthimifhehadnotdonesointheprescribedform.Itwouldhavebeenincumbentupontheprisonauthoritiestoinvestigatehiscomplaint(s)exofficioandwithduediligenceandexpedition.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadmerelyinvokedtheprisonrulesandthefactthatMr.Pintohadnotavailedhimselfoftheprocedurespelledoutinthoserules;itdidnotstatewhetherornotanyfollow-uphadbeengiventotheauthor'scomplaint(s),inwhateverform.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconsideredthattherequirementsofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolhadbeenmet.6.22 .2TheCommitteeconcludedthattheauthorhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimofinadequatemedicalattentionandofinterferencewithhiscorrespondence,andthatthoseissuesshouldbeconsideredontheirmerits.6.32 .2On25October1994,therefore,theCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles7,10and17oftheCovenant.AbsenceofStatepartycooperationonthemeritsandtheauthor'sfurthercommentsonthemerits7.12 .2ThedeadlineforsubmissionoftheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolexpiredon3May1995.NoadditionalinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty,inspiteoftworemindersaddressedtoiton1Septemberand21November1995,anddespitetheseriousnessoftheallegationscontainedinparagraphs7.3and7.4below.7.22 .2Inseverallettersbetween10Apriland6September1995,theauthorprovidesinformationabouthiseffortstoobtainafavourablerecommendationfromtheAdvisoryCommitteeonthePowerofPardonofTrinidad.HispetitionforreleasehadbeensubmittedtothatbodyaftertheCommittee'sdecisiononcommunicationNo.232/1987,referredtoinparagraph1above.On23July1995,hiscasewasheardbytheAdvisoryCommitteebut,accordingtotheauthor,"placedonholdindefinitely".WhilesixotherprisonersundersentenceoflifeimprisonmentwerereleaseduponrecommendationoftheAdvisoryCommittee,theauthor'sownreleasewasdenied.7.32 .2TheauthornotesthattheAdvisoryCommitteehadrequestedtworeportsonhiscasefromtheprisonauthorities;thosereportsallegedlywerepreparedinJanuaryandFebruary1995.TheprisonauthoritiesapparentlyinformedhimrepeatedlythatthereportssenttotheAdvisoryCommitteewereveryunfavourable,militatingheavilyagainsthisrelease.Mr.Pintodismissesthereportsoftheprisonwelfareofficerandtheprisonadministrationasmaliciousandtotallyunfounded.Inthiscontext,hearguesthattheprisonauthoritieswereeagertohumiliatehimbecausehehad,whileondeathrow,submittedhiscomplainttotheUnitedNationsandtootherorganizationsandprominentpoliticians.Thus,theprisonofficersremindedhimthattheMinisterforNationalSecuritywastheChairmanoftheAdvisoryCommitteeandtheAttorney-Generalanothermemberandthatitwasfullywithintheirdiscretiontorejecthisrequestforrelease.Totheauthor,theauthoritiesmanipulatedhisfile:"I'veaverygoodrecordinprisonbutthey[wantto]fightmedownbecauseofmyhumanrightsstruggle."7.42 .2Theauthoraddsthatthewelfareofficerwhopreparedthereportonhimconfessedtohimon28September1995thathehaddraftedthereportuponinstructionsofhissuperiorsandtheprisonadministration,thathehadneverinterviewedanyoneonthematterandthattheprisonauthoritieswereengagedin"corrupt"practicesconcerningthecase,withthesoleviewofkeepingtheauthorinprisonforever.TheauthornowseekstheCommittee'sinterventionwiththeStateparty'sGovernment.7.52 .2Inaletterdated8November1995,Mr.Pinto'sformercounselbeforetheCommitteeconfirmsthattheAdvisoryCommitteeonthePowerofPardonofTrinidadhasindefinitelydeferredadecisioninthecase.Counselrepeatstheauthor'sallegationscontainedinparagraph7.3above,i.e.thattheTrinidadianauthoritieshavetoldtheauthorthattheywouldseektopreventhisreleasebecauseoftheactionhehadtakentocomplainabouthiscasetotheUnitedNations.Examinationofthemerits8.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthecaseinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbythepartiestothepresentcase,asitisrequiredtodounderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.8.22 .2TheCommitteenoteswithutmostconcernthenon-complianceoftheStatepartywiththeCommittee'srecommendationontheviewsadoptedon20July1990inrespectofMr.Pinto'sfirstcommunication.aItisequallyconcernedabouttheauthor'sandcounsel'sallegationthatMr.Pinto'srequestforreleasetotheAdvisoryCommitteeonthePowerofMercywasdeniedbecauseofhispreviouscomplaint(s)totheCommittee.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotesthatthemainthemeoftheauthor'scorrespondence(inexcessof20letters,including2totheSpecialRapporteurforfollow-uponviews)pertainsprimarilytotheimplementationoftherecommendationsinthepreviouscase.8.32 .2TheauthorhascomplainedaboutappallingconditionsofdetentionandharassmentattheCarreraConvictPrison.TheStatepartyhasonlyrefutedthatallegationingeneralterms;ontheotherhand,theauthorhasfailedtoprovidedetailsonthetreatmenthewassubjectedto,otherthanbyreferencetoconditionsofdetentionthataffectedallinmatesequally.Onthebasisofthematerialbeforeit,theCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeennoviolationofarticle7.However,toconveytotheauthorthattheprerogativeofmercywouldnotbeexercisedandhisearlyreleasedeniedbecauseofhishumanrightscomplaintsrevealslackofhumanityandamountstotreatmentthatfailstorespecttheauthor'sdignity,inviolationofarticle10,paragraph1.8.42 .2Astotheauthor'sclaimofdenialofmedicaltreatment,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorwasprovidedwithanopportunitytocommentontheStateparty'sdetailedaccountof4March1993inthisrespect;heretainedthatopportunityevenafterinformingtheCommitteethatcommentsallegedlypreparedon28May1994hadnotreachedtheCommittee.Heneversubsequentlyprovidedanyinformationastothecontentsofthatdocument.Asaresult,theStateparty'ssubmissionthatMr.Pintodidreceiveophthalmologic,dentalandstresstreatmentisuncontested.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatsuchmedicalattentionastheauthorreceivedwhileondeathrowdidnotviolatearticles7or10,paragraph1.̇8.52 .2Theauthorhasfinallycontendedthathiscorrespondenceisbeinginterferedwitharbitrarily,inviolationofhisrighttoprivacy.AlthoughtheStatepartyhasfailedtocommentonthatallegation,theCommitteenotesthatthematerialbeforeitdoesnotrevealthattheStatepartydeliberatelywithheldorinterceptedsomeoftheauthor'sletterstotheCommittee;manyletterswrittenbeforeandaftertheadoptionoftheadmissibilitydecisioninOctober1994,includinghandwritten"copies"ofletterstothePermanentSecretaryoftheMinistryofNationalSecurityandtheAttorney-General,andwhichcontainedseriousallegationsagainsttheStateparty,didinfactreachtheCommitteewithoutunduedelay.Thereisnoevidencethattheircontentwasinterferedwith.Aftercarefullyweighingtheinformationavailabletoit,theCommitteefindsnoviolationofarticle17,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsasfoundbytheCommitteerevealaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatMr.Pintoisentitled,underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toaneffectiveremedy.Thisshouldincludemeasuresthatwillpreventarecurrenceoftreatmentsuchastheauthorhasbeensubjectedto.11.2 .2ByratifyingtheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetoestablishwhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.IthasfurtherundertakentoensuretoallindividualssubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationoftheCovenanthasbeenfound.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttoitsviews.12.2 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotthusfargiveneffecttotheCommittee'sviewsof20July1990ainrespectofMr.Pinto'sinitialcommunication,inwhichtheCommitteedecidedthathewasentitledtoaremedyentailinghisrelease.Whilethedeathsentenceimposedontheauthorhasbeencommutedtolifeimprisonment,thefactremainsthathehasnotbeenreleased.TheCommitteenotesitspreviousfindingthattheauthordidnothaveafairtrial.ThecontinueddetentionofapersonsentencedafteranunfairtrialmayraiseissuesundertheCovenant.TheCommitteethereforecallsupontheStatepartytoremedytheviolationsoftheCovenantestablishedintheviewsof20July1990byreleasingtheauthorandtoinformtheCommitteeofanyactiontakeninthisregardassoonaspossible.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,Fortyfifthsession,SupplementNo.40(A/45/40),vol.II,annexIX.H,communicationNo.232/1987(Pintov.TrinidadandTobago),viewsadoptedon20July1990.ǀK.CommunicationNo.519/1992,LyndonMarriottv.Jamaica02 .2(viewsadoptedon27October1995,fiftyfifthsession)Submittedby: . H .HH .HLyndonMarriott[representedbycounsel]Victim: . . H .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .H14July1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H30June19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon27October1995,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.519/1992,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.LyndonMarriottundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisLyndonMarriott,aJamaicancitizencurrentlyservingasentenceoflifeimprisonmentatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles7and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthorwasarrestedon12March1987andchargedwiththemurderonthesamedayofAstonNugent.HewastriedintheHomeCircuitCourt,Kingston,foundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathon16December1987.TheCourtofAppealdismissedhisappealon3October1988.AfurtherpetitionforspecialleavetoappealwasdismissedbytheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilon4October1990.Accordingtocounsel,theauthor'scasehasbeenreviewedpursuanttotheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Act,1992.Themurderforwhichtheauthorwasconvictedhasbeenclassifiedasanon-capitalmurder;consequently,theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentinDecember1992.Hewillbeentitledtoparoleafter15years.2.22 .2Duringthetrial,RosettaBrown,aformergirlfriendoftheauthorand,atthetimeoftheincident,thegirlfriendofthedeceased,testifiedthaton12March1987,theauthorarrivedatthedeceased'shouse,atwhichshewasstaying,andtoldhertogohome.Shewalkedovertoaneighbour'syard,followedbytheauthorandthedeceased.Thetwomenstartedadisputeabouther.Nugentapparentlytriedtodisengagetheauthor,whohadtakenholdofBrown'sblouse,uponwhichtheauthorstabbedNugentwithaknife.RosettaBrowntestifiedthatshesawtheauthortakeouttheknifefromhiswaist,butthatshecouldnotseehimstabNugent,sinceshewasstandingbehindthedeceased.DoretteWilliams,aneighbour,testifiedthatshesawtheauthorstabthedeceasedinthechest.2.32 .2Thethirdprosecutionwitness,RosemarieBarnett,wasanotherfriendofboththedeceasedandtheauthor.Shetestifiedthattheauthorhadcometoherhouseinthemorningof12March1987,threateningtokillNugent.Hereturnedtoherhomeanhourlater,holdingaknifewithbloodonthehandleandtellingherthathehadstabbedhim.2.42 .2Inanunswornstatementfromthedock,theauthorcontendedthatNugenthadpushedandkickedhim;thatNugenthadthenpulledaknifefromhispocketandraiseditinordertostabtheauthor;andthat,intheensuingstruggle,Nugentwasstabbed.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorcontendsthathewasdeniedafairhearingbyanimpartialtribunal,inviolationofsection20(1)oftheJamaicanConstitutionandarticle14oftheCovenant.Heclaimsthatthejudgefailedtodirectthejuryproperlyontheissueofprovocationandthathewithdrewtheissueofself-defencefromit.Moreover,thetrialjudgewasallegedlybiasedagainsttheauthorandmadeironicalandprovocativecommentsonthesentence,whichwerelatercriticizedbytheCourtofAppealandwhich,accordingtotheauthor,providefurtherevidenceofthecourt'sbias.3.22 .2Theauthorfurthercontendsthattheforemanofthejurywasanacquaintanceofthedeceasedandthatthecourtwasthereforenotimpartial.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthedefencewasnotinformedatthepreliminaryhearingthattheprosecutionwouldcallathirdwitnessatthetrial,sothatnocounterargumentscouldbeprepared.3.32 .2Furthermore,theauthorsubmitsthatbeforetheCourtofAppeal,hiscounsel,whohadnotrepresentedhimatfirstinstance,madenosubmissionsinsupportoftheappeal.Counsel,whowasassignedtothecasebytheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights,explainsthattherewereissueswhichcouldhavebeenraisedatfirstinstance,but,since"theincompetenceofcounselisnotagroundforappeal",heclaimedthatitwouldhavebeenfutiletocanvassthataspect.3.42 .2Theauthorfinallyassertsthatthetimespentondeathrow,duringwhichhecouldnotavailhimselfofappellateremedies,constitutescruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentwithinthemeaningofsection17(1)oftheJamaicanConstitutionandarticle7oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scommentsthereon4.12 .2Bysubmissionof22June1993,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissible.Itreferstosection25oftheJamaicanConstitution,whichprovidesthatanyonewhoallegesthatanyofhisconstitutionalrightshavebeenviolatedmayapplytotheSupremeCourtforredress.Therighttofairtrialisprotectedbysection20oftheConstitution.Sincetheauthorhasnotfiledaconstitutionalmotion,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.4.22 .2TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthatthecommunicationraisesissuesoffactsandevidencewhichtheCommitteeisnotcompetenttodetermine.Itarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblealsoonthatground.5.12 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselfortheauthorconteststhatanapplicationtotheSupremeCourtofJamaicaundersection25oftheJamaicanConstitutionisanavailableandeffectiveremedyinthecircumstancesoftheauthor'scase.Inthatconnection,hestatesthatnolegalaidisavailabletotheauthortopursuethatremedy.Hefurtherarguesthat,sincetheauthorhadavailabletohimanappealtotheCourtofAppealandtothePrivyCouncil,theSupremeCourtwouldnothaveexerciseditspowers,pursuanttosection25,paragraph2,oftheConstitution.5.22 .2Withregardtohisclaimunderarticle7oftheCovenant,counselclaimsthataconstitutionalmotionwouldhavebeenineffective,sincetheSupremeCourtwouldhaveconsidereditselfboundbythedecisionoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilin1981(Rileyv.AttorneyGeneral),inwhichitwasheldthat,whateverthereasonsfordelay,thePrivyCouncilwouldnotallowagroundthatanexecutioncontravenedsection17oftheJamaicanConstitution.5.32 .2Finally,counselarguesthattheauthordoesnotrequesttheHumanRightsCommitteetoevaluatethefactsofthecaseandthathedoesnotraiseissuesoffactsandevidence.CounselemphasizesthattheauthorrequeststheCommitteetodeterminewhetherhehasreceivedafairhearingwithinthemeaningofarticle14oftheCovenant,andthatthefactsandissuesofthecasearerelevant,bearinginmindthatadefendantshouldnotbeconvictedofacapitaloffenceexceptuponclearandincontrovertibleevidence.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftyfirstsession.6.22 .2TheCommitteerecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.TheCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,inrecentcases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecaseshadbeendismissed.However,theCommitteealsorecalledthattheStatepartyhadindicatedonseveraloccasionsathatnolegalaidwasmadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,constituteanavailableremedywhichhadtobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,theCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.32 .2Asregardstheauthor'sallegationsrelatingtotheconductofthetrialbythejudge,theevaluationofevidencebythecourt,andthejudge'sinstructionstothejury,theCommitteerecalledthatitwasgenerallyfortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenanttoevaluatethefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase;similarly,itwasfortheappellatecourtsandnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitwasclearthattheinstructionstothejurywerearbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgemanifestlyhadviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.Theauthor'sallegationsdidnotshowthatthejudge'sinstructionsortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.Inthatrespect,therefore,theauthor'sclaimsdidnotcomewithinthecompetenceoftheCommittee.Accordingly,thatpartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,underarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.42 .2Asregardstheauthor'sallegationthattheforemanofthejurywasafriendofthedeceased,theCommitteenotedthatthatmatterwasnotraisedbytheauthororhiscounselduringthetrialoratappeal.Thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.6.52 .2TheCommitteenotedthattheauthoralsoclaimedthathisdefencecounselhadnotbeeninformedthattheprosecutionwouldcallathirdwitnessandthatthematterwasbroughttotheattentionofthejudge,butthatthejudgefailedtoadjournthehearingtogivecounseltimetoprepareforthecrossexamination.TheCommitteeconsideredthatthatclaimmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(e),oftheCovenant,thatneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.6.62 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimconcerninghislegalrepresentationattheappealproceedings,theCommitteenotedthattheauthor'slawyerwasprovidedbytheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights,anongovernmentalorganization.TheCommitteeconsideredthereforethattheallegedfailuretoproperlyrepresenttheauthorcouldnotbeattributedtotheStateparty.Thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.72 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimunderarticle7,theCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorhadfailedtoshowwhatstepshehadtakentobringthatcomplainttotheattentionoftheauthoritiesinJamaica.Inthisrespect,theauthorhadfailedtofulfiltherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremediessetoutinarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.7.2 .2Accordingly,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(e)oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandcounsel'scomments8.2 .2Bysubmissionof27January1995,theStatepartypointsoutthattheallegationsrelatingtoarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(e),declaredadmissiblebytheCommittee,relatetoanissuewhichshouldhavebeenraisedasagroundforappeal.TheStatepartycannotbeheldresponsibleforcounsel'sfailuretodoso.Sincetheauthorthusfailedtoavailhimselfofaremedywhichwasavailabletohim,theStatepartydeniesthataviolationhastakenplace.9.12 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselcontendsthattheissuearisingunderarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(e),involvestheresponsibilityoftheStateparty,inthatarticle14oftheCovenantisembodiedintheJamaicanConstitution,whereasconstitutionalredressisnotavailabletotheauthorbecauseofthelackoflegalaid.9.22 .2Counselfurtherclaimsthattheissueswereinfactraisedonappeal,sincetheappealfiledbytheauthorwasbased,interalia,onthegroundofunfairtrial.Eventhoughcounselfortheauthordidnotarguethegroundsforappeal,theCourtshouldhaveconsideredthegroundsexofficio.Inthisconnection,counselnotesthattheCourtdidreviewtheevidenceagainsttheauthorpropriomotu.9.32 .2Counselstatesthat,hadtheauthorhadtimetoconsiderhispositioninthelightoftheadditionalwitnessgivingevidencefortheprosecution,hemighthavedecidedtogiveswornevidencetostrengthenhisposition;alternatively,hemighthaveamendedhisstatementfromthedock,addressingthethirdwitness'evidence,orhaveabandonedthedefenceofselfdefenceandaccidentandreliedsolelyonprovocation.Asitwas,thecombinationofthenewevidencetogetherwiththeauthor'sfailuretogiveevidenceenabledthejudgeeffectivelytowithdrawtheissuesofprovocationandselfdefencefromthejury.9.42 .2CounselfurthernotesthattheapplicationforleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasbasedonthegroundsoffailurebythetrialjudgetogivecorrectdirectionsinrespectofselfdefenceandprovocationandarguesthatthoseissuesarenottobedivorcedfromtheeffectofthefailurebythetrialjudgetoallowtimetoconsiderthefurtherevidence.Considerationofthemerits10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.22 .2TheCommitteenotesthatthetrialtranscriptshowsthatcounselinformedthejudgethathehadbeenunawarethattheprosecutionwasgoingtocallathirdwitnessuntilthemorningofthehearing,whenasummaryoftheevidencewasgiventothedefence;hedidnotrequestanadjournment.Therecordfurthershowsthat,immediatelyafterthethirdwitnesswassworn,thejudgeadjournedthetrial,at3.38p.m.,forotherreasons.Thetrialresumedthenextdayat10a.m.withtheexaminationofthethirdwitnessandthencounselproceededtocrossexamineher,withoutrequestingafurtheradjournment.Theauthorhimselfgavehisstatementfromthedocklaterthatday.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotshowthattheauthor'srighttoadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefenceandhisrighttohaveexaminedthewitnessesagainsthimhavebeenviolated.11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdonotrevealabreachofanyoftheprovisionsoftheCovenant.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aSee,forexample,OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.J,communicationNo.283/1988(Littlev.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon1November1991,para.6.5;andibid.,FortyninthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/49/40),vol.II,annexIX.A,communicationNo.321/1988(Thomasv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993,para.5.2,andannexIX.G,communicationNo.352/1989(Douglas,GentlesandKerrv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993,para.7.2.&  '  ǀL.CommunicationNo.521/1992,VladimirKulominv.Hungarỳ(viewsadoptedon22March1996,fiftysixthsession)    Submittedby:VladimirKulominVictim:TheauthorStateparty:HungaryDateofcommunication:6May1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:16March19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon22March1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.521/1992,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.VladimirKulominundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisVladimirKulomin,aRussiancitizen,borninLeningradin1954,currentlydetainedinBudapest.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsofhishumanrightsbyHungary.TheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsenteredintoforceforHungaryon7December1988.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2TheauthorlivedinBudapestandwasaneighbourofoneD.T.andthelatter'sgirlfriend,K.G.On25July1988,theauthoraccompaniedD.T.andK.G.toherfather'shouse;K.G.hadsaidthattheywantedtopickupsomedocumentsandthattheyneededtheauthor'sprotectionbecauseherfatherwasmentallydisturbed.Uponarrival,K.G.'sfather,whensteppingoutsideandseeingtheauthor,D.T.andK.G.,triedtohittheauthor.Whentheauthorpushedhimaway,hefell;theythentiedhimupbecauseK.G.andD.T.claimedthathewasdangerousandcapableofanything.AfterK.G.hadtoldhimthatshehadtelephonedthepsychiatrichospitalandthattheywouldpickupherfather,theauthorleftthescene.2.22 .2On8August1988,whilehewasinLeningrad,theauthorreceivedaphonecallfromD.T.andK.G.HestatesthatheonlylearnedatthatmomentthatK.G.'sfatherhaddied,butthattheydidnottellhimaboutthecircumstancesofhisdeath.2.32 .2On16August1988,theauthorreturnedtoBudapestbytrain.Twodayslater,hewasarrestedattheSovietHungarianborderbytheHungarianpolice,chargedwiththemurderofK.G.'sfatherandbroughttoBudapest.TheauthorcomplainsthathewasnotallowedtocallhislawyerortheSovietconsul.Afterthreedaysofinterrogation,inthepresenceofaninterpreter,hewasgivenaformtosign.ThepoliceallegedlytoldhimthattheformwasintendedfortheSovietconsul;however,itwasintendedforanextensionby30daysofhisprovisionalcustody.2.42 .2Theauthorwasdetainedatthepolicestationforfivemonths.Hestatesthat:"ThelasttwomonthstheydidnotleadmetointerrogationandIeventhoughteverybodyhadforgottenaboutme.Itwasterrible.IdidnotunderstandonewordofHungarian.InmybaggageIhadaHungariangrammarbookanddictionariesbutthepolicedidnotallowmetostudyHungarian.Stayinginthepolicestation,IaskedformylawyerandRussianconsuleverydayinwrittenform,butwithoutresult(noanswer).Moreover,Icouldnotwriteanywhereforfivemonths."InJanuary1989,theauthorwastransferredtoaprisonwherehewasgiventheopportunitytostudyHungarian.2.52 .2Astohislegalrepresentationandthepreparationofhisdefence,theauthorstatesthat,priortothetrial,hewroteseveralletterstothepublicprosecutor'soffice.InAugust1989,hewasallowedduringsixdaystoexaminethe"protocol"(depositions)withtheassistanceofaninterpretersoastobeabletopreparehisdefence.Theauthorcomplainsthathisletterswerenotincludedandthathehadtoolittletimetoexaminethefile,whichconsistedof600pages.Hesubmitsthat,afterexaminingthedocuments,hemetwithhislawyerforthefirsttime.Hecomplainsthatthelawyerwasoldandincapable.Hesubmitsthat,althoughhemetwiththelawyerfivetimespriortothetrial,theyhadtoreviewthefileeverytimefromthestartandthatafterthetwelfthdayofthetrial,hislawyeraskedhimwhoK.G.actuallywas.2.62 .2On26September1989,thetrialbeganinthemunicipalcourtofBudapest.TheauthorwastriedtogetherwithK.G.Thehearingtookplaceduring14days,spreadoveraperiodoffourmonths.Theauthorreiteratesthattherewasnoevidenceagainsthim.Undercrossexamination,K.G.changedhertestimonyonsixdifferentoccasions;accordingtotheauthor,herallegationsagainsthimthusbecamebaseless.Furthermore,noneoftheprosecutionwitnessesincriminatedhim.2.72 .2TheauthorfurthersubmitsthatduringthetrialthejudgeconcededthatD.T.togetherwithK.G.hadplannedthemurder.Hecomplainsthat,despitethatfinding,noeffortwasmadetofindD.T.,norwasthelattersentencedinabsentia.Theauthorfurtherallegesthatwhenhecomplainedtothejudge,sherepliedthatheshouldcomplainaboutsuchmattersinSiberiaandthatshewantedhimtobethelastRussianinHungary.Hesubmitsthatthejudge'sdiscriminatoryremarksweredeletedfromthetrialtranscriptbutarerecordedontape.On8February1990,theauthorwasfoundguiltyofhomicide,committedwithcruelty,andsentencedto10years'imprisonment,theminimumsentenceestablishedbylawforthatoffence,withsubsequentexpulsionfromHungary.2.82 .2TheauthorsubsequentlyappealedtotheSupremeCourtofHungary,onthefollowinggrounds:2 .2(a) .Thetrialjudgeruledthattheauthorhadadmittedhisguilt,whereashisstatementstothepoliceanddepositionsmadeatthepreliminaryhearingprovedotherwise;̇2 .2(b) .Thejudgeruledthatthebloodfoundonthevictimbelongedtotheauthor,whereas,accordingtotheforensicexpert,thatevidencewashighlyquestionable;2 .2(c) .Thepathologisttestifiedthatthedeceaseddiedsometimebetween25and28July1988.Thejudgeruledthatthedeceaseddiedon25July1988(thedaytheauthorhadaccompaniedD.T.andK.G.tothedeceased'shouse),therebyimplicatingtheauthorinthecrime.2.92 .2On30October1990,theSupremeCourt,afterhavingheardtheappealofboththeprosecutorandthedefendants,sentencedtheauthortoanotherfouryearsofimprisonment,asitqualifiedtheactforwhichtheauthorhadbeenconvictedbythecourtoffirstinstanceasanoffencecommittedwiththeobjectiveoffinancialgain.Theauthorpointsoutthathehadnotbeenchargedwithrobberyortheftandthattherewasnosuchevidenceagainsthim.Accordingtotheauthor,theSupremeCourt'sdecisionisfurtherproofofdiscriminationagainsthim.HefurtherallegesthattheSupremeCourtdidnottakehislawyer'ssubmissionsintoaccountandsimplyignoredthemanycontradictionsinthetrialtranscript.2.10TheauthorsubsequentlyappliedtothePresidentoftheSupremeCourtforreviewofhiscase.On12December1991,theSupremeCourtdismissedtheauthor'sapplication.Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Thecomplaint3.2 .2AlthoughtheauthordoesnotinvokeanyoftheprovisionsoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,itappearsfromhissubmissionsthatheclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyHungaryofarticles9,10,14and26oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scomments4.12 .2Initssubmissionof25March1993,theStatepartypointsoutthattheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforHungaryon7December1988,andarguesthat,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle28oftheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,theCommitteehasnocompetencetoconsiderindividualcomplaintsthatrefertoeventsthatoccurredpriortothedateofentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforHungary.Itsubmitsthat,accordingly,theCommitteeisprecludedrationetemporisfromconsideringtheauthor'scomplaintsinsofarastheyrelatetohisarrestandthefirstfewmonthsofhisdetention.4.22 .2TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthattheCommitteeisnotcompetenttoconsiderallegedviolationsofrightsthatarenotsetforthintheCovenant.ItsubmitsthattheCovenantcontainsnoprovisionpreventingatribunaloffirstinstancefromfreelyconsideringthefactsthatwereestablishedduringtheprocessofevaluationoftheevidence,drawingreasonableconclusionswithrespecttotheguiltoftheaccusedandqualifyingtheactfromtheestablishedfacts.Itissubmittedthat,accordingly,theCommitteecannotconsidertheauthor'scomplaintrationemateriae.4.32 .2TheStatepartyfurthersubmitsthat,similarly,theCommitteehasnocompetencetoconsidertheauthor'scomplaintthatD.T.,aBulgariancitizen,wasnotprosecutedorsentenced.ItexplainsthatD.T.disappearedduringtheproceedingsandthatthecourtoffirstinstanceissuedawarrantofarrestagainsthim.TheStatepartyfurtherexplainsthatitdidnotrequesttheBulgarianauthoritiestoextraditeD.T.since,undertheHungarianBulgarianextraditiontreaty,extraditionisnotpossiblewhenthepersontobeextraditedisacitizenoftheothersignatoryparty.4.42 .2TheStatepartyconcedesthattheauthorhasexhaustedavailabledomesticremediesinhiscase.Itsubmits,however,thattheauthordidnotexhaustdomesticremediesinrespectofhiscomplaintthattheprisonauthoritiesobstructedhiscontactswiththeoutside.Itcontendsthat,inaccordancewithparagraph36,(f),section(1),ofDecree11of1979,ontheexecutionofpenalmeasures,theauthorcouldhavefiledacomplainttothecompetentauthoritiesifhebelievedthathehadbeenobstructedinmaintainingcontactswithotherpersons.Furthermore,pursuanttoparagraph22ofDecree8/1979(VI.30)oftheMinistryofJustice,anyconvictmaysubmitacomplaintrequestingaremedyagainstpersonalinjury.Thecompetentauthoritiesofthepenitentiaryinstitutionareobligedtoexaminethecomplaintandtherequest.Iftheconvictisnotsatisfiedwiththemeasuresundertaken,hemaysubmitacomplainttotheofficerinchargeoftheinstitution,whomusttakeadecisionwithin15days.Iftheconvictisnotsatisfiedwiththeofficer'sdecisioneither,theheadquartersoftheHungarianpenitentiaryadministrationwillexaminethecomplaint.TheStatepartyconcludesthattheauthorhasnotavailedhimselfofhisrighttosubmitacomplaintand,therefore,hasnotexhausteddomesticremediesinthisrespect.5.2 .2Inhisreplydated5May1993,theauthorchallengestheStateparty'scontentionthatpartofthecommunicationisinadmissiblerationetemporis.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationatitsfiftiethsession.6.22 .2TheCommitteeobservedthattheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforHungaryon7December1988.ItrecalledthattheOptionalProtocolcouldnotbeappliedretroactivelyandthattheCommitteewasprecludedrationetemporisfromexaminingallegedviolationsoftheCovenantinsofarastheallegedeventsoccurredpriortothedateofentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolfortheStatepartyconcerned.Itnotedthat,intheinstantcase,partoftheauthor'spretrialdetention,aswellashistrial,occurredafter7December1988,andthatitwasnotprecludedfromconsideringtheauthor'sclaimsunderarticles9and10insofarastheyrelatedtothatperiodoftime.6.32 .2Withrespecttotheauthor'scomplaintthatoneofthesuspectsinthecasehadnotbeenprosecutedandconvicted,theCommitteeobservedthattheCovenantdidnotprovidefortherighttoseeanotherpersoncriminallyprosecuted.Accordingly,itfoundthatthatpartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.42 .2TheCommitteeobservedthattheauthorclaimedthathedidnothaveafairtrial,withinthemeaningofarticle14oftheCovenant,andthathewasdiscriminatedagainstbecauseofhisnationality.TheCommitteewasoftheopinionthatthoseissuesshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.7.2 .2Accordingly,on16March1994,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles9,10,14and26oftheCovenant.TheStateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandtheauthor'scomments8.12 .2Bysubmissionof27December1994,theStatepartynotesthatmostoftheauthor'sclaimsconcerninghisdetentioninpolicecustodyrelatetotheperiodbeforetheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolforHungaryandwerethereforedeclaredinadmissiblebytheCommittee.However,theStateparty,inappreciationoftheCommittee'swork,alsosubmitsitsexplanationswithregardtothemeritsofthoseclaims.8.22 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimsunderarticle9,paragraphs2and3,oftheCovenant,theStatepartysubmitsthattheauthorwasimmediatelyinformedofthereasonsforhisarrestandthathewasinformedofthechargesagainsthimon20August1988.On22August1988,hewasorderedtobekeptincustody,inaccordancewithHungarianlaw.Hewasinterrogatedon29Augustand5,14and20September1988.On18November1988,hewasinformedoftheextensionofhisremandincustody.On19December1988,hewasconfrontedwithhiscoaccused,andon5and6January1989,thepresentationofthedocumentstookplace.Asregardstheauthor'scomplaintthathe"wasforgotten"fortwomonths,theStatepartypointsoutthat,after20September1988,theinvestigatingauthoritycarriedoutseveralotherinvestigations,orderedthepreparationofseveralexpertopinionsandquestionedsome60witnesses.TheStatepartyconcludesthatitsinvestigatingauthorityproceededactivelyandenergeticallytowardssolvingthecaseandthatnoviolationofarticle9hastakenplace.TheStatepartynotesthattheauthor,beingaforeigner,waskeptincustodysince,hadhereturnedtohishomecountry,hecouldnothavebeenextraditedundertheHungarianSovietagreement.8.32 .2Asregardstheissuesunderarticle10,paragraphs1and2(a),oftheCovenant,theStateparty,afterhavingcarefullyexaminedallthedocuments,statesthataccordingtothe"servicenote",whichliststhecontentsoftheauthor'sluggage,hisluggagedidnotcontainbooksofanykind.Nordoesarequestforagrammarbookordictionaryappearonanysocalledrequestsheets,whichcontaintherequestsofthoseincustody.Inthisconnection,theStatepartynotesthattheauthordidfileatotalof17requestsheetsandthatherequested"permissionforreading"onlyon9November1988,afterwhichitwasgranted.Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathewasnotallowedtowritelettersforthefirstfivemonthsofhiscustody,theStatepartystatesthatthereisnorecordkeptofthedetainees'correspondence,sothatitisdifficulttoverifythatallegation.TheStatepartynotes,however,thatnorequestorcomplaintrelatedtocorrespondenceappearsontherequestsheetsorinthecriminalrecords,anditconcludesthatitisimprobablethattheauthorwasdeniedtherighttowriteletters.Finally,theStatepartysubmitsthattheauthorwasdetainedthroughoutasaprisoneronremand,separatedfromconvictedprisoners,whileawaitingtrial.TheStatepartyconcludesthatnoviolationofarticle10occurredintheauthor'scase.8.42 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathedidnothaveenoughtimeforthepreparationofhisdefence,theStatepartynotesthatalawyerwasappointedfortheauthoron20August1988andthattherequestsheetsshowthattheauthoraskedforameetingwiththelawyeron30Septemberand13October1988,whereuponthelawyerwasinformed.Also,theauthor'srequestsof23Augustand30September1988tomeettheSovietconsulwereforwardedtotheconsulate.̇8.52 .2Asregardstheauthor'scomplaintthathedidnothaveenoughtimetostudythedocumentsinpreparationforhisdefence,theStatepartysubmitsthatthesixdaysthatwereavailabletotheauthorcannotbeconsideredtooshortandthathecouldhaveappliedforanextensionoftheperiod,eitherpersonallyorthroughhislawyer.Astothequalityofthelawyer,theStatepartynotesthatthereisnoindicationthattheauthorevercomplainedthathislawyerwasunsuitableorthathewasinsufficientlyprepared.8.62 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthatheshouldnothavebeenconvictedonthebasisoftheevidenceagainsthim,theStatepartysubmitsthatthatisamatterforthecourtoffirstinstancetodecide.8.72 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimsthatheisavictimofdiscrimination,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorstatesthatthediscriminatoryremarksmadebythejudgewererecordedontheaudiotapeofthehearingbutdeletedfromtherecord.TheStatepartyreferstotherulesgoverningtherecordofseriouscriminalcases,whichstipulatethatthejudgeshalldictatetherecordaloudonanaudiotapeduringthehearingandthatthedefendantorhislawyerhavearightatanytimetomakecommentsonwhatthejudgehasdictatedandtomovethatsomethingotherthanthatwhichthejudgehasdictatedbeplacedontherecord.Eveniftheobjectionbythedefencehasbeendeniedbythejudge,thejudge'srulingisplacedonrecord.Therecorddictatedontheaudiotapeisthentranscribedbythecourtclerksand,atthatpointagain,objectionscanbemadebythedefence.Itisclearfromtherecordthatneithertheauthornorhislawyerrequestedtheinclusionofthejudge'sremarksintherecordnormadeanyproposalorcommentconcerningeitherthewrittenortheverbalrecord.TheStatepartythereforeconcludesthatthereisnoindicationthatthejudgeindeedmadetheremarksattributedtoher.Furthermore,theStatepartypointsoutthatatanystageoftheproceedings,anobjectioncanbemadeabouttheperceivedprejudiceofajudgewiththepresidentoftheCourt.Nosuchobjectionhasbeenmadebyeithertheauthororhisrepresentative.Inthelightoftheabove,theStatepartydeniesthattheauthorhasbeenthevictimofdiscriminationbythejudge.8.82 .2FromtheEnglishtranslationofthejudgementofthecourtoffirstinstance,submittedbytheStateparty,itappearsthatthecourtfoundthatthevictimhaddiedasaconsequenceofhavingbeentieduptootightly,causingparalysisofthechestmuscles,ofbeingsedatedwithethylchlorideandofsuffocationbecauseofplasticbagsplacedoverhishead.Thecourtalsofoundthattheauthorhadbeenpresentwhenthevictimwassedatedwiththeethylchlorideandthathehadactivelyparticipatedinthetyingupofthevictim,anditconsideredthathecouldhaveforeseenthatthevictimwoulddieasaconsequenceofhisactions.9.12 .2On15February1995,theauthorsubmittedhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission.Hesubmitsthatthemainpointofhiscomplaintisthat,asaconsequenceoftheviolationsofhisrights,hehasbeenconvictedofmurderwhereasheisinnocent.9.22 .2Theauthordenieseverhavingpleadedguiltytothemurder.HefurtherstatesthatitisclearfromtheStateparty'ssubmissionthathewasinterrogatedonlyfivetimesduringhisfivemonths'detentioninthepolicestation.9.32 .2TheauthorfurthermaintainsthathisHungariangrammaranddictionarywereintheluggagehebroughtwithhimonthetrainfromtheSovietUnionandwerekeptindepositinthepolicestationduringhisdetentionthere.Asregardstherequestsheets,theauthorstatesthatinfacthecouldnotaskforanythingwithoutthecooperationoftheinvestigatingdetective.Hefurtherstatesthatnoneofthedetaineeswereallowedtohavepenandpaperintheircells.Heclaimsthatheverballyrequestedpermissiontowriteletters,throughtheinterpreter.Theauthorfurtherstatesthatheknowsthatonthefirstpageofhispersonalfileintheprison,itiswrittenthathewasnotallowedtowritealettertoanyoneuntil1June1989,byorderofthepublicprosecutor.9.42 .2Theauthorreiteratesthatnolawyerwaspresentduringthefirstandsecondinterrogationsatthepolicestationandthathedidnotmeethislawyerduringtheinvestigations.Hefurtherstatesthatthesixdaystoreadthroughthedocumentswastooshortaperiodoftime,sinceheneededtheassistanceofaninterpreter,whichrequiresmoretime.Healsosubmitsthathedidnothaveenoughtimetogothroughthedocumentswithhislawyer.9.52 .2Astothetrial,theauthorreiterateshisallegationthatthejudgetoldhimhewishedhimtobethelastRussianinHungary.Hefurtherreiteratesthattherewasnoproofagainsthim.9.62 .2Finally,theauthorstatesthatthejudgeoftheSupremeCourtdidnotgiveanyreasonforsentencinghimtoanadditionalfouryearsofimprisonmentandthattherearemanycontradictionsinthejudgement.9.72 .2TheauthorconcludesthattheStatepartyistryingtomisleadtheCommitteeandhasnotexaminedthedocumentscarefully.FurthersubmissionbytheStateparty10.12 .2Bynoteverbaleof4December1995,theStatepartywasrequestedtoclarifythelegalprovisionsinforceregardingarrestanddetentionatthetimeofMr.Kulomin'sarrestandtheirapplicationtotheauthor.Bysubmissionof28February1996,theStatepartyexplainsthat,in1988,arrestanddetentionwereregulatedbysection91oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,underwhichpersonssuspectedofhavingcommittedaseriousoffencecouldbeheldindetentionbythepolicefornolongerthan72hours.After72hours,detentioncouldonlybeextendedbydecisioneitherofthepublicprosecutororthecourt.TheStatepartyexplainsthat,beforecommittingasuspecttotrial,thepublicprosecutorhadtheauthoritytorenewhisdetention,andaftercommittaltotrial,thatauthoritywasconferredonthetrialcourt.Pretrialdetentionorderedbyaprosecutorcouldnotexceedonemonthbutwassubjecttoextensionbyorderofsuperiorprosecutors.Ifafteroneyearofpretrialdetention,apersonwasnotyetcommittedtotrial,furtherdetentioncouldonlybeorderedbythecourt.10.22 .2AstotheapplicationoftheprovisionstoMr.Kulomin,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorwasarrestedon20August1988andthattheOfficeofthePublicProsecutorinBudapestorderedhisdetentionon22August1988,thatis,withinthe72hoursprescribedbylaw.Thedetentionwasextendedbyvariouspublicprosecutors,bydecisionsof14September1988,11November1988,17January1989,8February1989,17April1989and17May1989.Aftertheauthor'scommittalfortrialinMay1989,thecourtextendedthedetentionon29May1989untilthefinalcourtjudgement.TheStatepartyconcludesthattheprocedurefollowedwasincompliancewithHungarianlaw,asrequiredbyarticle9,paragraph1,oftheCovenantwhichstatesthat:"Nooneshallbedeprivedofhislibertyexceptonsuchgroundsandinaccordancewithsuchprocedureasareestablishedbylaw".10.32 .2TheStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecisioninwhichtheCommitteedecidedthatitwasprecludedfromconsideringallegedviolationsoccurringpriortothedateofentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolfortheStateparty.TheStatepartyrecallsthattheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforHungaryon7December1988,thatis,aftertheauthor'sarreston20August1988.TheStatepartyarguesthattheobligationunderarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenanttobringtheauthorpromptlybeforeajudgeorotherofficerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpowerhadtobefulfilledasofthatdate.WithreferencetotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceandtoitsgeneralcomment,theStatepartyarguesthatitisclearthatthedelaymustnotexceedafewdays.Fromthis,theStatepartyconcludesthattheapplicabilityofarticle9,paragraph3,islimitedintimeand,intheauthor'scase,endedsomewhereinAugust1988.AccordingtotheStateparty,complianceornon-compliancewiththeobligationunderarticle9,paragraph3,doesnothaveacontinuingeffectandtheStatepartyconcludesthatthequestionofwhetherMr.Kulomin'sdetentionwasincompliancewiththerequirementofarticle9,paragraph3,isinadmissiblerationetemporis.10.42 .2Asregardsthecompatibilityoftheprocedurewiththerequirementsofarticle9,paragraph3,theStatepartyinterpretstheterm"otherofficerauthorizedbylaw"asmeaningofficerswiththesameindependencetowardstheexecutiveasthecourts.Inthisconnection,theStatepartynotesthatthelawinforceinHungaryin1988providedthatthechiefpublicprosecutorwaselectedbyandresponsibletoParliament.AllotherpublicprosecutorsweresubordinatetotheChiefPublicProsecutor.TheStatepartyconcludesthattheprosecutor'sorganizationatthetimehadnolinkwhatsoeverwiththeexecutiveandwasindependentfromit.TheStatepartythereforearguesthattheprosecutorswhodecidedonthecontinueddetentionofMr.Kulomincanberegardedasotherofficersauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpowerwithinthemeaningofarticle9,paragraph3,andthatnoviolationoftheCovenanthasoccurred.10.52 .2Finally,theStatepartyinformstheCommitteethattheprovisionsreferredtoabovewereamendedbyActXXVIof1989,whichenteredintoforceon1January1990.Undertheamendedlaw,personsarrestedoncriminalchargesshallbebroughtbeforethecourtwithin72hoursandthecourtdecidesonpretrialdetentionafterhavingheardtheprosecutorandthedefence.Thecourt'sordersaresubjecttoappeal.Examinationofthemerits11.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.11.22 .2TheCommitteehastakennoteoftheStateparty'sargumentthatthequestionofwhethertheauthorwas,afterarrest,promptlybroughtbeforeajudgeorotherofficerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpowerisinadmissiblerationetemporis.TheCommitteeobserves,however,thatthefirstsentenceofarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenantisintendedtobringthedetentionofapersonchargedwithacriminaloffenceunderjudicialcontrol.Failuretodosoatthebeginningofsomeone'sdetentionwouldthusleadtoacontinuingviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,untilremedied.Theauthor'spretrialdetentioncontinueduntilhewasbroughtbeforethecourtinMay1989.TheCommitteeisthereforenotprecludedrationetemporisfromexaminingthequestionofwhetherhisdetentionwasinaccordancewitharticle9,paragraph3.11.32 .2TheCommitteenotesthat,afterhisarreston20August1988,theauthor'spretrialdetentionwasorderedandsubsequentlyrenewedonseveraloccasionsbythepublicprosecutoruntiltheauthorwasbroughtbeforeajudgeon29May1989.TheCommitteeconsidersthatitisinherenttotheproperexerciseofjudicialpowerthatitbeexercisedbyanauthoritywhichisindependent,objectiveandimpartialinrelationtotheissuesdealtwith.Intheinstantcase,theCommitteeisnotsatisfiedthatthepublicprosecutorcouldberegardedashavingtheinstitutionalobjectivityandimpartialitynecessarytobeconsideredan"officerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpower"withinthemeaningofarticle9,paragraph3.11.42 .2TheauthorhasfurtherclaimedthathewasnotallowedtostudyHungarianwhileinpolicecustodyandthathewasnotallowedtocorrespondwithhisfamilyandfriends.TheStatepartyhasdeniedtheallegations,statingthattheauthorrequestedpermissionforreadingon9November1988,arequestwhichwasgranted,andthatthereisnotraceofarequestconcerningcorrespondence,butthatnorecordsoftheinmates'correspondencearekept.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotsustainafindingthattheauthorwasavictimofaviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant.11.52 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimunderarticle14oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotesthatalawyerwasappointedfortheauthoron20August1988,thattheauthorrequestedtomeethislawyer,thattheStatepartysubmitsthatitdidforwardtheauthor'srequeststothelawyer,andthattheauthorstatesthathedidnotmeethislawyer.TheCommitteefurthernotesthatitisunclearwhentheauthormethislawyerforthefirsttime,butthatitappearsfromthefilethattheauthorhadseveralmeetingswithhislawyerbeforethebeginningofthetrialagainsthim.Further,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorwasgiventheopportunitytostudythecasefileinpreparationforhisdefence,withtheassistanceofaninterpreter,andthatthereisnoindicationthatheevercomplainedtotheHungarianauthoritiesaboutthatbeinginsufficient.Astohisrepresentationatthetrial,theauthorhasnotmadeanyspecificcomplaintaboutanyparticularfailureofhislawyerintheconductofhisdefence,nordoesitappearfromthefilethatthelawyerdidnotrepresenttheauthorproperly.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotshowthattheauthorwasdeniedadequatetimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefence,nordoestheinformationbeforetheCommitteepermitittoconcludethattheauthor'slawyerdidnotprovideeffectiverepresentationintheinterestsofjustice.11.62 .2Theauthorfurtherhasclaimedthatthejudgeatthetrialoffirstinstancewasbiasedagainsthimand,morespecifically,thatshediscriminatedagainsthimbecauseofhisnationality.TheCommitteenotesthatthejudgementofthecourtoffirstinstanceshowsnotraceofbiasonthepartofthejudgeand,moreover,thattheauthororhisrepresentativemadenoobjectionduringthetrialtothejudge'sattitude.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthereisnosubstantiationfortheauthor'sclaimthathewasdiscriminatedagainstonthebasisofhisnationality.11.72 .2Asregardstheappeal,theauthorhasclaimedthattheSupremeCourtincreasedhissentenceforhavingactedwiththeobjectiveoffinancialgain,whereashehadneverbeenchargedwithrobberyortheft.TheCommitteenotes,however,thatitappearsfromthecourtdocumentsthattheauthorwasinfactchargedwithmurder,committedwithcrueltyandforfinancialgain.Althoughthecourtoffirstinstancefoundhimguiltyonlyofmurdercommittedwithcruelty,theSupremeCourtquashedthejudgementandfoundtheauthorguiltyofmurdercommittedwithcrueltyandforfinancialgain.TheCommitteefurthernotesthattheconvictionandsentenceimposedbytheSupremeCourtupontheauthorwasreviewedbythePresidentoftheSupremeCourt.TheCommitteethereforefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotshowaviolationoftheCovenantwithregardtotheauthor'sappeal.11.82 .2TheCommitteetakesthisopportunitytoreiteratethatitisnotfortheCommitteebutforthecourtsoftheStatespartiesconcernedtoevaluatefactsandevidenceinacriminalcase,andthattheCommitteecannotassessaperson'sguiltorinnocence.Thisisso,unlessitismanifestfromtheinformationbeforetheCommitteethattheCourts'decisionswerearbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.Inthepresentcase,nothinginthewrittensubmissionsbeforetheCommitteepermitssuchaconclusion.12.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.13.2 .2Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,Mr.Kulominisentitledtoanappropriateremedy.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.14.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .\Appendix# .[Original:English]@ .( IndividualopinionofCommitteememberNisukeAndo2 .2IdonotconsiderthattheCommittee'sfindingofaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,intheinstantcase(seeparagraph12)issufficientlypersuasive.Thereasonbehindthatfindingisreflectedinparagraph11.3:inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,theCommitteeisnotsatisfiedthatthepublicprosecutorcouldberegardedasan"officerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpower"withinthemeaningofarticle9,paragraph3.2 .2Article9,paragraph3,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsstipulatesthat:anyonearrestedordetainedonacriminalchargeshallbebroughtpromptlybeforeajudgeorotherofficerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpowerandshallbeentitledtotrialwithinareasonabletimeortorelease.TheStatepartyinterpretstheterm"otherofficerauthorizedbylaw"asmeaninganofficerwiththesameindependencetowardstheexecutiveasacourt.ItalsonotesthatthelawinforceinHungaryin1988providedthatthechiefpublicprosecutorwaselectedbyandresponsibletoParliamentandthatallotherpublicprosecutorsweresubordinatetothepublicprosecutor(paragraph10.4).2 .2Asamatteroffact,inthedomesticlawofmanyStatesparties,publicprosecutorsaregrantedcertainjudicialpower,includingthepowertoinvestigateandprosecutesuspectsincriminalcases.InthecaseofHungarianlawin1988,thatpowerincludedthepowertoextendthedetentionofsuspectsuptooneyearbeforetheywerecommittedtotrial(paragraph10.1).2 .2Inmyopinion,thepretrialdetentionofsuspectsfortheperiodofoneyearseemstobetoolong.Inaddition,whileIdounderstandthat,undertheHungarianlawof1988,thepublicprosecutorwhoshoulddecideontheextensionofdetentionwastobedifferentfromtheonewhorequestedtheextension,excessivedetentionwaslikelytooccurinthattypeofsystem.2 .2Nevertheless,IamunabletoacceptthecategoricalstatementoftheCommittee,asquotedabove,totheeffectthatintheHungariantypeofsystemthepublicprosecutornecessarilylackstheinstitutionalobjectivityandimpartialitynecessarytobeconsideredasan"officerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpower"withinthemeaningofarticle9,paragraph3.Eveninthattypeofsystem,aprosecutor'sdecisionontheextensionofthedetentionofaparticularsuspectinagivencasemaywellbeimpartialandobjectivelyjustifiable.Todenysuchimpartialityandobjectivity,theCommitteeneedstoclarifythedetailedcircumstancesoftheinstantcaseonwhichitbasesitsfinding,butsuchclarificationistotallylackingintheCommittee'sviews.# .l(Signed)NisukeAndoǀM.CommunicationNo.523/1992,ClydeNeptunev.Trinidad̀andTobago(viewsadoptedon16July1996,fiftỳseventhsession)Submittedby:ClydeNeptuneVictim:TheauthorStateparty:TrinidadandTobagoDateofcommunication:18September1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:16March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon16July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.523/1992,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.ClydeNeptuneundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandbytheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisClydeNeptune,aTrinidadiancitizenatthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutionattheStatePrisonofPort-of-Spain.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyTrinidadandTobagoofarticles9,10and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.InDecember1993,theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonment,followingthePrivyCouncil'sjudgementinPrattandMorgan.Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor2.12 .2On17November1985,theauthorwasarrestedforthemurderofWhitfieldFarrel.On25May1988,theauthorwasconvictedofthechargeagainsthimbythePort-of-SpainAssizesCourtandsentencedtodeath.2.22 .2Theevidencereliedonduringtrialwasthatapolicepatrolondutyhadseenthevictimrunningoutofabarwithsomethinglookinglikebloodonhischest.Theauthorthencameoutwithaknifeinhishand;hefirststartedtowalkfast,thenbeganrunning,beforehewascaughtupwithbythepolice.TheauthorallegedlyconfessedhavingstabbedFarrel,inretaliationforstabsFarrelhadinflictedonhimtwomonthsbefore.Farrellaterdiedinhospitalfromhiswounds.2.32 .2Theauthor,inanunswornstatementfromthedock,statesthatthevictimhad,threemonthsbeforetheincident,stolenhisbootsandthat,whenaskedtoreturntheboots,hehadstabbedtheauthorwithaknife.On17November1985,whenqueuingupatachickenoutlet,theauthorwasagainattackedbytheman.Hetriedtodefendhimselfwithhisfists,uponwhichthemanproducedaknife.Theauthorheldtheman'shandinordertopreventhimfrominflictingstabwounds,insuchawaythattheknifepointedtotheman'schest.Duringthefightbothofthemtripped,theauthorfallingonthevictimandstabbinghimwiththeknifebyaccident.2.42 .2Accordingtotheauthor,hecouldnothaverunatthetimeofthecrime,sincehehadsustainedbrokenlegsinamotoraccidentsixmonthsbeforetheincident.Theauthoraskedhislegalaidlawyertoobtainhismedicalrecordsfromthehospital,butthelawyerallegedlyrefusedtodoso.Theauthorcontendsthatthelegalaidlawyerwhowasassignedtohiscaseaskedhimformoney,andsincehedidnothaveany,nevervisitedhimagaintodiscussthecase.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimsthathisrighttoafairtrialwasdeniedsincethejudgewas,atthetimeofthecrime,theheadofthedepartmentofpublicprosecutionanddirectedthepolicetochargehimwithmurder.Hislegalaidlawyerrefusedtoraisethisissue.Thejudge,whowasabouttobetransferredtoanothercourt,allegedlyissuedanorderthattheauthorwouldhavetoappearbeforehiminwhatevercourthewastransferredto.Inaddition,thehearingofthecase,scheduledtostarton1October1987,wasadjournedon18occasions,17ofthemattherequestoftheprosecutor,becausetheonlywitnesscouldnotbetraced.Thehearingfinallystartedon20May1988.Theauthorhasremainedinpretrialdetentionsincehisarrest,inNovember1985.3.22 .2TheauthorfurthercomplainsthatheandhisfellowinmatesaresubjectedtoinhumanconditionsofdetentionattheStatePrison.Hestatesthatprisonersarekeptalldayintheircells,whichmeasure9feetby6feet.Onceeverytwotothreeweeks,theprisoners,handcuffed,aretakenoutsideforhalfanhour.Theauthorsubmitsthatheisbecomingblindbecauseofthelackofnaturallight.Onlytwovisitsperweek,of15minuteseachandwithaprisonofficerremainingnearby,areallowed.Thefamilyhastoprovidetheprisonerswithairmailletterforms,forwhichtheythenhavetoasktheprisonauthoritiesandwhichtheydonotalwaysreceive.Allegedly,mostofthelettersaresuppressed.Relativesalsohavetobuyfoodandtoiletriesfromtheprisonauthoritiesinordertoprovidetheirimprisonedrelativeswiththem.Dentalcareandmedicationhavetobepaidfor.Mealsarecomposed,forbreakfastandforsupper,ofbread,butter,jamandblackcoffee,andforlunch,ofrice,peas,half-rottenpotatoesandrottenchickenorrottenfish.Sincethebreadishalf-bakedandmealsdonotcontainanyoil,mostprisonerssufferfromconstipation.Adoctorvisitstheprisonersonlyonceamonthandthecommissionerofprisonsabouttwiceayear.Prisonersareregularlybeaten.3.32 .2Theauthorsubmitsthat,sincehewasremovedfromdeathrowinDecember1993,hesharesacellmeasuring9feetby6feetwithsixtonineotherprisoners.Inthecellareonlythreebedsandabucketforurinating.Thefoodisrottenandfilthy,andheisallowedonlyonevisitpermonth.Headdsthattheprisonofficerinchargehasthreatenedtokillhimbecausehefiledcomplaintsaboutthesituationinprison.3.42 .2Astotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthorstatesthattheCourtofAppealhasnotyetdecidedonhiscase.Threemonthsafterhisconviction,alegalaidlawyer,whohadalreadyrepresentedhimbeforetheAssizesCourt,wasassignedtohiminordertorepresenthimagainbeforetheCourtofAppeal.Theauthorrefusedthatlawyer.Threeorfourmonthslater,asecondlawyeragreedtorepresenthimonalegalaidassignment.On8August1989,however,thatlawyertoldtheauthorthathewouldonlyrepresenthimforremuneration.Consequently,theauthorfoundathirdlawyer,whowaswillingtorepresenthimonalegalaidbasis.Since18September1989,theauthorhasrepeatedlybeenaskingtheauthoritiestoassignhimthethirdlawyerandhasseveraltimesaskedtheotherlawyertonotifythelegalaidboardthatheisonlywillingtorepresenttheauthoronaprivatebasis.On14May1990,however,thesecondlawyerwrotetheauthorthathewouldexaminehispapers,whichhehadreceivedfromtheregistryoftheCourtofAppeal.Theauthorthereforeclaimsthathisrighttolegalassistanceofhisownchoosinghasbeendenied.Subsequently,theauthorcontactedafourthlawyer,whoreportedlywillrepresenthimbeforetheCourtofAppeal.InJuly1993,theauthorwasinformedbythelegalaidauthoritiesthathisappealwasscheduledforhearingnolaterthanNovember1993.Inaletterdated29January1995,however,theauthorstatesthathisappealhasstillnotbeenheard.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision4.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftythirdsession.ItnotedwithconcernthelackofcooperationfromtheStateparty,whichhadnotsubmittedanyobservationsonadmissibility.4.22 .2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.4.32 .2TheCommitteeconsideredinadmissibletheauthor'sclaimthathehadanunfairtrialbecausethejudgehadbeentheinitialprosecutorinhiscaseandhadbroughtthechargesagainsthim.TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorhadfailedtosubstantiatethatallegationforpurposesofadmissibility.4.42 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthatthecircumstancesofhisdetentionweredegrading,theCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceofinformationfromtheStatepartyabouteffectivedomesticremediesavailabletotheauthorandnotingtheauthor'sclaimthathehadbeenthreatenedwithdeathformakingcomplaints,itwasnotpreventedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolfromexaminingthecomplaint.4.52 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheapplicationofdomesticremedieswithregardtothelengthofproceedingsagainsttheauthorandofthepretrialdetentionwasunreasonablyprolongedandthattheCommitteewasthereforenotpreventedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheCovenantfromexaminingwhetherthecommunicationmightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5.5.2 .2Consequently,on16March1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph3,article10andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheCovenant.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee6.2 .2Inaletterof24November1995,counselfortheauthorstatesthathehasbeeninformedthattheauthor'sappealwasdismissedbytheCourtofAppealon3November1995.7.2 .2ThedeadlineforthesubmissionoftheStateparty'sobservationsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolwas1November1995.On10November1995,theStatepartyrequestedaonemonthextensionofthedeadline.NofurthersubmissionhasbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyinspiteofareminderaddressedtoiton17January1996.TheCommitteeregretstheabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStatepartyandrecallsthatitisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartymustfurnishtheCommittee,ingoodfaithandwithintheimparteddeadlines,withalltheinformationatitsdisposal.IntheabsenceofinformationfromtheStateparty,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheextentthattheyhavebeensubstantiated.8.2 .2Accordingly,theHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.12 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheauthor'sclaimsthatheissharingacellmeasuring9feetby6feetwithsixtoninefellowprisoners,thatthereareonlythreebedsinthecell,thatthereisnotenoughnaturallight,thathewastakenoutsideforonlyhalfanhouronceeverytwotothreeweeksandthatthefoodisinediblehaveremaineduncontested.TheCommitteefindsthattheconditionsofdetentionasdescribedbytheauthorarenotcompatiblewiththerequirementsofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,whichstipulatesthatprisonersanddetaineesshallbetreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson.9.22 .2TheCommitteealsonotesthattheauthorwasarrestedon17November1985,thatthetrialagainsthimstartedon20May1988,afternumerousadjournments,andthattheauthorwaskeptinpretrialdetentionthroughoutthatperiod.TheCommitteefindsthat,intheabsenceofanyexplanationbytheStatepartyandinthelightoftheauthor'sclaimthatthereasonfortheadjournmentswasthattheprosecutioncouldnotfindthemainwitness,thedelayinbringingtheauthortotrialisincompatiblewitharticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.9.32 .2TheauthorhasfurtherindicatedthatheexpressedhiswishtoappealhisconvictionimmediatelyaftertheAssizesCourt'sjudgementof25May1988.ItappearsfromtheinformationbeforetheCommitteethatsevenyearsandfivemonthselapsedbeforetheCourtofAppealheardanddismissedhisappeal.IntheabsenceofanyexplanationbytheStatepartyjustifyingthedelay,theCommitteefindsthatsuchalongperiodbetweenconvictionandthehearingoftheappealcannotbedeemedcompatiblewiththeprovisionsofarticle14,paragraph3(c),readtogetherwithparagraph5,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,article10,paragraph1,andarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.11.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,Mr.Neptuneisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteehasnotedthattheStatepartyhascommutedtheauthor'sdeathpenaltytolifeimprisonment.Inviewofthefactthattheauthorhasspentovertenyearsinprison,ofwhichfiveandahalfyearswerespentondeathrow,theCommitteeconsidersthattheappropriateremedywouldbetheauthor'searlyrelease,and,pendingreleasetheimmediateimprovementofthecircumstancesofMr.Neptune'sdetention.Moreover,inordertoavoidsimilarviolationsinthefuture,theCommitteerecommendsthattheStatepartyimprovethegeneralconditionsofdetention.̇12.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]ǀN.CommunicationNo.527/1993,UtonLewisv.Jamaica(views̀adoptedon18July1996,fiftyseventhsession)    Submittedby:UtonLewis[representedbycounsel]Victim:TheauthorStateparty:JamaicaDateofcommunication:10December1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:15March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon18July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.527/1993,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.UtonLewisundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisUtonLewis,aJamaicancitizenatthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,10and14,paragraphs1,3(b),(d)and(e),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Mr.Lewis'deathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmenton30March1995,followingtheclassificationofhisoffenceasnoncapitalmurder.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2On25October1985,theauthorandoneP.G.werearrestedandchargedwithburglary,larcenyandwoundingoneB.D.withintent.On30October1985,theywerebothchargedwiththemurderofB.D.;thelatterhaddiedfromsepticaemiaresultingfrominfectionofhiswounds.On1May1986,theauthorwasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathintheSt.JamesCircuitCourt;P.G.wasacquitted.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedtheauthor'sappealon22May1987.On20February1991,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedhispetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.2.22 .2Theprosecution'scasewasthat,on25October1985atabout3a.m.,theauthorandP.G.brokeintoashoptostealcloth.WhentheyweresurprisedbyB.D.,theguardonduty,theyattackedhimwithabluntinstrumentand/oraknife,causingcutstoheadandneck.Thevictim'scriesforhelpwereheardbytwopoliceofficersonpatrolinthevicinity.Accordingtotheirevidence,theysawtwomen,carryingrollsofcloth,runningawayfromtheshop.Oneofthepoliceofficersthenpursuedthemen,whomheidentifiedastheauthorandasP.G.Bothwereknowntohim.2.32 .2Theprosecutionfurtherreliedonevidencefromtheowneroftheshop;shetestifiedthat,threeweekspriortotheburglary,theauthorhadvisitedtheshopbuthadnotboughtanycloth.Sheidentifiedpiecesofcloth,foundinthepossessionofP.G.andoftwowitnesseswhoclaimedtheyhadreceiveditfromtheauthor,aspartofthatwhichhadbeentakenfromherstore.Furthermore,thearrestingofficertestifiedthatafterhavingchargedbothmenwithshopbreaking,larcenyandwoundingwithintent,andafterhavingcautionedthem,theauthorsaidthat"itwasAllanwhocutthenightwatchman'sthroat,andthrewtheknifeinthecreek".P.G.thenallegedlysaidthatitwastheauthorwhobrokeintotheshopandattackedB.D.withtheknife,uponwhichtheauthorstatedthathe,P.G.andoneAllanbrokeintotheshop.Thearrestingofficerfurthertestifiedthattheaccusedrepeatedtheirearlierstatementsaftertheyhadbeenchargedwithmurder.2.42 .2Duringthetrial,theauthormadeanunswornstatementfromthedock.HetestifiedthathehadbeenelsewhereatthetimeofthemurderandthathehadbeenilltreatedbythepoliceduringtheinterrogationattheMontegoBaypolicestation.Heallegedthat,on25October1985,hehadbeenkicked,beatenandthreatenedwithagunandthatoneoftheofficershithiminhissidewithabiglockabout10times.Thesameofficerthenorderedhimtoputhisfingerontheedgeofadeskandstruckitwithagununtilhisfingerburst;hewasthenorderedtousehissockstotieuphisfingerandtowipeofftheblood.Theauthorfurtherclaimedthat,on28October1985,hewasagainbroughttothepolicestationforinterrogation.Alltheofficersondutyparticipatedinbeatinghimandoneofthemstruckhiminthefacewithapieceofamirror.Hewasthenbroughtbacktohiscellwhereaweightwastiedtohistesticles.Whenheregainedconsciousness,hewastoldtosignapaper,whichherefusedtodointheabsenceofajusticeofthepeace.Hewasthenallegedlysubjectedtoelectricshocksappliedtohisears;afterthistreatment,hesignedthepaper.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Itissubmittedthat,injurisdictionsbasedoncommonlaw,itisobligatoryforthejudgetowarnthejuryincasesinvolvingidentificationevidencethatexperiencehasshownthatmisidentificationscanoccur,thateventhoughawitnessclaimstoknowasuspectheorshemaybemistaken,andthatanhonestwitnesscanmakemistakes.Thejudgeshouldfurtherpointouttothejurythelackofanidentificationparadeandthenecessityofcorroboratingevidenceinacaseofpurportedidentification.Intheinstantcase,itissubmitted,thejudgefailedtoadequatelyinstructthejuryinalloftheaboverespects,therebydenyingtheauthorafairtrial.3.22 .2Theauthorclaimsthathedidnotreceiveadequatelegalrepresentationduringthejudicialproceedings,withinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d),oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,hesubmitsthat,priortothepreliminaryinquiry,hewasassignedalawyerwho,however,didnotevenattendthehearing.Consequently,andinspiteofthefactthatthereexistedaconflictofinterestbetweenhimandP.G.,hewasrepresentedbythelatter'slawyer.Theauthorcontendsthathedidnotmeetwiththelawyerassignedtohimuntilthedaybeforethetrial.Duringtheinterview,heinformedthelawyerthattherewerethreewitnesseswhocouldsupporthisalibi,andheprovidedthelawyerwiththeirnamesandaddresses.Thelawyer,however,didnotinterviewthosewitnesses,nordidhecallthemtotestifyonhisbehalf,althoughtheywerepresentincourt.Thatissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(e),oftheCovenant.3.32 .2Withregardtotheappeal,theauthorcomplainsthathewasexcludedfromthehearing,inbreachofarticle14,paragraph3(d),despitehisrequesttobepresentincourt.Hesubmitsthatthatwasallthemoreseriousashedidnotmeetwithhis(privatelyretained)lawyerpriortothehearingandonlyhadtheopportunitytocommunicatewithhimthroughathirdparty.Theauthorfurthercomplainsthattheonlygroundarguedbycounselonappealwastheinadequacyofthejudge'sinstructionstothejuryontheissueofcommondesign;accordingtotheauthor,counselsawnomeritinraisingtheissueoftheinadequacyofhisrepresentationatthetrialbecause,althoughchapterIIIoftheJamaicanConstitutionguaranteestherightofanaccusedpersontohaveadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofthedefenceandtocommunicatewithcounselofhisownchoosing,itdoesnotguaranteetheadequacyoftherepresentation.3.42 .2Withregardtothetreatmenttowhichhewassubjectedon25and28October1985attheMontegoBaypolicestation,theauthorsubmitsthatthatamountstoaviolationofhisrightsunderarticle7oftheCovenant.Heclaimsthatelectricwirewaspushedintohisearsbythepoliceofficersandthatthehearinginhisleftearhassincebeenimpaired.Hefurtherclaimsthathesustainedascaronhisrightearandonhisfinger,asaresultofbeingstruckwithapieceofmirrorandwithagun,respectively.3.52 .2ThelivingconditionsinSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,combinedwiththeanxietycausedbyaprolongeddetentionondeathrowandthetreatmenttowhichprisonersondeathrowaresubjected,aresaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant.Withregardtohisindividualcase,theauthorallegesthat,ontwelveoccasions,hewaslockedupinacellwithoutbeinggivenwater.Hefurtherallegesthattheprisonauthoritieshavefailedtoprovidethemedicalassistancethatherequires,inspiteofhisrequests.3.62 .2Theauthorconcedesthat,onrequestoftheombudsman,hehasonoccasionreceivedmedicaltreatment,butonlyontheconditionthathepaysforthemedicationprescribed.Theauthorexplainsthat,forthepastfiveyears,hesuffersfrom"bumps"onhisskin.Theprisonauthoritiesallegedlyfailedtotakeanyactioninthisrespectuntilearly1992,whenamemberoftheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightsintervenedonhisbehalf.Hewasthenallowedtovisitadoctoratthehospitalthreetimes;thefourthtime,however,hewasnotpermittedtokeephisappointment,noronsubsequentoccasions.Theauthorcomplainsthathesuffersfromanotherskindiseaseandfromrecurrentstomachpains,which,accordingtohim,arecausedbytheinadequacyoftheprisondiet.Hisdailyrationreportedlyconsistsoftwelvebiscuits,onepacketofskimmedmilkpowderandasmallquantityofdarksugar.Hesubmitsthatinspiteofhiscomplaints,thediethasnotbeenmodified.Finally,itissubmittedthatprisonersondeathrowarenotaffordedthesamefacilitiesasotherprisonerswithregardtoworkandrecreation.Howthathasaffectedtheauthor'sownsituationisnotsubstantiated.3.72 .2Theauthorfinallyclaimsthat,intheabsenceofclearcriteriafortheexerciseoftheprerogativeofmercybythePrivyCouncilinJamaica,andinthelightofillogicaldistinctionsappliedinpractice,anydecisionnottoexercisetheprerogativeofmercyintheauthor'scasethatmightleadtohisexecutionwouldamounttoanarbitrarydeprivationoflife,contrarytoarticle6oftheCovenant.&  TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scomments4.12 .2Bysubmissionof6April1994,theStatepartyarguedthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.In'  thiscontext,theStatepartyarguedthattherightsprotectedbyarticles7and14,paragraph3,14(d)and(e),oftheCovenantarecoterminouswithsections17and20(6)(c)and(d)oftheJamaicanConstitutionandthatitwasopentotheauthortoseekredressfortheallegedviolationsofhisrightsbywayofaconstitutionalmotiontotheSupremeCourt.4.22 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewasdeniedaccesstomedicaltreatment,theStatepartyindicatedthatithadrequestedtheDepartmentofCorrectionstoinvestigatethematter.TheStatepartystatedthatitwouldinformtheCommitteeassoonastheresultsoftheinvestigationwereavailable.5.12 .2Inhiscommentsdated4January1994,theauthorstatedthat,sincelegalaidisnotmadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions,aconstitutionalmotiondoesnotconstituteaneffectiveremedyinhiscase.5.22 .2Withregardtohisclaimthathewasdeniedmedicaltreatment,hestatedthat,oneightoccasionsin1993,appointmentsweremadeforhimtoseeadoctor,butthatnoneofthoseappointmentswerekept.HealsostatedthatanappointmentwasmadetoseeaskindoctorinFebruary1994,butthatprisonofficialsrefusedtotransporthimwithoutpayment.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationatitsfiftythirdsession.6.22 .2Itascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32 .2TheCommitteetooknoteoftheStateparty'sclaimthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteerecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.AsregardstheStateparty'sargumentthataconstitutionalremedywasstillopentotheauthor,theCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,insomecases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecaseshadbeendismissed.However,theCommitteealsorecalledthattheStatepartyhadindicatedonseveraloccasionsthatnolegalaidismadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.aTheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,constituteanavailableremedywhichneededtobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,theCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.42 .2TheCommitteenotedthatpartoftheauthor'sallegationsrelatedtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury.TheCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratedthatitisgenerallyfortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenanttoevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.Similarly,itisnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythetrialjudgeunlessitcanbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionsortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.Accordingly,thatpartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52 .2TheCommitteetooknoteoftheauthor'sclaimsthathewasnotadequatelyrepresentedduringtrial,inparticularthathislegalaidlawyerdidnotrepresenthimatthepreliminaryhearings,thatheonlymethislawyeradaybeforethetrialandthathislawyerdidnotintervieworcallanywitnesses.TheCommitteeconsideredthatthoseclaimsmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph3(b),(d)and(e),oftheCovenant,tobeexaminedonthemerits.6.62 .2Withregardtotheauthor'scomplaintthathisappealdidnotfulfiltherequirementsofarticle14,paragraph3(d),theCommitteenotedthattheauthorwasrepresentedonappealbyalawyerpaidforbyarelative.TheCommitteeconsideredthattheStatepartycouldnotbeheldaccountableforallegederrorsmadebyaprivatelyretainedlawyerunlessithadbeenmanifesttothejudgeorthejudicialauthoritiesthatthelawyer'sbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.Intheinstantcase,thatpartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissible.6.72 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'scomplaintthathewassubjectedtomaltreatmentuponhisarrestinordertoforcehimtosignastatementmightraiseissuesunderarticle7andarticle14,paragraph3(g),oftheCovenant,tobeexaminedonthemerits.6.82 .2TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'sstatementthatithadorderedaninvestigationintotheauthor'scomplaintaboutthelackofmedicaltreatment.TheCommitteenotedthatalmostayearhadelapsedsincetheStateparty'sstatementandthattheresultsoftheinvestigationhadstillnotbeenforwarded.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'scomplaintmightraiseissuesunderarticle10oftheCovenant,tobeconsideredonthemerits.6.92 .2Insofarastheauthorclaimedthathisprolongeddetentionondeathrowamountedtoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteereiterateditspriorjurisprudencethatlengthydetentionondeathrowdoesnotperseconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentinviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.bTheCommitteeobservedthattheauthorhadnotsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,anyspecificcircumstancesofhiscasethatwouldraiseanissueunderarticle7oftheCovenantinthisrespect.Thatpartofthecommunicationwas,therefore,inadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.7.2 .2Accordingly,on15March1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle7(inrespecttothemaltreatmentuponarrest),article10andarticle14,paragraph3(b),(d)(withrespecttothepreliminaryhearingandthetrial),(e)and(g),oftheCovenant.&  TheStateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandcounsel'scomments8.12 .2TheStateparty,bysubmissionof9January1996,arguesthattheauthorfailedtomentionatthepreliminaryenquirythathehadbeensubjectedtoill'  treatment.TheStatepartyfurthernotesthatthereisnomedicalevidencetosupporthisclaim,althoughhecontendsthathehassufferedpermanentdamagetohishearing.8.22 .2Asregardstheauthor'srepresentationatthepreliminaryhearing,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorwasfreetoprotestifhehadnotwantedthecounselofhiscoaccusedtorepresenthimbutdidnotdoso.Further,theStatepartyexplainsthatthenatureofthepreliminaryenquiryistoestablishwhetheraprimafaciecaseexists,whichonlyrequiresalowstandardofproof.TheStatepartycontendsthatthereisnothingtosuggestthatthemagistrate'sdecisionwouldhavebeendifferentifanotherlawyerhadrepresentedtheauthor.8.32 .2Asregardstheauthor'srepresentationattrial,theStatepartyassertsthatthedutyoftheStatepartyistoappointcompetentcounseltorepresentclientsinneedoflegalaidandnottoobstructcounselintheperformanceofhisduties.8.42 .2Asregardstheallegationsunderarticle10oftheCovenant,concerningthedenialofmedicalcaretotheauthorondeathrow,theStatepartyindicatesthatitwillmakeanattempttoexpeditetheinvestigationandthatitwillforwardtheresultstotheCommitteeassoonastheyareavailable.9.12 .2InhercommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselfortheauthorpointsoutthatinviewoftheinadequatelegalrepresentationoftheauthoratthepreliminaryenquiry,itislikelythattheauthordidnotknowthathecouldmakeastatementconcerninghisilltreatmentorthathecouldmakearrangementsforamedicalexamination.Counselnotesthattheauthordidcommentontheilltreatmentwhenhehadanopportunitytodosoathistrial.9.22 .2Asregardstheauthor'srepresentationatthepreliminaryenquiry,counselstatesthatpossiblytheauthorwouldhavegoneunrepresentedifhehadnotacceptedtherepresentationbycounselofhiscoaccused.Itisstatedthatcounselforthecoaccusedshouldhaveinformedtheauthorofthepotentialconflictofinterestandshouldnothaveactedforhimunlessspecificallysoinstructedbytheauthor.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2Withrespecttotheallegedviolationofarticles7and14,paragraph3(g),oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotesfromthetrialdocumentsthattheissuewasbeforethejuryduringthetrial,thatthejuryrejectedtheauthor'sallegationsandthatthematterwasnotraisedonappeal.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheinformationbeforeitdoesnotjustifyafindingofaviolationofarticles7and14,paragraph3(g),oftheCovenant.10.3Asregardstheauthor'sclaimsconcerninghisrepresentationatthepreliminaryenquiryandatthetrial,theCommitteenotesthatitisuncontestedthatthelegalaidlawyerassignedtotheauthordidnotattendthepreliminaryenquiry,thattheauthorwasconsequentlyrepresentedbycounselofhisco-accusedwithwhomhehadaconflictofinterest,andthattheauthormethislawyeronlyonedaybeforethecommencementofthetrial.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheauthor'sprivatelyretainedlawyercouldhavebroughtthoseissuesonappealandthathisfailingtodosocannotbeimputedtotheStateparty.Accordingly,theCommitteeconcludesthattheinformationbeforeitdoesnotjustifyafindingofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),(d)and(e),oftheCovenant.10.4Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathehasbeendeniedmedicaltreatmentondeathrow,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorhasfurnishedspecificinformationshowingthatalthoughappointmentsweremadeforamedicaldoctortoseehim,thoseappointmentswerenotkept,andthathisskinconditionhasbeenleftuntreated.TheCommitteefurthernotesthattheStatepartyhasstatedthatitisinvestigatingthematter,butthat,twoandahalfyearsafterthecomplaintwasbroughttotheStateparty'sattentionandmorethanayearafterthepresentcommunicationwasdeclaredadmissible,theStatepartyhasnotforwardedanyinformationexplainingthematter.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthelackofmedicaltreatmentconstitutesaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12.2 .2TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatMr.UtonLewisisentitled,underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensationandadequatemedicaltreatmentinthefuture.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.̀13.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aSee,forexample,OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.J,communicationNo.283/1988(Littlev.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon1November1991,para.6.5;andibid.,FortyninthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/49/40),vol.II,annexIX.A,communicationNo.321/1988(Thomasv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993,para.5.2,andannexIX.G,communicationNo.352/1989(Douglas,GentlesandKerrv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon19October1993,para.7.2.2 .2bIbid.,FortyfourthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/44/40),annexX.F,communicationsNos.210/1986and225/1987(PrattandMorganv.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon6April1989,para.13.6;ibid.,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),annexIX.F,communicationsNos.270/1988and271/1988(BarrettandSutcliffev.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon30March1992,para.8.4;andibid.,FortyeighthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/48/40),vol.II,annexXII.U,communicationNo.470/1991(Kindlerv.Canada),viewsadoptedon30July1993,para.6.4.@ .\Appendix# .[Original:Spanish]@ .rIndividualopinionofCommitteememberFranciscoJosAguilarUrbina2 .2AlthoughIconcurwiththemajorityopinioninthepresentcase,thewayinwhichitisformulatedcompelsmetoexpressmyindividualopinion.Themajorityopinionagainmaintainstheearlierjurisprudencethat,asfarasthedeathrowphenomenonisconcerned,thetimefactordoesnot,perse,constituteaviolationofarticle7oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheCommitteehasrepeatedlymaintainedthatthemerefactofbeingsentencedtodeathdoesnotconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.2 .2Inthisconnection,IrefertomyopinionandanalysisregardingcommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica)[insectionWbelow].# .d(Signed)FranciscoJosAguilarUrbina ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO  ( A $(882   ݀O.CommunicationNo.537/1993,PaulAnthonyKellyv.Jamaicà(viewsadoptedon17July1996,fiftyseventhsession)  882 HSubmittedby: . H .HH .HPaulAnthonyKelly[representedbycounsel]Victim: . . H .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .H15February1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H15March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon17July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.537/1993,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.PaulAnthonyKellyundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisPaulAnthonyKelly,aJamaicancitizenbornin1951,atthetimeofsubmissionofhiscomplaintawaitingexecutioninSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,SpanishTown,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticle2,paragraph3,andarticle14,paragraphs1,3(b)and3(d),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Inthespringof1995,theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentasaresultofthejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofPrattandMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2On28April1988,theauthorwasfoundguiltybytheHomeCircuitCourtofthemurder,on21March1987ataround7.30p.m.,ofMr.AloysiusJamesatChelsea,Irwin.Theauthor'scoaccused,ErrolWilliams,wasfoundguiltyofmanslaughter.Themurderwascommittedduringanarmedrobberyofthedeceased'shome,carriedoutbyagangofsixduringapowerfailure.Theprosecutioncalledtwoeyewitnesses,thedeceased'scommonlawwifeandhisbrother.Theevidenceofthebrother,however,wasjudgedtobeunreliableandthejurywasinstructedtodisregardit.Thewifetestifiedduringthetrialthatshewitnessedtheshootingandthatshehadseenthefaceofthemurdererbythelightofasinglecandle.2.22 .2Theauthor'sappealagainsthisconvictionwasdismissedon13March1989bytheCourtofAppealofJamaica.HispetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon6June1991.    2.32 .2TheauthorwasarrestedathisworkplaceinLoveLaneon24March1987.Heclaimedtobeinnocentofanycrimeandinsistedthathehadspenttheeveningof21MarchinLoveLaneinMontegoBay,severalmilesawayfromChelsea,andthathehadwitnessestocorroboratehisclaim.Hesuggeststhatthepoliceheldagrudgeagainsthimbecauseofaprioraffairandthatthatiswhyhewasarrested.Afterhisarrest,hewasnotallowedtoseealawyerforfivedays;hedidnotmakeastatementtothepolice.On2April1987,anidentificationparadetookplaceinthepresenceoftheauthor'scounsel,andtheauthorwasidentifiedbythedeceased'swifeasthemurderer.Theauthorclaimsthatshewasabletoidentifyhimonlybecausehehaspartofanearmissing;heclaimsthatthepolicehadinstructedheraccordingly.Moreover,theidentificationwasallegedlyconductedonlyafterapolicemanpromptedthewitnesstomakeanidentificationbyaskingherwhokilledherhusbandwhenshestoodinfrontoftheauthor.2.42 .2Duringthetrial,theprosecution'scasewasbasedonidentification,whilethedefencewasbasedonalibi.TheauthorgaveswornevidencethathehadbeeninLoveLaneontheeveningof21March1987.Ofthe10peoplewhocould,accordingtotheauthor,corroboratehisalibi,onlytwowerecalledbyhislawyertogiveevidence.Thefirstdefencewitness,anacquaintanceoftheauthor,corroboratedtheauthor'sstory.Theseconddefencewitness,apolicewomanwhohadbeenintheareainrelationtoadomesticdispute,testifiedatfirstthatshehadseentheauthorinLoveLaneimmediatelybeforethepowerfailure;theauthorclaimsthat,uponindicationsbypoliceofficerspresentinthecourtroom,shechangedhertestimonyandtoldtheCourtthatthelasttimeshehadseentheauthorhadbeenaround5:45p.m.,wellbeforethemomentofthepowerfailure.Theauthormaintainsthatanyoftheother10witnessescouldhavetestifiedthathewasinLoveLaneandseenbythepolicewomanmuchlaterthatevening.2.52 .2Atthetrial,theauthorandhiscoaccusedbothstatedthattheyfirstmetwhileincustody.Thecoaccusedtestifiedthathedidnotrememberwherehehadbeenonthenightofthekilling.Theauthor,however,claimsthat,beforethetrial,hediscoveredapieceofparchmentinhiscoaccused'sshoewiththenamesoftheauthor,apolicemanandtwoorthreejudgesonit.Whenraisingtheissueofhisdiscoverywithhiscoaccused,thelatterconfessedhisinvolvementintherobberyinfrontoftheauthor,hislawyerandthelawyerrepresentingthecoaccused.Thecoaccusedallegedlyalsodisclosedthetrueidentityofthemurderer.Accordingtotheauthor,hiscoaccusedmadeastatement,admittingthathewasoneofthegunmenandthattheauthorwasnotinvolved,toapolicesergeantatBanhurstpolicestation.Hedidnot,however,giveevidenceontheauthor'sbehalfduringthetrial,nordidtheauthor'slawyerproducetheparchmentasevidenceorquestionanywitnessesabouttheco-accused'sconfession.2.62 .2Theauthormoreoverstatesthathewasinformedbyapoliceofficer,LesterDavis,thatthedeceased'swifehadadmitted,whenquestionedonthenightofthemurder,thatshehadnotbeenabletoseethemurderer'sface.Althoughtheauthorinformedhislawyeraccordingly,theissuewasnotraisedduringthetrialandthedeceased'swifewasnotcrossexaminedonthispoint.CounselprovidesacopyofawrittenstatementbyMr.Davis,dated24April1990,inwhichhestatesthatthedeceased'swife,onthenightofthekilling,saidthatshecouldnotidentifytheassailantseasily,andthathisimpressionwasthatnoneoftheeyewitnessescouldidentifyanyofthegunmenbecauseofthelackoflight.2.72 .2Onappeal,theauthorwasrepresentedbyadifferentlegalaidlawyer,whoallegedlydidnotinformtheauthoraboutthedateoftheappeal,didnotconsultwithhimandconcededbeforethecourtthattherewerenomeritsintheappeal.Althoughthelawyerwasinformedthattherewereanumberofwitnesseswhocouldcorroboratetheauthor'salibi,hemadenoattempttointerviewthem,nordidhepayattentiontotheconfessionmadebytheauthor'scoaccusedandthestatementofthepoliceofficer.Althoughtheauthorhadconfirmedthathewantedtobepresentattheappealhearing,hewasnotinformedaboutthedateoftheappealuntilafterithadbeendismissed.Thecomplaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimsthathisrightsunderarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenanthavebeenviolated,since(a)hewasdeniedaccesstohislawyeruntilfivedaysafterhavingbeentakenintocustody;(b)hewasnotinformedofthedateoftheappealhearingandthereforewasunabletoconsultfullywithhislawyerinrespectofmatterspertinenttotheappeal;and(c)hislawyerfailedtoconsultwithhimpriortotheappeal.3.22 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),andrefersinthiscontexttotheaboveand,inaddition,tothefailureofhiscounselduringthetrialtoobjecttoirregularitiesanddeficienciesintheidentificationparade,hisfailuretocallkeywitnessesinsupportoftheauthor'salibi,andhisfailuretoputtheevidenceoftheauthor'scoaccused'sconfessionbeforethecourtandtoexaminewitnessesonthatpoint.Healsoclaimsthatthefailureofhisappeallawyertoactontheinformationgiventohim,hisconcessiontotheappealcourtthattherewasnomeritintheappeal,andthecourt'sfailuretoreplacethelawyerinthelightofthatconcession,amountstoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).3.32 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,becauseofhiscounsel'snegligenceandbecauseofthejudge'sfailure,duringthetrial,topreventotherpoliceofficersincourtfrominfluencingthetestimonyofthepolicewomanwhotestifiedontheauthor'sbehalf.3.42 .2Theauthorfinallyclaimsthatarticle2,paragraph3,oftheCovenantwasviolated,becausehewasdeniedaneffectiveremedyinrespectoftheviolationssuffered.Heclaimsthattheconstitutionalmotionisonlyatheoreticalremedyforhim,asthecostsofinstitutingproceedingsintheSupreme(Constitutional)Courtareprohibitiveandnolegalaidismadeavailableforthepurpose.3.52 .2Counselarguesthatincapitalcases,legalrepresentationshouldfollowthehighestpossiblestandardsandnotjustbeproformabuteffective.Inthisconnection,hereferstothejurisprudenceoftheHumanRightsCommitteethatitisaxiomaticthatlegalassistancemustbemadeavailableincapitalcases.Counselclaimsthatthestatementmadebyauthor'scounselonappeal,thathesawnomeritinthecase,effectivelylefttheauthorwithoutlegalrepresentation,andherefersinthisconnectiontotheCommittee'sviewsoncommunicationNo.250/1987(Reidv.Jamaica),adoptedon20July1990.aCounselmoreoversubmitsthatthematterscomplainedofarenotmerelyafunctionofprofessionaljudgement,andthattheactionsandopinionsofthelawyerswhorepresentedtheauthorbeforetheJamaicancourtsdonotfallwithintherangeofreasonableprofessionalassistancewhichcanbeexpectedfromadefencecounsel.Heclaimsthat,giventhattheauthor'sconvictionwasbasedonidentificationevidenceofasolewitness,thatkeyalibiwitnesseswerenotcalledbythedefenceandthattheidentificationevidencewasinsufficientlytested,theineffectiverepresentationintheauthor'scaseledtohisconviction.TheStateparty'sobservationsandtheauthor'scommentsthereon4.2 .2Bysubmissionof12October1993,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyarguesthatitisopentotheauthortoseekredressfortheallegedviolationsofhisrightsbywayofaconstitutionalmotiontotheSupremeCourt.5.2 .2Inhiscomments,dated4January1994,counselnotesthat,sincelegalaidisnotmadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions,suchamotiondoesnotconstituteaneffectiveremedyintheauthor'scase.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftythirdsession.ItnotedtheStateparty'sclaimthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremediesandrecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.AstotheStateparty'sargumentthataconstitutionalremedywasstillopentotheauthor,theCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,insomecases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthosecaseshadbeendismissed.ItalsorecalledthattheStatepartyhadindicatedonseveraloccasionsthatnolegalaidismadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesofthecase,constituteanavailableremedywhichneededtobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.22 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,thatthecommunicationmightraiseissuesunderarticle14juncto2,paragraph3,oftheCovenant,whichneededtobeexaminedontheirmerits.6.32 .2On15March1995,therefore,theCommitteedeclaredthecaseadmissible.TheStateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandcounsel'scommentsthereon7.12 .2Initssubmissionunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,dated20October1995,theStatepartynotesthattheadmissibilitydecisiondidnotspecifywhichprovisionsofarticle14oftheCovenantmighthavebeenviolatedandthatitisclearfromtheauthor'scasethatnotallprovisionsofarticle14areatissue.7.22 .2Ontheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenant,theStatepartynotesthattheauthor'sallegationthathewasdeniedaccesstoanattorneyforfivedaysfollowinghisdetention"willbeinvestigated".bItconcedes,however,thatunderJamaicanlaw,theauthorhadtherighttoconsultwithalawyerfollowinghisarrest.Astotheallegedfailuretonotifytheauthorofthedateofthehearingoftheappeal,theStatepartyrecallsthatitistheresponsibilityoftheCourtofAppealRegistrytonotifyinmatesofthedateonwhichtheirappealswillbeheard.Itaffirmsthatthis"isafunctionwhichiscarriedoutveryeffectivelyandcasesoffailuretodischargethisdutyarerare".Intheauthor'scase,therecordsshowthattheauthorwasinformedofthedateofhisappeal,althoughtheexactdateoftheletterisnotavailable.7.32 .2Astotheauthor'sallegationthatsincehewasunawareofthedateofhisappeal,hecouldnotconsultwiththeattorneyforhisappealandtheattorneyfailedtoconsultwithhim,theStatepartyreaffirmsthatsinceMr.Kellywasnotifiedofthedateofhisappeal,thatcouldnothavepreventedhimfromconsultingwithhiscounsel.Furthermore,theStatepartyarguesthatithasnoresponsibilityforthewayinwhichlegalaidcounselconductshiscase:rather,itistheState'sdutytoappointcompetentcounseltoassisttheaccusedandnottoobstructhimintheconductofthecase.Oncethatisdone,theresponsibilityfortheconductofthecaserestswithcounsel,anderrorsofjudgementorotherfailingscannotbeattributedtotheStateparty.TheStatepartythusdeniesthattherewasaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),inrespectofnotifyingtheauthorofhisappealandthelatter'sabilitytocontacthiscounsel.7.42 .2Regardingtheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant,becauseofcounsel'sconductofthecaseduringtrialandonappeal,theStatepartyreiteratesthatitcannotbeheldaccountableforthewayinwhichcounselconductsthedefenceofhisclient:thesameconsiderationsassetforthinparagraph7.3abovearesaidtoapply.Theperceivednegligenceofcounsel,includingfailuretoobjecttodiscrepanciesintheconductoftheidentificationparade,failuretocallkeyalibiwitnessesortoputtheco-accused'sconfessionintoevidenceandtoexaminewitnessesonthatpoint,relates,fortheStateparty,totheconductofthecasebycounsel,whomerelychosetoexercisehisprofessionaljudgement.TheStatepartythereforedeniesthattherewasaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).7.52 .2Concerningtheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,becauseofthetrialjudge'sfailuretopreventpoliceofficersinthecourtroomfrominfluencingthetestimonyofapolicewomanwhotestifiedforthedefence,theStatepartynotesthat"thereisnoindicationotherthantheauthor'sassertionthatpolicemenincourtpersuadedthepolicewomantochangehertestimony.Intheunlikelyeventthatthatdidoccur,thereisnoevidencethatthatfactwasbroughttothetrialjudge'sattention."IntheStateparty'sopinion,itwouldhavebeenclearlyincumbentuponcounseltobringsuchanimportantmattertotheattentionofthejudge.Asthereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatthatwasdone,theStatepartyrefutesthatarticle14,paragraph1,hasbeenviolated.̇7.62 .2Astotheallegedbreachofarticle2,paragraph3,becauseoftheallegedunavailabilityofaconstitutionalmotiontotheauthorowingtotheabsenceoflegalaid,theStatepartyreaffirmsthatthereisnoobligationundertheCovenanttoprovidelegalaidforconstitutionalmotions,asarticle14,paragraph3,clearlystatesthattheminimalguaranteesofthedefence,includinglegalassistance,concernthedeterminationofcriminalcharges.Furthermore,theabsenceoflegalaidisnotabartothefilingofconstitutionalmotionsevenforindigentpersons,asdemonstratedbythecaseofPrattandMorganv.AttorneyGeneral.c8.12 .2Inhercomments,counselnotesthatsheonlylearnedofthecommutationoftheauthor'sdeathsentencebyletterof29August1995fromthePermanentSecretaryoftheGovernorGeneral'soffice.Asaresultofthecommutation,herclientwasremovedfromSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,butcounselhasbeenunabletoascertainwhereMr.Kellywastransferred,inspiteoftworequestsaddressedtotheStateparty'sauthorities;shethuscannotobtainhisinstructionsastohowtorespondtotheStateparty'ssubmission,andqualifieshercommentsaspreliminaryones.ShequalifiestheStateparty'sfailuretocommunicatethewhereaboutsofMr.Kellyasafurtherviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenant.8.22 .2Counselreaffirmsthatherclienthadaright,underarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenant,toconsultwithalawyerfollowinghisarrest.ThathewasunabletodosoforfivedayssomethingtheStatepartyisunabletoprovewrongviolatedhisrightunderthatprovision.AstotheStateparty'scontentionthatMr.Kellywasnotifiedofthedateofhisappeal,counselnotesthattheStatepartyisunabletoprovidetheexactdateofthenotificationletter,orindeedacopyofit.Toher,Mr.Kelly'scaseshouldthusprimafaciebeheldtoconstituteoneofthe"rarefailures"towhichtheStatepartyadmits.Furthermore,tocounsel,it"isaxiomaticthattheCourtofAppealhadadutytoenquireintotheabsenceoftheapplicantduringhisappealhearing,andthatthehearingshouldnothavecontinueduntil[he]hadbeeninformedandhadbeengiventheopportunitytobepresent".AsaresultoftheStateparty'sfailuretonotifyhimofthedateoftheappeal,Mr.Kellycouldnothaveconsultedwithcounselinpreparationfortheappealhearing.8.32 .2CounselreiteratesthattheStatepartyviolatedarticle14,paragraph3(d),becauseitappointedincompetentlegalaidcounseltoassisttheauthor.Thoselawyersfailed:(a)tonotifytheauthorofthedateoftheappealwhenhe(thelawyer)becameawareofit;(b)toconsultMr.Kellytopreparefortheappealhearing;(c)tosecuretheauthor'sattendanceattheappealhearing;(d)toalertthecourttothecoaccused'sconfession;(e)tosecuretheattendanceofwitnesses;(f)todrawthecourt'sattentiontodefectsinthecaseagainsttheauthor;(g)toprotectgenerallyMr.Kelly'sinterests;and(h)bystating,duringtheappealhearing,thattherewerenomeritsinthecase.Thelastpoint,inparticular,issaidtobeanexampleof"activeobstruction"oftheauthor'sdefence.8.42 .2Stillinthecontextofarticle14,paragraph3(d),counselsubmitsthatlegalassistancewithinthemeaningofthatprovisionshouldbeeffectiveratherthannominalandthattheissueofcompetencemustbedeterminedbyreferencetotherangeofreasonableprofessionalassistancethatmaybeexpectedfromadefencecounsel:theCommittee'sjurisprudence,accordingtowhich"legalassistancetotheaccusedinacapitalcasemustbeprovidedinwaysthatadequatelyandeffectivelyensurejustice",disinvoked.8.52 .2Inthelightoftheconsiderationssetforthinparagraphs8.2to8.4above,counselcontendsthatMr.Kelly'strialorappealwasnot"fair"withinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Defencecounsel'sfailuretoexaminedefencewitnesses,hisfailuretodrawtheCourt'sattentiontothecoaccused'sconfession,andotheromissionsunderlinetheunfairnessoftheappeal.8.62 .2Finally,counselarguesthatcontrarytotheStateparty'scontention,thejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinPrattandMorganv.AttorneyGeneraldoesnotsupportthecontentionthattheabsenceoflegalaidforthepurposeofconstitutionalmotionsisnobarforthefilingofsuchmotionsbyindigentpersons.Itissubmittedthatsincelegalaidisnotprovidedforsuchmotions,theyareneitheranavailablenoraneffectiveremedyfortheviolationssufferedbytheauthor,contrarytoarticle2,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.Examinationofthemerits9.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofallinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.22 .2Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenantbecausehewasunabletocommunicatewithalawyerofhischoosinguntilfivedaysafterbeingtakenintocustody.TheStatepartyhaspromisedtoinvestigatetheallegationbutfailedtoreporttotheCommitteeonitsfindings;itdoes,however,admitthat,underJamaicanlaw,theauthorhadtherighttoconsultwithanattorneyfollowinghisarrest.Accordingtothefile,whichwasmadeavailabletotheStatepartyforcomments,theauthor,whenbroughttothepolicestationinHanoveron24March1988,toldthepoliceofficersthathewantedtospeaktohislawyer,Mr.McLeod,butthepoliceofficersignoredtherequestforfivedays.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthor'sright,underarticle14,paragraph3(b),tocommunicatewithcounselofhischoicewasviolated.9.32 .2Regardingtheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),becauseoftheperceivedincompetenceoftheauthor'slegalaidlawyerduringtheconductofthetrial,theCommitteenotesthatthematerialsavailabletoitdonotrevealthatMr.Kelly'slawyer'sdecisionnottocallseveralpotentialalibiwitnesses,orfailuretopointtodiscrepanciesintheidentificationparade,wasattributabletoanythingotherthantheexerciseofhisprofessionaljudgement;thatisconfirmedbytheauthor'srepliestoaquestionnairethatwasputtohimbycounselforthepresentcommunication.Theauthordidnotbringhiscounsel'sperceivedfailuresoromissionstotheattentionoftheCourtofAppeal.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattherewasnoviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),asfarastheconductofthetrialisconcerned.9.42 .2Astotheauthor'snotificationofthedateofhisappealandhisrepresentationbeforetheCourtofAppeal,theCommitteereaffirmsthatitisaxiomaticthatlegalassistancebemadeavailabletoconvictedprisonersundersentenceofdeath.Thatappliestoallstagesofthejudicialprocess.Intheauthor'scase,thefirstissuetobedeterminediswhetherhewasproperlynotifiedofthedateofhisappealandcouldpreparehisappealwiththelawyerassignedtorepresenthimbeforetheCourtofAppeal.Mr.Kellyinsiststhathewasnotinformedofthehearingofhisappealuntilafteritsdismissal,whereastheStatepartyarguesthattheRegistryoftheCourtofAppealnotifiedMr.Kellyofthedateofhisappeal.WhiletheStatepartyisunabletopinpointtheexactdateofthenotificationortoprovideacopyofthenotificationletter,theCommitteenotesfromthefilethatthelawyerassignedtotheauthorfortheappeal,Mr.D.Chuck,wasnotifiedofthedateoftheappeal.Thatlawyer,inturn,wrotetotheauthorinprisonon24February1989,askinghimwhetherhehadanythingfurthertoconveyinpreparationoftheappeal.Mr.KellycontendsthathehadhadnocontactswithMr.Chuckbeforethereceiptoftheletteron1MarchbutthathesentexplanationstoMr.Chuckimmediatelythereafter.Inthosecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthorwasawareoftheimminenceofthehearingofhisappeal.9.52 .2Thesecondissuetobedeterminediswhethertheauthor'slegalaidlawyerfortheappealhadarighttoeffectivelyabandontheappealwithoutpriorconsultationwiththeauthor.ItisuncontestedthatMr.Chuckdidnotinformtheauthorthathewouldarguethattherewerenomeritsintheappeal,therebyeffectivelyleavingMr.Kellywithoutrepresentation.TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudencethatunderarticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant,thecourtshouldensurethattheconductofacasebythelawyerisnotincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.WhileitisnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgement,theCommitteeconsidersthatinacapitalcase,whencounselfortheaccusedconcedesthatthereisnomeritintheappeal,theCourtshouldascertainwhethercounselhasconsultedwiththeaccusedandinformedhimaccordingly.Ifnot,theCourtmustensurethattheaccusedissoinformedandgivenanopportunitytoengageothercounsel.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatintheinstantcase,Mr.Kellyshouldhavebeeninformedthathislegalaidcounselwasnotgoingtoargueanygroundsinsupportoftheappeal,sothathecouldhaveconsideredanyremainingoptionsopentohim(seealsosectionG,para.10.5,above).Inthepresentcase,theCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).9.62 .2Theauthorcontendsthatarticle14,paragraph1,wasviolated,asthetrialjudgefailedtointervenewhenpoliceofficerspresentinthecourtroomduringthetrialsoughttoinfluencethetestimonyofadefencewitness.NoneofthecourtorotherdocumentsmadeavailabletotheCommitteeindicate,however,thatanyattemptstoinfluencethedefencewitnesswereeverbroughttotheattentionofthecourtorthatthematterwasraisedasagroundofappeal.Itwouldhavebeenincumbentupondefencecounsel,ortheauthorhimself,toraiseamatterofsuchimportancewiththetrialjudge.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteefindsnoviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.72 .2Astotheauthor'sargumentthattheabsenceoflegalaidforconstitutionalmotionsinitselfconstitutesaviolationoftheCovenant,theCommitteerecallsthatthedeterminationofrightsinproceedingsbeforetheConstitutionalCourtmustconfirmwiththerequirementsofafairhearing,withinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1.ThismeansthattheapplicationoftherequirementofafairhearingintheConstitutionalCourtshouldbeconsistentwiththeprinciplesofparagraph3(d)ofarticle14.Itfollowsthatwhereaconvictedpersonseekingconstitutionalreviewofirregularitiesinacriminaltrialdoesnothavesufficientmeanstodefraythecostsoflegalassistanceinordertopursuesaidconstitutionalremedy,andwheretheinterestsofjusticesorequire,legalaidshouldbeprovidedbytheState.eIntheinstantcase,theabsenceoflegalaiddeniedtheauthoranopportunitytotesttheregularityofhiscriminaltrialintheConstitutionalCourtinafairhearing,andthusconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,junctoarticle2,paragraph3.9.82 .2TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,whennofurtherappealagainstthesentenceispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsgeneralcommentNo.6(16),theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat:"Theproceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefence,andtherighttoreview[ofconvictionandsentence]byahighertribunal."fInthepresentcase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithoutadequaterepresentationoftheauthoronappeal,therehasconsequentlyalsobeenaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsasfoundbytheCommitteerevealviolationsbyJamaicaofarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d),andofarticle14,paragraph1,junctoarticle2,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.11.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,Mr.PaulAnthonyKellyisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy,which,inthecircumstancesofthecase,shouldentailtheauthor'srelease.12.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,underarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]&  @ .Notes2 .2aOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyfifthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/45/40),vol.II,annexIX.J.'  2 .2bAsof15May1996,noinformationabouttheresultofthepromisedinvestigationhadbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty.2 .2cJudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilof2November1993.2 .2dSeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyfifthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/45/40),vol.II,annexIX.H,communicationNo.232/1987(Pintov.TrinidadandTobago),viewsadoptedon20July1990,para.12.5.2 .2eIbid.,FortyninthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/49/40),vol.II,annexIX.L,communicationNo.377/1989(Curriev.Jamaica),viewsadoptedon29March1994,paras.13.213.4.2 .2fIbid.,ThirtyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/37/40),annexV,generalcommentNo.6(16),para.7.ǀP.CommunicationNo.540/1993,CelisLaureanov.Perù(viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession)Submittedby: . H .HH .HBasilioLaureanoAtachahuaVictim: . . H .HH .HHisgranddaughter,AnaRosarioCelisπLaureanoStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HPeruDateofcommunication:H .HH .H22October1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H4July19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon25March1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.540/1993,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.BasilioLaureanoAtachahua,onbehalfofhisgranddaughter,AnaRosarioCelisLaureano,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandbytheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisBasilioLaureanoAtachahua,aPeruviancitizen,bornin1920.Hesubmitsthecommunicationonbehalfofhisgranddaughter,AnaRosarioCelisLaureano,aPeruviancitizen,bornin1975.Hercurrentwhereaboutsareunknown.TheauthorclaimsthathisgranddaughterisavictimofviolationsbyPeruofarticles2,paragraphs1and3;6,paragraph1;7;9;10,paragraph1;and24,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthor,afarmer,liveswithhisfamilyinthedistrictofAmbar,ProvinceofHuaura,Peru.InMarch1992,hisgranddaughter,then16yearsold,wasabductedbyunknownarmedmen,presumablyguerrillasoftheShiningPathmovement(SendieroLuminoso).Shereturnedsixdayslaterandtoldtheauthorthattheguerrillashadthreatenedtokillherifsherefusedtojointhemandthatshewasforcedtocarrytheirbaggageandtocookforthem,butthatshehadfinallybeenabletoescape.InMay1992,shewasonceagainforcedbytheguerrillastoaccompanythem;afterashootoutbetweenaunitofthePeruvianarmyandtheguerrillas,sheagainescaped.Theauthordidnotdenouncethoseeventstotheauthorities,first,becausehefearedreprisalsfromtheguerrillagroup,andsecondlybecause,atthetime,theregulararmywasnotyetstationedintheAmbardistrict.2.22 .2On23June1992,AnaCelisLaureanowasdetainedbythemilitary,onthegroundofsuspectedcollaborationwiththeShiningPathmovement.For16days,shewasheldatthemilitarybaseinAmbar,whichhadbeensetupinthemeantime.Forthefirsteightdays,hermotherwasallowedtovisither;fortheremainingeightdays,sheallegedlywaskeptincommunicado.Uponinquiryaboutherwhereabouts,Ana'smotherwastoldthatshehadbeentransferred.ThefamilythenrequestedtheprovincialprosecutorofHuacho(FiscalProvincialdelaPrimeraFiscaladeHuauraHuacho)tohelpthemlocateAna.AfterascertainingthatshewasstilldetainedatAmbar,theprosecutororderedthemilitarytotransferhertoHuachoandtohandherovertothespecialpoliceoftheNationalDirectorateagainstTerrorism(Direcci;nNacionalContraelTerrorismo󀄀DINCOTE).2.32 .2DuringthetransfertoHuacho,thetruckinwhichAnaCelisLaureanowastransportedwasinvolvedinanaccident.Asshesufferedafracturedhip,shewasbroughttothelocalquartersofthePolicaNacionaldelPer,whereshewasheldfrom11Julyto5August1992.On5August,ajudgeonthecivilcourtofHuacho(PrimerJuzgadoCivildeHuauraHuacho)orderedherreleaseonthegroundthatshewasaminor.HeappointedtheauthorasherlegalguardianandorderedthemnottoleaveHuacho,pendinginvestigationsintothechargesagainsther.2.42 .2On13August1992,atapproximately1a.m.,Ms.Laureanowasabductedfromthehousewheresheandtheauthorwerestaying.Theauthortestifiedthattwoofthekidnappersenteredthebuildingviatheroof,whiletheothersenteredthroughthefrontdoor.Themenweremasked,buttheauthorobservedthatoneofthemworeamilitaryuniformandthattherewereothercharacteristics,e.g.,thetypeoftheirfirearmsandthemakeofthevanintowhichhisgranddaughterwaspulled,whichindicatedthatthekidnappersbelongedtothemilitaryand/orspecialpoliceforces.2.52 .2On19August1992,theauthorfiledaformalcomplaintwiththeprosecutorofHuacho.Thelatter,togetherwithmembersofalocalhumanrightsgroup,helpedtheauthortomakeinquirieswiththemilitaryandpoliceauthoritiesinHuauraprovince,tonoavail.2.62 .2On24August1992,thecommanderoftheHuachopolicestationinformedtheprosecutor'sofficethathehadreceivedinformationfromDINCOTEheadquartersinLimaaccordingtowhichAnaCelisLaureanowassuspectedtobethepersoninchargeofguerrillaactivitiesintheAmbardistrict,andthatshehadparticipatedintheattackonamilitarypatrolinParn.2.72 .2On4September1992,theauthorfiledarequestforhabeascorpuswiththeSecondCriminalCourt(SegundoJuzgadoPenal)ofHuacho.Thatinitialpetitionwasnotadmittedbythejudgeonthegroundthatthe"petitionershouldindicatethelocationofthepoliceormilitaryofficewheretheminorisdetained,andtheexactnameofthemilitaryofficerincharge[ofthatoffice]".2.82 .2On8September1992,theCentrodeEstudiosyAcci;nparalaPaz(CEAPAZ),interveningonbehalfoftheauthor,petitionedtheNationalMinisterforDefence,requestinghimtoinvestigateAnaLaureano'sdetentionand/orherdisappearance;itpointedoutthatshewasaminor,andinvoked,inparticular,theUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsoftheChild,ratifiedbyPeruinSeptember1990.On16September1992,theSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofDefenceinformedCEAPAZthathehadreferredthecasetothearmedforces,withaviewtocarryingoutinvestigations.Nofurtherinformationwasreceived.2.92 .2On8September1992,CEAPAZalsopetitionedthedirectorofDINCOTE,askinghimtoverifywhetherAnaCelisLaureanohadinfactbeendetainedbyitsunitsandwhethershehadbeenbroughttooneofitsquarters.On15September1992,thedirectorofDINCOTErepliedthathernamewasnotlistedintheregistersofdetainedpersons.2.10Arequestforinformationandaninvestigationofthecasewasalsosent,on8and9September1992,tothedirectorofthehumanrightssecretariatoftheMinistryofDefence,totheMinisterfortheInteriorandtothecommandersofthemilitarybasesinAndahuasiandAntabamba.Noreplywasmadetothosepetitions.2.11On30September1992,theauthorappliedtothepresidingjudgeoftheSecondCriminalChamberoftheDistrictHighCourt(SegundoSalaPenaldelaCorteSuperiordelDistritoJudicialdeCallao)forhabeascorpus,askinghimtoadmittheapplicationandtodirectthejudgeofthecourtinHuachotocomplywiththehabeascorpusorder.Itremainsunclearwhetheranyproceedingswereinstitutedbythejudicialauthoritiesinrespectofthatapplication.2.12Inthelightoftheabove,itiscontendedthatallavailabledomesticremediestolocateAnaCelisLaureanoandtoascertainwhethersheisstillalivehavebeenexhausted.2.13On18September1992,thecaseofMs.LaureanowasregisteredbeforetheUnitedNationsWorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearancesa(caseNo.015038,transmittedtothePeruvianGovernmenton18September1992;retransmittedon11January1993).InNovember1992,thePeruvianGovernmentnotifiedtheWorkingGroupthattheprosecutor'sofficeinHuacho(SegundaFiscalaProvincialMixtadeHuacho)wasinvestigatingthecasebuthadnotyetlocatedMs.Laureanoorthoseresponsibleforherdisappearance.ItaddedthatithadrequestedinformationfromtheMinistryofDefenceandtheMinistryoftheInterior.Similarnotesdated13Apriland29November1993addressedtotheWorkingGroupreiteratethatinvestigationsintothecasecontinuebutthattheyhavesofarbeeninconclusive.Thecomplaint3.12 .2TheunlawfuldetentionofMs.Laureanoandhersubsequentdisappearance,whichtheauthorattributestothearmedforcesofPeru,aresaidtoamounttoviolationsofarticles6,paragraph1;7;9;and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.3.22 .2ItisfurthersubmittedthattheStatepartyviolatedarticle24,paragraph1,asitfailedtoprovideAnaCelisLaureanowithsuchmeasuresofprotectionasarerequiredbyherstatusasaminor.TheStateparty'sfailuretoprotectherrights,toinvestigateingoodfaiththeviolationsofherrightsandtoprosecuteandpunishthoseheldresponsibleforherdisappearanceissaidtobecontrarytoarticle2,paragraphs1and3,oftheCovenant.&  TheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsonadmissibilityandcounsel'scommentsthereon4.12 .2Inasubmissiondated10June1993,theStatepartydrawsoninformationprovidedbythePeruvianMinistryofDefence.Thelatternotesthatin'  December1992investigationscarriedoutbythesecurityandarmedforcesconfirmedthatmembersofthemilitarybaseinAmbarhadarrestedAnaR.CelisLaureanoinJune1992.SheallegedlyhadconfessedherparticipationinanarmedattackonamilitarypatrolinParnon6May1992andpointedoutwheretheguerrillashadhiddenarmsandammunition.InJuly1992,shewashandedovertothechiefofthePolicaNacionaldelPerinHuachoandsubsequentlytotheprosecutingauthoritiesofthesametown;shewascharged,interalia,withparticipationinaterroristgroup.Hercasewasthenreferredtothejudgeofthecivilcourt,whodecreedherprovisionalrelease.On8September1992,thecommanderofthemilitarybaseinAmbarinquiredwiththejudgeaboutthestatusofthecase;on11September1992,thejudgeconfirmedthatthegirlhadbeenabductedonemonthearlierandthatthejudicialauthoritiesseizedofthematterattributedresponsibilityfortheeventtomembersofthemilitary.On21September1992,theAttorneyGeneraloftheSecondProsecutor'sOffice(FiscaldelaSegundaFiscaladelaNaci;n)reportedontheactiontakenbyhisofficeuptothattime;heissuedalistofeightpoliceandmilitaryofficesandconcludedthatMs.Laureanowasnotdetainedinanyofthoseoffices.4.22 .2TheStatepartyreaffirmsthatMs.Laureanowasdetainedbecauseofherterroristactivitiesoraffinitiesandthatshewashandedovertothecompetentjudicialauthorities.Itsubmitsthat,inrespectofherallegeddisappearance,aguerrillainterventionshouldnotbediscardedforthefollowingreasons:(a)topreventherfrombeingbroughttojusticeandrevealingthestructureoftheterroristbranchtowhichshebelonged;and(b)becauseshemayhavebeeneliminatedasareprisalforhavingpointedoutwheretheguerrillashadhiddenarmsandammunitionaftertheattackinParn.Finally,itissubmittedthatanypresumedresponsibilityofthePeruvianarmedforcesinthisrespectshouldberemovedonthefollowinggrounds:theinquiriesoftheMinistryofPublicAffairswiththemilitaryandthepoliceofficesinHuachoandHuaura,whichconfirmedthatMs.Laureanowasnotdetained;andthevaguenessoftheclaiminasmuchastheauthoronlyrefersto"presumedperpetrators"("laimprecisi;ndeladenunciaporcuantoenellasehacealusionesvagassobrelospresuntosautores").5.12 .2Incommentsdated19September1993,counselnotesthattheMinistryofDefenceisneithercompetentnorinapositiontodrawconclusionsfrominvestigationswhichshouldbeundertakenbythejudiciary.HepointsoutthattheStatepartyadmitstheeventswhichoccurredpriortoMs.Laureano'sdisappearance,i.e.,thatshehadbeendetainedbythemilitaryandthatthejudgeonthecivilcourtinHuachohimselfheldthemilitaryresponsibleforherabduction.BymerelyreferringtothenegativeresultsofinquiriesmadebytheAttorneyGeneraloftheSecondProsecutor'sOffice,theStatepartyissaidtodisplayitsunwillingnesstoinvestigatetheminor'sdisappearanceseriouslyandtoignoretheprincipalelementsinherentinthepracticeofforceddisappearances,i.e.,theimpossibilityofidentifyingthoseresponsiblebecauseofthewayinwhichsecurityforcesoperateinPeru.Counselreferstotheauthor'sevidenceaboutthetypeofclothesandarmsofthekidnappersandthewayinwhichtheabductionwascarriedout.5.22 .2CounselcontendsthattheStatepartymerelyspeculateswhenitassertsthatMs.Laureanowasdetainedbecauseofherterroristactivitiesandthattheguerrillasthemselvesmayhaveintervenedtokidnapher;henotesthatitwasthemilitarywhichaccusedherofbeingamemberofShiningPathandthatthecourtshavenotyetfoundherguilty.CounselfurtherforwardsastatementfromMs.Laureano'sgrandmother,dated30September1992,whichstatesthatbothpriorandsubsequenttothedisappearanceofhergranddaughter,acaptainoftheAmbarmilitarybasehadthreatenedtokillherandseveralothermembersofthefamily.5.32 .2Ontherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,counselsuggeststhatthePresidentoftheHighCourt,havingdecidedontheadmissibilityofthepetitionforhabeascorpus,referreditbacktothecourtoffirstinstancewhich,afterhearingtheevidence,concludedthatmilitarypersonnelwereinvolvedintheabductionanddisappearanceofAnaR.CelisLaureano.Itisnotedthat,inspiteofthosefindings,Ms.Laureanohasnotbeenlocated,nocriminalproceedingshavebeeninstitutedandherfamilyhasnotbeencompensated.6.12 .2Bysubmissionof6September1993,theStatepartyarguesthattheCommitteehasnocompetencetoconsiderthecase,whichisalreadyunderexaminationbytheUnitedNationsWorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearances.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyinvokesarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.6.22 .2Inreply,counselpointsoutthattheWorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearanceshasaspecificmandate,i.e.,toexamineallegationsrelevanttothephenomenonofdisappearances,receivinginformationfromGovernments,nongovernmental,intergovernmentalorhumanitarianorganizationsandotherreliablesourcesandmakinggeneralrecommendationstotheCommissiononHumanRights.HearguesthattheWorkingGroup'sobjectivesarestrictlyhumanitariananditsworkingmethodsarebasedondiscretion;itdoesnotidentifythoseresponsiblefordisappearancesanddoesnotdeliverajudgementinacase,which,tocounsel,isanessentialelementofa"procedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement".Heconcludesthataprocedurelimitedtothegeneralhumanrightssituationinaparticularcountry,whichdoesnotprovideforadecisiononthespecificallegationsmadeinaparticularcaseorforaneffectiveremedyfortheallegedviolations,doesnotconstituteaprocedureofinvestigationorsettlementwithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision7.12 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftyfirstsession.AstotheStateparty'sargumentthatthecaseisinadmissiblebecauseitispendingbeforetheWorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearances,itobservedthatextraconventionalproceduresormechanismsestablishedbytheCommissiononHumanRightsortheEconomicandSocialCouncil,andwhosemandatesaretoexamineandpubliclyreportonhumanrightssituationsinspecificcountriesorterritories,oronmajorphenomenaofhumanrightsviolationsworldwide,donot,astheStatepartyshouldbeaware,constituteaprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlementwithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteerecalledthatthestudyofhumanrightsproblemsofamoreglobalcharacter,althoughitmightrefertoordrawoninformationconcerningindividuals,couldnotbeseenasbeingthesamematterastheexaminationofindividualcaseswithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheProtocol.Accordingly,theCommitteeconsideredthatthefactthatMs.Laureano'scasewasregisteredbeforetheWorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearancesdidnotmakeitinadmissibleunderthatprovision.7.22 .2Concerningtherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadnotprovidedanyinformationontheavailabilityandeffectivenessofdomesticremediesinthepresentcase.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,itconcludedthatnoeffectiveremediesexistedwhichtheauthorshouldpursueonbehalfofhisgranddaughter.TheCommitteethereforewasnotbarredbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolfromconsideringthecommunication.7.32 .2On4July1994,theCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissible.TheStatepartywasrequested,inparticular,toprovidedetailedinformationonwhatinvestigationshadbeencarriedoutbythejudicialauthoritiesasaresultoftheauthor'sapplicationforhabeascorpus,andwhatinvestigationsarenowbeingconductedwithregardtothefindingofthejudgeonthecourtoffirstinstanceinHuachothatmilitarypersonnelwereinvolvedintheabductionofMs.Laureano.TheStatepartywasfurtherrequestedtoprovidetheCommitteewithallcourtdocumentsrelevanttothecase.Examinationofthemerits8.12 .2ThedeadlineforthereceiptoftheStateparty'sinformationunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolwas11February1995.Noinformationabouttheresults,ifany,offurtherinvestigationsinthecase,andnocourtdocumentshavebeenreceivedfromtheStateparty,inspiteofareminderaddressedtoiton25September1995.Asof1March1996,nofurtherinformationonthestatusofthecasehadbeenreceived.8.22 .2TheCommitteeregretstheabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStatepartyinrespectofthemeritsofthecommunication.Itisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartyinvestigatethoroughly,ingoodfaithandwithintheimparteddeadlines,alltheallegationsofviolationsoftheCovenantmadeagainstit,andmakeavailabletotheCommitteealltheinformationatitsdisposal.Intheinstantcase,theStatepartyhasnotfurnishedanyinformationotherthanthatMs.Laureano'sdisappearanceisbeinginvestigated.Inthecircumstances,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheeffectthattheyhavebeensubstantiated.8.32 .2Inrespectoftheallegedviolationofarticle6,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,theCommitteerecallsitsgeneralcommentNo.6(16)onarticle6,bwhichstates,interalia,thatStatespartiesshouldtakemeasuresnotonlytopreventandpunishdeprivationoflifebycriminalactsbutalsotopreventarbitrarykillingbytheirownsecurityforces.Statespartiesshouldalsotakespecificandeffectivemeasurestopreventthedisappearanceofindividualsandestablisheffectivefacilitiesandprocedurestoinvestigatethoroughly,byanappropriateandimpartialbody,casesofmissinganddisappearedpersonsincircumstanceswhichmayinvolveviolationoftherighttolife.8.42 .2Intheinstantcase,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyconcedesthatMs.Laureanohasremainedunaccountedforsincethenightof13August1992anddoesnotdenythatmilitaryorspecialpoliceunitsinHuauraorHuachomayhavebeenresponsibleforherdisappearance,aconclusionreached,interalia,byajudgeonthecivilcourtinHuacho.NomaterialevidencehasbeenadvancedtosupporttheStateparty'scontentionthataunitofShiningPathmayhavebeenresponsibleforherabduction.Inthecircumstancesofthecase,theCommitteefindsthatAnaR.CelisLaureano'srighttolife,enshrinedinarticle6oftheCovenant,readtogetherwitharticle2,paragraph1,hasnotbeeneffectivelyprotectedbytheStateparty.TheCommitteerecallsinparticularthatthevictimhadpreviouslybeenarrestedanddetainedbythePeruvianmilitaryonchargesofcollaborationwithShiningPathandthatthelifeofMs.LaureanoandofmembersofherfamilyhadpreviouslybeenthreatenedbyacaptainofthemilitarybaseatAmbar,whoinfactconfirmedtoMs.Laureano'sgrandmotherthatAnaR.CelisLaureanohadalreadybeenkilled.c8.52 .2Withregardtotheclaimunderarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteerecallsthatMs.Laureanodisappearedandhadnocontactwithherfamilyor,onthebasisoftheinformationavailabletotheCommittee,withtheoutsideworld.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheabductionanddisappearanceofthevictimandpreventionofcontactwithherfamilyandwiththeoutsideworldconstitutecruelandinhumantreatment,inviolationofarticle7,junctoarticle2,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.8.62 .2Theauthorhasallegedaviolationofarticle9,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.TheevidencebeforetheCommitteerevealsthatMs.LaureanowasviolentlyremovedfromherhomebyarmedStateagentson13August1992;itisuncontestedthatthosemendidnotactonthebasisofanarrestwarrantoronordersofajudgeorjudicialofficer.Furthermore,theStatepartyhasignoredtheCommittee'srequestsforinformationabouttheresultsoftheauthor'spetitionforhabeascorpus,filedonbehalfofAnaR.CelisLaureano.TheCommitteefinallyrecallsthatMs.Laureanohadbeenprovisionallyreleasedintothecustodyofhergrandfatherbydecisionof5August1992ofajudgeontheCivilCourtofHuacho,i.e.,onlyeightdaysbeforeherdisappearance.Itconcludesthat,inthecircumstances,therehasbeenaviolationofarticle9,paragraph1,junctoarticle2,paragraph1.8.72 .2Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticle24,paragraph1oftheCovenant,astheStatepartyfailedtoprotecthisgranddaughter'sstatusasaminor.TheCommitteenotesthatduringtheinvestigationsinitiatedafterMs.Laureano'sinitialdetentionbythemilitary,inJune1992,thejudgeonthecivilcourtofHuachoorderedherprovisionalreleasebecauseshewasaminor.However,subsequenttoherdisappearanceinAugust1992,theStatepartydidnotadoptanyparticularmeasurestoinvestigateherdisappearanceanddeterminedherwhereaboutstoensurehersecurityandwelfare,giventhatMs.Laureanowasunderageatthetimeofherdisappearance.Itconcludesthat,inthecircumstances,Ms.Laureanodidnotbenefitfromsuchspecialmeasuresofprotectionasshewasentitledtobecauseofherstatusasaminor,andthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle24,paragraph1.9.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforetheCommitteerevealviolationsofarticles6,paragraph1;7;and9,paragraph1,alljunctoarticle2,paragraph1;andofarticle24,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2Underarticle2,paragraph3,oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovidethevictimandtheauthorwithaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteeurgestheStatepartytoopenaproperinvestigationintothedisappearanceofAnaRosarioCelisLaureanoandherfate,toprovideforappropriatecompensationtothevictimandherfamily,andtobringtojusticethoseresponsibleforherdisappearance,notwithstandinganydomesticamnestylegislationtothecontrary.11.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingapartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aEstablishedbytheCommissiononHumanRightsinitsresolution20(XXXVI)of29February1980.2 .2bSeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,ThirtyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/37/40),annexV.2 .2cThatstatement,containedinadepositionmadebythevictim'sgrandmotheron30September1992,indicatedingraphictermsthatCelisLaureanohadinfactbeeneliminated.ǀQ.CommunicationNo.542/1993,KatombeL.Tshishimbiv.Zairè(viewsadoptedon25March1996,fiftysixthsession)Submittedby: . H .HH .HMrs.AgnsN'Goya[representedbycounsel]Victim: . . H .HH .HHerhusband,KatombeL.TshishimbiStateparty: . H .HH .HH .HZaireDateofcommunication:H .HH .H21April1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H16March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon25March1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.542/1993,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMrs.AgnsN'Goya,onbehalfofherhusband,KatombeL.Tshishimbi,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hercounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisAgnsN'Goya,aZairiancitizen,bornin1946andcurrentlydomiciledinBrussels.Shesubmitsthecommunicationonbehalfofherhusband,KatombeL.Tshishimbi,aZairiancitizen,bornin1936inLikasi,ProvinceofShaba,Zaire.Mr.Tshishimbiwasabductedon28March1993,andhiswhereaboutscannotbeascertained.Theauthorisrepresentedbycounsel,whoallegesviolationsbyZaireofarticles2;3;5;7;9;12,paragraph1;17;18;19;20,paragraph2;and25oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Thefactsaspresentedbycounsel2.12 .2KatombeTshishimbiisacareermilitaryofficer.In1973,hewasstrippedofallhisfunctionsandsentencedbyamilitarytribunalto10years'imprisonmentforhisrefusaltoobeyorders.Thecourt'ssentencewaslaterreducedtofouryears,twoofwhichhespentindetention.Onanunspecifiedsubsequentdate,heallegedlyparticipatedinafailedcoupagainstPresidentMobutuSeseSeko.2.22 .2Fromthelate1970sonwards,Mr.TshishimbisympathizedwiththeprincipalmovementofthepoliticaloppositiontoPresidentMobutu,theUnionforDemocracyandSocialProgress(UnionpourlaDmocratieetleProgrsSocialUDPS).AfterUDPSleaderEtienneTshisekedihadbeennominatedforPrimeMinisterbytheNationalSovereignConference(ConfrenceNationaleSouveraine)in1992,heappointedMr.Tshishimbiashismilitaryadviser.ItappearsthatMr.TshishimbiwasusedprimarilyasoneofMr.Tshisekedi'sbodyguards.̇2.32 .2CounselrecallsthataftertheGovernmentofEtienneTshisekeditookoffice,thePrimeMinister,hisCabinetandhisspecialadvisersweresubjectedtoconstantsurveillance,andattimesharassmentandbullying,fromthemilitaryandespeciallymembersofthespecialpresidentialdivision(DivisionSpcialePrsidentielle"DSP),whichgenerallyremainedloyaltoPresidentMobutu.DetachmentsofDSPandparamilitarygroupsgenerallyknownas"owls"(Hiboux)circulatinginunmarkedvehicleshavearbitrarilyarrestedopponentsofthePresident,kidnappedthem,extortedmoney,ransackedtheirhomesandsoforth.ItissubmittedthatanyonewhoopenlysupportstheprocessofdemocraticreforminZairelivesinconstantinsecurity,especiallyinKinshasa.2.42 .2ItwasinthiscontextthatMr.Tshishimbiwasabductedduringthenightof28March1993;Belgianpressreportsof6April1993mentionthathehadbeenarrested("auraittarrt").Theexactcircumstancesofhisabduction,whichoccurredafterhehadlefttheresidenceofMr.Tshisekediforhishome,remainunknown.Afterhisabduction,hisfamily,relativesandcolleaguesremainedwithoutnewsfromhim.Itwasbelieved"asnotedinBelgiannewspaperreportsof21April1993"thatheis/wasdetainedattheheadquartersoftheNationalIntelligenceService,whereill-treatmentofdetaineesissaidtobecommon.2.52 .2CounseldoesnotindicatewhetheranystepshavebeentakeninKinshasatopursuedomesticremediesinrespectoftheabductionofMr.Tshishimbi.Itisapparent,however,thatcounselandMrs.N'Goyaconsidertheresorttosuchremediestobefutile,giveninparticulartheabsenceofreliableinformationaboutthewhereaboutsofMr.Tshishimbi.Thecomplaint3.12 .2ItissubmittedthatthefactsasdescribedrevealviolationsbyZaireofarticles2;3;5;7;9;12,paragraph1;17;18;19;20,paragraph2;and25oftheCovenant.3.22 .2AsthewhereaboutsofMr.Tshishimbiremainunknown,counselrequeststheapplicationofinterimmeasuresofprotection,pursuanttorule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure.Admissibilityconsiderations4.12 .2On21May1993,thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStatepartyunderrule91oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure.TheStatepartywasrequestedtoclarifythecircumstancesofMr.Tshishimbi'sabduction,toinvestigatetheauthor'sallegationsandtoprovideinformationaboutMr.Tshishimbi'swhereaboutsandstateofhealth.Underrule86oftherulesofprocedure,theStatepartywasfurtherrequestedtoavoidanyactionwhichmightcauseirreparableharmtotheallegedvictim.4.22 .2TheStatepartydidnotsubmitanyinformationonthecasewithintheimparteddeadlines.On11November1993,thefilewasretransmittedtotheZairianauthorities,afterarepresentativeoftheUDPSwhohadcontactedtheCommittee'ssecretariathadexpresseddoubtsaboutthereliabilityofpostalcommunicationsbetweenSwitzerlandandZaire.NoreplytothesecondtransmittalofthefilewasreceivedfromtheStateparty.4.32 .2TheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunicationduringitsfiftythirdsession.ItexpressedconcernattheabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStateparty;thatwasamatterofconcernespeciallyinthelightoftherequestunderrule86oftherulesofprocedurewhichhadbeenissuedbytheCommittee'sSpecialRapporteuronnewcommunications.Inthecircumstances,dueweighthadtobegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheextentthattheyweresufficientlysubstantiated.4.42 .2ItwasuncontestedthatMr.Tshishimbihadbeenapprehendedandbroughttoanunknownlocationduringthenightof28March1993.IthadalsotranspiredthatnodomesticremedieshadbeenpursuedinZairetosecurehisrelease.Ontheotherhand,theStatepartyhadbeenrequestedtoprovidespecificinformationabouteffectiveremediesavailabletotheauthorinthecircumstancesofthecase.IntheabsenceofStatepartycooperationontheissue,andgivenMr.Tshishimbi'ssituation,includingtheimpossibilityforhisfamilytohaveaccesstohimortoobtainreliableinformationabouthiswhereaboutsandstateofhealth,theCommitteewassatisfiedthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolfromexaminingthecommunication.4.52 .2Concerningtheauthor'sallegationsunderarticles3;5;12,paragraph1;17;18;19;20,paragraph2;and25oftheCovenant,theCommitteeobservedthattheyweregeneralandunsubstantiated.NothinginthefileindicatedthatMr.Tshishimbihadbeensubjectedtoarbitraryinterferencewithhisprivacy(article17),deniedhisfreedomofconscienceandreligion(article18),hisrighttofreedomofexpression(article19)orhisrighttopoliticalparticipation(article25).Inthisrespect,therefore,noclaimundertheOptionalProtocolhadbeenadvanced.4.62 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'sallegationsunderarticles7and9couldnot,giventhecircumstancesofMr.Tshishimbi'sabduction,befurthersubstantiatedatthatstageandthattheyshouldbeconsideredontheirmerits.4.72 .2On16March1995,therefore,theCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles7and9oftheCovenant.ItreiterateditsrequesttotheStatepartytoprovidedetailedinformationonthewhereaboutsofMr.TshishimbiandtoindicatewhetherhewascoveredbythetermsoftheamnestyannouncedbytheStateparty'snewgovernmentinthesummerof1994.Examinationofthemerits5.12 .2ThedeadlinefortheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolwas9November1995.NoinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStateparty,inspiteofareminderaddressedtoiton27November1995.5.22 .2TheCommitteemustthereforeconsiderthepresentcommunicationinthelightofthematerialmadeavailabletoitbytheauthor.ItnoteswithseriousconcernthetotalabsenceofcooperationonthepartoftheStateparty.Itisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartymakeavailabletotheCommittee,ingoodfaithandwithintheimparteddeadlines,alltheinformationatitsdisposal.ThistheStatepartyhasfailedtodo,inspiteofremindersaddressedtoit.IthasfurtherfailedtoreacttotherequestforinterimmeasuresofprotectionformulatedbytheCommittee'sSpecialRapporteuronnewcommunicationsinMay1993.Asof1March1996,noinformationonthefateofMr.TshishimbihadbeenforwardedtotheCommittee.5.32 .2Theauthorhasallegedaviolationofarticle9oftheCovenant.WhilethereisnoevidencethatMr.Tshishimbiwasactuallyarrestedordetainedduringthenightof28March1993,theCommitteerecallsthattheStatepartywasrequested,inthedecisiononadmissibility,toclarifythisissue;ithasnotdoneso.5.42 .2Thefirstsentenceofarticle9,paragraph1,guaranteestoeveryonetherighttolibertyandsecurityofperson.Initspriorjurisprudence,theCommitteehasheldthatthisrightmaybeinvokednotonlyinthecontextofarrestanddetention,andthataninterpretationwhichwouldallowStatespartiestotolerate,condoneorignorethreatsmadebypersonsinauthoritytothepersonallibertyandsecurityofnon-detainedindividualswithintheStateparty'sjurisdictionwouldrenderineffectivetheguaranteesoftheCovenant.aInthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,theCommitteeconcludesthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoensureMr.Tshishimbi'srighttolibertyandsecurityofperson,inviolationofarticle9,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.5.52 .2Withregardtotheclaimunderarticle7,theCommitteerecallsthatMr.Tshishimbiwasabductedundercircumstancesthathavenotbeenclarifiedandhashadnocontactwithhisfamilyor,onthebasisoftheinformationavailabletotheCommittee,withtheoutsideworldsincehisabduction.Furthermore,theStatepartyhasconsistentlyignoredtheCommittee'srequestsforinformationregardingMr.Tshishimbi'sabductionandwhereabouts.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheremovalofthevictimandthepreventionofcontactwithhisfamilyandwiththeoutsideworldconstitutecruelandinhumantreatment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.6.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforetheCommitteerevealviolationsbyZaireofarticles7and9,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.7.2 .2Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderadutytoprovidetheauthorandthevictimwithanappropriateremedy.TheCommitteeurgestheStateparty:(a)toinvestigatethoroughlythecircumstancesofMr.Tshishimbi'sabductionandunlawfuldetention;(b)tobringtojusticethoseresponsibleforhisabductionandunlawfuldetention;and(c)tograntadequatecompensationtohimandtohisfamilyfortheviolationsofhisrightsforwhichhehassuffered.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.8.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90daysofthetransmittaltoitofthepresentdecision,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttoitsviews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.]@ .Notes2 .2aSee,forexample,OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyninthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/49/40),vol.II,annexIX.W,communicationNo.449/1991(Mojicav.theDominicanRepublic),viewsadoptedon15July1994,para.5.4;andannexIX.BB,communicationNo.468/1991(Ol;Bahamondev.EquatorialGuinea),viewsadoptedon20October1993,para.9.2.ǀR.CommunicationNo.546/1993,RicklyBurrellv.Jamaica02 .2(viewsadoptedon18July1996,fiftyseventhsession)*    Submittedby:PhilipLeachVictim:RicklyBurrellStateparty:JamaicaDateofcommunication:28April1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:4April19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon18July1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.546/1993,submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.RicklyBurrellundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsitsviewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol.1.2 .2ThecommunicationissubmittedbyMr.PhilipLeach,asolicitorinLondon,onbehalfofMr.RicklyBurrell,aJamaicancitizen,atthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica,andsubsequentlykilledduringaprisondisturbance.Mr.BurrellissaidtobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6;7;9,paragraphs2,3and4;10;14,paragraphs1,3(b),(c),(d)and(e),and5;and17,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Thefactsassubmitted2.12 .2Intheinitialcommunication,dated28April1993,counselstatesthatMr.Burrellwasaccusedofthemurderon11July1987ofWilbertWilson.HewasconvictedandsentencedtodeathintheSt.JamesCircuitCourton26July1988.HisapplicationforleavetoappealwasheardbytheJamaicanCourtofAppealon23July1990anddismissedon24September1990.TheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildeniedhimspecialleavetoappealon10February1993.Withthis,itissubmitted,domesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.2.22 .2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,on11July1987,atabout11.30p.m.,Mr.Burrellandhistwoco-accused,afterhavingrobbedseveralpeople,enteredBlackShopintheparishofSt.James.Mr.Burrellcarriedtwoguns;hefirstfiredattheshopassistant,RickTaylor,whowashitinhisleftthigh,andthenatWilbertWilson,whodiedasaresultofthegunshot.Mr.Burrell'sco-accused,whoweresaidtohavebeenonthelookoutatthetimetheshotswerefired,wereconvictedofmanslaughter.2.32 .2Theprosecutionreliedonthetestimonyofthreeeyewitnesses,whohadknownMr.Burrellforsomeyearsandwhoidentifiedeachoftheaccusedonseparateidentificationparadesheldon18September1987.Mr.Burrell'sdefencewasbasedonanalibi.Hetestifiedthathewasathomeonthenightofthemurder.2.42 .2Itisstatedthatafterthearrest,onthewaytothepolicestation,thetruckinwhichMr.Burrellandabout26othermenwerebeingtransportedstoppedatthelocusinquo,wheretheywereseenbyanumberofpeople.Mr.Burrellwasthentakentothepolicestationanddetainedinacelltogetherwith14othermen.Hestatesthathewasdetainedforabouttwomonthswithoutbeingcharged.Itisfurtherstatedthatonthedaytheidentificationparadewasduetotakeplace,Mr.Burrellwasreleasedfromhiscelltohaveameal.Hetalkedtoseveralpersons,whomheassumedtobevisitors.Theidentificationparadewasthenpostponedandheldoneweeklater.CounselclaimsthatthepersonsbroughtintoidentifyMr.Burrellweretheoneshehadmettheweekbefore.2.52 .2Inafurthersubmission,dated14February1994,counselinformstheCommitteethatMr.BurrellwaskilledinSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonon31October1993.CounselrequeststheCommitteetoexaminethecircumstancesofhisdeathinrespectofapossibleviolationofarticle6,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.2.62 .2CounselreferstoapressreleasebyAmnestyInternational,reportingthatfourdeathrowprisoners,amongthemRicklyBurrell,werekilledduringadisturbanceinSt.CatherinePrison.Reportsindicatedthattheprisonerswereshotdeadaftertheytriedtotakeprisonguardshostage.However,priortotheincident,someprisonershadbeenreceivingdeaththreatsfromprisonpersonnelbecausetheyhadcomplainedaboutmaltreatment.2.72 .2Counselstatesthat,on25November1993,hewrotetotheJamaicanparliamentaryombudsmanrequestingconfirmationofMr.Burrell'sdeathandcallingforanofficialinvestigation.AcopyoftheletterwassenttothesuperintendentinchargeofSt.CatherinePrisonandtotheLondonsolicitorsoftheJamaicanGovernment.Noreplywasreceivedfromeithertheombudsmanorthesuperintendent;thesolicitorsrepliedthattheyhadnoinformationabouttheincident.2.82 .2On5January1994,AmnestyInternationalpublishedareportabouttheincidentfollowingitsinvestigationinJamaicaconductedinNovember1993.Counselincludesthereportaspartofhissubmission.Accordingtothereport,theprisonerswerekilledonthefirstfloorofGibraltarBlock,wheredeathrowprisonersareheld.Thecircumstancesoftheincidentremainunclear,butprisonauthoritiescontendthattwowardersweretakenhostagewhiletheywereservingtheprisonerslunchataround12.30p.m.Itisalsocontendedthatthreewarderswereinjuredduringtheincident,andthatthethroatofonewascutwithaknife,butnoneofthewarderswerehospitalizedandtheinjuriesappeartohavebeenminor.Apartfromtheoneknife,noneoftheprisonerswasarmed.Alarmapparentlywasquicklyraised,backupwardersappearedandtheprisonerswereshot.Atleastthreeotherinmateswerewoundedandhadtobehospitalized.2.92 .2Eyewitnessesamongtheprisonerssubmitthattheincidentstartedonthegroundfloorwhenaninmatewasbeatenbyawarderduringanargument,afterwhichtheprisonerranupstairs.Theyfurtherstatethatthefourprisonerswereshotintheircellswhentheynolongerposedathreattothewarders.Itisalsocontendedthatwardersshotatotherinmatesthroughthebarsoftheircellsandthatsomeofthemwerebeaten.Itisstatedthattheinjuriesofthesurvivinginmatesareconsistentwiththoseclaimsandthatonewarderhastestifiedthatheinterferedtosaveoneprisonerfrombeingseverelybeaten.Itisfurtherclaimedthat,becauseoftheconfinedspace,itisdifficulttoseehowprisonerscouldhavebeenshotwithoutinjuringthewarders,iftheywerestillbeingheldhostage.Itisfurtherstatedthatatleastthreeofthewardersnamedbyprisonersashavingbeeninvolvedintheshootingshavebeennamedrepeatedlyinotherallegationsinvolvingthreatstoormaltreatmentofprisonersondeathrow.2.10Itissubmittedthatwardersarenormallyarmedonlywithbatonsbutthatthereisanarmouryjustinsidethegate-lodgeoftheprison.Itremainsunclearwhoauthorizedtheuseofarmson31October1993,whichwasaSunday,whenthesuperintendentwasnotpresent.Itissubmittedthatalthoughprisonofficersreceivetrainingintheuseoffirearms,theydonotreceivetraininginphysicalself-defenceorcontrolandrestrainttechniquesorintheuseofdifferentlevelsofforce.2.112 .2Counselsubmitsthat,althoughthestatepathologisthadcarriedoutautopsiesandapoliceinvestigationtookplace,noreporthasbeenmadeavailable.2.122 .2Counselcontendsthatmanyincidentsofexcessiveviolencebyprisonwardershaveoccurredinthepastyearsandthatcomplaintsarenotadequatelydealtwithbutthat,onthecontrary,prisonerswhocomplainaboutmaltreatmentaresubjectedtothreatsbywarders.Ifinvestigationsareheld,theresultsarenotmadepublic.Itisfurthersubmittedthattheparliamentaryombudsman,althoughconstitutingthemainindependentprocedureforinvestigationofcomplaintsfrominmates,hasnopowersofenforcementandhisrecommendationsarenotbinding.CounselpointsoutthatthelastannualreportfromtheombudsmantoParliamentdatesfrom1988.2.132 .2CounselsubmitsthathehasreceivedaletterfromaninmateexplainingthecircumstancesunderwhichMr.Burrellwaskilled.Accordingtotheletter,Mr.BurrellhadbeenthreatenedwithdeathbyawarderwhoserelativeMr.BurrellwasconvictedofhavingmurderedandMr.Burrellhadconsequentlylodgedacomplaintwiththesuperintendent.Theletterstatesthattheincidenton31October1993wasstartedbythesamewarderandthatthatwardershotandkilledMr.Burrell,whowasinhiscell,"incoldblood".Counselstatesthatotherlettersfrominmatesalsomentionthesamewarderasbeinginvolved.&  Thecomplaint3.12 .2CounselclaimsthatMr.Burrell'sdetentionforovertwomonthswithoutbeingchargedamountstoaviolationofarticle9,paragraphs2,3,and4,oftheCovenant.'  3.22 .2ItiscontendedthatMr.Burrell'slegalaidlawyerdidnotraisetheirregularitiesinrespectofMr.Burrell'sidentificationintheCourtofAppeal.ItissubmittedthatthelawyernevercontactedMr.BurrelldespitenumerouseffortsonMr.Burrell'sparttogetanappointment.Moreover,atthehearingbeforetheCourtofAppeal,thelawyerremarkedthathecouldnotsupporthisclient'sapplicationforleavetoappeal.Heconcededthatthetrialjudgehadadequatelydirectedthejuryontheissueofidentificationandthat,inthelightofthepositiveidentificationevidenceofthreeeyewitnesses,hecouldadvancenoarguablegroundofappealinhisclient'sfavour.Itisstatedthat,becauseofcounsel'sfailuretoadequatelyrepresentMr.Burrell,relativeswhocouldhavesupportedhisalibiwerenotcalledtotheCourtofAppealtotestifyonhisbehalf.Itisarguedthattheaboveamountstoaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs1,3(b),(c),(d)and(e)and5,oftheCovenant.Itisfurthersubmittedthatadelayoftwoyearsandtwomonthsbetweenconvictionanddismissalofappealamountstoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c).3.32 .2CounselfurtherclaimsthatthefrequentdelaysincorrespondencesentfromSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonandinthereceiptoflettersattheprison,iftheyarrivedatall,madeitextremelydifficulttoobtaininstructionsfromhisclientandtorepresenthimadequately.Thepresumedinterferencewiththemailbyprisonauthoritiesissaidtoconstituteaviolationofarticle17oftheCovenant.3.42 .2CounselclaimsthatbecauseMr.Burrellwasthreatenedandill-treatedbywardersatSt.CatherinePrison,theStatepartyhasviolatedarticles7and10oftheCovenant.ItisfurtherallegedthatMr.Burrell'sdeathconstitutesaviolationofarticle6,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,counselreferstotheCommittee'spriorjurisprudenceaandsubmitsthatthereisaprimafaciecasethatMr.BurrellwasarbitrarilydeprivedofhislifebytheauthoritiesoftheStateandthatthelawinJamaicafailsstrictlytocontrolandlimitcircumstancesinwhichapersonmaybedeprivedofhislife.Itissubmittedthatinviewoftheevidence,theburdenofproofnowlieswiththeStatetorefutethatarticle6hasbeenbreached.Inthiscontext,counselsubmitsthattheStatepartyhassoleaccesstothemostsignificantinformation,suchastheautopsyreports.3.52 .2ItisalsosubmittedthatthewarderswhokilledMr.Burrelleitherhadtheintenttokillhimoractednegligentlyorrecklesslyastowhetherhewouldbekilled;inthisconnection,itisarguedthattheshootingwasnotnecessaryintheparticularcircumstancesandnotproportionaltotherequirementsoflawenforcement.CounselclaimsthatnowarningsweregiventoMr.Burrellortothethreeotherinmateswhowereshot.3.62 .2ItisarguedthattheStatepartyfailedtotakeadequatemeasurestoprotectMr.Burrell'slifewhilehewasheldincustody.Inthiscontext,referenceismadetoaseriesofpreviouslyreportedabusesandkillingswithregardtowhichnoproperinvestigationswereconductedbytheStateparty,tothelackoftrainingreceivedbywardersinrestrainttechniquesandtheuseofdifferentlevelsofforce,andtothereadyaccesswardershavetoweapons.Counselalsoreferstointernationalnormswithregardtotheuseofforce.b3.72 .2CounselsubmitsthattheStatepartyisunderadutytomakeafullandthoroughinquiryintotheallegations,bringtojusticeanypersonfoundtoberesponsibleforMr.Burrell'sdeathandpaycompensationtoMr.Burrell'sfamily.3.82 .2Itisstatedthatthesamematterhasnotbeensubmittedtoanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.TheStateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandcounsel'scomments4.12 .2Bysubmissionof22July1994,theStatepartyprovidesacopyofareport,dated15May1994,fromSeniorInspectorB.R.NewmanaboutthecircumstancesofMr.Burrell'sdeath.ThereportstatesthatMr.BurrelloccupiedcellNo.10atGibraltar1inSt.CatherinePrison.GibraltarBlockisatwo-storybuildingdividedintofoursections,eachsectioncontainingabout26cellswithoutanyfunctioningsanitaryfacilities.Eachsectionissupervisedbyadifferentteamofwarders.Sanitaryfacilitiesarefoundintheyard.Inmatesareunlocked,fiveatatime,tousethosefacilitiesandtoexerciseandalsoformeals.4.22 .2Thereportstatesthaton31October1993,theservingoflunchwasatitsfinalstagebyabout12.30p.m.Someinmates,includingMr.Burrell,werestillinthepassageofGibraltar1andthefourwardersondutywereengagedinlockingthemintheircells.Unknowntothem,analtercationbetweentwoinmatesfromGibraltar2andthemembersofapatrolpartyhadoccurredintheyard.Thoseinmatessuddenlyrushedfromoutsideintothepassageandoverpoweredthewarders.Thereportstatesthatotherinmates,includingMr.Burrell,joinedtheminrelievingthewardersoftheirbatonsandkeysandinopeningsomeofthecells.Thewardersweredraggedintocells9and10,wheretheywereassaulted.Otherwardersquicklyappearedonthesceneandorderedtheinmatestoreleasetheirhostages.Theinmatesreportedlyrefused,whereuponshotswerefired.TheinjuredwardersandinmatesweretakentoSpanishTownHospital,whereMr.Burrellandthreeotherinmateswerepronounceddead.4.32 .2TheStatepartystatesthatthepost-mortemreportshowsthatMr.Burrelldiedasaresultofshotgunandbluntforceinjuries.Itisalsostatedthat,accordingtoeyewitnesses,theshootingcontinuedafterthewarderswererescued.4.42 .2TheStatepartysubmitsthatitisevidentthatthedeathofRicklyBurrellwasthesequeltoaltercationsbetweentwodeathrowprisonersfromGibraltar2andcertainwardersofthepatrolparty.TheStatepartystatesthatitappearsthatMr.Burrellwasnotawareofthatincident,whichseemstohaveignitedhostilereactionsintheinmates,whothenturnedagainstthefourwardersinGibraltar1.TheStatepartysubmitsthatthewarderswereinseriousdanger,sinceoneoftheprisonerstriedtocutawarder'sthroatandotherstriedtohangawarderbyatowel.TheStatepartysubmitsthattheotherwarders,apparentlyafterhavingorderedtheinmatestoreleasetheircolleagues,panickeduponrealizingthattheircolleagueswereindangeroflosingtheirlivesandopenedfire.TheStatepartysubmitsthattheuseofnecessaryforcemayhavebeenjustifiedundersection15(3)oftheCorrectionsAct(1985),whichreads:"Everycorrectionalofficermayuseforceagainstanyinmateusingviolencetoanyperson,ifsuchofficerhasreasonablegroundstobelievethatsuchapersonisindangeroflifeorlimb,orthatothergrievousbodilyhurtislikelytobecausedbyhim."Inthiscontext,theStatepartysubmitsthat,althoughnoneofthewarderswashospitalized,twoofthemwererenderedunfitforworkfortwomonthsasaresultoftheinjuriesreceived.Oneofthemissaidtohavealongscarathisthroat,whereaninmatecuthim.TheStatepartyconcludes:"LikeBurrell,noneofthesefourwarderswasinvolvedinthecommencementofthealtercation,butbecamevictims.ForBurrell,itwasfatal."5.12 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselpointsoutthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoindicatewhatroleMr.Burrellplayedintheincidentwhichledtohisdeath.Inthiscontext,counselnotesthatonlyoneofthethreewardersreferstoMr.Burrellinhisstatement,sayingthathewasamongtheinmateswhopushedhimintothecell.InInspectorNewman'sreportitisstatedthatMr.Burrelljoinedinwiththeotherswhoweretryingtooverpowerthewarders.NofurtherreferencetoMr.Burrell'sconductismade.Counselfurthernotesthattheinspector'sreportwasdrawnupmorethansixmonthsaftertheincidentandthattheonlydisclosedsourcesofinformationarestatementsbythreeofthefourwarderswhowerekeptinthecellbytheinmates,althoughitseemsthatothersourceswerealsoused.Inparticular,counselassertsthatnostatementhasbeensubmittedfromthefourthwarderinvolvedintheincidentandfromthestaffwarderwhowasinchargeon31October1993.Norhavestatementsbeentakenfromanyofthewarderswhocametotheircolleagues'rescue.5.22 .2AstothecauseofMr.Burrell'sdeath,counselnotesthat