WPC d ubt,Dw9IKfO @dQE&tzdWBQ"*oZ6ך?Bg^2ZC41Cj' Rۼylac[5w~4EH@pCAiup3wLAϝ#}˕lڣ@D +#hmKjdMEܕq7"c1s3q'Zю=@SQ :S e) %)*iGeʬ>e٧^I5;DIX"GӒwp"9y?sa?~ѲMU*TcyfFZǩc{d (bݴ׸<:.(Ҳ{%{:w.ZW9΁YR%n:eo'*/!c .m7^#0B0No 0~ 0x 0k 0ks 0 0~x 0 0 0 0Q 0 H 0R 01p 0C 0V 0:" 0 # 0# 0Q$ 0% 0% 0& 0d' 0( 0( 0E) 0) 0* 0+ 0s, 0n- 0!|.U80/ %// 0z2 0 3 3 0=4 0F?4 0P4 14 0h5 1A6 0F77 0<E= 0= 0L> 0? 0&? 0&? 0&? 0&@ 0&D@ 0&j@ 0&@ 0&@ 0&@ 0(A 0(*A 0RA BB D3C4C 0C 0CD A ME B'lE 0EU7.I 1oMII 0YK 0;LN 0PQ 0RS 0UV^W6Y 0ZPZ^\^ 0^Yab^}cd 0:eYgDiMi 0v)k 0 kmBno>YYn@U0o>Y@#!A! 0C!" 0[Q#c$ %))+K,.10J1/345u168`.99FH:Z<'?BBzC3dEFTHdJ4%KYL?MPMN#NP1PSO TU<XV VGX=Z"``AeadeBf"+iCMikb5ln?oToeCq"t<tw !z*|?|T|Ii|}sL~L *p ypH̏{ǑBؕ[ ݝӟihP«)״b UĻnݿK[8p@Vz*tG= a{B5c=_]49R)L Tl$4qL &  q < .aufI $ "D$ %&`'\*O+=,H,?A/1a2J5-6@6!9,93;'C<j= @#@BD EFIJL+(MSP1QQ.rUW0}Y^\ ^,&_RbYccpfhjopXr6_tvv6xz\|=}8} !81Y: G3R,؟ף~pF42{5÷ 1 1` n 0 1mw4V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[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 :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :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..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..^  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. p+ :Paragraph[1]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)23  0..p> :Paragraph[2]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..23  0..pQ :Paragraph[3]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..23  0..pd :Paragraph[4]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..0..23  0..pw :Paragraph[5]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..0..0..23  0..p :Paragraph[6]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..0..0..0..23  0..p :Paragraph[7]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..0..0..0..0..23  0..p :Paragraph[8]1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)0..0..0..0..0..0..0..23  0..) `CG Times!' 10021987e  0pt (F).A/54/40>Final 386 + 11 pages = 397  R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fp2Doc InitInitialize Document Style&S *    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S'()($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS ,  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?u2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper .  /L(USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   !3X!.r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^rXX?F0'*dE*??F0'*dE*?\\1\\2\\3\\4\\5\\6\\7\\8\\910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   PB0HeadingChapter Heading@..  2I.3  Ԁ   Ԉ tO 4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers.. 2I.3  Ԁ  0..L=6SubheadingSubheading 2A.3  ..    &$1&$2&$3&$4&$5&$6&$7&$8&$9(&10(&11j(.BorderPlaces border around the page X  X X  X GE8($Z L`".@@@G       QEFFFF:*&Z Lp!(- @@Q       K Kd@@@@'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   ($     BCDAA<< c dc0ukstyleFormat standard with headers and footers definitionUKUS.,  TRY3'3' 3' Letter3'TX  +88!.!H!. fX fXC I $#lC--J$882 X$<6X9`(Courier$57=EMS[ci121.(a)(i)a.(1)(a)i)a)  KL)USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   H!.88r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r@VV2  1  ڄ(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   (54landscapecodes for tables in landscape with headers/footers   TRP '33' '3 Letter Landscape3'T  +MQT(  NL*USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   !3X!.(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^rEOFFFFL<8z \ X p  @@EX8x(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.     PL"USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r/...(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.     RL'USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   !3X!.(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^rESFFFFQA=z|P.p p  @@EP.pP-Hx(2L$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.     PL"USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r T /(  !3X!(o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoEUFFFFQA=z|P.$# p  @@EP.  -8   PL"USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r4landsuppllandscape with bottom centered pagination  TRP '33' '3 Letter Landscape3'TXH(XW T R'  !3X!(Xo[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoEXFFFFQA=z|\ p  @@E\x@ P"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ(l0landtoplandscape with header including top center pagination  TRP '33' '3 Letter Landscape3'T  +Z\$ O K)  !3X!$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoE[FFFFL<8z \ X p  @@EX8x P"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... T R'  !3X!$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoE]FFFFQA=z| 0\ p  @@E 0\xXD/\@ P"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ@HHHh2landbondlandscape with bond header  TRP '33' '3 Letter Landscape3'T_a$ O K)  !3X!$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXoE`FFFFL<8z \ X p  @@EX8x P"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... C R'  !3X!$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo~EFFFFB2.Z|P. @@EP.P-HD~T4Heading 1Centred Heading@..a  j$0_ H_2/3Times New Roman 10pt (bold)     E!) `CG TimesE  #id       E!) `CG TimesE#id  3        <>N0021987E<><>A/54/40(Vol.II)(Suppl)<><><>dWPC  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 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (GfUNLOGO1.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 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (GiUNLOGO1.WPG K)  H 8  8 Rl@..$    ڄ($     n$  882 AdoptedattheCommittee'sfortyfifthsession(July1992);seeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FortyseventhSession,SupplementNo.40(A/47/40),paras.515and518.("2$ jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   +H!.88Ҁ  0   n$  882 CaseNo.55/1979(AlexanderMacIsaacv.Canada),Viewsadoptedon14October1982,paras.1012.  n$  882 Article1oftheNationalSecurityLawreads:"ThepurposeofthislawistocontrolantiStateactivitieswhichendangerthenationalsecurity,sothatthesafetyoftheStateaswellastheexistenceandfreedomofthecitizensmaybesecured."Article7,paragraph1,reads"AnypersonwhohaspraisedorhasencouragedorsidedwiththeactivitiesofanantiStateorganizationoritsmembersorapersonwhohasbeenunderinstructionformsuchanorganization,orwhohasbenefitedanantiStateorganizationbyothermeansshallbepunishedbypenalservitudeforatermnotexceedingsevenyears."Paragraph5ofarticle7reads:"Anypersonwhohas,forthepurposeofcommittingtheactionsasstipulatedintheaboveparagraphs,produced,imported,duplicated,keptincustody,transported,disseminated,soldoracquireddocuments,drawingsorothersimilarmeansofexpressionshallbepunishedbythesamepenaltyassetforthineachparagraph." n$  882 AmnestyInternationalreportofDecember1993andreportoftheGovernmentappointedTaskForceonCorrectionalServices(MinistryofPublicServices)ofMarch1989.  n$  882 SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNos.210/1986and225/1987(EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.Jamaica),adoptedon6April1989,paragraph12.6.Seealso,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.270/1988and271/1988(RandolphBarrettandClydeSutcliffv.Jamaica),adoptedon30March1992,andNo.470/1991(Kindlerv.Canada),adoptedon30July1993. v n$  882 ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica,Viewsadoptedon22March1996.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeCH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    PrattandMorganv.Jamaica,communicationsNos.210/1986and225/1987,Viewsadoptedon6April1989.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCInteralia,Pratt&Morganv.AttorneyGeneral(1993)AllER769,CatholicCommissionforJusticeandPeaceinZimbabwev.AttorneyGeneral,judgementNo.SC73/93,24June1993.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCGeneralCommentNo.20,adoptedattheCommittee'sfortyfourthsession,on7April1992. @ j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    AstonLittlev.Jamaica,Viewsadoptedon1November1991,para.8.3.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSeeCommunicationNo.377/1989(AnthonyCurriev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon29March1994. n$  882 CommunicationNo.515/1992,declaredinadmissibleon19July1995becauseofnonexhaustionofdomesticremedies. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ k j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallaZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberElizabethEvattisappendedtothepresentdocument. ~ n$  882 Viewsadoptedon9April1987,attheCommittee'stwentyninthsession. V n$  882 Viewsadoptedon31March1992. n$  882 SeealsotheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.180/1984(Danningv.theNetherlands),adoptedon9April1987. < j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. P n$  882 Referenceismadeinteraliatothefollowingpassage:"Deathisalwaysaverysadthing,butIthinkdeathbecomesworsewhenonediesincircumstancessuchasthese.Ithinknooneofyouthereinallhonestycansaythatyoudidnothavepriorknowledgeofthisincidentbecause,indeed,itwasahorribleincident,anincidentunprecedentedinJamaica,anincidentwhichnotonlygottoourlocalnewsmediabutthenewsmediaabroad,andanincidentinwhichIthinknooneinJamaicadidnotrecoilinhorrorthatourownJamaicanscoulddosuchadastardlyact.Timehaspassedandmaybesomeoftheangerthatyouhadthenhaspassedwithit.WhatIaskyoutodayisnottoconfuseornottomixsuchangerandsuchresentmentasyoufeltwiththetrialyouhavebeforeyou."  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.237/1987(DenroyGordonv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon5November1992,andcommunicationNo.232/1987(DanielPintov.TrinidadandTobago),Viewsadoptedon20July1990. n$  882 See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsinrespectofcommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ  n$  882 ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. ) n$  882 DuringthetrialtheinvestigatingofficercorporalBlanfordDavidstatedthaton5December1988hehadobtainedawarrantofarrestfortheaccusedAnthonyLeehongalsoknownasPeterorPowderPuff,inconnectionwiththemurderofC.Wiggan.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),adoptedon8April1991,and248/1987(GlenfordCampbellv.Jamaica),adoptedon30March1992.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    ReferenceismadetotheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.356/1989(TrevorCollinsv.Jamaica),adoptedon25March1993;353/1988(LloydGrantv.Jamaica),adoptedon31March1994;and250/1987(CarltonReidv.Jamaica),adoptedon20July1990. n$  882 SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996,paras.8.28.5. * n$  882 AmongthecodefendantswereHixfordMorrisonandByronYoung,whosecasesweredecidedbytheCommittee:communicationNo.611/1995(Viewsadoptedon31July1998)andcommunicationNo.615/1995(Viewsadoptedon4November1997),respectively. n$  882 PrivyCouncilAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993.XXXCH<6X9`(CourierC  n$  882 ZimbabweSupremeCourtjudgementNo.S.C.73/93,deliveredon24June1993. F n$  882 1989,IIEHRR439. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.    ' j!  H 8  8  88,   +  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden. j!  H 8  8  88,   Ӏ    PrivyCouncilAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993. E j!  H 8  8  88,   e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)ӀViewsadoptedon25March1993,attheCommittee'sfortyseventhsession,para.8.2XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ.%\  `$Times NewRoman  j!  H 8  8  88,   e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    ) X` @ hDx)ӀCH<6X9`(CourierC(1993)2ALLERXXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ. = j!  H 8  8  88,   Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZahkia. 3 j!  H 8  8  88,   Ӏ    TheNationalSecurityLawwasamendedon31May1991.Thelawappliedtotheauthor,however,wasthe1980law,article7ofwhichreads(translationprovidedbytheauthor):0,..,"(1) .. AnypersonwhohasbenefitedtheantiStateorganizationbywayofpraising,encouraging,orsidingwithorthroughothermeanstheactivitiesofanantiStateorganization,itsmemberorapersonwhohadbeenunderinstructionfromsuchorganisation,shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentfornotmorethan7years.0,..,...0,..,"(3) .. Anypersonwhohasformedorjoinedtheorganisationwhichaimsatcommittingtheactionsasstipulatedinparagraph1ofthisarticleshallbepunishedbyimprisonmentformorethanoneyear.0,..,...0,..,"(5) .. Anypersonwhohas,forthepurposeofcommittingtheactionsasstipulatedinparagraphs1through4ofthisarticle,produced,imported,duplicated,possessed,transported,disseminated,soldoracquireddocuments,drawingsoranyothersimilarmeansofexpressionshallbepunishedbythesamepenaltyassetforthineachparagraph." j!  H 8  8  88,   Ӏ    E/CN.4/1996/39/Add.1. K)  H 8  8  88,   @..$    ڄ 7 j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.ThetextoffourindividualopinionsbysevenCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument. n$  2(8 82  H2Fromthe26October1992issueoftheNationalCapitalNews,providedbytheauthor,itappearsthatthenewspaperwas"foundedin1982tobecomeadailynewspaper". n$  2(8 82  H2Hestatesthatinoneyearhepublishedanaverageofthreeissuesamonth.  j!  H 8  8 2(8 82  H2+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCA7a9  qIY1! #ATheauthorreferstothe1992AnnualMeetingofthePressGallery,duringwhichmembersstatedthattheyhadafundamentalrighttobeattheParliamentfacilitiesinordertohaveaccesstoinformationXXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ.      9 j!  H 8  8 2(8 82  H2+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCTheauthorreferstotheStateownedCBC,whichaccordingtohimhas105membersinthePressGalleryXXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ. n$  2(8 82  H2GeneralCommentNo.25,paragraph25,adoptedbytheCommitteeon12July1996. X j!  H 8  8 2(8 82  H2+  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. K)  H 8  8 ,"8 ,   H,@..$    ڄ     n$  882 GeneralCommentNo.8inrespectofarticle9;communicationNo.336/1988(AndresFillastrev.Bolivia),Viewsadoptedon5November1991;communicationNo.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991;communicationNo.277/1988(TernJij;nv.Ecuador),Viewsadoptedon26March1992.XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ [ j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),whereitwasheldthat:"ItisnotinprinciplefortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitcanbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality."XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ      2 j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    XXXCH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)ӀCH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.458/1991(A.W.Mukongv.Cameroon),Viewsadoptedon21July1994.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    ) X` @ hDx)XXXCH<6X9`(CourierCԀCH<6X9`(CourierCCH<6X9`(CourierCEarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica;PCAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993.XXXCH<6X9`(CourierC  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    ) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991;communicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994.          ? j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    Referenceismadetothe1988reportoftheSpecialRapporteurontorture. n$  882 SeecommunicationNo.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991. i j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996. B j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.356/1989,(TrevorCollinsv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon25March1993.XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)GeneralCommentNo.8;communicationNo.336/1988(AndresFillastrev.Bolivia),Viewsadoptedon5November1991;communicationNo.253/1987,(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991;communicationNo.277/1988,(TernJij;nv.Ecuador),Viewsadoptedon26March1992XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.458/1991(A.W.Mukongv.Cameroon),Viewsadoptedon21July1994. f j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica;PCAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993.XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)DPPv.NasrallaandRileyetalv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica. f j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica,Viewsadoptedon22March1996,paras.8.28.5XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx) UK CommunicationNo.252/1987,declaredinadmissibleon26July1988,attheCommittee'sthirtythirdsession. q j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx) UK ReferenceismadetotheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsintheSoeringcase(judgementof7July1989,SeriesA,Volume161),totheIndianSupremeCourt(RajendraPrasadv.StateofUttarPradesh,19793SCR329),totheZimbabweSupremeCourt(CatholicCommissionersforPeaceandJusticeinZimbabwev.AttorneyGeneral,14HRLJ(1993),p.231)andtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil(Pratt&Morganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica(1993)4AllER769). K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbytwoCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument. Q n$  882 TheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightsinformedtheSecretariaton31July1995thatitwasinpossessionofthetrialtranscript,butthatitwouldbeunabletorepresentMr.Lumleyregardinganyappealofsentence,becauseithastolimititselftorepresentcapitalprisonersonly. n$  882 See,forexample,theCommittee'sviewsoncommunicationsNos.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica)and283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),bothadoptedon1November1991.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden. n$  882 TonyJonesalsosubmittedhiscasetotheCommittee;itwasregisteredascommunicationNo.585/1994.TheCommitteeadopteditsViewsonthecommunicationon6April1998.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)Referenceismadetoadocumententitled"PrisonConditionsinJamaica",May1990,HumanRightsWatch(U.S.A.). n$  882 JudgementinPrattandMorganv.TheAttorneyGeneralofJamaicaetal.(1993)(PrivyCouncil)AppealNo.4of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993. _ j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)JudgementNo.S.C.73/93deliveredon24June1993inthecaseofCatholicCommissionforJusticeandPeaceinZimbabwev.TheAttorneyGeneralforZimbabweandtheSheriffforZimbabweandtheDirectorofPrisons(1993).  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)JudgementinthecaseofSoeringv.UnitedKingdom(1989)11EHRR439. n$  882 DPPv.NasrallaandRileyetal.v.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica. ^ j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991;communicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.203/1986(MuozHermozav.Peru),Viewsadoptedon4November1988,para.11.3.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,forexample,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),and283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),bothadoptedon1November1991. F j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.461/1991(GrahamandMorrisonv.Jamaica),adoptedon25March1996,para.10.5,and537/1993(PaulAnthonyKellyv.Jamaica),adoptedon17July1996,para.9.5.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsincaseNo.161/1983(HerreraRubiov.Colombia),adoptedon2November1987.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.RajsoomerLallahdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  n$  882 ReferenceismadetocommunicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991,para.8.3;communicationNo.232/1987(DanielPintov.TrinidadandTobago),Viewsadoptedon20July1990,para.12.5;andcommunicationNo.272/1988(Thomasv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1992. n$  882 ReferenceismadetocommunicationNo.253/1988(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1992.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.353/1988(LloydGrantv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1994;communicationNo.596/1994(DennieChaplinv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon2November1995;communicationNo.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991;communicationNo.338/1988(LeroySimmondsv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon23October1992;communicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991.CH<6X9`(CourierC K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ  n$  882 ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyenandMr.RomanWieruszewski. n$   8,  CommunicationsNos.464/1991and482/1991(GarfieldPeartandAndrewPeartv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon19July1995. K n$   8,  CommunicationNo.338/1988(LeroySimmondsv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon23October1992;communicationNo.353/1988(LloydGrantv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1994;communicationNo.596/1994(DennieChaplinv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon2November1995.  j!  H 8  8  8,  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.250/1987(CarltonReidv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon20July1990;communicationNo.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991;communicationNo.353/1988(LloydGrantv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1994;communicationNo.356/1989(TrevorCollinsv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon25March1993. d j!  H 8  8  8,  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.282/1988(LeafordSmithv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1993;communicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991;communicationNo.355/1989(GeorgeW.Reidv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8July1994.  j!  H 8  8  8,  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,interalia,theCommitteesViewsoncommunicationsNos.537/1993(PaulAnthonyKellyv.Jamaica),adoptedon17July1996,para.9.5;734/1997(AnthonyMcLeodv.Jamaica),adoptedon31March1998,para.6.3;750/1997(SilbertDaleyv.Jamaica),adoptedon31July1998,para7.5. Q n$   8,  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.AnindividualopinionbyCommitteememberHip;litoSolariYrigoyenisappendedtothepresentdocument.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCbXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?Ab(1967)2llER161.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCbXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?Ab(1982)2AllER469.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    bXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AbCH<6X9`(CourierCThematterwasnotraisedduringthetrial.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCbXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AbNocopyoftheauthor'sletterisprovided.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    bXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AbCH<6X9`(CourierC[1977]QB244. f j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    bXXm` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AbCH<6X9`(CourierCNoinformationisprovidedwhethertheauthoreveraskedforacopyofthetrialtranscriptandthesummingup,andtheauthor'scounselappearstohavepossessedacopy.  j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCFromthefileitappearthatinthenoticetoprisonerofasinglejudgesdecision,theauthorwassentencedto15yearsbeforebecomingeligibleforparole. 6 j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCFromthefiletheCourtofAppealexaminedthecaseandcounselforthedefenceMr.Chucksaidthat:"havinggonethroughtherecordascarefullyaspossible,hecouldfindnoarguablegroundonbehalfoftheapplicant". n$  #882 Ht#CommunicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991. p j!  H 8  8 #882 Ht#+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSeefootnote81.̀  n$  #882 Ht#See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsincasesNos.734/1997(AnthonyMcLeodv.Jamaica),adoptedon31March1998,para.6.3;and537/1993(PaulAnthonyKellyv.Jamaica),adoptedon17July1996,para.9.5. K)  H 8  8 #882 Ht#@..$    ڄ = n$  882 FromaStatementmadebytheOfficeoftheStateAttorneyGeneralinFlorence,ittranspiresthatunderItalianlaw,Mr.AliMalekicould,oncehesurrenderedtotheItalianauthorities,availhimselfofthepossibilityofappealingbothsentenceandconviction. | n$  882 Committee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.16/79(Mbengev.Zaire). v j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCTheauthoralsosubmittedCommunicationNo.303/1988on25May1988,whichwasdeemedinadmissiblefornonexhaustionofdomesticremediesunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.CH<6X9`(CourierC  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCItappearsfromthetrialtranscriptsthattheallegedstatementsbytheauthorsexgirlfriendandhersisterwerenevermentionedincourtandwerereliedononlytoarresttheauthor.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991;communicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.230/1987(RaphaelHenryv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991,para.8.4. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ ~ j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberChristineChanetisappendedtothepresentdocument. + n$   882  Noclaimhasbeenmadeeitherunderarticle9,paragraphs2and3,orarticle14,paragraph3(c),withregardtotheallegeddelays.Norhasanyclaimbeenmadeunderarticle14withregardtothedecisionstipulatingthenon-paroleperiod. 3 j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. U n$   882  CommunicationNo.415/1990. S n$   882  ApplicationNo.24872/94.  j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. n$   882  CommunicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994. / j!  H 8  8  882  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationsNos.464/1991and482/1991(GarfieldPeartandAndrewPeartv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon19July1995.XXXCH<6X9`(CourierC  j!  H 8  8  882  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeCH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCJudgementPCAppealNo.10of1993,deliveredon2November1993.  j!  H 8  8  882  +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeCH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    CH<6X9`(CourierC(1995)4ALLER.&&&CH<6X9`(CourierC n$   882  See,interalia,theCommitteesViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996. n$   882  See,interalia,theCommitteesViewsoncommunicationNo.705/1996(DesmondTaylorv.Jamaica),adoptedon2April1998. n$   882  SeetheCommitteesViewsoncommunicationNo.459/1991(OsbourneWrightandEricHarveyv.Jamaica),adoptedon27October1995. n$   882  See,interalia,theCommitteesViewsoncommunicationNo.223/1987(FrankRobinsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon30March1989. K)  H 8  8  882  @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberNisukeAndoisappendedtothepresentdocument. n$   882  CommunicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994. n$   882  CommunicationsNos.464/1991and482/1991(GarfieldPeartandAndrewPeartv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon19July1995. { n$   882  JudgementPCAppealNo.10of1993,deliveredon2November1993. J n$   882  (1995)4ALLER. n$   882  ReferenceismadetoLeroyLameyv.TheQueen[1996]1WLR902andSimpsonv.TheQueen[1996]2WLR77. y n$   882  ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica,Viewsadoptedon22March1996. n$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996. * n$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.705/1996(DesmondTaylorv.Jamaica),adoptedon2April1998.XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ B j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.  j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden. n$   882  CommunicationNo.282/1988(LeafordSmithv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon31March1993;communicationNo.283/1988(AstonLittlev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon1November1991. { n$   882  SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationsNos.253/1987(PaulKellyv.Jamaica),adoptedon8April1991;356/1989(TrevorCollinsv.Jamaica),adoptedon25March1993;353/1988(LloydGrantv.Jamaica),adoptedon31March1994;and250/1987(CarltonReidv.Jamaica),adoptedon20July1990.  n$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996.CH<6X9`(CourierC n$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.705/1996(DesmondTaylorv.Jamaica),adoptedon2April1998. n$   882  SeetheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.459/1991(OsbourneWrightandEricHarveyv.Jamaica),adoptedon27October1995. n$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.223/1987(FrankRobinsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon30March1989. K)  H 8  8  882  @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. n$  882 Theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedfollowingthejudgementoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinPrattandMorganv.Jamaicaof3November1993. | n$  882 CommunicationNo.302/1988,declaredinadmissibleon31October1990.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCApparentlyaftertheCommittee'sdecisionof31October1990withregardtohisearliercommunicationNo.302/1988.    W n$  882 Seebelow,paras.4.10and4.11.        j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeXXXCH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsinrespectofcommunicationsNos.377/1989(AnthonyCurriev.Jamaica),adoptedon29March1994,and705/1996(DesmondTaylorv.Jamaica),adoptedon2April1998.XXXCH<6X9`(CourierC     j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbytwoCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument. n$  882 TheauthorhadonepriorcriminalconvictionforthreateningtodamagepropertyofTelevisionNewZealandandwassentencedinOctober1982tooneyearprobation.  n$  882 Thejudgeconsidered:2..2"Ihaveseriousreservationsaboutwhathe[A]maydoifheisdischarged,andjustasseriousreservationswhatmayhappentohimifhestaysintheMaximumSecurityVilla.Ithinkthereisabuildupofpressureinhismind,thatneedstobetreatedanddissipated.Atthepresenttime,itwouldtakesomepersuasionformetobesatisfiedthatMr.[A]ismentallydisordered.Ontheotherhand,ifhispresentsituationcontinuesfortoolong,hemightwellregress.2..2"Pursuanttosection73(a)Ihavetobesatisfiedthatthepatientisfittobedischarged.Subsection(13)reads"Forthepurposesofthissection,apatientisfittobedischargedwhenhisdetentionasamentallydisorderedpersonisnolongernecessaryeitherforhisowngoodorinthepublicinterest."2..2"Itseemstherefore,thatmydutyisnottodeterminewhetherMr.[A]isstillcertifiable,butwhetherhisdetentioninahospitalisstillnecessaryeitherforhisowngoodorinthepublicinterest.2..2"Myviewisthatonbothcountsthedetentionisstillnecessary."  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeCH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    TheStatepartyreferstothedecisionbytheNewZealandCourtofAppeal(1995)whichdescribedtheauthor'sallegationsofconspiracyas"vexatiousandanabuseoftheCourt'sprocess".  j!  H 8  8  882X Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. n$   882X Fromthedocumentsinthefileitappearsthattheauthormadeasubmission,forcompensation,totheHighCourton18November1985.  j!  H 8  8  882X +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommunicationNo.390/1990(Lubutov.Zambia),Viewsadoptedon31October1995. K)  H 8  8  882X @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberHip;litoSolariYrigoyenisappendedtothepresentdocument. n$  8.8,   8See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsinrespectofcommunicationNo.730/1996(ClarenceMarshallv.Jamaica),adoptedon3November1998. n$  8.8,   8See,interalia,theCommittee'sdecisiononcommunicationNo.536/1993(Pererav.Australia),declaredinadmissibleon28March1995. n$  8.8,   8SeecommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon22March1996. > j!  H 8  8 8.8,   8Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. 5 n$  8.8,   8ThedateisthedateofthejudgementbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesintheBarbercase(C262/88).InthesocalledBarberProtocol(ProtocolNo.2onArticle119oftheEECTreaty)thememberStatesoftheEuropeanUnionagreedthat"benefitsunderoccupationalsocialsecurityschemesshallnotbeconsideredasremunerationifandinsofarastheyareattributabletoperiodsofemploymentpriorto17May1990",exceptincasesinitiatedbeforethatdate. n$  8.8,   8See,interalia,theCommittee'sdecisiondated30March1989incaseNo.273/1988(B.d.Bv.theNetherlands),para.6.3.  j!  H 8  8 8.8,   8Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberHip;litoSolariYrigoyenisappendedtothepresentdocument n$  8.8,   8AletterfromseveralinmatesattheGeneralPenitentiaryhasbeenreceived,requestingthattheCommitteeactonbehalfoftheauthor. K)  H 8  8 8.8,   8@..$    ڄ 6 j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. n$  882 CommunicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994. " n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)CommunicationNo.232/1987(DanielPintov.TrinidadandTobago),Viewsadoptedon20July1990. ) n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierC) X` @ hDx)EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica,judgementof2November1993,AllE.R.1993.  n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierCSee,interalia,theCommitteesViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994,(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsommerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Underrule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.ElizabethEvattdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. n$  882 MartinJ.,Limbov.Little65NTR19at45,quotingfromFrankLawrence,"TheNurembergDefence",40HastingsL.J.(1989),nopagecited.  n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierCԀSeetheCommittee'sdecisionincaseNo.429/1990(E.Wobbesetal.v.theNetherlands),declaredinadmissibleon8April1993.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteemembersE.KleinandC.MedinaQuirogaisappendedtothepresentdocument. n$  882 TheCzechandSlovakFederalRepublicceasedtoexiston31December1992.On22February1993,theCzechRepublicnotifieditssuccessiontotheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocol.  n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierCSeetheCommittee'sdecisiondeclaringinadmissiblecommunicationNo.643/1995(Drobekv.Slovakia),adoptedon14July1997.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteemembersE.KleinandC.MedinaQuirogaisappendedtothepresentdocumentCH<6X9`(CourierC. n$  882 TheCzechandSlovakFederalRepublicceasedtoexiston31December1992.On22February1993,theCzechRepublicnotifieditssuccessiontotheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocol.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSeetheCommittee'sdecisiondeclaringinadmissiblecommunicationNo.643/1995(Drobekv.Slovakia),adoptedon14July1997. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ ! j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.CH<6X9`(CourierC n$  8.882  8EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica;PCAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993. n$  8.882  8SeecommunicationNo.558/1994(ErrollJohnsonv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon22March1996. z j!  H 8  8 8.882  8Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.AfbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.  CH<6X9`(CourierC US  $ j!  H 8  8 8.882  8Ӏ    TheSupremeCourtdecided(1)thattheDutchlegalsystem,accordingtowhichthetaxinspectorcanimposepenalties,isnotincompatiblewitharticle6oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsand(2)thatitisbeyondthecompetenceofthejudiciarytocreateasolutionforapossibleviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.  j!  H 8  8 8.882  8+e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.50/1979(VanDuzenv.Canada),adoptedon7April1982. & j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuirogadidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.ThetextsofindividualopinionsbytwoCommitteemembersareappendedtothepresentdocument. T j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    CounselexplainsthatthisCourtismadeupoffivejudges;threeareofficers,oneeachfromthearmy,theairforceandtheCarabineros,theothertwoareciviljudgesfromtheSantiagoCourtofAppeal.  j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    Inthisrespect,referenceismadetotheInterAmericanCommission'sdecisionintheVelasquezRodriguezcase. " j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuirogadidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.ThetextofanindividualopinionbytwoCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument. j!  H 8  8  882  Ӏ    Inthisrespect,referenceismadetotheInterAmericanCommission'sdecisionintheVelasquezRodriguezcase. K)  H 8  8  882  @..$    ڄ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberNisukeAndoisappendedtothepresentdocument. f j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    CH<6X9`(CourierCSeealsotheCommitteesdecisiononcommunicationNo.544/1993(K.J.L.v.Finland),declaredinadmissibleon3November1993.  j!  H 8  8 882 +  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.MartinScheinin,CH<6X9`(CourierCMr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.ElizabethEvattdidnotparticipateintheconsiderationofthecase.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    UponconstructionoftheAct:882X 2..20X..XTheprinciplethatallowedtheSecretarytotakethesenegativeloadings02..20X..Xintoaccountwasnotpromulgatedforanimproperpurpose.P13theJudgecitedlaw(NeviskiaPtyLtdvMinisterforCommunityServices(1987)17FCR407)thatitis"opentotheMinistertoformulateprincipleswhichrequirethetakingintoaccountofnegativeloadingscalculatedinaccordancewithprevioussavings,andapplyingthosenegativeloadingstoanewproprietorwhichbearsthenecessarydegreeofrelationshiptoanearlierproprietor...Here,thenecessarydegreeofrelationshipisreadilytobefoundinthedirectcontractualconnectionbetweentheapplicantandtheformerproprietor."2..20X..XTheMinisterwasnotactingultraviresinformulatingprincipleswhichpermittedsuchamethodofrecovery[copypp.1314].TheActallowedthis.XXXQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    SeecommunicationNo.360/1989(T.N.T.Ltdv.TrinidadandTobago)andcommunicationNo.361/1989(BlastCo.v.TrinidadandTobago).  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    SeetheCommittee'sdecisiononcommunicationNo.502/1992(SharifMohamedv.Barbados),declaredinadmissibleon31March1994. N j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden. , j!  H 8  8 882 +  Ӏ    Howeverhealsoclaimsthatthejudicialauthorities(whomhecallsthe"JudicialMafias")are"playingaround"withfirstinstancejudgementsandthattheSuperiorCourthasnotdecidedinhiscase.Itwouldappearthereforethattheauthorhasbeenconvicted,buthasnotbeenabletoappealhisconviction.CH<6X9`(CourierCԀ  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    TheInterAmericansecretariathasinformedtheHumanRightsCommitteessecretariatthatthecaseisinfactpendingbeforethem,andthattheauthorhasbeenreleased.Q%\  `$Times NewRomanQ l j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuirogadidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    Secretariatnote:ItwouldappearthattheauthorsintentionwiththeRecursodeAmparowastocriminallyprosecutethoseresponsibleforthearbitraryarrestofhissonsQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ. j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    Thereisnoindicationinthefilethatsuchanauthorizationhaseverbeenreceived. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ . j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀTheCH<6X9`(CourierC US  ES ԀfollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  n$  882 Theseprovisionsreadasfollows:02..20.."7. .. Itisadiscriminatorypractice,directlyorindirectly,02..20..(a)torefusetoemployorcontinuetoemployanyindividual,or02..20..(b)inthecourseofemployment,todifferentiateadverselyinrelationtoanemployee,02..20..onaprohibitedgroundofdiscrimination02..20.."10.Itisadiscriminatorypracticeforanemployeroranemployeeorganization02..20..(a)toestablishorpursueapolicyorpractice,orCH<6X9`(CourierC02..20..(b)toenterintoanagreementaffectingrecruitment,referral,hiring,promotion,training,apprenticeship,transferoranyothermatterrelatingtoemploymentorprospectiveemployment,thatdeprivesortendstodepriveanindividualorclassofindividualsofanyemploymentopportunitiesonaprohibitedgroundofdiscrimination." x n$  882 Withregardtotheauthorsnoticeofmotionforanextensionoftimetofileforjudicialreviewof6June1986,theStatepartyexplainsthatajudgeoftheFederalCourtofAppealwasempoweredtoentertainsuchmotionsandgrantanextensionoftime.AnextensionwouldbegrantedwheretherewasmaterialtosatisfytheCourtthattherewassomejustificationfornothavingbroughttheapplicationwithinthe10daysperiod,andtherewasanarguablecaseforsettingasidetheorderinquestion.Intheauthorscase,theFederalCourtofAppealdismissedthemotion"onthegroundthatthematerialonfile[did]notdiscloseanyreasonablegroundforchallengingthevalidityofthedecisionthattheapplicantwishestoattack."CH<6X9`(CourierC  n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierCTheStatepartygivesseveralexamples:theadoptionoftheConventionontheRightsoftheChildin1989asthefirstinternationalconventionexpresslytoincludedisabilityasaprohibitedgroundofdiscrimination;Section15oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomsofApril1985;theSupremeCourtofCanadasjudgmentinEatonv.BrantCountyBoardofEducationof1997;BillS5,anActtoamendtheCanadaEvidenceAct,theCriminalCode,theCanadianHumanRightsActandotherActsinrespectofpersonswithdisabilitiesQ%\  `$Times NewRomanQ. ' n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierCAsanexample,theStatepartymentionsthatthemajorityoftheCommitteemembersinageneraldebatein1983concludedthattheCommitteemightonanexceptionalbasisreconsideritsviewsonthemerits,althoughtherewerenoexpressprovisionstothiseffectintheOptionalProtocol.(OfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,ThirtyeighthSession,SupplementNo.40(A/38/40),paras.391396.) y j!  H 8  8 882 +CH<6X9`(CourierCԀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCFederalCourtAct,R.S.C.1970,section28(1)(c). 0 j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedureMr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCA.P.L.v.d.M.v.theNetherlands,declaredinadmissibleon26July1993.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCJ.H.W.v.theNetherlands,declaredinadmissibleon16July1993.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCI.M.v.Norway,declaredinadmissibleon6April1983.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuirogadidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCChileenteredadeclaration,recognizingthecompetenceoftheHumanRightsCommitteetoreceiveandconsidercommunicationsfromindividuals,ontheunderstandingoftheGovernmentofChilethatthiscompetenceappliesinrespectofactsoccurringaftertheentryintoforceforthatStateoftheOptionalProtocol,orinanyeventtoactswhichbeganafter11March1990. " j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCCounselexplainsthatthisCourtismadeupoffivejudges;threeareofficers,oneeachfromthearmy,theairforceandtheCarabineros,theothertwoareciviljudgesfromtheISantiagoCourtofAppeal.  j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCInthisrespect,referenceismadetotheInterAmericanCommission'sdecisionintheVelazquezRodriguezcase. K)  H 8  8 882 @..$    ڄ t j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.ElizabethEvattdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. < j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,CH<6X9`(CourierCԀMr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.CH<6X9`(CourierC  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbytwoCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument.  n$  882 CH<6X9`(CourierC UK Effective26August1998,TrinidadandTobagoreaccededtotheOptionalProtocol,withareservationtotheeffectthat"theHumanRightsCommitteeshallnotbecompetenttoreceiveandconsideranycommunicationsrelatingtoanyprisonerwhoisundersentenceofdeathinrespectofanymatterrelatingtohisprosecution,hisdetention,histrial,hisconviction,hissentenceorthecarryingoutofthedeathsentenceonhimandanymatterconnectedherewith".SeeOfficialRecordsoftheGeneralAssembly,FiftythirdSession,SupplementNo.40(A/53/40),vol.I,chap.I,note2. ( j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia. n$  882 Thefirmwasoriginallyafamilybusiness.Thethreeshareholdersarerelatedtoeachother. q j!  H 8  8 882 +e[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AeӀ    CH<6X9`(CourierCNocopyofdecisionprovided.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.  j!  H 8  8 882 Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:CH<6X9`(CourierCMr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.MartinScheinindidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. CyParagraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)  5u{13Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|c) `CG Timesc PE37P<6X9`(Courierd6X@`7@) `CG Times PE37P* `CG Timesxx PE37xP* `CG Times PE37P) `CG TimesO PE37P<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@%\  `$Times NewRomanXXj\  P6G;XP<6X9`(Courieroman&n6X@`7&@%\  `$Times NewRomanX\  P6G;P(Ф$USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.  # e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a))h)dd jФ!USUS.,'F` X'!.!!.!.   e  $$$$Z%A/54/40EgTD@z 8 X ` @@ELOOLO߈      !*_ !.UnitedNations      #aPdd!x x !*_hx x x!xReportofthe  HumanRightsCommitteeh*_  xhx!*_  h*_VolumeII ;/ #dPaPGeneralAssembly   !  !*_h  !OfficialRecordsh. h!.h.! !.h  !ԀFiftyfourthSession   SupplementNo.40(A/54/40)    E!) `CG TimesE    M A/54/40    E!) `CG TimesEReportoftheHumanRightsCommitteeVolumeII#dPEh* `CG TimesEGeneralAssembly  OfficialRecordsE!) `CG TimesEEh* `CG TimesEԀFiftyfourthSessionSupplementNo.40(A/54/40) * bEjQA=z (  ` @@b - UnitedNationsE!) `CG TimesEEh* `CG TimesEԀNewYork,2000  E!) `CG TimesERl 4  4    @.. NOTESymbolsofUnitedNationsdocumentsarecomposedofcapitalletterscombinedwithfigures.MentionofsuchasymbolindicatesareferencetoaUnitedNationsdocument. #/ @..ISSN02552353#dd G UK     \R3'\ X      + 8  8 CH<6X9`(CourierCS I $ 1.(a)(i) a.(1)(a) i) a)Sk882         @..\ANNEXXI@..:VIEWSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEEUNDERARTICLE5,PARAGRAPH4,@..:OFTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLTOTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVIL@..ANDPOLITICALRIGHTS̀A.CommunicationNo.574/1994,Kimv.RepublicofKoreà(Viewsadoptedon3November1998,sixtyfourthsession)*882   Submittedby:0 .. 0 .. KeunTaeKim(representedbyMr.YongWhanCho,DuksuLawOffices,inSeoul)..Allegedvictim: .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  .. RepublicofKoreaDateofcommunication: .. 27September1993Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  .. 14March19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon3November1998,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.574/1994submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.Keun-TaeKim,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.Keun-TaeKim,aKoreancitizenresidinginDobong-Ku,Seoul,RepublicofKorea.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbytheRepublicofKoreaofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.____________________  2..2*ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallaZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberNisukeAndoisappendedtothepresentdocument.&    Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.1TheauthorisafoundingmemberoftheNationalCoalitionforDemocratic'  Movement(Chunminryum;hereinafterNCDM).HewastheChiefofthePolicyPlanningCommitteeandChairmanoftheExecutiveCommitteeofthatorganization.TogetherwithotherNCDMmembers,heprepareddocumentswhichcriticizedtheGovernmentoftheRepublicofKoreaanditsforeignallies,andappealedfornationalreunification.AttheinauguralmeetingoftheNCDMon21January1989,thesedocumentsweredistributedandreadouttoapproximately4,000participants;theauthorwasarrestedattheconclusionofthemeeting.2.2On24August1990,asinglejudgeontheCriminalDistrictCourtofSeoulfoundtheauthorguiltyofoffencesagainstarticle7,paragraphs1and5,oftheNationalSecurityLaw,theLawonAssemblyandDemonstrationsandtheLawonRepressionofViolentActivities,andsentencedhimtothreeyears'imprisonmentandoneyearofsuspensionofeligibility.TheAppealSectionofthesametribunaldismissedMr.Kim'sappealon11January1991,butreducedthesentencetotwoyears'imprisonment.On26April1991,theSupremeCourtdismissedafurtherappeal.ItissubmittedthatastheConstitutionalCourthadheld,on2April1990,thatarticle7,paragraphs1and5,oftheNationalSecurityLaw,arenotinconsistentwiththeConstitution,theauthorhasexhaustedallavailabledomesticremedies.2.3Thepresentcomplaintonlyrelatestotheauthor'sconvictionunderarticle7,paragraphs1and5,oftheNationalSecurityLaw.Paragraph1providesthat"anypersonwhoassistsananti-Stateorganizationbypraisingorencouragingtheactivitiesofthisorganization,shallbepunished".Paragraph5stipulatesthat"anypersonwhoproducesordistributesdocuments,drawingsoranyothermaterial(s)tothebenefitofananti-Stateorganization,shallbepunished".On2April1990,theConstitutionalCourtheldthattheseprovisionsarecompatiblewiththeConstitutionastheyareapplied[only]whenthesecurityoftheStateisendangered,orwhentheincriminatedactivitiesunderminethebasicdemocraticorder.2.4TheauthorhasprovidedEnglishtranslationsoftherelevantpartsoftheCourts'judgements,whichshowthatthefirstinstancetrialcourtfoundthatNorthKoreaisanantiStateorganization,withtheobjectofviolentlychangingthesituationinSouthKorea.AccordingtotheCourt,theauthor,despiteknowledgeoftheseaims,producedwrittenmaterialwhichreflectedtheviewsofNorthKoreaandtheCourtconcludedthereforethattheauthorproducedanddistributedthewrittenmaterialwiththeobjectofsidingwithandbenefitingtheantiStateorganization.2.5Theauthorappealedthejudgementof24August1990onthefollowinggrounds:02..20..althoughthedocumentsproducedanddistributedbyhimcontainideasresemblingthosewhichtheregimeofNorthKoreaadvocates,thejudgemisinterpretedthefacts,astheoverallmessageinthedocumentswas"theaccomplishmentofreunificationthroughindependenceanddemocratization".ItthuscannotbesaidthattheauthoreitherpraisedorencouragedtheactivitiesofNorthKorea,orthatthecontentsofthedocumentswereofdirectbenefittotheNorthKoreanregime;2..20..theprohibitedactsandtheconceptsspelledoutinparagraphs1and5ofarticle7oftheNationalSecurityLawaredefinedinsuchbroadandambiguoustermsthattheseprovisionsviolatedtheprincipleoflegality,thatis,article21,paragraph1,oftheConstitution,whichprovidesthatfreedomsandrightsofcitizensmayberestrictedbylawonlywhenabsolutelynecessaryfornationalsecurity,maintenanceoflawandorder,publicwelfare,andthatsuchrestrictionsmaynotviolateessentialaspectsoffundamentalrights;and02..2-0..inlightofthefindingsoftheConstitutionalCourt,theapplicationoftheseprovisionsshouldbesuspendedforactivitieswhichcarrynoobviousdangerfornationalsecurityorthesurvivalofdemocraticorder.SincetheincriminatedmaterialwasnotproducedanddistributedwiththepurposeofpraisingNorthKorea,andfurtherdoesnotcontainanyinformationwhichwouldobviouslyendangereithersurvivalorsecurityoftheRepublicofKorea,oritsdemocraticorder,theauthorshouldnotbepunished.2.6Theappellatecourtupheldtheconvictiononthebasisthattheevidenceshowedthattheauthor'swrittenmaterials,whichhereadoutatalargeconvention,arguedthattheRepublicofKoreawasunderinfluenceofforeignpowers,definedtheGovernmentasamilitarydictatorshipandcontainedotherviewswhichcorrespondedtoNorthKoreanpropaganda.AccordingtotheCourtthematerialsthereforeadvocatedthepolicyofNorthKorea,andthefirstinstancecourthadthussufficientgroundstoacknowledgethattheauthorwassidingwithandbenefitinganantiStateorganization.2.7On26April1991,theSupremeCourtheldthattherelevantprovisionsoftheNationalSecurityLawdidnotviolatetheConstitutionsolongastheywereappliedtoacasewhereanactivityputsnationalsurvivalandsecurityatstakeorendangersbasicliberaldemocraticorder.Thusunderarticle7(1)"activitywhichsideswith...andbenefits"anantiStateorganizationmeansthatifsuchactivitycouldbebeneficialtothatorganizationobjectively,theprohibitionapplies.Theprohibitionisapplicable,ifapersonwithnormalmentality,intelligenceandcommonsenseacknowledgesthattheactivityinquestioncouldbebeneficialtotheantistateorganization,orifthereiswilfulrecognitionthatitcouldbebeneficial.AccordingtotheSupremeCourt,thisimpliesthatitisnotnecessaryforthepersonconcernedtohaveintentionalacknowledgementormotivationtobe"beneficial".Thecourtwentontoholdthattheauthorandhiscolleagueshadproducedmaterialwhichcanberecognised,asawholeandobjectively,tosidewithNorthKoreanpropagandaandthattheauthor,whohasnormalintelligenceandcommonsense,readitoutandsupportedit,therebyobjectivelyacknowledgingthathisactivitiescouldbebeneficialtoNorthKorea.2.8On10May1991,theNationalAssemblypassedanumberofamendmentstotheNationalSecurityLaw;paragraphs1and5ofarticle7wereamendedbytheadditionofthewords"withtheknowledgethatitwillendangernationalsecurityorsurvival,orthefreeanddemocraticorder"tothepreviousprovisions.Thecomplaint3.1Counselcontendsthatalthougharticle21,paragraph1,oftheKoreanConstitutionprovidesthat"allcitizensshallenjoyfreedomofspeech,press,assemblyandassociation",article7oftheNationalSecurityLawhasoftenbeenappliedtorestrictfreedomofthought,conscienceorexpressionthroughspeechorpublication,byacts,association,etc.Underthisprovision,anyonewhosupportsorthinksinpositivetermsaboutsocialism,communismorthepoliticalsystemofNorthKoreaisliabletopunishment.Itisfurtherarguedthattherehavebeennumerouscasesinwhichthisprovisionwasappliedtopunishthosewhocriticizedgovernmentpolicies,becausetheircriticismhappenedtobesimilartothatprofferedbytheNorthKoreanregimeagainstSouthKorea.Incounsel'sview,theauthor'scaseisamodelofsuchabusiveapplicationoftheNationalSecurityLaw,inviolationofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.3.2Itisfurtherarguedthatthecourts'reasoningclearlyshowshowtheNationalSecurityLawismanipulatedtorestrictfreedomofexpression,onthebasisofthefollowingconsiderationscontrarytoarticle19oftheCovenant.First,thecourtsfoundthattheauthorheldopinionswhichwerecriticalofthepoliciesoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofKorea;secondly,NorthKoreahascriticizedtheGovernmentofSouthKoreainthatitdistortsSouthKoreanreality;thirdly,NorthKoreaischaracterizedasananti-Stateorganization,whichhasbeenformedforthepurposeofupstagingthegovernmentofSouthKorea(article2oftheNationalSecurityLaw);fourthly,theauthorwroteandpublishedmaterialcontainingcriticismsimilartothatvoicedbyNorthKoreavis--visSouthKorea;fifthly,theauthormusthaveknownaboutthatcriticism;and,finally,theauthor'sactivitiesmusthavebeenundertakenforthebenefitofNorthKoreaandthereforeamounttopraiseandencouragementofthatcountry'sregime.3.3CounselreferstotheCommentsoftheHumanRightsCommitteewhichwereadoptedafterconsiderationoftheinitialreportoftheRepublicofKoreaunderarticle40oftheCovenant. m   ׀Here,theCommitteeobservedthat:02..2.."[Its]mainconcernrelatestothecontinuedoperationoftheNationalSecurityLaw.AlthoughtheparticularsituationinwhichtheRepublicofKoreafindsitselfhasimplicationsonpublicorderinthecountry,itsinfluenceoughtnottobeoverestimated.TheCommitteebelievesthatordinarylawsandspecificallyapplicablecriminallawsshouldbesufficienttodealwithoffencesagainstnationalsecurity.Furthermore,someissuesaddressedbytheNationalSecurityLawaredefinedinsomewhatvagueterms,allowingforbroadinterpretationthatmayresultinsanctioningactsthatmaynottrulybedangerousforStatesecurity[...][T]heCommitteerecommendsthattheStatepartyintensifyitseffortstobringitslegislationmoreintolinewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.Tothatend,aseriousattemptoughttobemadetophaseouttheNationalSecurityLawwhichtheCommitteeperceivesasamajorobstacletothefullrealizationoftherightsenshrinedintheCovenantand,inthemeantime,nottoderogatefromcertainbasicrights[...]."3.4Finally,itiscontendedthatalthoughtheeventsforwhichtheauthorwasconvictedandsentencedoccurredbeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantfortheRepublicofKoreaon10July1990,thecourtsdeliveredtheirdecisionsinthecaseafterthatdateandthereforeshouldhaveappliedarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenantinthecase.Stateparty'sinformationandobservationsonadmissibilityandauthor'scommentsthereon4.1Initssubmissionunderrule91oftherulesofprocedure,theStatepartyarguesthatasthecommunicationisbasedoneventswhichoccurredpriortotheentryintoforceoftheCovenantfortheRepublicofKorea,thecomplaintisinadmissiblerationetemporisinasmuchasitisbasedontheseevents.4.2TheStatepartyacknowledgesthattheauthorwasfoundguiltyonchargesofviolatingtheNationalSecurityLawfromJanuary1989toMay1990.Itadds,however,thatthecomplaintfailstomentionthatMr.KimwasalsoconvictedfororganizingillegaldemonstrationsandinstigatingactsofviolenceonseveraloccasionsduringtheperiodfromJanuary1989toMay1990.Duringthesedemonstrations,accordingtotheStateparty,participants"threwthousandsofMolotovcocktailsandrocksatpolicestations,andothergovernmentoffices.Theyalsoset13vehiclesonfireandinjured134policemen".Theseeventsalltookplacebefore10July1990,dateofentryintoforceoftheCovenantfortheStateparty:theyarethussaidtobeoutsidetheCommittee'scompetencerationetemporis.4.3Foreventsoccurringafter10July1990,thequestioniswhethertherightsprotectedundertheCovenantwereguaranteedtoMr.Kim.TheStatepartycontendsthatallrightsofMr.KimundertheCovenant,inparticularhisrightsunderarticle14,wereobservedbetweenthedateofhisarrest(13May1990)andthatofhisrelease(12August1992).4.4Concerningtheallegedviolationofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,theStatepartyarguesthattheauthorhasfailedtoidentifyclearlythebasisofhisclaimandthathehasmerelybaseditontheassumptionthatcertainprovisionsoftheNationalSecurityLawareincompatiblewiththeCovenant,andthatcriminalchargesbasedontheseprovisionsoftheNationalSecurityLawviolatearticle19,paragraph2.TheStatepartysubmitsthatsuchaclaimisoutsidetheCommittee'sscopeofjurisdiction;itarguesthatundertheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocol,theCommitteecannotconsiderthe(abstract)compatibilityofaparticularlaw,ortheprovisionsofaStateparty'slaw,withtheCovenant.ReferenceismadetotheViewsoftheHumanRightsCommitteeoncommunicationNo.55/1979, o   ׀whicharesaidtosupporttheStateparty'sconclusions.4.5Onthebasisoftheabove,theStatepartyrequeststheCommitteetodeclarethecommunicationinadmissiblebothrationetemporis,inasmuchaseventspriorto10July1990areconcerned,andbecauseoftheauthor'sfailuretosubstantiateaviolationofhisrightsundertheCovenantforeventswhichoccurredafterthatdate.5.1Inhiscomments,theauthornotesthatwhatisatissueinhiscasearenottheevents(i.e.before10July1990)whichinitiatedtheviolationsofhisrights,butthesubsequentjudicialprocedureswhichledtohisconvictionbythecourts.Thus,hewaspunished,aftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenantfortheRepublicofKoreaforhavingcontravenedtheNationalSecurityLaw.Henotesthatashisactivitieswereonlythepeacefulexpressionofhisopinionsandthoughtswithinthemeaningofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhadadutytoprotectthepeacefulexerciseofthisright.Inthiscontext,theStateauthoritiesandinparticularthecourtsweredutyboundtoapplytherelevantprovisionsoftheCovenantaccordingtotheirordinarymeaning.Intheinstantcase,thecourtsdidnotconsiderarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenantwhentryingandconvictingtheauthor.Inshort,topunishtheauthorforexercisinghisrighttofreedomofexpressionaftertheCovenantbecameeffectivefortheRepublicofKoreaentailedaviolationofhisrightunderarticle19,paragraph2.5.2Counselobservesthattheso-calledillegaldemonstrationsandactsofviolencereferredtobytheStatepartyareirrelevanttotheinstantcase;whatheraisesbeforetheCommitteedoesnotconcerntheoccasionsonwhichhewaspunishedforhavingorganizeddemonstrations.Thisdoesnotmean,counseladds,thathisclient'sconvictionundertheLawonDemonstrationsandAssemblywerereasonableandproper:itissaidtobecommonthatleadersofoppositiongroupsintheRepublicofKoreaareconvictedforeachandeverydemonstrationstagedanywhereinthecountry,underan"impliedconspiracytheory".5.3TheauthorreiteratesthathehasnotraisedtheissueoftheNationalSecurityLaw'scompatibilitywiththeCovenant.Hedoesindeedexpresshisviewthat,astheCommitteeacknowledgedinitsConcludingCommentsontheStateparty'sinitialreport,thesaidlawremainsaseriousobstacletothefullrealizationofCovenantrights.However,hestressesthathiscommunicationconcerns"solelythefactthathewaspunishedforhispeacefulexerciseoftherighttofreedomofexpression,inviolationofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant".Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.1Atits56thsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.2TheCommitteetooknoteoftheStateparty'sargumentthatasthepresentcasewasbasedoneventswhichoccurredpriortotheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocolfortheRepublicofKorea,itshouldbedeemedinadmissiblerationetemporis.IntheinstantcasetheCommitteedidnothavetorefertoitsjurisprudenceunderwhichtheeffectsofaviolationthatcontinuedaftertheCovenantenteredintoforcefortheStatepartymightthemselvesconstituteaviolationoftheCovenant,sincetheviolationallegedbytheauthorwashisconvictionundertheNationalSecurityLaw.AsthisconvictiontookplaceaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenanton10July1990(24August1990forconviction;11January1991fortheappeal,and26April1991fortheSupremeCourt'sjudgement),theCommitteewasnotprecludedrationetemporisfromconsideringtheauthor'scommunication.6.3TheStatepartyhadarguedthattheauthor'srightswerefullyprotectedduringthejudicialproceduresagainsthim,andthathewaschallengingingeneraltermsthecompatibilityoftheNationalSecurityLawwiththeCovenant.TheCommitteedidnotsharethisassessment.Theauthorclaimedthathehadbeenconvictedunderarticle7,paragraphs1and5,oftheNationalSecurityLaw,formereactsofexpression.Hefurtherclaimedthatnoproofwaspresentedeitherofspecificintentiontoendangerstatesecurity,orofanyactualharmcausedthereto.TheseclaimsdidnotamounttoanabstractchallengeofthecompatibilityoftheNationalSecurityLawwiththeCovenant,buttoanargumentthattheauthorhadbeenthevictimofaviolationbytheStatepartyofhisrighttofreedomofexpressionunderarticle19oftheCovenant.ThisargumenthadbeensufficientlysubstantiatedtorequireananswerbytheStatepartyonthemerits.6.4TheCommitteewassatisfied,onthebasisofthematerialbeforeit,thattheauthorhadexhaustedallavailabledomesticremedieswithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol;itnotedinthiscontextthattheStatepartyhadnotobjectedtotheadmissibilityofthecaseonthisground.7.2..2On14March1996,theHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle19oftheCovenant.Stateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandcounsel'scomments8.1Initssubmission,dated21February1997,theStatepartyexplainsthatitsConstitutionguaranteesitscitizensfundamentalrightsandfreedoms,includingtherighttofreedomofconscience,freedomofspeechandthepressandfreedomofassemblyandassociation.Thesefreedomsandrightsmayberestrictedbylawonlywhennecessaryfornationalsecurity,themaintenanceoflawandorderorforpublicwelfare.TheConstitutionstipulatesfurtherthatevenwhensuchrestrictionisimposed,noessentialaspectofthefreedomorrightshallbeviolated.8.2TheStatepartysubmitsthatitmaintainstheNationalSecurityLawasaminimallegalmeansofsafeguardingitsdemocraticsystemwhichisunderaconstantsecuritythreatfromNorthKorea.Thelawcontainssomeprovisionswhichpartiallyrestrictfreedomsorrightsfortheprotectionofnationalsecurity,inaccordancewiththeConstitution. p   8.3AccordingtotheStateparty,theauthoroversteppedthelimitsoftherighttofreedomofexpression.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyreferstothereasoningbytheAppealsSectionoftheSeoulCriminalDistrictCourtinitsjudgementof11January1991,thattherewasenoughevidencetoconcludethattheauthorwasengagedinantiStateactivitiesforthebenefitofNorthKorea,andthatthematerialswhichhedistributedandthedemonstrationswhichhesponsoredandwhichresultedinseriouspublicdisorder,posedacleardangertotheexistenceoftheStateanditsfreedemocraticpublicorder.Inthisconnection,theStatepartyarguesthattheexerciseoffreedomofexpressionshouldnotonlybeconductedinapeacefulmannerbutalsobedirectedtowardsapeacefulaim.TheStatepartypointsoutthattheauthorproducedanddisseminatedmaterialstothepublicbywhichheencouragedandpropagandizedtheNorthKoreanideologyofmakingtheKoreanPeninsulacommunistbyforce.Furthermore,theauthororganizedillegaldemonstrationswithmassiveviolenceagainstthepolice.TheStatepartysubmitsthattheseactscausedaseriousthreattothepublicorderandsecurityandresultedinanumberofcasualties.8.4Inconclusion,theStatepartysubmitsthatitisfirmlyoftheviewthattheCovenantdoesnotcondoneanyactsofviolenceorviolenceprovokingactscommittedinthenameoftheexerciseoftherighttofreedomofexpression.9.1InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselreiteratesthattheauthor'sconvictionundertheLawonDemonstrationandAssemblyandtheLawonPunishmentofViolentActivitiesisnottheissueinthiscommunication.Counselarguesthattheauthor'sconvictionunderthoselawscannotjustifyhisconvictionundertheNationalSecurityLawforhisallegedlyenemybenefitingexpressions.Counselthereforesubmitsthatiftheexpressionsinquestiondidnotputthesecurityofthecountryindanger,theauthorshouldnothavebeenpunishedundertheNSL.9.2Counselnotesthattheauthor'selectoralrightshavebeenrestoredbytheStateparty,andthattheauthorwaselectedasamemberoftheNationalAssemblyinthegeneralelectioninApril1996.Becauseofthis,counselquestionsthegroundsoftheauthor'sconvictionforallegedlyencouragingandpropagandizingtheNorthKoreanideologyofmakingtheKoreanPeninsulacommunistbyforce.9.3Accordingtocounsel,theStateparty,throughtheNSL,hasbeenstiflingdemocracyunderthebannerofprotectingit.Inthisconnection,counselarguesthattheessenceofademocraticsystemistheguaranteeofpeacefulexerciseoffreedomofexpression.9.4CounselsubmitsthattheStatepartyhasnotprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheauthorhadputthesecurityofthecountryindangerbydisseminatingdocuments.Accordingtocounsel,theStatepartyhasfailedtoestablishanyrelationbetweenNorthKoreaandtheauthorandhasfailedtoshowwhatkindofthreattheauthor'sexpressionshadposedtothesecurityofthecountry.Counselsubmitsthattheauthor'suseofhisfreedomofexpressionwasnotonlypeacefulbutalsodirectedtowardsapeacefulaim.9.5Finally,counselreferstotheongoingprocesstowardsdemocracyinKorea,andclaimsthatthepresentdemocratizationisduetosacrificesofmanypeopleliketheauthor.Hepointsoutthatmanyofthecountry'sactivistswhohadbeenconvictedascommunistsundertheNSLarenowplayingimportantrolesasmembersoftheNationalAssembly.10.1Inafurthersubmission,dated21February1997,theStatepartyreiteratesthattheauthorwasalsoconvictedfororganizingviolentdemonstrations,andemphasizesthatthereasonsforconvictinghimundertheNSLwerethathehadalignedhimselfwiththeunificationstrategyofNorthKoreabyarguingforunificationinprintedmaterialswhichweredisseminatedtoabout4000participantsattheFoundingConventionoftheNationalDemocraticMovementCoalitionandthatactivitiessuchashelpingtoimplementNorthKorea'sstrategyconstitutesubversiveactsagainsttheState.Inthisconnection,theStatepartynotesthatithastechnicallybeenatwarwithNorthKoreasince1953andthatNorthKoreacontinuestotrytodestabilizethecountry.TheStatepartythereforearguesthatdefensivemeasuresdesignedtosafeguarddemocracyarenecessary,andmaintainsthattheNSListheabsoluteminimallegalmeansnecessarytoprotectliberaldemocracyinthecountry.10.2TheStatepartyexplainsthattheauthor'selectoralrightswererestoredbecausehedidnotcommitasecondoffenceforagivenperiodoftimeafterhavingcompletedhisprisonterm,andtofacilitatenationalreconciliation.TheStatepartysubmitsthatthefactthattheauthor'srightswererestoreddoesnotnegatehispastcriminalactivities.10.3TheStatepartyagreeswithcounselthatfreedomofexpressionisoneoftheessentialelementsofafreeanddemocraticsystem.Itemphasizes,however,thatthisfreedomofexpressioncannotbeguaranteedunconditionallytopeoplewhowishtodestroyandsubvertthefreeanddemocraticsystemitself.TheStatepartyexplainsthatthesimpleexpressionofideologies,oracademicresearchonideologies,isnotpunishableundertheNSL,eveniftheseideologiesareincompatiblewiththeliberaldemocraticsystem.However,actscommittedunderthenameoffreedomofspeechbutunderminingthebasicorderoftheliberaldemocraticsystemofthecountryarepunishableforreasonsofnationalsecurity.10.4Withregardtocounsel'sargumentthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoestablishthatarelationbetweentheauthorandNorthKoreaexistedandthathisactionswereaseriousthreattonationalsecurity,theStatepartypointsoutthatNorthKoreahasattemptedtodestabilizethecountrybycallingfortheoverthrowofSouthKorea's"militaryfascistregime"infavourofa"people'sdemocraticgovernment",whichwouldbringabout"unificationofthefatherland"and"liberationofthepeople".Inthedocuments,distributedbytheauthor,itwasarguedthattheGovernmentofSouthKoreawasseekingthecontinuationofthecountry'sdivisionanddictatorialregime;thattheKoreanpeoplehadbeenstrugglingforthelasthalfcenturyagainstUSandJapaneseneo-colonialinfluence,whichaimsatthecontinueddivisionoftheKoreanpeninsulaandtheoppressionofthepeople;thatnuclearweaponsandAmericansoldiersshouldbewithdrawnfromSouthKorea,sincetheirpresenceposedagreatthreattonationalsurvivalandtothepeople;andthatjointmilitaryexercisesbetweenSouthKoreaandtheUSAshouldbestopped.10.5TheStatepartysubmitsthatitisseekingpeacefulunification,andnotthecontinuationofthedivisionasarguedbytheauthor.TheStatepartyfurthertakesissuewiththeauthor'ssubjectiveconvictionaboutthepresenceofUSforcesandUSandJapaneseinfluence.ItpointsoutthatthepresenceofUSforceshasbeenaneffectivedeterrenttopreventNorthKoreafrommakingthepeninsulacommunistthroughmilitaryforce.10.6AccordingtotheStateparty,itisobviousthattheauthor'sargumentsarethesameasthatofNorthKorea,andthathisactivitiesthusbothhelpedNorthKoreaandfolloweditsstrategyandtactics.TheStatepartyagreesthatdemocracymeansallowingdifferentvoicestobeheardbutarguesthatthereshouldbealimittocertainactionssoasnottocausedamagetothebasicordernecessaryfornationalsurvival.TheStatepartysubmitsthatitisillegaltoproduceanddistributeprintedmaterialsthatpraiseandpromoteNorthKoreanideologyandfurtheritsstrategicobjectivetodestroythefreeanddemocraticsystemoftheRepublicofKorea.Itarguesthatsuchactivities,directedatfurtheringtheseviolentaims,cannotbeconstruedaspeaceful.11.2..2Counselfortheauthor,byletterof1June1998,informstheCommitteethathehasnofurthercommentstomake.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee12.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.12.2TheCommitteeobservesthat,inaccordancewitharticle19oftheCovenant,anyrestrictionontherighttofreedomofexpressionmustcumulativelymeetthefollowingconditions:itmustbeprovidedbylaw,itmustaddressoneoftheaimssetoutinparagraph3(a)and(b)ofarticle19(respectoftherightsandreputationofothers;protectionofnationalsecurityorofpublicorder,orofpublichealthormorals),anditmustbenecessarytoachievealegitimatepurpose.12.3Therestrictionoftheauthor'srighttofreedomofexpressionwasindeedprovidedbylaw,namelytheNationalSecurityLawasitisthenstood;itisclearfromthecourts'decisionsthatinthiscasetheauthorwouldalsobelikelytohavebeenconvictedifhehadbeentriedunderthelawasitwasamendedin1991,althoughthisisnotanissueinthiscase.TheonlyquestionbeforetheCommitteeiswhethertherestrictiononfreedomofexpression,asinvokedagainsttheauthor,wasnecessaryforoneofthepurposessetoutinarticle19,paragraph3.TheneedforcarefulscrutinybytheCommitteeisemphasisedbythebroadandunspecifictermsinwhichtheoffenceundertheNationalSecurityLawisformulated.̇12.4TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorwasconvictedforhavingreadoutanddistributedprintedmaterialwhichwereseenascoincidingwiththepolicystatementsoftheDPRK(NorthKorea),withwhichcountrytheStatepartywasinastateofwar.HewasconvictedbythecourtsonthebasisofafindingthathehaddonethiswiththeintentionofsidingwiththeactivitiesoftheDPRK.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthemereknowledgethattheactivitycouldbeofbenefittoNorthKoreawassufficienttoestablishguilt.Eventakingthatmatterintoaccount,theCommitteehastoconsiderwhethertheauthor'spoliticalspeechandhisdistributionofpoliticaldocumentswereofanaturetoattracttherestrictionallowedbyarticle19(3)namelytheprotectionofnationalsecurity.ItisplainthatNorthKoreanpolicieswerewellknownwithintheterritoryoftheStatepartyanditisnotclearhowthe(undefined)"benefit"thatmightarisefortheDPRKfromthepublicationofviewssimilartotheirowncreatedarisktonationalsecurity,norisitclearwhatwasthenatureandextentofanysuchrisk.Thereisnoindicationthatthecourts,atanylevel,addressedthosequestionsorconsideredwhetherthecontentsofthespeechorthedocumentshadanyadditionaleffectupontheaudienceorreaderssuchastothreatenpublicsecurity,theprotectionofwhichwouldjustifyrestrictionwithinthetermsoftheCovenantasbeingnecessary.12.5TheCommitteeconsiders,therefore,thattheStatepartyhasfailedtospecifytheprecisenatureofthethreatallegedlyposedbytheauthor'sexerciseoffreedomofexpression,andthattheStatepartyhasnotprovidedspecificjustificationsastowhyoverandaboveprosecutingtheauthorforcontraventionsoftheLawonAssemblyandDemonstrationandtheLawonPunishmentofViolentActivities(whichformsnopartoftheauthor'scomplaint),itwasnecessaryfornationalsecurity,alsotoprosecutetheauthorfortheexerciseofhisfreedomofexpression.TheCommitteeconsidersthereforethattherestrictionoftheauthor'srighttofreedomofexpressionwasnotcompatiblewiththerequirementsofarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.13.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,findsthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle19oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.14.2..2Underarticle2(3)(a)oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovidetheauthorwithaneffectiveremedy.15.2..2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theRepublicofKoreahasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtotranslateandpublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]@..\APPENDIX@..z IndividualopinionbyNisukeAndo@..(dissenting)2..2IamunabletoagreewiththeCommittee'sviewsinthiscasethat"therestrictionoftheauthor'srighttofreedomofexpressionwasnotcompatiblewiththerequirementsofarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant".(para.12.5)2..2AccordingtotheCommittee,"thereisnoindicationthatthecourts...consideredwhetherthecontentsofthespeech[bytheauthor]orthedocuments[distributedbyhim]hadanyadditionaleffectupontheaudienceorreaderssuchastothreatenpublicsecurity"(para.12.4)and"theStatepartyhasnotprovidedspecificjustificationsastowhyoverandaboveprosecutingtheauthorforcontraventionsoftheLawonAssemblyandDemonstrationandtheLawonPunishmentofViolentActivities(whichformsnopartoftheauthor'scomplaint),itwasnecessaryfornationalsecurity,alsotoprosecutetheauthorfortheexerciseofhisfreedomofexpression".(para.12.5)2..2However,asnotedbytheStateparty,theauthorwas"convictedfororganizingillegaldemonstrationsandinstigatingactsofviolenceonseveraloccasionsduringtheperiodfromJanuary1989toMay1990.Duringthesedemonstrations...participants"threwthousandsofMolotovcocktailsandrocksatpolicestations,andothergovernmentoffices.Theyalsosetvehiclesonfireandinjured134policemen"."(para.4.2)InthisconnectiontheCommitteeitself"notesthattheauthorwasconvictedforhavingreadoutanddistributedprintedmaterialwhichexpressedopinions...coincidingwiththepolicystatementsofDPRK(NorthKorea),withwhichcountrytheStatepartywasformallyinastateofwar".(para.12.4.SeealsotheexplanationoftheStatepartyinparas.10.4and10.5)2..2Theauthor'scounselarguesthat"theauthor'sconvictionundertheLawonDemonstrationandAssemblyandtheLawonPunishmentofViolentActivitiesisnottheissueinthiscommunication"andthat"theauthor'sconvictionunderthoselawscannotjustifyhisconvictionundertheNationalSecurityLawforhisallegedlyenemybenefitingexpressions".(para.9.1)2..2Nevertheless,theauthor'sreadingoutanddistributingtheprintedmaterialinquestion,forwhichhewasconvictedundertheselaws,weretheveryactsforwhichhewasconvictedundertheNationalSecuritylawandwhichleadtothebreachofpublicorderasdescribedbytheStateparty.Infact,counselfailstorefutethattheauthor'sreadingoutanddistributingtheprintedmaterialinquestiondidleadtothebreachofpublicorder,whichmighthavebeenperceivedbytheStatepartyasthreateningnationalsecurity.2..2IdosharetheconcernofcounselthatsomeprovisionsoftheNationalSecurityLawaretoobroadlywordedtopreventtheirabusiveapplicationandinterpretation.Unfortunately,however,thefactremainsthatSouthKoreawasinvadedbyNorthKoreain1950'sandtheEastWestdtentehasnotfullyblossomedontheKoreanPeninsulayet.InanyeventtheCommitteehasnoinformationtoprovethattheaforementionedactsoftheauthordidnotentailthebreachofpublicorder,andunderarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenanttheprotectionof"publicorder"aswellastheprotectionof"nationalsecurity"isalegitimategroundtorestricttheexerciseoftherighttofreedomofexpression.#..l(Signed)NisukeAndo[DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]+̀B.CommunicationNo.590/1994,Bennettv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon25March1999,sixtyfifthsession)*  Submittedby:0 .. 0 .. TrevorBennett(representedbytheLondonlawfirmofCliffordChance)Allegedvictim: .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  .. JamaicaDateofcommunication: .. 22July1994Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  .. 22March19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon25March1999,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.590/1994submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.TrevorBennettundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisTrevorBennett,aJamaicancitizen,atthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutionattheSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.TheauthorclaimstobethevictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,9,10and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbytheLondonlawfirmofCliffordChance.Theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmenton11July1995.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2Theauthorwasarrestedon20November1987inconnectionwiththemurder,on14November1987,ofMr.DerrickHugh,aformeractingRegistraroftheSupremeCourtandResidentMagistrate.On15December1987,anidentificationparadewasheld,duringwhichtheauthorwasrepresentedbyalawyerprovidedbyhisfamily.Followingapositiveidentification,theauthorwasformallychargedwithρ________________________  2..2*ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.  Mr.Hugh'smurder.On13April1989,theauthorwasconvictedandsentencedtodeathintheHomeCircuitCourtofKingston,Jamaica.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicarefusedtheauthor'sapplicationforleavetoappealon15July1991.HisapplicationforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon1April1993.Withthis,itissubmitted,allavailabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.2.22..2Attrial,thecasefortheprosecutionwasthattheauthorwasoneoftwomenwhohadunlawfullyenteredthehouseofMr.Hughon14November1987.Theprosecutiondidnotallegethattheauthorhadfiredthefatalshot,butthathewasthereaspartofaplaninwhichhewasawarethatagunwasgoingtobeused.2.32..2OneDavidWhilby,anoccupantofMr.Hugh'shouse,testifiedthat,on14November1987,atabout3a.m.,hewasawakenedbytwomaskedgunmen,whoforcedhimtogotoMr.Hugh'sroom.ThewitnessstatedthatoneofthementhenbroughtMr.Hughtoaroomdownstairs,whiletheauthorremainedwithhimandMr.Hugh'smother.Thewitnessfurtherclaimedthattheauthor'smaskslippedfromhisface,thusgivinghimtheopportunitytoobserveit.Whentheauthorheardtheshotsbeingfireddownstairs,hereportedlyfledinpanic.Mr.Whilbysubsequentlypointedouttheauthorattheidentificationparadeon15December1987.2.42..2Asecondprosecutionwitness,thedeceased'ssister,gaveevidencethatshehadheardanoisecomingfromaroom,whichhadcausedhertoopenthedoor,andthatshehadseenamanwithagunholdingherbrother.Sheherselfwasshotinherkneeandsheheardtwoshotsbeingfiredatherbrother.2.52..2Evidencewasalsogiventotheeffectthatfingerprintsfoundonsomeglassmatchedwiththeauthor'sfingerprints.2.62..2Theprosecutionfurtherreliedonacautionstatementgivenbytheauthoron21November1987.Inthisstatement,theauthorclaimedthatbychancehehadmetanacquaintance,oneLukie,onthenightofFriday13Novemberwhenhewasreturningfromaparty.HecomplainedtoLukiethathedidnothaveanymoneytobuyfoodforhisbaby,becausehehadnotbeenpaidyetbyhisemployer.LukietoldtheauthorthatheknewwherehecouldgetsomemoneyandtheauthordecidedtogowithLukie,despitethefactthatLukietoldhimhehadagun.2.72..2TheauthoradmittedinhiscautionstatementthatheassistedLukietobreakintothehouse,wheretheyfoundasleepingman,Mr.Whilby.Accordingtotheauthor'sstatement,Lukieaskedthemanformoneybutwastoldthatthemoneywasinthenextroom.LukiethentookMr.Whilbytothenextroom,theauthorfollowing,wheretheyfoundanotherman,Mr.Hugh.LukiethenreportedlypushedbothmentothefloorandaskedMr.Hugh:"Weydebook?".Mr.Hugh'smothercameupstairsintotheroom.Accordingtotheauthor,LukiethentookMr.Hughdownstairs,followingwhichheheardshots,andsawLukierunningoutofthehouse.Theauthoralsoranout,metLukieatthebackofthehouseandreceivedfromhimsomemoneystolenfromtheRegistrar.2.82..2Inhiscautionstatement,theauthorstatedthathewenttosleepathisaunt'shouseand,thenextmorning,heardontheradiothattheRegistraroftheSupremeCourthadbeenshotdeadathishome.Theauthorthenheardthatthepolicewaslookingforhimandranaway.Aweeklater,hegavehimselfuptothepolice.2.92..2Counselfortheauthorarguedthatthecautionstatementshouldnotbeadmittedasevidence,becauseithadbeenmadeundercoercion.Avoirdirewasheld,duringwhichseveralwitnesses,amongwhomtheinvestigatingpoliceofficersandmembersoftheauthor'sfamily,testified.Theauthorgaveswornevidenceregardingthecircumstancesofhisarrest.Heclaimedthat,afterhavinglearnedthatmembersofhisfamilyhadbeentakenintopolicecustodyon19November1987,hehadgonevoluntarilytotheCentralPoliceStationinthecompanyofapriestonthefollowingday.On21November1987,hemadeastatementundercautiontothepolice,becausehehadbeentoldthathisfamilywouldnotbereleaseduntilhehadmadethestatement.Afterthevoirdire,thejudgeruledthestatementtobeadmissible.2.10Attrial,theauthormadeanunswornstatementfromthedock,admittingthathehadbeenatthesceneofthecrime,butclaimingthathehadbeenforcedtoattend.TheauthorstatedthathehadpreviouslytoldonLukieconcerningarobberyandthat,whenhemetLukiethatnight,Lukiehadthreatenedtokillhimforthis.TheauthorstatedthatLukieandhisgangthen"decidedthattheyweregoingforsomethingandthatImustparticipateinit".Accordingtotheauthor'sunswornstatement,heaskedwhooccupiedthehousebutreceivednoreply.Lukiebrokeintothehouseand"theytoldmetogointheretootofollowLukie".2.11Theauthoradmittedinhisunswornstatementthat,onceheandLukiewereinsidethehouse,whathesaw"didnotlooklikearobbery".TheauthorstatedthatheheardLukieasktheRegistrarforhispassportandtelltheRegistrar'smotherthattheyweregettingpaidtokillherson.Thecomplaint3.12..2Counselclaimsthattheauthorwaskeptindetentioninviolationofarticle9oftheCovenant,sincehewasnotchargeduntil16December1987,thatisfourweeksafterhisarrest,norwashebroughtbeforeajudgeduringthatperiod.3.22..2Counselsubmitsthattheauthordidnothavesufficienttimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefence,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b).Inthiscontext,counselsubmitsthattheauthorwasrepresentedbydifferentlawyersatvariousstagesoftheproceedings.Theauthorfurtherclaimsthathemetthelawyerwhorepresentedhimatthepreliminaryhearingonlyoncebeforethehearingandthathemetthetwolegalaidlawyerswhorepresentedhimathistrialonlytwicebefore.3.32..2Counselsubmitsthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionswithrespecttotheissuesofduressandjointenterprise,aswellashiscommentsonthedecisionoftheauthortogiveanunswornstatement,amountedtoadenialofjustice,sincetheygavethejurytheimpressionthatthejudgethoughtthattheauthorwasguilty.3.42..2Asregardshisappeal,theauthorsubmitsthathehadaskedaMr.Phippstorepresenthimand,reportedly,on8May1991,hereceivedconfirmationthatthislawyerwaswillingtolookintothecase.However,on21June1991,theauthorwasvisitedbyadifferentlawyerwhohadbeenassignedbythelegalaidauthorities.Itwasthiscounselwhorepresentedtheauthorathisappeal.Itissubmittedthattheauthor'sappealcounselspentonlyabouttenminuteswiththeauthorpriortotheappeal,on21June1991.Theauthorstatesthatcounseltoldhimthathesawnomeritinhiscase.Attheappealhearing,counselarguedtheappealonthegroundthattheburdenandstandardofproofhadnotbeenproperlyexplainedtothejuryandthatthedirectionsconcerningduresshadbeenimproper.WhentheCourtenquiredwhethercounselhadanysubmissionstomakeconcerningthetrialjudge'sinstructionsrelatingtocommondesign,counseldeclined,sinceheconsideredtheCrown'scaseoverwhelminginthisrespect.Itisarguedthattheaboveindicatesthattheauthorwasnotproperlyrepresentedonappealbyacounselofhisownchoosing,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).̇3.52..2Counselalsosubmitsthatthedelayoffouryearsbetweenconvictionanddismissalofpetitionforspecialleavetoappeal,constitutesanunduedelayinthejudicialproceedings,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.3.62..2Counselfurthersubmitsthattheauthorhasbeenheldondeathrowsince13April1989andallegesthathislengthystayondeathrow,aswellashispossibleexecutionaftersuchdelay,iscontrarytoarticle7oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,referenceismadeinteraliatothejudgmentofthePrivyCouncilinEarlPratt&IvanMorganv.theAttorneyGeneralforJamaica,deliveredon2November1993.3.72..2Counselfinallyclaimsthattheauthor'sconditionsofdetentionareinhumananddegradingandconstituteaviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,hepointsoutthatsomeoftheauthor'sco-prisonersarementallyillandhave,onoccasion,attackedfellowinmates.Healsosubmitsthattheprisonconditionsareinsanitary.Theauthorfurtherstatesthathisphysicalconditionhasdeterioratedsincehewasdetainedandthathehasdevelopedanulcer.Inthiscontext,heclaimsthathehasnotseenadoctorsince1990.Tosupporthisclaim,counselreferstotworeportsontheconditionsinSt.CatherineDistrictPrison q   andtoastatementfromthePrisonChaplainwhichreads:2..2"TheconditionsintheprisonaregenerallydeplorableasisclearlystatedintherecentlypublishedWolfereport.Alargepipe,carryingwastewaterfromthestoryabove,threeyardsfromhiscell,givesoffafoulandpervasiveodour......Hestatesthathehasnotseenadoctorsince1990andhasbeen"treating"hisulceronhisown.Infacttheprisondoesnothaveadoctor,evenoncall."3.82..2Itisstatedthatthesamematterhasnotbeensubmittedtoanotherinstanceofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scommentsthereon4.12..2Bysubmissionof10February1995,theStatepartyofferedcommentsonthemerits,inordertoexpeditetheexaminationofthecommunication.4.22..2Withrespecttotheallegedviolationsofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,theStatepartystatedthattheseissuesrelatetothetrialjudge'sdirectionstothejuryandarethereforematterswhich,accordingtotheCommittee'sownjurisprudence,oughttobelefttoappellatecourts.4.32..2Astotheauthor'sclaimthatarticle14,paragraph3(d),wasviolatedbecauseofthedecisionoftheauthor'scounseltoabandontheappeal,theStatepartyallegedthatitcannotbeheldresponsibleforthemannerinwhichcounselconductsacase,onceithasappointedacompetentlegalaidcounsel.TheStatepartyhoweversubmittedthatinquirieswouldbemadeintothecircumstancesunderwhichtheauthor'srequestforaparticularcounselwasnotmet.4.42..2TheStatepartycontestedthattheauthor'sdetentionondeathrowformorethanfiveyearsautomaticallyamountstocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,andarguedthattheindividualcircumstancesofeachcaseshouldbeexaminedbeforesuchadeterminationcanbemade.4.52..2Withrespecttotheallegationthattheauthor'sconditionsofdetentionviolatearticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,theStatepartyacknowledgedthattherearedifficultiesinthecorrectionalsystem,butdidnotaccepttheassertionthatthestandardsaresolowastoconstituteaviolationoftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyreferredtothemostrecentreportonJamaicanprisonsdonebytheInterAmericanCommissiononHumanRightsfollowinganon-sitevisit,whichreportedlydoesnotcontainanythingsupportingtheauthor'sallegations.5.2..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counsellimitedhimselftotheadmissibilityofthecommunication.HeexplainedthattheauthorhasnotappliedtotheSupreme(Constitutional)Courtforredress,sincethisremedywouldhavebeenineffectiveand,moreover,notavailablefortheauthor,becauseofhislackoffunds,theabsenceoflegalaidforthepurposeandbecauseoftheunwillingnessofJamaicanlawyerstorepresentapplicantsonaprobonobasis.Itwasthereforesubmittedthatalldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12..2Duringits56thsessiontheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.22..2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32..2TheCommitteenotedthattheStatepartydidnotraiseanyobjectionstotheadmissibilityofthecommunication.TheCommitteenonethelessexaminedwhetheralloftheauthor'sallegationssatisfiedtheadmissibilitycriteriaoftheOptionalProtocol.6.42..2Theauthorclaimedthathedidnothavesufficienttimetopreparehisdefence,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b),oftheCovenant.TheCommitteenoted,however,thattheauthormetwithhislegalrepresentativeonseveraloccasionsbeforethebeginningofthetrialandthattherewasnoindicationthattheauthororhislegalrepresentativecomplainedtothejudgeatthetrialthattheyhadnothadsufficienttimetopreparethedefence.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteeconsideredthattheallegationhadnotbeensubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52..2TheCommitteenotedthatpartoftheauthor'sallegationsrelatetotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury.TheCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratedthatitisgenerallynotfortheCommittee,butfortheappellateCourtsofStatesparties,toreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythetrialjudge,andthattheCommitteewillnotadmitsuchclaims,unlessitcanbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.TheCommitteetooknoteoftheauthor'sclaimthattheinstructionsintheinstantcaseamountedtoadenialofjustice.TheCommitteealsonotedtheCourtofAppeal'sreviewofthejudge'sinstructions,andconcludedthatintheinstantcasethetrialjudge'sinstructionsdidnotshowsuchdefectsastorenderthemarbitraryoradenialofjustice.Accordingly,thispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.̇6.62..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewasnotrepresentedonappealbyacounselofhischoice,theCommitteerecalledthatarticle14,paragraph3(d),doesnotentitletheaccusedtochoosecounselprovidedtohimfreeofcharge.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissible,asincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,underarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewasnotproperlyrepresentedbyhislegalaidcounselonappeal,theCommitteenotedfromtheinformationbeforeitthatcounseldidinfactconsultwiththeauthorpriortothehearingoftheappeal,andthatatthehearingcounseldidarguegroundsforappeal.TheCommitteeconsideredthatitisnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgmentastohowtoarguetheappeal,unlessitismanifestthathisbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.TheCommitteefoundthereforethat,inthisrespect,theauthorhadnoclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.72..2Astotheauthor'sclaimthathisprolongeddetentionondeathrowamountstoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudence, r   ׀andinparticulartoitsViewsinrespectofcommunicationNo.588/1994. s   ׀ThejurisprudenceofthisCommitteeremainsthatthelengthofdetentionondeathrowalonedoesnotentailaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenantintheabsenceofsomefurthercompellingcircumstances.Intheinstantcase,neithertheauthornorhiscounselhadsubstantiatedanysuchcircumstances.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.82..2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'sremainingclaims,regardingtheperiodofdetentionwithouthavingbeenbroughtbeforeajudge,theperiodbetweenconvictionatfirstinstanceandthedismissalofhisapplicationforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,andthecircumstancesofdetentiontobesufficientlysubstantiatedforpurposesofadmissibility,andthattheyshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.Stateparty'sobservationsonthemerits,counsel'scommentsthereonandfurthercommentsfromtheStateparty7.12..2Bysubmissionof14February1997,theStateparty,withregardtoarticle9,paragraph3,acceptsthattodetaintheauthorforfourweeksbeforecharginghimortakinghimbeforeamagistratewaslongerthandesirable.7.22..2Withregardtotheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),onthegroundofadelayoffouryearsbetweentheconvictionandthedismissalofspecialleavetopetitionthePrivyCouncil,theStatepartynotesthat"whenbrokendowntherewasadelayoftwoyearsandthreemonthsbetweenconvictionandappealandadelayofoneyearandninemonthsbetweenthedismissaloftheappealandthedismissaloftheapplicationforspecialleavetoappealtothePrivyCouncil".TheStatearguesthatalthoughtheperiodbetweentheconvictionandthehearingoftheappealwaslongerthandesirable,itdoesnotconstituteabreachoftheCovenant.&  7.32..2Withregardtotheallegedviolationofarticle10,theStatepartystatesthatithasinvestigatedtheauthor'sclaimthathehasnotseenadoctorsince'  1990despitehavinganulcer,butthatithasnotfoundanyevidencetosupporttheseallegations.Therefore,theStatepartydeniesthattherewasabreachoftheCovenantinthisregard.8.2..2Inhissubmissionof1September1998,counselstatesthathehasnoobservationsinrelationtotheallegedviolationsofarticles10and14,paragraph3(c),andthathisunderstandingofthereplytotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,isthattheStateadmitsbreachoftheCovenantinthisregard.9.2..2Initssubmissionof16February1999,theStatepartyclarifiesthatitspositionwithregardtotheapplicationofarticle9,paragraph3,inthiscaseisthat"detentionoftheapplicantforfourweekswaslongerthandesirableforeitherchargingorcarryingtheapplicantbeforeaMagistrate,however,itdoesnotconstituteabreachofarticle9(3)."IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationwhichhasbeenmadeavailabletoit,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2Article9,paragraph2,oftheCovenantgivestherighttoanyonearrestedtoknowthereasonsforhisarrestandtobepromptlyinformedofanychargesagainsthim.Article9,paragraph3,givesanyonearrestedordetainedonacriminalchargetherighttobebroughtpromptlybeforeacompetentjudicialauthority.Theauthorallegestobeavictimofviolationsofbothprovisionsashecontendsthathewasneitherchargednorbroughtbeforeamagistrateuntilfourweeksafterhisarrest.10.3Withregardtotheallegedviolationofarticle9,paragraph2,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorinhisswornstatementatthetrialexplainedboththathehadturnedhimselfintothepoliceandthatheonthesamenighthadbeentoldbyanamedpoliceofficerthathewasbeingquestionedabout"involvementintheslayingofMr.DerrickHugh".TheCommitteethereforefindsthatthefactsdonotdiscloseaviolationofarticle9,paragraph2.10.4TheCommitteefinds,however,thattodetaintheauthorforaperiodoffourweeksbeforebringinghimbeforeacompetentjudicialauthorityconstitutesaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.10.5TheauthorhasclaimedthattheperiodoffouryearswhichlapsedfromhisconvictiontothedismissalofhispetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilconstitutesabreachofarticle14,paragraph3(c).TheCommitteereiteratesthatallguaranteesunderarticle14oftheCovenantshouldbestrictlyobservedinanycriminalprocedure,particularlyincapitalcases,andnotes,withregardtotheperiodoftwoyearsandthreemonthswhichlapsedfromtheconvictionoftheauthortothedismissalofhisappealintheCourtofAppeal,thattheStatepartyhasacknowledgedthatsuchadelayisundesirable,butthatithasnotofferedanyfurtherexplanation.Intheabsenceofanycircumstancesjustifyingthedelay,theCommitteefindsthatwithregardtothisperiodtherehasbeenaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),inconjunctionwithparagraph5.10.6However,withregardtotheperiodofoneyearandninemonthswhichlapsedfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealtothedismissaloftheauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinApril1993,theCommitteenotesthattheauthor'spetitionwasnotlodgeduntilDecember1992,andconsequentlyfindsthattherewasnobreachoftheCovenantwithregardtothisperiod.10.7Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,bothonthegroundoftheconditionsofdetentiontowhichheissubjectedatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrisonandonthegroundoflackofmedicalattentionforanulcerheallegedlysustainedin1990.Tosubstantiatehisclaims,theauthorhasinvokedareportofMarch1989fromthegovernmentappointedTaskForceonCorrectionalServices,AmnestyInternational'sreportofDecember1993,andastatementfromthePrisonChaplain,basedonhisvisittotheauthoron25May1994.TheStatepartyhascontestedtheallegationsastothegeneralconditionsofdetentionatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrisonmerelybyinvokinganunpublishedreportmadebytheInterAmericanCommissiononHumanRightsafteranonsitevisitwhich,allegedly,containsnothingtosupportthe"terriblepicturepaintedbytheauthor'sallegations".TheStatepartyhasalsodisputedtheauthor'sallegationthathehasanulcerforwhichhehasreceivednomedicalattention,asitstatesthatithasinvestigatedthematterwithoutfindinganyevidencetosupporttheallegations.10.8TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorrefersnotonlytotheinhumananddegradingprisonconditionsingeneral,butalsomakesspecificallegationssuchassharingacellwithmentallyillinmates,nothavingseenadoctorsince1990andhavingclosetohiscellalargepipecarryingwastewaterwithfoulodour.TheCommitteenotesthatwithregardtothesespecificallegations,theStatepartyhasmerelydisputedthattheauthorwasdeniedadequatemedicalattention.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatarticle10,paragraph1,hasbeenviolated.11.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticle9,paragraph3,article10,paragraph1andarticle14,paragraph3(c)inconjunctionwithparagraph5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12.2..2Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Bennettwithaneffectiveremedy,includingcompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.2..2OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolthecommunicationissubjecttothecontinuedapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeen&  established.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateParty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.'  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]+ǀC.CommunicationNo.592/1994,Johnsonv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon20October1998,sixtyfourthsession)*  882882 Submittedby:0 .. CliveJohnson(representedbyMr.SaulLehrfreundfromSimonsMuirheadandBurton)2..2Victim:0..0 .. TheauthorStateparty:0 .. JamaicaDateofcommunication:0 .. 8February1994Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: .. 14March19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon20October1998,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.592/1994submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.CliveJohnson,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisCliveJohnson,aJamaicancitizen,atthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationawaitingexecutioninSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.Followingthereclassificationofhisoffenceasnon-capital,theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonment.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,10,14and17oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyMr.SaulLehrfreundofSimons,Muirhead&Burton,alawfirminLondon,England.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2Theauthorwasarrestedon13October1985,inconnectionwiththemurder,on11October1985,ofoneCliveBeckford.On13November1987,ontheseconddayofthetrialbeforetheKingstonHomeCircuitCourt,hewasfoundguiltyofmurderand򀀀  2..2*ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberDavidKretzmerisappendedtothepresentdocument.  sentencedtodeath.TheCourtofAppeal,on15November1988,dismissedhisappeal.On29October1992,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedhispetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.2.22..2TheauthorhasnotappliedtotheSupremeCourtforconstitutionalredressfortheviolationsofhisbasicrights.Theauthorarguesthataconstitutionalmotionisnotavailabletohimbecauseofhislackoffunds,theunavailabilityoflegalaidandtheunwillingnessofJamaicancounseltoactonaprobonobasis.2.32..2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasbasedontheevidenceofasingleeyewitness,R.H.,apoliceconstable.Hestatedthat,intheearlyeveningof11October1985,hewaswalkingtowardshishomewithhis8yearolddaughterandCliveBeckford,whowas17yearsold.Fourmencamerunningfrombehindand,afterabriefconversation,encircledthem.Themenwereholdingicepicksandknives;twoofthem,amongwhomtheauthor,attackedthewitness,theothertwoattackedBeckford.Afterthreeorfourminutes,Beckfordranoffandwaschasedbyhistwoattackers,whoreturnedwithinaminute.Aftersomemorefighting,R.H.managedtogetawayandthementhenreleasedhisdaughter.R.H.andhisdaughterfoundBeckfordlyingintheroad,stabbedanddying.Twodayslater,R.H.sawtheauthorapproachinghimclosetohishome.Herecognizedhimasoneoftheattackers.TheauthorallegedlypulledoutaknifeandstabbedR.H.,whothenshothimintheleg.2.42..2Atthetrial,theauthormadeanunswornstatementfromthedockinwhichhedeniedhavingbeenatthesceneoftheincidenton11October1985.Nowitnesseswerecalledonhisbehalf.Thecomplaint3.12..2Theauthorsubmitsthathewasbornon21August1968andtherefore17yearsandsevenweeksoldatthetimeoftheincidenton11October1985.Insupport,hefurnishesanauthenticatedcopyofhisbirthcertificate.Heclaimsthatthedeathsentencewaspassedagainsthiminviolationofarticle6,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.3.22..2Theauthorclaimsthathehasnotreceivedafairtrialwithinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Hesubmitsthatthetrialjudgewaswrongindirectingthejurythattheyshouldapplyanobjectivestandardindeterminingtheauthor'sintention.TheCourtofAppealagreedthatthisconstitutedamisdirection,butfailedtoremedyit,sinceitwasoftheopinionthatithadnotledtoasubstantialmiscarriageofjustice,because,intheopinionoftheCourtofAppeal,onacorrectdirection,thejurywouldinevitablyhavearrivedatthesameverdict.Theauthorarguesthatthejudge'sinstructionstothejurymustmeetparticularlyhighstandardsinacasewherecapitalpunishmentmaybepronounced,andthatthejudge'sfailuretodirectproperlyontheessentialelementsofthecrimeofmurderrenderthetrialunfairandtheverdictuncertain.3.32..2Theauthorarguesthathewasdeniedadequatelegalrepresentationbothforthetrialandonappeal.Heemphasizesthathewasheldincustodyforover18monthsbeforebeinggrantedaccesstoalawyer;thathewasnotrepresentedatallatthepreliminaryhearing;that,whenhefinallywasassignedalegalaidattorney,heonlymetherforthefirsttimeafewdaysbeforethetrial;thatthismeetinglastedthreeminutes;thatheonlymethislawyeronceduringthetrialitself.Healsocontendsthathenevermetwithhislawyerpriortothehearingofhisappeal.Theauthorcontendsthatthisconstitutesaviolationofhisrightsunderarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d),tohaveadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefenceandtohaveadequatelegalassistanceassignedtohim.3.42..2TheauthorfurtherarguesthattheStateparty'sfailuretogranthimlegalaidtopursueaconstitutionalmotionamountstoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.3.52..2Theauthoralsoclaimsthathehasbeensubjectedtoilltreatmentondeathrow.Inparticular,heclaimsthat,on4May1993,duringasearchbysoldiers,hewastwicebeatenonhistesticleswithametaldetector.Althoughtheauthorconsequentlypassedbloodinhisurine,hedidnotreceiveanymedicaltreatmentuntil8May1993,whenadoctorwassentbytheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights.Thedoctorexaminedtheauthorandgaveaprescriptiontotheprisonauthorities,buttheauthorneverreceivedthemedication.Itissubmittedthatthistreatmentamountstoaviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,readtogetherwithsections25(1)and31oftheStandardMinimumRulesforPrisoners.Counselfortheauthorarguesthatnodomesticremediesareavailableforthiscomplaintandsubmitsinthiscontextthatprisoners,includingtheauthor,whohavecomplainedabouttheirtreatmenthavereceiveddeaththreatsfromwarders.HefurtherclaimsthattheParliamentaryOmbudsman'scomplaintsprocedureisineffective.ReferenceismadetotheAmnestyInternationalreportJamaicaProposalforanEnquiryintoDeathsandIllTreatmentofPrisonersinSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.3.62..2Counselalsocontendsthatarticle17,paragraph1,oftheCovenanthasbeenviolatedintheauthor'scase.Heindicatesthat,onseveraloccasionsbetween10January1991and18June1992,mailsentbytheauthorneverarrivedatcounsel'sofficebecauseofunlawfulinterferencebytheprisonauthorities.3.72..2Theauthorfinallysubmitsthathehasbeenheldondeathrowsince13November1987andallegesthathislengthystayondeathrow,aswellashispossibleexecutionaftersuchdelay,iscontrarytoarticle7oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,referenceismadeinteraliatothejudgementofthePrivyCouncilinEarlPratt&IvanMorganv.theAttorneyGeneralforJamaica,deliveredon2November1993.Stateparty'ssubmissionandcounsel'scomments4.12..2Bysubmissionof25January1995,theStatepartyraisesnoobjectiontotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationandaddressesthemeritsofthecase,inordertoexpediteitsconsideration.4.22..2TheStatepartydoesnotaccepttheauthor'sviewthat,followingthePrivyCouncil'sdecisioninPrattandMorgan,adelayofoverfiveyearsincarryingoutthedeathpenaltyautomaticallyconstitutescruelandinhumantreatment.TheStatepartyisoftheopinionthateachcasemustbelookedatinitsentiretyandreferstotheCommittee'sViews t   ׀inthisrespect.4.32..2TheStatepartystatesthatitisinvestigatingtheauthor'sallegationsthathewasilltreatedwhileondeathrow,andthatitwillinformtheCommitteeabouttheoutcomeoftheinvestigations.4.42..2TheStatepartyfurtherstatesthatitwillinvestigatetheauthor'sallegationthathewasdeniedaccesstoanattorneyduringthe18monthsinwhichhewasheldincustody.4.52..2Asregardstheabsenceofrepresentationfortheauthoratthepreliminaryhearing,theStatepartysubmitsthathewasfreetoseeklegalaid.IntheabsenceofanyevidencethattheStatepreventedtheauthorfromseekinghisright,theStatepartydeniesthatitwasresponsiblefortheauthor'sfailuretoobtainrepresentation.Inthiscontext,theStatepartystatesthatitcannotbeheldaccountablefortheallegedfailuresintheconductofthedefenceattrialoratappealbyalegalaidattorney,justlikeitcannotbeheldaccountablefortheconductofprivatelyretainedcounsel.4.62..2TheStatepartyfurtherrejectstheviewthatthedecisionbytheCourtofAppealnottoquashthejudgementoftheCourtoffirstinstanceandnottoorderaretrialconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Inthisconnection,theStatepartypointsoutthattheCourtofAppealexaminedthefactsinthecase,exerciseditsdiscretioninaccordancewiththelaw,andallowedthedecisiontostand.TheStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudencethatissuesoffactsandevidencearebestlefttoappellatecourtsandarguesthatitisnotwithintheCommittee'scompetencetoexaminethewayinwhichtheCourtofAppealexerciseditsjurisdiction.4.72..2TheStatepartydeniesthataviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,tookplace.Itsubmitsthatthisarticleisconfinedtocriminaloffences,andthatitisthereforetheStateparty'sobligationtoensurethatanyonewhoisconvictedofacrimeisallowedtohavetheconvictionandsentencereviewedbyahighertribunal.SincetheJamaicanlawprovidesforsucharight,andtheauthorexercisedit,thereisnoviolationofarticle14,paragraph5.4.82..2Astotheauthor'sallegationthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticle17,theStatepartysubmitsthatthereisabsolutelynoevidenceofanyarbitraryorunlawfulinterferencewiththeauthor'smail.5.12..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselfortheauthoragreestotheimmediateexaminationbytheCommitteeofthemeritsofthecommunication.5.22..2Counselreferstoseveraljudicialdecisions u   ׀insupportofhisargumentthatastheauthorhasbeenincarceratedondeathrowsincehisconvictionon13November1987,foralmosteightyears,hehasbeensubjectedtoinhumananddegradingtreatmentorpunishmentinviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Inthisconnection,counselquotesfromthePrivyCounciljudgementinPratt&MorganthataState"mustaccepttheresponsibilityforensuringthatexecutionfollowsasswiftlyaspracticalaftersentence,allowingareasonabletimeforappealandconsiderationofreprieve".5.32..2CounselalsoreferstotheCommittee'sgeneralcommentonarticle7, v   ׀whereitisstatedthat"whenthedeathpenaltyisappliedbytheStateparty...itmustbecarriedoutinsuchawayastocausetheleastpossiblephysicalpainandmentalsuffering".Counselsubmitsthatanyexecutionthatwouldtakeplacemorethanfiveyearsafterconvictionwouldundoubtedlyresultinpainandsufferingandthereforeconstituteinhumananddegradingtreatment.5.42..2AsregardstheStateparty'scontentionthatitcannotbeheldaccountableforfailuresoflegalaidattorneys,counselreferstotheCommittee'sViewsincommunicationNo.283/1988 w   ׁwhereitheldthat:"Incasesinwhichacapitalsentencemaybepronounced,itisaxiomaticthatsufficienttimemustbegrantedtotheaccusedandhiscounseltopreparethedefenceforthetrial".Itissubmittedthat,althoughtheCommitteehasheldthatshortcomingsofaprivatelyretainedcounselcannotbeattributedtoaStateparty,thisdoesnotapplytolegalaidattorneys,whoonceassignedmustprovide"effectiverepresentation".5.52..2Inafurtherletterdated17November1995,counselexplainsthatthematterofMr.Johnson'sagewasnotraisedatthetrialbecausetherewasnotenoughtimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefence.OnlyinOctober1992,theJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightsnoticedhisbeingunderage.ThelawyerwhorepresentedMr.JohnsononappealinformedLondoncounselbyletterof29March1993that,ifthebirthcertificatewereauthentic,themattercouldbebroughtagainbeforetheCourtofAppeal.On18March1994,theJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightssentLondoncounselanauthenticatedcopyofthebirthcertificate.Londoncounselclaimsthatitappearsthattheauthor'sJamaicanappealcounselwasunwillingtoassistinbringingthemattertotheattentionoftheJamaicanauthorities.FromthecopiesofcorrespondenceitappearsthattherehasbeennofurthercontactwiththeJamaicanappealcounselsinceMarch1993.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12..2Atits56thsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.22..2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32..2TheCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadnotraisedanyobjectionstotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationandhadforwardeditscommentsonthemeritsinordertoexpeditetheprocedure,andthatcounselfortheauthorhadagreedtotheexaminationofthemeritsofthecommunication.Nevertheless,theCommitteeconsideredthattheinformationbeforeitwasnotsufficienttoenableittoadoptitsViews.TheCommitteethereforelimiteditselftoissuesofadmissibility.6.42..2TheCommitteenotedthatpartoftheauthor'sallegationsrelatedtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury.TheCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratedthatitwasgenerallynotfortheCommittee,butfortheappellateCourtsofStatesparties,toreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythetrialjudge,unlessitcouldbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.TheCommitteetooknoteoftheauthor'sclaimthattheinstructionsintheinstantcasedidnotmeetthehighstandardsrequiredincasesofcapitalpunishment.TheCommitteealsonotedtheCourtofAppeal'sconsiderationofthisclaim,andconcludedthatintheinstantcasethetrialjudge'sinstructionsdidnotshowsuchdefectsastorenderthemarbitraryoradenialofjustice.Accordingly,thispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52..2Astotheauthor'sclaimthathisprolongeddetentionondeathrowamountedtoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadnotobjectedtotheadmissibilityoftheclaim.TheCommitteewouldthereforeconsideronthemeritswhethertheauthor'sprolongeddetentionondeathrow,inviewofhisyoungage,constitutedaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.6.62..2TheCommitteenotedthattheauthor'sclaimthatsomeoftheletterssentbyhimin1991and1992failedtoarriveathiscounsel'soffice,lackedspecificityandconsideredthattheauthorhadfailedtosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimthatthiswasduetounlawfulinterferencebytheprisonauthorities,inviolationofarticle17oftheCovenant.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.72..2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'sclaimsthathewassentencedtodeathinviolationofarticle6,paragraph5,oftheCovenant,thathehadbeensubjectedtoilltreatmentindetention,thathehadnoaccesstoalegalrepresentativeduringthefirst18monthsofhisdetentionandthathewasnotrepresentedatthepreliminaryhearing,andthattheunavailabilityoflegalaidforconstitutionalmotionsconstitutedaviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant,hadbeensufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,andshouldbeconsideredonthemerits.7.2..2Accordingly,on14March1996,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticles6,paragraph5,7,10,paragraph1,and14,paragraphs1,3(b)and(d),and5,oftheCovenant,inrespectofthelackoflegalrepresentationduringthefirst18monthsofdetention,atthepreliminaryhearingandtheunavailabilityoflegalaidforthefilingofaconstitutionalmotion.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scommentsthereon8.12..2Bynoteof28October1996,theStatepartyinformstheCommitteethataninvestigationhasshownthatthereisnorecordofaninjuryreportwithrespecttothebeatingoftheauthorwhichallegedlyoccurredon4May1993.Neitheristherearecordofanymedicaltreatmentormedication.AccordingtotheStateparty,theonlyrecordoftheincidentappearstobecontainedintheminutesofameetingheldbetweenarepresentativeoftheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights,aSuperintendentanddeathrowinmates.Ontwooccasionsattemptsweremadebyaseniorprobationofficertointerviewtheauthor,buthewashesitanttospeakandindicatedthathewishedtoobtainhisattorney'sapprovalbeforecommunicatingwiththeinterviewer.Inthecircumstances,theStatepartydeniesthataviolationofarticles7and10(1)tookplace.8.22..2Withregardtothelackoflegalrepresentationduringpretrialdetentionandatthepreliminaryhearing,theStatepartyreiteratesthattheauthorwasfreetoseeklegalaid,andthatunlessitcanbeshownthatsuchrepresentationwasrequestedanddenied,nobreachoftheCovenanthasoccurred.8.32..2Inrespectoftheabsenceoflegalaidforconstitutionalmotions,theStatepartyarguesthataconstitutionalmotionisdesignedtoseekconstitutionalredress,andisnotanappellateprocedure.AccordingtotheStateparty,itsobligationsunderarticle14,paragraph5,concerntheCourtofAppealproceduresandthePrivyCouncil.Itsfailuretoprovidelegalaidforaconstitutionalremedyissaidnottobeinbreachofarticle14,paragraph5.8.42..2TheStatepartypointsoutthattheauthor'sdeathsentencehasbeencommuted,andthatasaconsequencetherehasbeennobreachofarticle6,paragraph5.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthatsection29(1)oftheJuvenilesActprohibitstheexecutionofapersonwhowasundereighteenatthetimetheoffencewascommitted.9.12..2Inhiscomments,counselarguesthatthelackofrecordsintothebeatingof4May1993,doesnotnegatetheauthor'sallegation.Counselnotesthattheauthorgaveastatement,on14May1993,toanattorney,inwhichhesetoutthefactsoftheincident.TheobservationsbytheStatepartyinnowaydisprovetheallegationmadebytheauthor,andthelackofmedicalrecordsisindeedconsistentwiththeauthor'sclaimthathewasdeniedmedicaltreatment.Inviewoftheriskforreprisals,counselstatesthatitisnotsurprisingthattheauthorwashesitanttospeaktotheofficersenttointerviewhim.9.22..2Counselsubmitsthattheauthor'sclaimunderarticle14(3)(b)doesnotonlyrelatetothelackoflegalrepresentationbeforethetrial,butalsoduringhistrialandappeal,issuesnotaddressedbytheStateparty.CounselarguesthatitistheStateparty'sdutytoappointlegalaidattorneysinatimelyfashion,sothattheyhavesufficienttimetopreparethedefenceforthetrialandprovideeffectiverepresentation.9.32..2Withregardtothelackoflegalaidforconstitutionalmotions,counselarguesthattheStatepartyhasanobligationunderarticle2(3)oftheCovenanttomaketheremediesintheconstitutionalcourtaddressingviolationsofhumanrightsavailableandeffective.CounselreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudence x   andsubmitsthattheabsenceoflegalaidhasdeniedtheauthortheopportunitytoassessirregularitiesofhiscriminaltrial,inviolationofarticle14(1)junctoarticle2(3)oftheCovenant.Accordingtocounsel,thisisparticularlypertinentinviewoftheauthor'syoungage.9.42..2Counselsubmitsthattheauthorwasbornon21August1968andthereforeseventeenyearsandsevenweeksoldatthetimeoftheincidentof11October1985.Ashewassentencedtodeathwhilstundereighteenatthetimewhentheoffencewascommitted,article6(5)hasbeenviolated.Accordingtocounsel,theviolationoccurredatthetimetheauthorwassentencedtodeathandcontinueduntilhissentencewascommuted.Thecommutationmaybearemedyfortheviolation,butdoesnotmeanthattheviolationdidnotoccur.9.52..2Inrelationtotheviolationofarticle6(5),counselarguesthattheauthor'sprolongeddetentionondeathrowamountedtoaviolationofarticles7and10(1)oftheCovenant.WithreferencetotheCommittee'sjurisprudence,itissubmittedthattheauthorhavingbeensentencedtodeathinviolationofarticle6(5)oftheCovenantisacompellingcircumstance,overandabovethelengthofdetentionondeathrow,thatturnstheauthor'sdetentionintoaviolationofarticles7and10(1)oftheCovenant.&  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthe'  lightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthatarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d)wasviolatedinhiscase,theCommitteeaffirmsthatlegalassistancemustbemadeavailabletoanaccusedwhoischargedwithacapitalcrime.Thisappliesnotonlytothetrialinthecourtoffirstinstance,butalsotoanypreliminaryhearingsrelatingtothecase.Intheinstantcase,theStatepartyhasnotcontestedthattheauthorwasnotrepresentedduringthepreliminaryhearing,buthasmerelystatedthatthereisnoindicationthathehadrequestedalawyer.TheCommitteeconsidersthat,whentheauthorappearedatthepreliminaryhearingwithoutalegalrepresentative,itwouldhavebeenincumbentupontheinvestigatingmagistratetoinformtheauthorofhisrighttohavelegalrepresentationandtoensurelegalrepresentationfortheauthor,ifhesowished.TheCommitteethereforeconcludesthattheabsenceoflegalrepresentationfortheauthoratthepreliminaryhearingconstitutedaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant.10.3Withregardtotheauthor'sdeathsentence,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotchallengedtheauthenticityofthebirthcertificatepresentedbytheauthor,andhasnotrefutedthattheauthorwasundereighteenyearsofagewhenthecrimeforwhichhewasconvictedwascommitted.Asaconsequence,theimpositionofthedeathsentenceupontheauthorconstitutedaviolationofarticle6,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.10.4Inthecircumstances,sincetheauthorofthiscommunicationwassentencedtodeathinviolationofarticle6(5)oftheCovenant,andtheimpositionofthedeathsentenceuponhimwasthusvoidabinitio,hisdetentionondeathrowconstitutedaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.10.5Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewassubjectedtoilltreatmenton4May1993,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorhasgivendetailedinformation,andthattheStateparty'sinvestigationhasnotrefutedtheauthor'sallegation.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteefindsthattheauthor'sclaimthathehasbeensubjectedtoilltreatmenton4May1993hasbeensubstantiatedandthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.10.6InthelightoftheCommittee'sotherfindings,theCommitteeneednotaddresscounsel'sclaimthattheabsenceoflegalaidforthepurposeoffilingaconstitutionalmotioninitselfconstitutesaviolationoftheCovenant.11.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalrights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticles6,paragraph5,7,and14,paragraph3(d),oftheCovenant.12.2..2Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,CliveJohnsonisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy.Inviewofthefactthattheauthorwasaminorwhenhewasarrestedandthathehasspentalmostthirteenyearsindetention,morethansevenofwhichondeathrow,theCommitteerecommendstheauthor'simmediaterelease.TheStatepartyisundertheobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.2..2OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitissubjecttothecontinuedapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]  APPENDIXIndividualopinionbyDavidKretzmer(concurring)  2..2IconcurintheviewoftheCommitteethatholdingtheauthorondeathrowinthiscaseamountedtocruelandinhumanpunishment.However,sincetheCommitteehasconsistentlyheldinthepastthatthetimeondeathrowdoesnotofitselfamounttoaviolationofarticle7,Ithinkisimportanttosetoutthegroundsforthedifferentresultinthiscase.2..2TheCommittee'sviewthatthemerelengthoftimespentondeathrowbyapersonsentencedtodeathdoesnotamounttocruelandinhumanpunishmentrestsonthenotionthatholdingotherwisewouldimplythataStatepartycouldavoidviolatingtheCovenantbyexecutingacondemnedperson.AstheCovenantstronglysuggeststhatabolitionofthedeathpenaltyisdesirable,theCommitteecouldnotacceptaninterpretationoftheCovenanttheimplicationofwhichwasthattheCovenantwouldbeviolatedifaStatepartyrefrainedfromexecutingaperson,butnotifitexecutedhim.2..2ThisviewoftheCommitteeobviouslyholdsonlywhenimposingandcarryingoutthedeathsentencearenotofthemselvesaviolationoftheCovenant.ThelogicbehindtheviewdoesnotapplywhentheStatepartywouldviolatetheCovenantbyimposingandcarryingoutthedeathsentence.Insuchacasetheviolationinvolvedinimposingthedeathpenaltyiscompoundedbyholdingthecondemnedpersonondeathrow,duringwhichtimehesuffersfromtheanxietyoverhispendingexecution.Thisdetentionondeathrowmaycertainlyamounttocruelandinhumanpunishment,especiallywhenthatdetentionlastslongerthannecessaryforthedomesticlegalproceedingsrequiredtocorrecttheerrorinvolvedinimposingthedeathsentence.2..2Inthepresentcase,astheCommitteehasheldinparagraph10.4,impositionofthedeathpenaltywasinconsistentwiththeStateparty'sobligationunderarticle6,paragraph5oftheCovenant.Theauthorsubsequentlyspentalmosteightyearsondeathrow,beforehissentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentfollowingreclassificationofhisoffenceasnoncapital.Inthesecircumstancesthedetentionoftheauthorondeathrowamountedtocruelandinhumanpunishment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.#..l[Signed]D.Kretzmer[DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]ǀD.CommunicationNo.594/1992,Phillipv.TrinidadandTobago󀀀(Viewsadoptedon20October1998,sixtyfourthsession)*882 Submittedby:0 .. 0 .. 0 .. IrvingPhillip(representedbyMs.NataliaSchiffrin,ofInterights2..2Victim:0..0 ..  .. 0 .. TheauthorStateparty:0 ..  .. 0 .. TrinidadandTobagoDateofcommunication:0 .. 13February1994(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  .. 15March19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon20October1998,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.594/1992submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.IrvingPhillip,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisIrvinPhillip,aTrinidadiancitizenservingalifesentenceattheStatePrisonofPort-of-Spain,TrinidadandTobago.Heclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticles7,10(1)and14(1),14(3)(b),(d)and(e)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsbyTrinidadandTobago.HeisrepresentedbyMs.NataliaSchiffrinofInterights.򀀀  Ӏ2..2*ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.RomanWieruszewski,Mr.MaxwellYaldenandMr.AbdallahZakhia.Pursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,Mr.RajsoomerLallahdidnotparticipateintheadoptionoftheViews.&    Thefactsassubmitted2.12..2Theauthor,togetherwithPeterHolder y   ׀andErrolJanet,wasjointlycharged'  withthemurder,on29March1985,ofoneFaithPhillip(norelationtotheauthor).On5May1988,afteratrialwhichlastedonemonth,thejuryfailedtoreturnaunanimousverdict,andaretrialwasordered.On18June1988,theaccusedwerefoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathbytheSecondAssizesCourtofPort-of-Spain.On5April1990,theCourtofAppealofTrinidadandTobagodismissedtheappealofMessrs.HolderandPhillip,whereasitacquittedErrolJanet;itissuedawrittenjudgementtwoweekslater.Mr.Phillip'spetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon24April1991.On31December1993Mr.Phillip'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonment.2.22..2ThesubjectofthecommunicationisMr.Phillip'ssecondtrial,atwhichtheCourtdeniedthelegalaidattorney'smotionforanadjournmentinordertobetterprepareforthedefenceor,inthealternative,toallowMr.Philliptoengageothercounsel.2.32..2Ms.ZelinaMohammed,acashierattheZodiacRecreationalClubinPort-of-Spainwasthesoleeyewitnesstothecrimeandtheprosecution'smainwitness.Attrialshetestifiedthat,onthemorningof29March1985,shewasatwork,insidethebar,andthatFaithPhillipsatinfrontofthebar,whenthreemencamein.Mr.Holderorderedadrinkandafterawhilewentdownstairs;sheheardasoundasifthegatetotheentrancewasbeingclosed.WhenMr.Holdercameback,sheaskedFaithPhillip,tohavealook.ShortlythereafterMr.PhillipassaultedFaithPhillip,whileMr.HolderkickedopenthedoortothebarandenteredthebartogetherwithMr.Janet.Bothwereholdingknives.Mr.HolderforcedMs.Mohammedtoopenthecashregisterandgivethem$300.ShewasalsoforcedtoshowthemtheroomoftheClub'sownerwhichwasattheback.There,Mr.Holdertiedherup,whileMr.Janetsearchedtheroomforvaluables.Shewastoldtofacethewall,butbeforedoingsoshesawMr.Phillipinthecorridor,pullingFaithPhillipintoanotherroom.Shethenheardfighting,whichcontinuedforaboutfiveminutes.Afteritstoppedsheheardfootsteps,asiftheaccusedwereleaving.Finally,shewasuntiedbytheClub'selectricianwhopassedbyandtheyfoundFaithPhilliplyingonthefloor,withherfaceswollenandbloodrunningfromhernose.Thedeceasedwaspronounceddeadonarrivaltohospital.Thecauseofdeathwasamassivebrainhaemorrhage,resultingfrombluntforceinjuriestoherhead.2.42..2Attheidentificationparadeheldon4April1985Ms.MohammedselectedMr.Phillipfromagroupofeightmenassomeonewho"lookedlike"oneofthepersonsinvolvedinthecrime.Mr.Phillipclaimsmistakenidentification.2.52..2Atthetrial,Mr.Holdergavesworntestimonyadmittingparticipationintherobbery.Hedenied,however,havingstruckthedeceased.HestatedthatwhileheandMr.JanetwereemptyingthedrawersintheClubowner'sroom,hesawMr.PhillipgoingupthecorridorwithFaithPhillip.Whentheyleftthebuilding,theymetMr.Phillipoutside.2.62..2Theprosecutionstatedthatallthreedefendantsmadestatementsundercaution,witnessedbyajusticeofthepeace,admittingtheirinvolvementinthecrime.Inhisstatementtheauthoradmittedtherobberybutdeniedtakinganypartinthebeatingofthedeceased.Attrial,however,hegavesworntestimonydenyingknowledgeofthecrime,claimingthathehadneverlefthishomeon29March1985andchallengingtheidentificationbyMs.Mohammed.Hisstatementtothepolicewasadmittedintoevidenceafteravoirdire.2.72..2Mr.Janetaffirmeduponoathhispreviousstatementtothepolice.HestatedthattherobberywasplannedbyMessrs.HolderandPhillip,whohadreceivedinformationthattheowneroftheClubkeptallhismoneyattheClub.Outoffearofbothmen,heassistedintherobbery.HefurtherstatedthathepreventedMr.Holderfromfurtherhittingthedeceased.Thecomplaint3.12..2Theauthorclaimsthathistrialwasunfairinbreachofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Inthiscontexthecomplainsabouttheinconsistencyinthetestimonyofwitnessesduringthefirsttrial.Hepointsoutthat,astheprosecutionfailedtoprovehisguiltatthefirsttrial,heshouldhavebeenacquitted.Theauthorfurtherclaimsthat,astheprosecutionhadfailedtoprovehismensrea,thejudgeshouldhavebroughttheissueofmanslaughtertotheattentionofthejury.3.22..2Withrespecttothetimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefenceintheretrial,theauthorclaimsthatcounselwasappointedonFriday10June1988andthatthetrialcommencedonMonday13June1988.Counsel'srequestforadditionaltimetopreparethedefenceandtomeetwithMr.Phillipwasdenied,inviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(e)oftheCovenant.3.32..2Hefurthercomplainsthathewasdeniedacounselofhischoosingattheretrial,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).Itappearsfromthenotesofevidencethatduringtheretrialtheauthorcomplainedabouttheperformanceofhiscounselwhowasyoungandhadneverdefendedacapitalcase.Accordinglytheauthorrequestedanadjournmenttoobtainacounselofhisownchoice.Thejudgeadvisedcounseltomakehisapplicationtowithdrawfromthecaseincourt.Thecourtsubsequentlyrefusedcounsel'sapplication.Theauthorstatesthatthejudgetoldhimthathecouldnotaffordanattorneyofhisownchoiceandthatthereforethecasewouldnotbepostponed.Accordingtotheauthor,hisconvictionisattributabletothejudge'styrannicalbehaviourinadditiontotheinexperienceofcounsel.3.42..2WithrespecttotheconditionsunderwhichMr.Phillipisdetained,counselarguesthattheprisoncellisunderground,filthy,withbadventilationandinfestedwithcockroachesandrats.Hesleepsonpiecesofcarpetandtorncardboardboxonthecoldconcretefloorwithoutanybedding.Foodisinadequate.Therearenotoiletriesormedication.Thecomplaints,however,havenotbeenreportedtoanyauthorities,becausetheauthorfearsreprisalfromthewardersandclaimstobelivingincompletefearforhislife.Theseconditionsaresaidtoconstituteviolationsofarticles7and10(1)oftheCovenant.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scomments4.12..2Initssubmissionof23September1993theStatepartyobjectstotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationandrefers,inparticular,totheCommittee'sjurisprudenceaccordingtowhichtheevaluationoffactsandevidenceisfortheCourtsofStatesparties.4.22..2ItfurtherinformstheCommitteethaton23August1993,IrvinPhillipfiledaconstitutionalmotionintheHighCourtinwhichheisseekingadeclarationthattheexecutionofthesentenceofdeathonhimwillbeunconstitutional,nullandvoidaswellasanordervacatingthesentenceofdeathandstayingtheexecution.On23August1993,theCourtgrantedaconservatoryorderdirectingtheStatetoundertakethatnoactionwouldbetakentocarryoutthesentenceofdeathontheauthoruntilthehearinganddeterminationofthemotion.4.32..2Moreover,theStatepartyargues:2..2(a)..TheauthorhasnotindicatedtheprovisionorprovisionsoftheCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightswhichheallegeshavebeenviolatedbytheRepublicofTrinidadandTobago;and2..2(b)..ThefactsassubmitteddonotraiseissuesunderanyoftheprovisionsoftheCovenant;2..2(c)..AccordingtotheconstantjurisprudenceoftheHumanRightsCommittee,itisinprinciplenotfortheCommitteebutfortheCourtsofStatesPartiestotheCovenanttoevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.ThedecisionofthecourtsinTrinidadandTobagoandthePrivyCouncilinthiscasecannotbeviewedasbeingarbitraryorasamountingtoadenialofjustice;2..2(d)..Byreasonsoftheforegoing,thecommunicationisincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.4.42..2Initssubmissionof9February1995,theStatepartyinformstheCommitteethatpursuanttothejudgmentoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofEarlPrattandIvanMorganv.theAttorneyGeneralofJamaica,thesentencesofdeathagainstMessrs.PeterHolderandIrvinPhillipwerecommutedtosentencesoflifeimprisonment.5.12..2Byletterof21June1994,Interights,anongovernmentalorganizationintheUnitedKingdominformedtheCommitteethatithadbeenaskedbyMr.PhilliptorepresenthimbeforetheCommittee.5.22..2Byletterof27March1995InterightsresubmittedthecommunicationonbehalfofMr.Phillip,enclosingthetextofthenotesofevidenceandthetranscriptofthetrialbeforetheSecondAssizeCourtinPortofSpainagainstMessrs.PeterHolder,IrvinPhillipandErrolJanet.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12..2Duringits56thsessiontheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.22..2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32..2Astotherequirementinarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolthatdomesticremediesbeexhausted,theCommitteenotedthatthePrivyCouncilhaddismissedtheauthor'sapplicationforleavetoappeal.Therefore,withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsofunfairtrial,theCommitteewassatisfiedthatdomesticremedieshadbeenexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisconnection,theCommitteealsonotedthat,followingthecommutationoftheauthor'sdeathsentence,theauthor'sconstitutionalmotionbeforetheHighCourthadbecomemoot.6.42..2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthattheconditionsofhisdetentionwerecruel,inhumananddegrading,theCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadsofarnotattemptedtorefutehisclaimnorhaditprovidedinformationabouteffectivedomesticremediesavailabletotheauthor.Inthesecircumstances,giventheauthor'sstatementthathehadnotfiledacomplaintbecauseofhisfearsofthewarders,theCommitteeconsideredthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolfromexaminingthecomplaint,whichmightraiseissuesunderarticles7and10oftheCovenant.6.52..2Withregardtothatpartoftheauthor'scommunicationrelatingtotheevaluationofevidenceandtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury,inparticular,thefailuretoinstructthejuryonthepossibilityofmanslaughter,theCommitteereferredtoitsestablishedjurisprudencethatitwas,inprinciple,fortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenant,andnotfortheCommittee,toevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.Astotheauthor'sallegationthathehadnotmadeanyadmissiontothepoliceandthattheidentificationbythemainprosecutionwitnesswasfaulty,theCommitteenotedthatthesematterswerethesubjectofavoirdire,atwhichthefactsandevidencewereevaluated.Similarly,itwasnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudge,unlessitcouldbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotreflectthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionsortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.62..2Astotheotherclaimsunderarticle14,paragraph3,theCommitteefoundthattheauthorhadsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisallegationsthatattheretrialhedidnothavesufficienttimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefence,thathisdefencecounselwasinexperiencedandthathewasdeniedtheopportunitytoobtaincounselofhisownchoosing.TheCommitteeconsideredthatitshouldexaminethispartofthecommunicationonthemerits.6.72..2Consequently,on15March1996,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles7,10,and14,oftheCovenant.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee7.12..2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationprovidedbytheparties.Itnoteswithconcernthat,followingthetransmittaloftheCommittee'sdecisiononadmissibility,nofurtherinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyclarifyingthemattersraisedbythepresentcommunicationdespitereminderssenton11March1997,30Apriland12May1998.TheCommitteerecallsthatitisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,thataStatepartyexamineingoodfaithalltheallegationsbroughtagainstit,andthatitprovidetheCommitteewithalltheinformationatitsdisposal.InlightofthefailureoftheStatepartytocooperatewiththeCommitteeonthematterbeforeit,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheextentthatthesehavebeensubstantiated.7.22..2TheCommitteenotesthattheinformationbeforeitshowsthattheauthor'scounselrequestedthecourttoallowhimanadjournmentortowithdrawfromthecase,becausehewasunpreparedtodefendit,sincehehadbeenassignedthecaseonFriday10June1988andthetrialbeganonMonday13June1988.Thejudgerefusedtogranttherequestallegedlybecausehefelttheauthorwouldbeunabletoaffordcounselofhisownchoice.TheCommitteerecallsthatwhilearticle14,paragraph3(d),doesnotentitletheaccusedtochoosecounselprovidedtohimfreeofcharge,theCourtshouldensurethattheconductofthetrialbythelawyerisnotincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.TheCommitteeconsidersthatinacapitalcase,whencounselfortheaccusedwhowasnotexperiencedinsuchcasesrequestsanadjournmentbecauseheisunpreparedtoproceedtheCourtmustensurethattheaccusedisgivenanopportunitytopreparehisdefence.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatintheinstantcase,Mr.Phillip'scounselshouldhavebeengrantedanadjournment.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatMr.Phillipwasnoteffectivelyrepresentedontrial,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b)and(d),oftheCovenant.7.32..2TheCommitteeconsidersthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstconvictionispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsGeneralComment6[16],theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat"proceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefence,andtherighttoreviewofconvictionandsentencebyahighertribunal".Inthiscase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithoutduerespectfortherequirementsofarticle14,theCommitteemustholdthattherehasalsobeenaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.7.42..2TheCommitteenotesthatwithregardtotheauthor'sconditionsofdetentionhehasmadepreciseallegations,ofbeingkeptinafilthy,badlyventilated,cockroachandratinfested,undergroundcell.Hesleepsonpiecesofcarpetandtorncardboardboxoncoldconcretefloor,withnobedding.Foodisinadequateandtherearenotoiletriesormedication.TheStatepartyhasmadenoattempttorefutethesespecificallegations.InthecircumstancesandintheabsenceofaresponsefromtheStateparty,theCommitteetakestheallegationsasundisputed.Itfindsthatholdingaprisonerintheaboveconditionsofdetentionviolateshisrighttobetreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson,andisthereforecontrarytoarticle10,paragraph1.8.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticles10,paragraph1,and14,paragraph3(b)and(d),andconsequentlyofarticle6oftheCovenant.9.2..2Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Phillipwithaneffectiveremedy,includingimmediatereleaseandcompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.10.2..2BearinginmindthatbybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,TrinidadandTobagohasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]+ G UK     \R3'\ X      +CH<6X9`(CourierCS I $ 1.(a)(i) a.(1)(a) i) a)Sz882   ݀E.CommunicationNo.602/1994,Hoofdmanv.theNetherlands̀(Viewsadoptedon3November1998,sixtyfourthsession)* {   882   Submittedby: .. 0 .. CornelisHoofdman(representedbyMr.L.J.L.Heukels,alawyerinHaarlem)Allegedvictim: .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  .. TheNetherlandsDateofcommunication: .. 26May1994Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  .. 3July19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon3November1998,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.602/1994submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyCornelisHoofdman,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisCornelisP.Hoofdman,acitizenoftheNetherlandsbornin1952.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbytheNetherlandsofarticle26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,aswellasofhisrighttorespectforhisprivateandfamilylife,andhisrighttoafairhearing,asprotectedbyarticles6,paragraph1,and8oftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms.HeisrepresentedbyMr.L.J.L.Heukels,alawyerinHaarlem.Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2Theauthorandhisgirlfriend,livedtogetherasanunmarriedcouplefromJanuary1986untilherdeath,on14February1991.On26February1991,theauthorappliedforapensionortemporarybenefitundertheGeneralWidows'andOrphans'Act(AlgemeneWeduwenenWezenwet)(AWW).On26April1991,theSocialSecurityBank(SocialeVerzekeringsbank)(SVB),whichisresponsibleforimplementingtheAWW,rejectedtheauthor'sapplicationonthegroundthat,sincehehadnotbeenmarried,hedidnotmeetAWWrequirements.Thedecisionwasbasedonarticles8and13oftheAct,underwhichpensionentitlementsortemporarybenefitsareonlyawardedtothewidoworthewidowerofthe(insured)spouse.2.22..2On12May1991,theauthorappealedtotheBoardofAppeal(RaadvanBeroep),arguingthatthedistinctiondrawnbytheSVBbetweenmarriedandunmarriedcohabitants,forpurposesofAWWbenefits,amountedtoprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.ThePresidentoftheBoardofAppeal,on2December1991,declaredtheappealunfounded,relyingonadecisiontakenon28February1990bythehighestcourtinsocialsecuritycases,theCentralBoardofAppeal(CentraleRaadvanBeroep)(CRvB),inacasesimilartothatoftheauthor.2.32..2Inthatdecision(alsoconcerningtheAWW),theCRvBpointedoutthat,furthertotheCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.180/1984(Danningv.theNetherlands),    |   ׀ithadalreadydecided,incasesconcerningtheSicknessBenefitsAct,thatdifferentiationbetweenmarriedandunmarriedcohabitantsunderNetherlandssocialsecuritylegislationdidnotamounttoprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.AccordingtotheCRvB,thesocialconditionsandviewsinthefieldofmarriageandcohabitationprevailingatthetimeinquestion(1987)hadnotchangedinsuchawayastoconcludethattherestrictionlaiddownintheAWWviolatedarticle26oftheCovenant.Inthisconnection,theCRvBnotedthatthefactthatthelegislature,inthelightoftherecentrevisionofthesocialsecuritysystem,hadintroducedtheprincipleofequalityoftreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcoupleswhosharedahousehold,didnotnecessarilymeanthattherestrictionstillmaintainedundertheAWW(i.e.,thatonlythewidowerorwidowoftheinsuredspousewasentitledtoapensionortemporarybenefits)amountedtoaprohibiteddifferentiationunderarticle26oftheCovenant.TheCRvBaddedthat,eventhoughdiscriminationdidnotarise,theDutchGovernmentremained,ofcourse,freetostrivefortheequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcohabitants.2.42..2On24December1991,theauthorfiledanappealagainstthedecisionof2December1991withthefullBoardofAppeal.HearguedthattheCRvB'sfindingsintheothercasewerebasedonthesocialconditionsandviewsinthefieldofmarriageandcohabitationprevailingin1987,andthattheCRvBhadnotexcludedthatthoseconditionsandviewscouldbesubjecttochangeswithinashortperiodoftime,asaresultofwhichthedenialofAWWbenefitstounmarriedcohabitantswouldamounttoprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.Theauthorpointedoutthattherelevanttimeinquestioninhiscasewas14February1991,whenhisgirlfrienddied;hecontendedthatatthatdatechangeshadoccurredintheconditionsandviewsheldinsocietyinrespectofmarriageandcohabitation.2.52..2Inthisconnection,theauthorreferredtothefollowingpassagesoftheExplanatoryMemorandumtotheproposednewGeneral(Bereaved)Relatives'Act(AlgemeneNabestaandenWet)(ANW),whichwasdiscussedintheLowerHousein1990-1991:2..2.."TheGeneralWidows'andOrphans'Actissubjecttorevision.Thechangesthathaveoccurredinsocietysincetheenteringintoforce[oftheAct]in1959justifythisconclusion";2..2.."AthirdreasonforrevisingtheAWWisthewishtosecuretheequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcohabitants.ThroughrevisionoftheAWW,shapeshouldbegiventothe[...]objectivenottodifferentiatebetweenformsofcohabitation";2..2.."[...]IfequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcohabitantscannotberealizedintheANW,itwillresultinanincongruitywithinthesocialsecuritysystem.IftheANWistobeexcluded,unjustifiablesituationscouldarise.Fromthatperspective,also,theGovernmentconsidersthattheequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcohabitantsundertheANWisnecessary."2..2Accordingtotheauthor,thedraftingoftheANWandtheviewoftheGovernmentaslaiddownintheExplanatoryMemorandumtothatActindicatedthatconditionsandviewsinthefieldofmarriageandcohabitationheldinsocietyin1991weredifferentfromthosethatprevailedin1987.2.62..2On26May1992,theBoardofAppealrejectedtheauthor'sappeal,referringtoajudgmentof16October1991oftheCentralBoardofAppeal;inthatcase,theCRvBhaddecidedthat,inOctober1991,therestrictionintheAWWunderwhichonlythewidoworwidowerwasentitledtoAWWbenefitsdidnotyetamounttoprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.TheBoardofAppealconcludedthat,accordingly,thesamecouldbesaidfortheauthor'scase,andthattheproposalsundertheANWdidnotmakeanydifference.2.72..2On29June1992,theauthorappealedtotheCentralBoardofAppeal.Hearguedthat,accordingtotheCRvB'sownjurisprudence,thedateofdeceaseofthepartnerwithwhomtheapplicantlivedtogetherisrelevanttothequestionofwhetherthedifferenceoftreatmentundertheAWWbetweenmarriedpeopleandunmarriedcohabitantsconstitutedprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant;thequestionofwhethertheconditionsandviewsheldinsocietyinthefieldofmarriageandcohabitationhavechangedshouldthusbeassessedasofthatmoment.TheauthorpointedoutthattheCRvB'sjudgmentof16October1991concernedarequestforAWWbenefitsofanapplicantwhosepartnerhaddiedon6February1988;hecontendedthat,whilein1988onecouldstillhavedoubtsastowhetherrelevantchangeshadoccurredinsocialconditionsandviews,onecouldnotquestionthisin1991,since,atthattime,theproposedANW,withitsprincipleofequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcohabitants,hadbeenplacedbeforetheLowerHouse;thefactthattheANWhadnotyetenteredintoforcedidnotmakeadifference.2.82..2On17June1993,theCentralBoardofAppealconfirmedtheBoardofAppeal'sjudgmentof26May1992.Itreferredtoitsearlierjurisprudence(includingajudgmentof24May1993)onthematterandpointedoutthatithadalreadyruledthatitwasforthelegislaturetooutlinewhichcategoriesofcohabitantswereentitledtopensionsorbenefitsafterthedeathofthepartner,andthatitdidnotconsideritexpedienttointerferewiththeproposedlegislation(i.e.,theANW).Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Complaint3.12..2TheauthorclaimsthathisprivateandfamilylifehasnotbeenrespectedbecausehewasdeniedAWWbenefitssimplybecausehewasnotmarried.Hepointsoutthatunderseveralothersocialsecurityacts,unmarriedcohabitantsaretreatedasmarriedcohabitants,andthatheandhispartnerfulfilledthecriteriausedinrespectoftheseacts(jointaccommodationandjointcontributiontothehouseholdcosts).Inthiscontext,hesubmitsthatbothheandhispartnerwereunemployedandreceivedunemploymentbenefitsasa"marriedcouple"undertherelevantact.However,inordertoreceivebenefitsundertheAWW,hewouldhavebeenforcedtomarryfirst;accordingtotheauthor,suchanartificialconstructionconstitutesarbitraryinterferencewithhisprivatelife.3.22..2TheauthorreferstothegroundshearguedbeforetheBoardofAppealandCentralBoardofAppeal;hereiteratesthatconditionsandviewsheldinsocietyastomarriageandcohabitationhavechanged,andclaimsthattheunequaltreatmentundertheAWWofmarriedcouplesandunmarriedcoupleswhoshareahouseholdamountstoprohibiteddiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant.3.32..2Theauthorfurtherarguesthathedidnotreceiveafairhearingwithregardtothedeterminationofhisrighttoapensionbenefit,becausethelawappliedwasdiscriminatory.3.42..2ItissubmittedthatthesamematterhasnotbeensubmittedtotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scommentsthereon4.2..2TheStateparty,bysubmissionof30August1995,raisesnoobjectionstotheadmissibilityoftheauthor'sclaimunderarticle26oftheCovenant.Withregardtohisclaimsunderarticles6and8oftheEuropeanConvention,however,theStatepartynotesthattheseclaimsconcernanotherconventionthantheCovenant,and,moreover,thattheauthorhasnotsubmittedtheseclaimstotheDutchcourts.TheStatepartyconcludesthereforethatthispartofthecommunicationisinadmissible.5.2..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,theauthorstatesthathisclaimsunderarticles6and8oftheEuropeanConventionaretobeseeninconjunctionwithhisclaimunderarticle26oftheCovenant,andshouldthereforebeconsideredadmissible.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12..2Atits57thsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.ItnotedthattheStatepartyhadraisednoobjectionstotheadmissibilityoftheauthor'sclaimunderarticle26oftheCovenant.TheCommitteeconsideredthatthequestionwhetherornotthedifferenceintreatmentoftheauthor,asaconsequenceofhismaritalstatus,wasunreasonableorarbitrary,shouldbeexaminedonthemerits,inthecontextoftheStateparty'sobligationsunderarticle26inconjunctionwitharticle23,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.ItinvitedtheStatepartytoexplainthebasisofthedifferentiation,aswellasthedifferentobligationsandbenefitsunderthelawformarriedandunmarriedcouplesatthematerialtime.6.22..2TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'sobjectionstotheadmissibilityoftheauthor'sclaimsofunfairhearingandinterferencewithprivateandfamilylife.TheCommitteeobserved,however,thatarticles6,paragraph1,and8oftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsweresimilarincontentstoarticles14,paragraph1,and17oftheCovenant.TheCommitteerecalledthat,whereasauthorsmustinvokethesubstantiverightscontainedintheCovenant,theywerenotrequired,forpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol,necessarilytodosobyreferencetospecificarticlesoftheCovenant.6.32..2TheauthorhadclaimedthatthedifferenceintreatmentbetweenmarriedandunmarriedcouplesundertheAWWconstitutedaviolationofhisrighttorespectforhisprivateandfamilylife.TheCommitteenotedthattheinformationbeforeitshowedthattheStatepartyatnotimeinterferedwiththeauthor'sdecisiontocohabitwithhisgirlfriendwithoutmarryingher,andthattheauthorwasfreetomarryornottomarry.Thefactthatafreelymadedecisionregardingone'sprivatelifemayhavecertainlegalconsequencesinthefieldofsocialsecuritycouldnotbeseenasconstitutingarbitraryorunlawfulinterferencebytheStatepartyunderarticle17oftheCovenant.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol,asbeingincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.6.42..2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathehadnothadafairhearingwithrespecttothedeterminationofhisrighttoapensionbenefit,theCommitteenotedthathehadnotadducedanyinformationtosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,thatthehearingsconcerningthedeterminationofhispensionclaimwereunfair.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.7.2..2On3July1996,theHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleasfarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticle26,inconjunctionwitharticle23,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Stateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandtheauthor'scomments8.12..2Bysubmissionof6February1997,theStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sdecisionincommunicationNo.180/1984(Danningv.theNetherlands).ItexplainsthatintheNetherlands,marriageentailsspecificlegalconsequencesthatdonotapplytounmarriedcohabitants.Thelatterarefreetochoosewhetherornottoenterintomatrimony;iftheydo,theybecomesubjecttoadifferentsetoflaws.TheDutchCivilCodecontainsmanyprovisionssolelyapplicabletomarriedcouples.Forexample,amarriedpersonisobligedtoprovideforhisorherspouse'smaintenance;thespouseisjointlyliablefordebtsincurredinrespectofcommonproperty;amarriedpersonrequiresthepermissionofhisorherspouseforcertainundertakings.Matrimoniallawalsocoverstherightsandobligationsincaseofdivorce.Likewise,inheritancelawdistinguishesbetweenmarriedandunmarriedpersons.AccordingtotheStateparty,thelegalsituationthatformedthebasisoftheCommittee'sdecisioninDanningwasunchangedin1991,theyearinwhichtheauthorappliedforabenefitundertheAWW.8.22..2TheStatepartyexplainsthattheAWW,whichwasinforceuntil1July1996,reflectedtheprovisionsoftheCivilCode.UndertheAWW,allinsuredpersonswithanincomepaidcontributionsandtheriskofdeathwascoveredonlysolongasthemarriagepartneronwhosedeaththeentitlementtobenefitdependedremainedinsured.ThepurposeoftheAWW,whichenteredintoforceon1October1959,wastoprovideaminimumincomeforaperson'swidowwhocouldnotbedeemedabletosupportherselfbyherownearnings.Theconditionsforanentitlementtopensionwerethatthewidow,atthetimeofherspouse'sdeath(a)hadanunmarriedchildofherown,or(b)waspregnant,or(c)wasunfitforwork,or(d)was40yearsorolder.Ifnoneoftheseconditionsweremet,thewidowwasentitledtoatemporarybenefit.8.32..2On7December1988,theCRvBdecidedthattherestrictionsofAWWentitlementstowidowswasincompatiblewitharticle26oftheCovenant,andsincethenwidowersareentitledtoabenefit,underthesameconditionsaswidows,awaitingnewlegislation.8.42..2TheStatepartymaintainsthatmanylegaldifferencesremainbetweenmarriageandcohabitationandthatequaltreatmentisbynomeansselfevidentandcannotbeclaimedmerelyonthebasisofachangeinthesocialclimate.TheStatepartydoesnotacceptthatitswillingnesstoincorporatetheequaltreatmentofmarriedpersonsandcohabitantsintolegislationimpliesthatitshouldbeobligedtotreatthesetwogroupsonanequalbasisintheabsenceof,orpriorto,theintroductionoflegislativemeasurestothateffect.8.52..2Inthisregard,theStatepartyalsoreferstoitssubmissionincommunicationNo.395/1990(Sprengerv.theNetherlands) }   ׀andemphasizesthatatnotimehasittakenageneraldecisiontoabolishthedistinctioninlegalstatusbetweenmarriedandunmarriedcouples.However,inundertakinganextensiveprogrammeoflegislation,theStatepartyisrespondingtoshiftsinsocialviewsonthismatterandisaimingtoachievetheprogressiveintroductionofequaltreatmentintherelevantlaws.TheStatepartyemphasizes,however,thateachlawisbeingexaminedseparatelytoseewhetheritrequiresamendment.TheStatepartyisoftheopinionthatalthoughtheequaltreatmentofmarriedandunmarriedcoupleswasintroducedintaxlegislationin1983andincertainsocialinsuranceandsocialassistanceschemesin1987and1988,thisdoesnotmeanthattherighttoequaltreatmentcanbeinvokedinrespectofotherlegislationwithoutbeingformalisedbylaw.Inthisconnection,theStatepartyassociatesitselfwiththeindividualopinionofMessrs.Ando,HerndlandNdiayeintheSprengerdecision,inwhichitwasstatedthatarticle26shouldbeseenasageneralundertakingonthepartofStatespartiestotheCovenanttoregularlyreviewtheirlegislationinordertoensurethatitcorrespondstothechangedneedsofsociety.8.62..2Intheinstantcase,theCRvBheldthatitwasuptothelegislaturetodecidewhethermarriedandunmarriedpartnersshouldbetreatedalikeforpurposesofwidow(er)pensions.8.72..2Withregardtotheauthor'sargumentthatheandhispartnerreceivedunemploymentbenefitasamarriedcouple,theStatepartyexplainsthattheRWWbenefitreceivedbytheauthorwasnotasocialinsurancebenefitbutasocialassistancebenefit,meanttoenablepersonswithoutanyothermeansofincometosupportthemselves.ItisawardedtopersonswhohavenoincomeorwhoseincomeisbelowtheminimumsetbytheGovernment.Thebenefitsarepaidoutofpublicfundsandtheiramountdependsontheactualsituationandismeanstested.Marriedcouples,unmarriedcouplesandsinglepersonssharingahomehavelowercostsandthereforereceiveareducedbenefit.8.82..2TheStatepartyreferstoitsnewlegislation,theSurvivingDependantsAct,whichenteredintoforceon1July1996.Itprovidesforentitlementtosurvivingdependantswho(a)haveanunmarriedchildundertheageof18whodoesnotbelongtoanotherperson'shousehold,or(b)areunfitforwork,or(c)werebornbefore1January1950.Thebenefitsaremeanstested.TheStatepartypointsoutthattheauthorisnotentitledtoapensionunderthenewlegislation,ashedoesnotfulfilanyoftheconditionssetoutinthelegislation.8.92..2Inthiscontext,theStatepartypointsoutthatthedurationofthedebateconcerningthenewlegislation(thebillwasintroducedon12March1991)andtheproblemsthatwereencounteredareevidencethatitisbynomeansmanifestthatmarriedandunmarriedpersonsshouldbetreatedequally,outsidethecontextofanextensiveandcarefullegislativeprogramme.9.2..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselnotesthattheStatepartyprovidesgeneralinformationonthedistinctionbetweenmarriedandunmarriedcouples,butfailstoexplainthespecificreasonsforthedistinctionintheAWW.HestatesthattheauthorhadtheobligationtopaycontributionsundertheAWWasamarriedperson,butthathedidnotestablishtherighttobenefitfromtheAWWasamarriedperson.Thisissaidtoconstitutediscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26.10.12..2Inafurthersubmission,dated16March1998,theStatepartyexplainsthattheAWWisanationalinsuranceschemeensuringeveryinhabitantoftheNetherlandsover15yearsofage.Pensionspaidoutundertheschemearefundedbycontributionspayablebythoseinsured.Contributionsaremeanstested,thecontributionratebeingthesameforalltheinsured.TheStatepartyemphasizesthatindeterminingaperson'scontributionunderthescheme,maritalstatusisofnoaccountwhatsoever.TheStatepartyconcludesthatnoinequalityoftreatmentexistsonthebasisofmaritalstatusinrelationtopersonsinsuredundertheAWW.10.22..2TheStatepartyfurtherexplainsthattheAWWmakesadistinctionbetweenAWWpensionsandtemporarypensions.TheAWWpensionisalongtermbenefitthatisawardeduntilthepersonreachestheageof65.Thetemporarybenefitisashorttermbenefitawardedforamaximumof19monthsandconfinedtowidowsorwidowerswhohavenounmarriedchildren,whoarenotpregnantorunfittowork,andhavenotyetattained40yearsofage.TheStatepartysubmitsthatthesepersonsaredeemedtobecapableofprovidingforthemselvesandarethusineligibleforanAWWpension,buttheyareawardedatemporarybenefittogivethemtimetoadjusttothesituation.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee11.12..2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.11.22..2TheissuebeforetheCommitteeiswhethertheauthorisavictimofaviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant,becausehewasdeniedawidower'spensiononthebasisofhismaritalstatus.TheCommitteenotesthatonthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,itappearsthattheauthor,evenifhehadbeenmarriedtohispartnerratherthancohabitatingwithherwithoutmarriage,wouldnothavebeenentitledtoapensionundertheAWW,sincehewasunder40yearsofage,notunfitforworkandhadnounmarriedchildrentocarefor.ThematterbeforetheCommitteeisthusconfinedtotheentitlementtoatemporarybenefitonly.11.32..2TheauthorhasclaimedthathepaidcontributionsundertheAWWasamarriedperson,andthatthefailuretogranthimthesamerightstobenefitsasamarriedpersonthereforeconstitutesunequaltreatment,inviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant.TheStatepartyhasrefutedthisargument,andstatedthatthecontributionundertheAWWwasthesameformarriedandunmarriedpersonsalike.TheStatepartyhasalsoexplainedthattheAWWwasanationalinsurance,towhichallDutchresidentswithanincomecontributed,andthatbenefitswereavailable,amongcertainothercategoriesofpersons,tomarriedpersonswhosespousehaddied.11.42..2TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudencethatnoteverydistinctionamountstoprohibiteddiscriminationundertheCovenant,aslongasitisbasedonreasonableandobjectivecriteria.TheStatepartyhasargued,andthishasnotbeencontestedbytheauthor,thatmarriedandunmarriedcouplesarestillsubjecttodifferentsetsoflawsandregulations.TheCommitteeobservesthatthedecisiontoenterintoalegalstatusbymarriage,whichprovidesunderDutchlawforcertainbenefitsandforcertaindutiesandresponsibilities,liesentirelywiththecohabitatingpersons.Bychoosingnottoenterintomarriage,theauthorhasnot,inlaw,assumedthefullextentofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesincumbentonmarriedpersons.Consequently,theauthordoesnotreceivethefullbenefitsprovidedforbylawtomarriedpersons.TheCommitteefindsthatthisdifferentiationdoesnotconstitutediscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26oftheCovenant. ~   12.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdonotdiscloseaviolationofarticle26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]@..\APPENDIX@.. IndividualopinionbyElizabethEvatt@..(concurring)2..2WhileacceptingtheCommittee'sdecisioninthismatter,IwouldliketoemphasisethattheStatepartyhasacceptedthatcohabiteesaretobeconsideredasafamilyunitforsomepurposes.Thisfactorneedstobetakenintoaccountinexaminingwhetherthegroundsputforwardformaintainingthedistinctionbetweenmarriedcouplesandcohabiteesarereasonableandobjectiveinregardtothebenefitinquestion.Inthatregard,IdonotfindtheargumentsoftheStatepartybasedonthelegalconsequencesofmarriageorinheritancelawtobeconvincingorofparticularrelevanceinregardtothegrantingofabenefitdesignedtoalleviate,onatemporarybasisthelossofapartnerbydeath.Fordistinctionsbetweendifferentfamilygroupstoberegardedasreasonableandobjective,theyshouldbecoherentandhaveregardtosocialreality.#..(signed)ElizabethEvatt[DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]ǀF.CommunicationNo.610/1995,Henryv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon20October1998,sixtyfourthsession)*      Submittedby: .. 0 .. NicholasHenry2..2.. .. 0 .. (representedbyMr.S.Lehrfreundfrom....SimonsMuirheadandBurton)Victim:.. ..  .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  .. JamaicaDateofcommunication: .. 14November1994(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  .. 20October19982..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon20October1998,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.610/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.NicholasHenry,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.12..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.NicholasHenry,aJamaicancitizen,atthetimeofsubmissionawaitingexecutioninSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,10and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyMr.SaulLehrfreundofSimonsMuirhead&Burton,alawfirminLondon.1.22..2Theauthor'soffencewasclassifiedasnoncapitalfollowingtheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Act1992.Heistoserve20years'imprisonmentbeforebecomingeligibleforparole.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2On2March1988,attheCircuitCourtDivisionoftheGunCourt,theauthor,togetherwithacoaccused,wasconvictedforthemurderofthreepolicemenandsentencedtodeath.TheCourtofAppeal,on2March1989,refusedhisapplicationforleavetoappeal.On10November1993,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedhispetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.Itissubmittedthatherewithalldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Inthiscontext,itisarguedthattheconstitutionalremedy,whichexistsintheory,isnotavailabletotheauthorinpractice,becauseofhislackoffundsandtheunavailabilityoflegalaid.ReferenceismadetotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceinthismatter.2.22..2Atthetrial,thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,on19November1986,anumberofarmedmenattackedOlympicPoliceStationandkilledthreeofthefivepolicemenpresent.Theauthorwasaccusedofbeinganaccessorytothemurderinthathehadassistedthemembersofthegroupinmakingmolotovcocktails,hadliedtoaconstableabouttheirintention,hadlearnedfromtheothersthattheyintendedtoattackthepolicestation,hadreceivedthemembersofthegroupathishouse,andhadassistedinhidingalargenumberofweaponsaftertheevent.Theevidenceagainsttheauthorwasbasedonastatementhehadgiventothepoliceafterhavingbeencautionedandontestimonyfromapoliceofficerwhohadspokenwiththeauthorthenightbeforetheraid.Theauthor'sstatementtothepolicewasadmittedintoevidencebythejudgeafteravoirdire.2.32..2Theauthor'sdefensewasoneofduress.Hegaveanunswornstatementfromthedock,inwhichhestatedthathehadassistedthegroupofmenoutoffearforrepercussions,thathehadnotbeenpresentduringtheattackonthepolicestation,andthathehadsignedthestatementtothepolicebecausehewastoldthatitcoulddonoharm.Thecomplaint3.12..2Theauthorclaimsthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,sincehewasbeatenandmaltreatedbythepoliceuponhisarrestathishomeon20November1986.Inparticular,heclaimsthathewasforcedtoeathotdumplingsfromthecookingpot,whichcausedburnsandbleedinginhismouth.Theauthorsubmitsthathesignedthestatementatthepolicestationbecausehehopedtoreceivemedicaltreatment.Althoughhewasgivensomeice,hereceivednomedicaltreatmentandhestatesthathecouldnoteatanythingformonths.Heclaimsthathecanstillnoteatanyhotfood.Healsoclaimsthathestillsuffersfromneckpainsasaconsequenceofthebeatings.3.22..2Theauthoralsoclaimsthathehasamedicalproblemwithhistesticlessince1988.Despiterequests,prisonauthoritiesrefusetotakehimtothehospital.Inthebeginningof1992,hesawadoctor,whostatedthatsurgerywasnecessaryandwhogaveanapproximatedateofApril1992fortheoperation.Despitethis,anddespiteseveralrequestsmadebytheauthorandhisrepresentatives(copiesofcorrespondenceareenclosed),theauthorwasneverhospitalisedandstillhasnotreceivedanymedicaltreatmentforhiscondition.Thelackofmedicaltreatmentissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,referenceismadetotheUNStandardMinimumRulesfortheTreatmentofPrisonersandtotheUNBodyofPrinciplesfortheProtectionofallPersonsunderanyFormofDetentionorImprisonment.3.32..2Itisfurtherallegedthattheauthorwassubjectedtoilltreatmenton4May1993.Onthatdate,asearchwascarriedoutbywardersandsoldiersduringwhichtheauthorwasassaultedbyasoldierwithametaldetectoronhistesticles.TheauthorcomplainedtotheprisonauthoritiesandtheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightstookastatementfromhim.Theauthor'sLondoncounselrequested,on3September1993,theParliamentaryOmbudsmantoconductanurgentinvestigationintotheallegationofilltreatment.TheOmbudsmansentaninvestigatortotheprison,andsubmittedareporttotheSuperintendent,whopromisedtomakearrangementsformedicaltreatment.Theauthorclaimsthatnosuchtreatmentwaseverreceived.3.42..2Itissubmittedthattheauthorhasmadeallreasonableeffortstoseekredressinrespectoftheilltreatmentsufferedindetention,that,duetotheauthor'slackoffundsandtheunavailabilityoflegalaid,constitutionalredressisnotanavailableremedy,andthatthereforetheauthorfulfilstherequirementsofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.Inthiscontext,itisstatedthattheauthorhasbeensubjectedtothreatseversincehiscomplaintagainsthisilltreatment,andthathefearsreprisals.3.52..2TheauthorfurthersubmitsthathehasbeenheldondeathrowsincehisconvictioninMarch1988,thatisforoversixyears.Itissubmittedthatthe'agonyofsuspense'resultingfromsuchalongwaitandexpecteddeath,amountstocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment.Inthiscontext,theauthorreferstothePrivyCouncil'sjudgmentof2November1993inthecaseofPratt&Morgan.3.62..2Theauthorfurtherallegesthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs1and2,oftheCovenant.HereferstotheCommittee'spriorjurisprudenceandsubmitsthatthejudge'ssummingupathistrialdidnotmeettherequirementsofimpartialityandineffectamountedtoadenialofjustice.Inthisconnection,theauthorcontendsthatthelanguageusedbythejudgeindirectingthejurywassoemotive      ׀thatitexcitedsympathyforthevictimsandprejudicefortheaccused,weakenedthejudge'swarningstothejurytobeimpartialandunderminedthedirectionstothejuryontheburdenandstandardofproof.3.72..2Theauthoralsoallegesthathislegalaidlawyerdidnotproperlydefendhim.Inthiscontext,theauthorclaimsthatthepolicesentalittleboytotakeoutgunsfromthecellarunderthehousenexttohim.Hesubmitsthatnogunswerefoundinhisyard.Hestatesthathetoldthelawyertotakeastatementfromtheboy,butthathenever .. did.Healsoindicatesthatthelawyerdidnotusethestatementswhichthepolicehadtakenfromhismotherandcommonlawwife.Theauthorarguesthatarticle14,paragraph3(d),entitlesanaccusedtoeffectivelegalassistance.Inthiscontext,itisalsosubmittedthatnowitnesseswerecalledontheauthor'sbehalf.Theauthorclaimsthereforethathislawyerdidnotactdiligentlynorprovidedeffectiverepresentation,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d).3.82..2Itisfurthersubmittedthatadifferentlawyerrepresentedtheauthoratthepreliminaryhearingsandthathemetthelawyerwhorepresentedhimatthetrialonlyonthefirstdayofthetrial.Uponrequest,thejudgegrantedanadjournmentofthetrialuntilthenextday.Thelawyerthencametovisittheauthorinprisonthateveningandthetrialstartedthefollowingday.Itisarguedthatonedaytopreparethedefenceinacapitalmurdercaseishighlyinsufficientandconstitutesaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b).Inthiscontext,itisarguedthat,ifthelawyerwouldhavebeengivenmoretimetopreparethedefence,hewouldhavebeenabletocallwitnessesontheauthor'sbehalfortotakestatementsfromthem.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scomments4.12..2Bynoteof15March1995,theStatepartysubmitsitsobservationsonthemeritsofthecommunication,inordertoexpediteitsexamination.4.22..2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsthathewasdeniedmedicalattentionandthathewasilltreatedinprisonon4May1993,theStatepartypromisestoinvestigatehisallegationsandtoinformtheCommitteeoftheoutcomeoftheinvestigations.4.32..2Concerningtheauthor'sclaimsunderarticle14(1)and14(2),inrelationtothesummingupbythejudge,theStatepartyarguesthatthesearemattersoutsidetheCommittee'sjurisdictionandreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceinthisrespect.TheStatepartypointsoutthattheappellatecourtsalreadyexaminedthejudge'ssummingup.4.42..2TheStatepartydoesnotacceptthattherewerebreachesofarticle14(3)(b)and(d)forwhichitisresponsible.Inrespectoftheclaimthattheauthordidnothaveadequatetimetopreparehisdefence,theStatepartynotesthatcounselappliedforandreceivedanadjournment.Ifhewouldhaverequiredmoretimeitwasopentohimtoapplyforit.Withregardtotheconductofthedefence,theStatepartysubmitsthatitisitsdutytoprovidecompetentlegalaidcounselandnottointerferewiththeconductofthedefence.TheStatepartyarguesthatitisnotresponsibleforthemannerinwhichcounselconductshiscaseandforanyerrorsofjudgementwhichhemayormaynothavemade.5.12..2Inhiscomments,counselagreestoanexaminationofthemeritsofthecommunication.5.22..2Withregardtothejudge'ssummingup,counselsubmitsthatifitisclearthattheinstructionsweremanifestlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgeotherwiseviolatedherobligationofimpartiality,themattercanbebroughtwithinthejurisdictionoftheCommittee.Inthiscontext,counselreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudence    .Counselarguesthatthejudge'ssummingupdidnotmeetthestandardsofimpartialityandamountedtoadenialofjustice.5.32..2Withregardtotheconductofthetrial,counselconcedesthattheshortcomingsofprivatelyretainedlawyerscannotbeattributedtotheStateparty,butarguesthatthisdoesnotapplytolegalaidlawyers,whoonceassignedmustprovideeffectiverepresentation.5.42..2Inafurthersubmission,counselreferstoanincidentinprisonfollowingaprotestbyinmatesconcerningtheperceivedreductionoftheirvisitson28February1995.Adaylater,on1March1995,thewardersallegedlycametothedeathrowsectionandstartedbeatingupinmates.Theauthorwastoldtocomeoutofhiscell,andwasbeatenbythewarders.Hewasalsothrowndownthestairs.Asaresult,hisheadgotbustedintwoplaces,aswellashiselbow.Hisearswerecutup,andhesufferedaringinginhisears.Hishandswerehurtingandhisfingerswereswollen.Hepassedbloodinhisurineandhisribsononesidehurtsomuchthathecouldnottouchthem.Theauthorstatesthathiswoundsweredressedatthesurgery,andthathewasgivenapainkillerwhichhedidnottake.Hestatesthathewasinalotofpain.Afterheandotherinmatesbeganahungerstrike,theCommissionerofPrisonstoldthewarderstotaketheauthortothehospital.Instead,adoctorcametoseetheauthorinprisonandtoldhimthathisribswerenotfractured,butthathislungwasdamaged.Hewasprescribedmedication.Afterthreedays,thewardersallegedlychangedthistoanotherpill,whichtheauthordidnottake.Itissubmittedthattheilltreatmentandthesubsequentdenialofpropermedicalattentionareinviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee6.12..2Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewitharticle87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.6.22..2TheCommitteehasascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimconcerningthesummingupbythetrialjudge,theCommitteereferstoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratesthatitisgenerallynotfortheCommittee,butfortheappellateCourtsofStatesparties,toreviewtheinstructionstothejurybythetrialjudge,unlessitcanbeascertainedthattheyweremanifestlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedoesnotshowthatthesummingupsufferedfromsuchdefects.Accordingly,thispartofthecommunicationisinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.42..2TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasforwardedcommentsonthemeritsofthecommunicationandthatcounselhasagreedtoanexaminationofthemeritsatthisstage.TheCommitteeconsiderstheremainingclaimsofthecommunicationadmissibleandproceeds,withoutfurtherdelay,toanexaminationoftheirsubstanceinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asrequiredbyarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.7.12..2Withrespecttotheallegedviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,becausetheauthorwasmaltreatedbythepoliceuponhisarrest,theCommitteenotesthattheissuewassubjectofavoirdireandthatitwasbeforethejuryduringthetrial,thatthejuryrejectedtheauthor'sallegations,andthatthematterwasnotraisedonappeal.TheCommitteefindsthattheinformationbeforeitdoesnotjustifythefindingofaviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenantinthisrespect.7.22..2Theauthorhasclaimedthathisdetentionondeathrowinitselfconstitutesaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.TheCommitteereaffirmsitsconstantjurisprudencethatdetentionondeathrowforaspecificperiod-inthiscaseforoversevenyears-doesnotviolatetheCovenantintheabsenceoffurthercompellingcircumstances.    7.32..2Mr.Henryalsoallegesthathehassufferedlackofmedicaltreatmentdespitearecommendationfromadoctorthathebeoperated.Theauthorhasfurthersubmitteddetailedclaimsthathewasbeatenbysoldiersandwarderson4May1993andagainon1March1995.Theauthor'sclaimshavenotbeenrefutedbytheStateparty,whichhaspromisedtoinvestigatebuthasnotcommunicatedtheresultsofitsinvestigation,eventhoughmorethanthreeyearshavepassedsince.TheCommitteerecallsthataStatepartyisundertheobligationtoinvestigateseriouslyallegationsofviolationsoftheCovenantmadeundertheOptionalProtocol.IntheabsenceofanyexplanationbytheStateparty,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations.TheCommitteeconsidersthatthelackofmedicaltreatmentisinviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant,andthatthebeatingswhichtheauthorsufferedconstituteviolationsofarticle7oftheCovenant.7.42..2Theauthorhasclaimedthatthebadqualityofthedefenceputforwardbyhiscounselattrialresultedindeprivinghimofafairtrial.Referencehasbeenmadeinparticulartocounsel'sallegedfailuretocallwitnessesforthedefence.TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudencethattheStatepartycannotbeheldaccountableforallegederrorsmadebyadefencelawyer,unlessitwasorshouldhavebeenmanifesttothejudgethatthelawyer'sbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedoesnotshowthatthiswassointheinstantcaseandconsequently,thereisnobasisforafindingofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d)and(e),inthisrespect.7.52..2Theauthorhasalsoclaimedthathedidnothaveenoughtimetopreparehisdefence,sincehemethislawyeronlyonthefirstdayofthetrial.Inthiscontext,theCommitteereiteratesitsjurisprudencethattherightofanaccusedpersontohaveadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefenceisanimportantaspectoftheprincipleofequalityofarms.Whereacapitalsentencemaybepronouncedontheaccused,sufficienttimemustbegrantedtotheaccusedandhiscounseltopreparethedefence.Thedeterminationofwhatconstitutes'adequatetime'requiresanassessmentoftheindividualcircumstancesofeachcase.TheCommitteenotesfromtheinformationbeforeitthattheauthor'slawyerrequestedanadjournmentofonedayatthebeginningofthetrialandthatthisrequestwasgranted.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedoesnotrevealthateithercounselortheauthorevercomplainedtothetrialjudgethatthetimeforpreparationofthedefencewasinadequate.Ifcounselortheauthorfeltinadequatelyprepared,itwasincumbentuponthemtorequestanadjournment.Inthecircumstances,thereisnobasisforfindingaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b).8.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.2..2Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.NicholasHenrywithaneffectiveremedy,includingimmediatemedicalexaminationandtreatmentifnecessary,compensation,andconsiderationofearlyrelease.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtotakemeasuresthatsimilarviolationsnotoccur.10.2..2OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitissubjecttothecontinuedapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.] G UK     \R3'\ X      +CH<6X9`(CourierCS I $ 1.(a)(i) a.(1)(a) i) a)S882   ݀G.CommunicationNo.613/1995,Leehongv.Jamaica󀀀(Viewsadoptedon13July1999,sixtysixthsession)*      882 Submittedby: .. AnthonyLeehong2..2..0 .. (representedbyRonaldMcHughofCliffordChance,London)Allegedvictim:0 .. 0 .. TheauthorStateparty:0 .. JamaicaDateofcommunication:0 .. 5January1995(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:0 .. 16October19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon13July1999,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.613/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyAnthonyLeehong,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisAnthonyLeehong,aJamaicancitizenwhoatthetimeofsubmissioncommunicationwasawaitingexecutionatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6;7;9;10;14and17oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyMr.RonaldMcHughoftheLondonlawfirmofCliffordChance.Theauthor'sdeathsentencehasbeencommuted.&  Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2Awarrantfortheauthor'sarrestwasissuedon5December1988  .    ׀On'  20December1988,whilewalkingdownastreet,theauthorwasshotfrombehindbythepolice,withoutanywarning.TheauthorwasbroughttoKingstonPublicHospitalbytwopassersby.On22December1988,whileinhospital,theauthorwasallegedlytoldbythepolicethathewasunderarrestforthemurderofapolicemanwhichhadtakenplaceinearlyDecember1988.Heremainedinhospital,underpoliceguard,until29December1988;hewasthentakentotheCentralLockUpinKingston,allegedlystillinconnectionwiththemurderofthepolicemanandtostandanidentificationparadeinthisrespect.On31March1989,theauthorandanotherpersonwerebroughtbeforetheMagistratesDivisionoftheGunCourtinconnectionwiththemurderofthepoliceman;thischargewasdropped.Theauthorstatesthattheinvestigatingofficerdidnotrecognizehim.Inthisrespect,hepointsoutthattheofficeraskedthecoaccusedwhetherhewasAnthonyLeehong;afterreceivinganegativereply,theofficertoldtheauthorandtheexaminingmagistratethathehadobtainedawarrantfortheauthor'sarrestandthatinthehospitalhehadchargedtheauthorwiththemurderofoneCarlosWiggan.TheauthorstatesthatonlythendidhelearnthathehadbeenarrestedandchargedforthemurderofCarlosWiggan.2.22..2On21February1990,after13minutesofdeliberation,thejuryreturnedaverdictofguilty.Theauthorwassentencedtodeath.On28January1991,theCourtofAppealdismissedhisapplicationforleavetoappeal.AfurtherpetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon7February1994.Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.On13November1994,theauthor'soffencewasreclassifiedasnoncapitalundertheJamaicanOffencesAgainstthePerson(Amendment)Act1992.Hisdeathsentencehasbeencommutedtolifeimprisonment,servingaminimumof20yearsbeforebeingeligibleforparole.2.32..2ThepreliminaryenquirybeforetheGunCourtrelatingtothemurderofCarlosWigganstartedon20June1989.Theauthorwasrepresentedbyalegalaidattorney.Thisattorney,however,didnotattendthesecondhearingheldon11July1989,whenthearrestingofficergavehisdeposition;theauthorwasunrepresentedduringthishearing.Theattorneywaspresentatthethirdhearingheldon13September1989.Duringthesehearings,eyewitnessesidentifiedtheauthorastheassailantofCarlosWiggan;noprioridentificationparadehadbeenheld.2.42..2Subsequently,theauthor'smothersucceededinobtainingtheservicesofanotherlawyer.Thetrialwasscheduledtostarton19February1990,butwasadjourneduntil21February1990,inorderfortheauthor'slawyertopreparethecase.Theauthormethislawyerontwooccasionsforaperiodofbetweentwoandfourhoursinall.2.52..2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,inthemorningof4December1988,intheParishofSt.Andrew,theauthorkilledCarlosWigganwithtwogunshots.Theauthorclaimstobeinnocentandthathewasathomeduringthetimeofthecrime.2.62..2Atthetrial,theprosecutionreliedonthetestimonyofthedeceased'sstepfather,hismotherandhissister.Thestepfatherofthedeceasedtestifiedthaton4December1988,atabout9:30a.m.,heheardanexplosion.Whenhelookedoutofthewindow,hesawapersonwhomheknewbythenameofPeter,andwhomheidentifiedasbeingtheauthor,runningafterCarlosWiggan,andshootinghimtwice.Firingfurthershots,theauthorranaway,togetherwithanotherperson.2.72..2Themotherofthedeceasedtestifiedthat,onthemorningoftheincident,shelookeddownfromthebalconyandsawhersonstandingagainstawallwiththeauthorholdingaguninfrontofhim.Shealsonoticedtwoothermenstandingnearby.Shethensawtheauthorshootingatherson,whotriedtoescape.Asthepersonsmoved,shecouldnotobservewhathappened;shecouldonlyhearshots.Whenshecameoutofthehouse,shesawhersonlyingontheground.Shestatedthatshehadtheauthorinsightfortwotothreeminutesandthatshehadneverseenhimbefore.2.82..2Thedeceased'ssistertestified,thatshesawtheauthor,whomshehadknownfortwoyears,shootingatherbrother,andthenchasinghim.Shethenheardothergunshotsandsawtheauthorleavingthepremises,withoutagun.2.92..2Theauthor'sdefenceclaimedthatthethreewitnessesfortheprosecutionhadmistakenlyidentifiedtheauthor.Theauthorhimself,inanunswornstatement,deniedthathewascalledPeterorthathehadkilledthedeceased.Nowitnesseswerecalledonbehalfofthedefence.Thecomplaint3.12..2Counselsubmitsthatthemannerinwhichthepoliceapprehendedtheauthor,byshootinghimfrombehindwithoutgivinganordertostoporawarning,wasinbreachofarticle9,paragraph1.Inthiscontext,hesubmitsthattheauthorwasunarmedandthathedidnotposeanythreattothepoliceortothepublic.3.22..2Theauthorclaimsviolationsofarticles9,paragraph2,and14,paragraph3(a),sinceheonlylearnedthathehadbeenarrestedandchargedforthemurderofCarlosWigganon31March1989,whenhewastakenbeforetheexaminingmagistrate.Heclaimsthaton22December1988,inthehospital,hewasnotawareofhavingbeenarrestedandchargedwiththemurderofwhichhewasconvicted,andthathewasnotgivenacopyofthewarrantorthechargesheet.Furthermore,theauthordoesnotrecallwhetherhewascautioned.Counselarguesthat,iftheauthorwasinformedatall,itwasdoneincircumstancesinwhichhecouldnotunderstandwhatwasgoingon.Counseladdsthathe,aswellastheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRightshaverequestedinformationfromtheKingstonPublicHospitalabouttheauthor'sphysicalconditionatthetimeofhisarrest,butthatnoreplyhasbeenreceivedtodate.3.32..2Theauthorpointsoutthathewasnotbroughtbeforeajudgeuntilthreemonthsafterhisarrest,andthenitwasinrelationtothemurderofapoliceman,theauthorwasnotchargedforthatmurder.However,hewasthenchargedandremandedintocustodyforthemurderofWiggan.Itwasanother3monthsbeforehewasbroughtbeforeajudgewithrespecttothissecondmurderofwhichhewassubsequentlyconvicted.Hesubmitsthatthisconstitutesaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,referenceismadetotheCommittee'sjurisprudence,    ׀whereitwasheldthatadelayof6weeksfromarresttoappearancebeforeajudgeamountedtoaviolationofarticle9.3.42..2Theauthorfurtherpointsoutthatthetrialagainsthimdidnotstartuntil21February1990.Heclaimsthatadelayof14monthsbetweenarrestandtrialamountstoaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3.Moreover,itissubmittedthattheauthorshouldhavebeenreleasedfromdetention,whileawaitingtrial.3.52..2Theauthorclaimsthathewasnotgivenadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefence,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b).Astothepreliminaryexamination,heclaimsthathesawhislegalaidattorneyforthefirsttimeatthefirsthearing,thatnowitnesseswerecalledonhisbehalf,andthattheattorneydidnotattendthesecondhearing,asaresultofwhichnocrossexaminationofthearrestingofficertookplace.Astothetrial,theauthorclaimsthathisprivatelyretainedlawyerfailedtoproperlycrossexaminethewitnessesagainsthim,duetolackofpreparation.Inthiscontext,itissubmittedthattherewereseriousdiscrepanciesbetweenthetestimoniesoftheprosecution'switnesses.Thisissaidtoconstituteaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(e),oftheCovenant.3.62..2Astoaviolationoftheauthor'srightsunderarticle14,paragraph1,counselreferstopassagesofthejudge'ssumminguptothejury.Itissubmittedthatthetrialjudgefailedtoproperlydirectthejury,accordingtothelegalrulesrequiredinidentificationcases(Turnballguidelines),andthatthisamountedtoadenialofjustice.Inparticular,itissaidthatthejudgedidnotproperlypointoutthedangerofrelyingonvisualidentificationevidence,nortotheweaknessesintheevidence.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthejudge'sinstructionsreversedtheburdenofproof.Thisissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph2.3.72..2Itisfurthercontendedthattheauthor'srighttoareviewofhisconvictionandsentencebytheCourtofAppealwasnotinaccordancewitharticle14,paragraphs3(d)and5.Counselexplainsthattheauthor'slawyer(whohadalsorepresentedhimattrial)indicatedbeforetheCourtofAppealthattherewasnomeritintheappeal,withouthavingconsultedtheauthor.Fromthenoticetoappeal,ittranspiresthattheauthordidnotwishtobepresentinCourtwhenhisappealwasconsidered.Furthermore,counselclaimstheauthorwasnotinformedthathisappealwasbeingheard,andconsequentlydidnothavetheopportunitytoinstructhislawyer.Itisstatedthat,hadtheauthorbeenawarethathislawyersawnomeritsinthecaseandwasnotgoingtoargueanygroundsonhisbehalf,therebyeffectivelywithdrawingtheappeal,hewouldhavechangedhislegalrepresentation.    3.82..2Itisfurthersubmittedthatthedelaysinthevariousstagesofthejudicialproceedingsagainsttheauthor,andinparticularthedelayinobtainingthecourtdocumentsnecessaryforthepreparationofapetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,amountedtoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c).Inthiscontext,counselstatesthathefirstrequestedcopiesofthecourtdocumentson27June1991;thetrialtranscriptandtheCourtofAppeal'sjudgementwereonlyreceivedinFebruary1992,afternumerousrequeststotheJamaicanjudicialauthoritiesbycounselandtheJamaicaCouncilforHumanRights.Thedepositionsmadeduringthepreliminaryhearingsintheauthor'scasewerefinallyreceivedon24August1992.3.92..2TheauthorgivesadetaileddescriptionofactsofilltreatmenttowhichhehasbeenallegedlysubjectedtoatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.Reportedly,on17November1991,hewasdeniedfoodandwater.Thedayafter,hewasstruckwithbatons;hereceiveddeaththreatsfromwardersonseveraloccasions.Hestatesthatheisdeniedmedicaltreatmentandvisitors.Theauthor'scounselwroteseveraltimestotheParliamentaryOmbudsmanonbehalfofhisclient.On8Februaryand6April1994,theOfficeoftheParliamentaryOmbudsmanrepliedmistakenlythattheauthorhadbeendischargedfromprison.Accordingtocounsel,thisdemonstratesthesuperficialnatureoftheOmbudsman'sinvestigations.Aftercounselhadpointedoutthattheauthorwasstillincarceratedandremainedthesubjectofilltreatment,theOmbudsmanrepliedthatthewarderresponsibleinthecasehadbeentransferred.Nevertheless,itissubmittedthatthethreatsandviolenceagainsttheauthorcontinue.Furthermore,onfiveoccasionscounselwroteletterstotheCommissionerofCorrections,who,on27October1994,merelyinformedhimthatanewsuperintendenthadbeenappointedtotheprison,withoutaddressinganyofthespecificcomplaintsraisedonbehalfoftheauthor.On7October1994,counselwasinformedbytheOmbudsmanthatitsrecentrepresentationsonbehalfoftheauthorhadbeenreferredforinvestigationtotheDirectorofInvestigationsandthatareportwouldbereceivedsoon.Nosuchreporthasbeenreceivedtodate.3.10ReferenceismadetodocumentaryevidenceoftheinhumanconditionsofdetentionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,inparticularastothehygienicandsanitaryconditions.3.11TheauthorconcludesthatthemaltreatmenthehasbeenandisbeingsubjectedtoatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,andhispresentconditionsofincarcerationamounttoviolationsofarticles7,10,paragraph1,and17oftheCovenant.Heemphasizesthattheconditionsofimprisonmentareseriouslyundermininghishealth.Whileondeathrow,hehasonlybeenallowedtoseeadoctoronce,despitehavingsustainedbeatingsbywardersandhavingrequestedmedicalattention.3.12Withreferencetorecentdecisionsofvariousjudicialinstancesdealingwiththedeathrowphenomenon,itissubmittedthattoexecutetheauthoraftertheprolongedperiodoftimehehasbeendetainedondeathrowwouldamounttocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment,inviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.Stateparty'sinformationandobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scommentsthereon4.2..2On10January1995,thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStateparty,requestingittosubmittotheCommitteeinformationandobservationsinrespectofthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunication.Noreplywasreceived.On31January1995,theStatepartyinformedtheCommitteethattheoffenceforwhichtheauthorhadbeenconvictedhadbeenclassifiedasnoncapitalandthattheauthorwasnolongerondeathrow.5.2..2On24January1995,counselinformedtheCommitteethattheauthor'sdeathsentencehadbeencommuted.6.12..2Duringthe58thsession,theHumanRightsCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.22..2TheCommitteehadascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.̇6.32..2TheCommitteenotedwithconcerntheabsenceofcooperationfromtheStatepartyonthematterunderconsideration.InparticularitobservedthattheStatepartyhadfailedtoprovideinformationonthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunication.OnthebasisoftheinformationbeforeittheCommitteefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,paragraph2(b)oftheOptionalProtocolfromconsideringthecommunication.6.42..2TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceofinformationprovidedbytheStateparty,theauthorhadsufficientlysubstantiatedforthepurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimthathewasshotbeforehisarrestandtheilltreatmenthehadbeensubjectedtowhileatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.Thispartofthecommunicationmightraiseissuesunderarticles7,9,paragraph1and10paragraph1,oftheCovenantwhichneedtobeexaminedonthemerits.Counselhadallegedaviolationofarticle17oftheCovenantwithnofurthersubstantiation.6.52..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthatthelengthofhisdetentionondeathrowamountstoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudencethatdetentionondeathrowdoesnotperseconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentinviolationofarticle7theCovenant,intheabsenceofsomefurthercompellingcircumstances.    6.62..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewasnottriedwithoutunduedelayinviolationofarticles9,paragraph3and14,paragraph3(c),theCommitteeconsideredthatadelayof14monthscouldnotbeconstruedasbeingunreasonable.Consequently,theCommitteefoundthatinthisrespecttheauthorhadnoclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.72..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathewasnottriedwithoutunduedelayinviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),becauseofthedelayinobtainingthecourtdocuments,bycounselinLondon,therecordsshowthatthetrialtranscriptwasavailabletotheauthor(orhiscounsel)whentheappealwasheard.Italsotranspiresfromthetrialtranscriptthatthepreliminarydepositionsmadebythewitnesseswerealsoavailabletotheauthor(orhiscounsel)duringthetrial,asevidencedbythecrossexaminationwhichtookplace.TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'scounselhadnotsubstantiatedthisclaimforpurposesofadmissibility.Consequently,thispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.82..2Astotheauthor'sclaimsunderarticle9,paragraphs1and2and14,paragraph3(a)oftheCovenant,inthattheauthorwasnotinformedofthereasonsforhisarrest,theCommitteeconsideredthatintheabsenceofinformationfromtheStateparty,theauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiatedthisclaimforpurposesofadmissibility.Accordingly,theCommitteeconsideredthatthispartofthecommunicationshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.ItinvitedcounseltoprovidetheCommitteewithmorepreciseinformationregardingtheoriginalcrime,i.e.themurderofthepoliceman,anditsoutcome;theincident,of20December1988,inwhichtheauthorwasshotandsubsequentlyarrested.TheCommitteeinvitedtheStatepartytoprovideitwithadetailedchronologyoftheeventsintheauthor'scase.6.92..2Theauthorhadallegedthathewasnotbroughtbeforeajudgeuntilthreemonthsafterhisarrestanditwas6monthsbeforehewasbroughtbeforeajudgeinconnectionwiththecrimeforwhichhewasfinallyconvicted.TheCommitteefoundthatintheabsenceofareply,inthisrespect,fromtheStateparty,theauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiatedthisallegationforpurposesofadmissibility,anditshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.6.10Asregardstheauthor'scomplaintthathewasnotproperlyrepresentedduringhistrialinviolationofarticle14paragraph3(b),and(e),theCommitteeconsideredthattheStatepartycouldnotbeheldaccountableforallegederrorsmadebyadefencelawyer,unlessitwasmanifesttothejudgethatthelawyer'sbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestofjustice.Intheinstantcase,therewasnoreasontobelievethatcounselwasnotusingotherthanhisbestjudgementandthispartofthecommunicationisthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.11Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathewasnotproperlyrepresentedbyhiscounselonappealinviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),theCommitteenotedfromtheinformationbeforeitthatcounseldidinfactconsultwiththeauthorpriortothehearing,andthatatthehearingthecourtofappealexaminedthecase.TheCommitteeconsideredthatitwasnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgementastohowtoargueornottheappeal,unlessitismanifestthathisbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.TheCommitteerecalledthatarticle14,paragraph3(d),doesnotentitletheaccusedtochoosecounselprovidedtohimfreeofcharge.TheCommitteefoundthereforethat,inthisrespect,theauthorhasnoclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.12Theauthor'sremainingallegationsconcernedclaimsaboutirregularitiesinthecourtproceedingsandimproperinstructionsfromthejudgetothejuryontheissueofidentification.TheCommitteereiteratedthat,whilearticle14guaranteestherighttoafairtrial,itisnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythejudgeinatrialbyjury,unlessitcanbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice,orthatthejudgemanifestlyviolatedhisobligationofimpartiality.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedoesnotshowthatthejudge'sinstructionssufferedfromsuchdefects,butrathertothecontrary,theCourtofAppealjudgementexpresslystatedthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionshadbeen:"clear,fairandadequate".Accordingly,thispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.13Consequentlyon16October1996theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticles7and10,paragraph1inrespectoftheilltreatmentandarticles9,paragraphs1,2and3;and14,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant.Statesparty'sobservationsofthemeritsandcounsel'scomments7.12..2Inasubmissiondated17December1997,theStatepartyinformedtheCommitteeitwouldinvestigatetheauthor'sallegationsofilltreatmentinprison.7.22..2Withregardtotheallegedbreachofarticle9,paragraph1,duetothecircumstancesunderwhichtheauthorwasarrested,shotbypolicefrombehind,theStatepartyhaspromisedtohavetheallegationinvestigated.However,itrequestedthatcounselprovideadditionalinformationinrespectoftheincident:whethertheauthorhadbeendetainedduringajointpoliceoperation?whethertherewasanexchangeofgunfirebetweenthepoliceandtheotherparties?Itfurtherstatesthatthesequestionsdonotinanywayconstituteanacknowledgementthattherewasanybreachofthisarticle.7.32..2Withrespecttotheclaimsunderarticles9,paragraph2,and14,paragraph3(a),inthattheauthorwasnotpromptlyinformedofthechargesagainsthim,theStatepartycontendsthattheallegationsareconfusing:"Inparagraph7ofthe[original]communicationitisstatedthatawarrantforhisarrestwasexecutedontheauthoronDecember221988.Inparagraph31theauthorstatesthathewasnotawareofthewarrantbeingexecutedonhim.Inthesamebreath,theapplicantadmitsthathewastoldthathehadbeenarrestedandthenatureoftheoffence.Thiswasconfirmedbytheauthor'smother.Therefore,theauthorcannothonestlysaythathewasunawareofthechargesagainsthimuntilhecametotrial."7.42..2TheStatepartyfurtherdeniesanybreachoftheCovenantinrespectofarticle9,paragraph3oftheCovenantsincetheauthorwasbroughtbeforeamagistratepriortotheholdingofthepreliminaryenquiry.8.12..2Bysubmissiondated8April1998,counselprovidedamemorandumwithachronologyofeventsasknowntothedefence,wheretheclaims,thattheauthorhadbeenshotfrombehindwhenarrestedandthathewasnotawareofthechargesagainsthimarereiterated.8.22..2Inafurthersubmissiondated29June1998,counsellooksforwardtoreceivingtheStateparty'sinformationinrespectofthecircumstancesoftheauthor'sarrest,hisilltreatmentatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrisonandthechronologyofeventsleadingtotheauthor'sarrestasrequestedbyCommitteeinitsadmissibilitydecision.HereferstheStatepartytohissubmissionofApril1998inordertorespondtotheStateparty'squestionsinthenoteverbaleof17December1997.8.32..2WithregardtotheStateparty'schallengeofaviolationofarticles9,paragraph2and14paragraph3(a)inthattheauthorwasnotpromptlyinformedofthechargesagainsthimcounselreiteratesthattheauthorwasnotawareatthetimeofhisarreston22December1988,ofthechargesagainsthim.Inparticular,heclaimsthattheJamaicanpolicedidnotinformtheauthorofthefactof,orthereasonsforhisarrestbutmerelynotifiedhimthathewouldhavetotakepartinanidentificationparade.Theauthorwasfinallymadeawareofthechargesagainsthimonlyon31March1989,overthreemonthsafterhisviolentapprehension.CounselpointsoutthattheStatepartyhasnotaddressedthefactthatthechargesmadeagainsttheauthoron22Decemberweredroppedandthatitwasnotuntil31March1989thathewastoldthathewasbeingchargedwiththemurder(ofMr.Wiggan)forwhichhewaslatertried.8.42..2Asregardstheviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,counselreiterateshisoriginalclaim.Henotesthattheauthorwasarrestedon22December1988,forthemurderofapoliceman,broughtbeforeamagistrateon31March,andchargedatthattimewiththemurderofMr.Wiggan.Thechargesagainsthimforthepoliceman'smurderweredroppedforlackofevidence.ThepreliminaryhearingforthemurderofCarlosWigganwasheldon20June1989.Counselholdsthattheauthorwasbroughtbeforeajudgeinconnectionwiththecrimeforwhichhewasfinallyconvictedof,onlyaftera6monthdelay.&  Examinationofthemerits9.12..2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthe'  lightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedforinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.22..2Withregardtotheauthor'scomplaintsofilltreatmentwhileindetentionatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrison,theCommitteenotesthatauthorhasmadeverypreciseallegations,relatingtotheincidentsreferredtoinparagraph3.11supra.TheseallegationshavenotbeencontestedbytheStateparty,excepttosaythatitwouldinvestigate.ThereisnoinformationfromtheStatepartyastowhetheraninvestigationhasbeencarriedoutandifso,whatitsresulthasbeen,contrarytoitsobligationtocooperatewiththeCommitteeasrequiredbyarticle4,paragraph2oftheOptionalProtocol.IntheCommittee'sopinion,theilltreatmentandconditionsdescribedaresuchastoviolatetheauthor'srighttobetreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanpersonandtherightnottobesubjectedtocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment,andarethereforecontrarytoarticles7,and10,paragraph1.9.32..2Withrespecttotheauthor'sclaimthathewasshotbythepolicefrombehindbeforebeingarrested,theCommitteereiteratesitsjurisprudencewhereithasheldthatitisinsufficientfortheStatepartytosimplysaythattherehasbeennobreachoftheCovenant.Consequently,theCommitteefindsthatinthecircumstancestheStatepartynothavingprovidedanyevidenceinrespectoftheinvestigationitallegestohavecarriedouttheshootingremainsuncontestedanddueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations.Accordingly,theCommitteefindsthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle9,paragraph1,withrespecttotheauthor'srighttosecurityoftheperson.9.42..2Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticles9,paragraph2,and14,paragraph3(a),sincehewasnotinformedofthechargesagainsthimatthetimeofhisarrest.Afterapoliceofficerwaskilled,theauthorwaschargedandarrested.Laterafteraninvestigation,theoriginalchargewasdroppedforlackofevidence,butitappearsthattheauthorwasthesuspectofanothermurderandwaskeptindetentionbeforebeingchargedandsentencedforthesecondcrime.Inthecircumstanceofthecaseandonthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteefindsthattherehasbeennoviolationofthearticles9,paragraph2,and14,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.9.52..2Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,inasmuchashewasnotbroughtbeforeamagistrateafterhisarreston22December1988.Itwasonlyon31March1989thathewasbroughtbeforetheMagistratesDivisionoftheGunCourt.Therewasthusadelayofmorethanthreemonthsbeforehewasproducedbeforeajudicialauthority.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasadmittedthedelayofmorethan3monthsbetweenthedateofarrestandthedatehewasbroughtbeforeajudicialauthority,buthasofferednoexplanationforthisdelayandmerelycontendedthattherehasbeennoviolationoftheCovenant.TheCommitteeisoftheviewthatmereassertionthatthedelaydoesnotconstituteaviolationisnotsufficientexplanation.TheCommitteethereforefindsthat3monthstobringanaccusedbeforeamagistratedoesnotcomplywiththeminimumguaranteesrequiredbytheCovenant.Consequently,andinthecircumstanceofthecasetheCommitteefindsthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3oftheCovenant.10.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticles7,10,paragraph1,9,paragraphs1,and3,oftheCovenant.11.2..2Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Leehongwithaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.̇12.2..2OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitcontinuestobesubjecttotheapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]ǀH.CommunicationNo.614/1995,Thomasv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon31March1999,sixtyfifthsession)*  Submittedby:0 .. SamuelThomas(representedbyMr.JanCohen..ofMishcondeReya)....2..2Allegedvictim:0 .. 0 ..  .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  ..  .. JamaicaDateofcommunication: .. 5January1995(initialsubmission)2..2Priordecision:0 .. SpecialRapporteur'srule91decision,..transmittedtotheStatepartyon......23January1995Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: .. 7October19962..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe2..2InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon31March1999,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.614/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebySamuelThomas,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisSamuelThomas,aJamaicancitizen,whoattimeofsubmissionofhiscommunicationwasawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6,7,9,10,14and17oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyJanCohenofMishcondeReya.Theauthor'sdeathsentencehasbeencommuted.򀀀  2..2*ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.AbdelfattahAmor,Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitndePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen,Mr.RomanWieruszewskiandMr.MaxwellYalden.ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberHip;litoSolariYrigoyenisappendedtothepresentdocument.̇&    Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12..2On25April1990,theauthorandthreecodefendants    ׀wereconvictedforthe'  capitalmurderofoneElijahMcLean,on24January1989,andsentencedtodeath.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedtheirappealson16March1992.On6July1994,theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncildismissedtheauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappeal.Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.FollowingtheenactmentoftheOffencesAgainstthePersons(Amendment)Act1992,Jamaicacreatedtwocategoriesofmurder,capitalandnoncapital,consequentlyallpersonspreviouslyconvictedofmurderhadtheirconvictionreviewedandreclassifiedunderthenewsystem.Theauthor'soffencewasreconfirmedas"capital". 2.2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthatthefouraccusedwereamongsevenmenwhoenteredthehouseofthedeceasedintheearlymorningof24January1989,draggedhimoutofhisbed,tookhimoutsideintotheyard,andchoppedhimseveraltimeswiththeirmachetes,therebykillinghim.2.3Theprosecutionreliedupontheevidenceofthreerelativesofthedeceased,agedeleven,fourteenandseventeen,wholivedatthedeceased'shouse.Theytestifiedthattheywereawakenedbysoundsemanatingfromtheroomwherethedeceasedandhiscommonlawwifeweresleeping.Theywenttothedoorwayandsawoneofthecodefendants(ByronYoung)withaflashlightinonehandandagunintheotherpointingitatthedeceased.Sixothermen,amongwhomtheyrecognizedtheauthor,allcarryingmachetes,werestandingbythebedofthedeceased,andoneofthemenchoppedhimonhisforehead.Allsevenmenthenpulledthedeceasedoffthebedand US  UK Ԁcarriedhimoutside.Thedeceasedheldontothedoorandwaschoppedonthehandbyoneofthemen.Thewitnessesfurthertestifiedthat,intheyard,hewaschoppedseveraltimesbythemen,includingtheauthor,whilecodefendantYoungstoodintheirmidstwithhisgunstillinhishand.Allsevenmenthenleft.2.4Thecaseforthedefencewasbasedonalibi.Theauthormadeanunswornstatementfromthedock,maintainingthathewasnotpresentatthelocusinquoandthathehadnoknowledgeofthemurder.Theissuewasthereforeoneofidentificationandthedefencewassolelydirectedatthewitnesses'credibilityandtheirability,giventhelightingintheroomandtheyardatthetimeoftheincident,tocorrectlyidentifytheauthor.2.5Attheendofthejudge'ssummingup,thejuryretiredat2:31p.m.andreturnedat3:14p.m.toannouncethattheyhadnotarrivedataunanimousverdict.Thejudgetoldthemthathecouldnotatthatstageacceptanythingbutaunanimousverdict,andthejuryretiredagainat3:16p.m.Theyreturnedat4:27p.m.andtheforemanagainannouncedthattheyhadnotarrivedataunanimousverdict.Thejudgethenstated:"IamafraidthatthisisnotacaseinwhichIcanacceptamajorityverdict,thisisamurdercaseandyourverdictmustbeunanimousonewayortheother.[...]Nonemustbefalsetotheoaththathehastakentoreturnatrueverdict,butinordertoarriveatacollectiveverdict,averdictuponwhichyouallagree,theremustnecessarilybesomegivingandtaking.Therewillbearguments[...],butatthesametimetheremustbe[...]certainadjustmentofviews.Eachofyoumustlistentothevoicesoftheotheranddon'tbedogmaticaboutit[...].Noneofyoushouldbeunwillingtolistentotheargumentoftheother.Ifanyofyouhaveastrongview,oryouareinastateofuncertainty,youarenotobligedorentitledtosinkyourviewandagreewiththemajority,butwhatItellyoutodoistoargueoutanddiscussthemattertogetherandseewhetherornotyoucanarriveataunanimousverdict".Theforemanthenaskedthejudgeaquestionrelatingtotheevidence,andafterhavingitexplained,thejuryretiredat4:41p.m.Theyreturnedat5:30p.m.andtheforemanannouncedthattheyhadarrivedataunanimousverdict,findingallfouraccusedguiltyascharged.2.6CounselforwardsswornaffidavitsfromTerenceDouglasandDaphneHarrison,twomembersofthejurywhosatthroughoutthecourseofthetrialandwerepresentatthejury'sdeliberations.02..2*0..Inhisaffidavit,dated3May1990,TerenceDouglastestifiesthat:"[...]Onthelastdayofthetrialoutofthetwelvejurorsonlythreejurorsfoundthemenguilty.Becauseitwasgettinglateandtheforemanwaspressuringus,wejusttoldhimtodowhathewants.Theforemanthenstoodupat6:10p.m.andsaidthathefoundallfourmenguilty.[...]AfterthecasewasdismissedIwentoutsideandstartedtocrybecauseIknowthatthefourmenareinnocent,althoughthefirstdayofthecourtwasthefirsttimeIwasseeingthem.Iwouldlikethe[Jamaican]Council[forHumanRights]togetaretrialforthesemenbecausetheydidnotgetafairtrial."02..2*0..Inheraffidavit,dated12June1990,DaphneHarrisontestifiesthat:"[...]Onourfirstdeliberation,nineofushadcometothedecisionthatthequalityoftheevidencewassopoorandconflicting,thatwesawnoreasonwhythemenshouldnotbeacquitted.Aftertheforemanhadinformedthecourtthatwecouldnotarriveataunanimousverdict,wewerefurtheraddressedbythetrialjudge.However,onourseconddeliberationthesituationremainedthesame.Onourfinaldeliberation,thenineeightothersandmyselfheldsteadfasttoourdecisionaswegenuinelybelievedthattheevidencewaspoor.However,asitwasgettinglateandwehadallwantedtogohome,andthefactthatwewerebecomingfrustrated,weallturnedtotheforemanandtwojurorsandsaid:"Alright,youcanalldowhateveryouwanttodo,butremember,wearenotapartytoanyguiltyverdict".Theforemanthenremarked:"IonlyhopethatwhenIgetouttherenoneofyousayanything".Mrs.Harrisonfurtherstatesthat:"IamwillingtoattesttothisstatementinanycourtatanytimeifIamrequiredtodoso".2.7Theauthor'slawyerfiledthegroundsofappealon1May1990.TheappealofallfourcodefendantstotheCourtofAppealofJamaicawasbasedonthetrialjudge'sfailure,inhisdirectionstothejury,tohighlightcertaindiscrepanciesintheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses,hisdirectiontotheforemanandmembersofthejurythattheirverdictmustbeunanimousonewayortheother,theeffectofwhichwassaidtohavecajoledthejuryintotheverdictofguilty,andhisdirectiontothejuryontheissueoftheunswornstatementsmadebyallfourcodefendants.Asstatedabove,theCourtofAppealdismissedtheappealson16March1992.2.8Theauthor'spetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasbased,interalia,onthefollowinggrounds:02..20..thatthetrialjudgeerredinhisdirectiontothejurybyoverstressingtheneedforunanimityandfailedtoadvisethejuryadequatelyoftheirrightanddutytodisagree,therebycausingthejurytobepressuredintoarrivingataunanimousverdict;and02..20..thattherewasamaterialirregularityinthecourseofthetrialinthatalthoughnineofthetwelvejurorsintendedtoacquittheauthor,theforemanwronglyandimproperlyannouncedthataunanimousverdictofguiltyhadbeenreachedagainsttheauthor.2.9Itisstatedthatthegroundsconcerningthematerialirregularitiesduringthecourseofthejury'sdeliberationsandtheirneedtoreachaunanimousverdictwereraisedbeforethePrivyCouncil.Thecomplaint3.1Counselpointsoutthat,sincehisconvictionon25April1990,theauthorhasbeenheldondeathrowatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.Hesubmitsthattoexecutetheauthornowafterthislengthydelayofoversixyearswouldbeinviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,inthatthedelaywouldrendertheexecutioncruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,asrecognisedinthecasesofPrattandMorganv.theAttorneyGeneralofJamaica,    ׀CatholicCommissionforJusticeandPeaceinZimbabwev.theAttorneyGeneralofZimbabwe,    ׀andSoeringv.UnitedKingdom.    ׀Itisfurthersubmittedthattheauthorhasalreadybeensubjectedtocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentorpunishmentbybeingheldforsuchasubstantialperiodoftimeintheappallingconditionsthatexistinthedeathrowsectionofSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.3.2Inrespectofarticle9,counselreferstothedelaysinthejudicialproceedingsagainsttheauthor,whichareattributabletotheStateparty.Hepointstothedelayofnearlyfourteenmonthsbetweenthedateoftheauthor'sarrest(27February1989)andhistrial(23to25April1990),afurtherdelayofnearlytwentythreemonthsbetweenthedateofconvictionandsentence(25April1990)andthedismissalofhisappeal(16March1992),andafurtherdelayofnearlytenmonthsbetweenLondonsolicitorsacceptinginstructionstoactontheauthor'sbehalf(13May1992)andthedateofreceiptofthetrialtranscriptandwrittenjudgmentoftheCourtofAppeal(8March1993),beforeitwaspossibletoconsiderwhethertherewereanygroundstoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.Inthiscontext,counselreferstohisrepeatedrequeststotheJamaicanjudicialauthoritiestoprovidehimwiththecourtdocumentsintheauthor'scase.3.3Itissubmittedthattheauthorwasheldinpolicedetentionfromthedateofhisarrest(27February1989)tothedateofconvictionandsentence(25April1990),andthat,duringthisperiod,hewasnotsegregatedfromconvictedprisoners,norwashesubjecttoseparatetreatmentappropriatetohisstatusasanunconvictedperson,inviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant.Furthermore,theauthorclaimsthat,whilstinpolicedetention,hisrighttoreceivevisitorswasinterferedwith,andhewasbadlybeatenbypoliceofficersandthreatenedwithfurtherphysicalviolence.3.4Counselclaimsthattheauthor'srighttoafairtrialwasviolatedinthattherewasamaterialirregularityinthecourseofthetrialbecause,althoughnineofthetwelvejurorsintendedtoacquittheauthor,theforemanwronglyandimproperlyannouncedthataunanimousverdictofguiltyhadbeenreachedagainsttheauthor.Inthiscontext,counselreferstotheabovementionedswornaffidavitsofthetwojurors.ThefailureoftheCourtofAppealtoacceptandrectifytheerrorsandomissionsrelatingtothetrialjudge'sdirectiontothejurythattheirverdicthadtobeunanimousonewayortheother,issaidtoamounttograveandsubstantialinjustice,inviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.3.5Itisfurthersubmittedthatthetrialjudgeviolatedhisobligationsofimpartialitybyoverstressingtothejurytheneedforunanimity,andbyfailingtoadvisethejuryadequatelyastotheirrightanddutytodisagree.Counselreiteratesthatthetrialjudge,bystatingthatundernocircumstanceswouldhebepreparedtoacceptamajorityverdict(contrarytowhatheimpliedwhenthejuryreturnedforthefirsttime,whenhestatedthathecouldnotacceptanythingbutaunanimousverdictatthatstage),causedthejurytobepressuredintoacceptingtheunanimousverdictasreadoutbytheforeman.3.6Counselpointsoutthattheauthor'slawyerfiledthegroundsofappealon1May1990,andthatittooktheCourtofAppealtwentytwomonthstohearanddismisstheappeal.Thisissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.3.7ReferenceismadetothefindingsoftheCommitteethattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathupontheconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavebeenbreachedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstsentenceisavailable,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.Itissubmittedthatnofurtherremediesareavailabletotheauthor,andthat,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithouthavingmettherequirementsoftheCovenant,article6hasbeenviolatedinhiscase.3.82..2Finally,astoaviolationofarticle17,theauthorclaimsthathiscorrespondenceisrepeatedlyandunlawfullyinterferedwithbytheprisonwarders.Inthisrespect,heclaimsthatlettershehassenttotheprisonoffice havenotreachedthecorrectaddressee.Stateparty'sobservationsandcounsel'scommentsthereon4.2..2Bysubmissionof18May1995,theStatepartysubmittedcommentsonthemeritsofthecommunicationinordertoexpeditetheconsiderationofthecase.However,theStatepartypromisedinformationregardinginvestigationstobecarriedoutintoseveraloftheauthor'sallegations,whichhavenotbeenforthcoming.5.2..2On28July1995,theauthor'scounselobjectedtothejointconsiderationoftheadmissibilityandmeritsofthecommunication,astheStatepartyhadfailedtoaddressalltheissuesraisedinthecommunication.HowevercounselforwardedcommentsontheStateparty'ssubmissiononthoseissuesthathadbeenaddressed.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12..2Duringthe58thsession,theHumanRightsCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.6.22..2TheCommitteehadascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32..2Astotherequirementinarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolthatdomesticremediesbeexhausted,theCommitteenotedthattheCourtofAppealdismissedtheauthor'sappealandthatthePrivyCouncildismissedhisapplicationforleavetoappeal.Therefore,withregardtotheauthor'sallegationthathistrialwasunfairbecauseofthematerialirregularitiesinthedeliberationsofthejury,thewayinwhichtheverdictwasreachedandthetrialjudge'sinstructionstothejurytellingthemthattheyhadtoreachaunanimousverdict,theCommitteewassatisfiedthatdomesticremedieshadbeenexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteefurther,consideredthattheallegationsmightraiseissuesunderarticle14andconsequently,ofarticle6,oftheCovenantwhichneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.6.42..2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthathisdetentionondeathrowamountstoaviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant,theCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudencethatdetentionondeathrowdoesnotperseconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentinviolationofarticles7and10paragraph1,oftheCovenant,intheabsenceofsomefurthercompellingcircumstances.TheCommitteeobservedthattheauthorhadnotshowninwhatparticularwayshewassotreatedastoraiseanissueunderarticles7and10oftheCovenant.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52..2Astotheclaimofundueprolongationintheappealproceedings,theCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forthepurposesofadmissibility,thatthedelayoftwentythreemonthsbetweenhisconvictionandthedismissalofhisappeal,mightraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraphs3(c)and5oftheCovenant,whichshouldbeexaminedonthemerits.6.62..2Withregardstotheauthor'sallegationofilltreatmentwhileinpretrialdetentionandhisnonseparationfromconvictedprisonersduringthisperiod,theCommitteeconsideredthattheauthor'sclaimregardinghispretrialdetentionmightraiseissuesunderarticle10oftheCovenant,pendingtheoutcomeoftheStateparty'sinvestigations.6.72..2Withregardtocounsel'sallegationthattherehasbeenanarbitraryinterferencewiththeauthor'smail,inviolationofarticle17,paragraph1,theCommitteeconsideredthatneithertheauthornorhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiatedthisclaimforpurposesofadmissibilityunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.82..2Consequently,on17October1996theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticles6;9,paragraph3;10;14paragraphs1,3(c)and5.Stateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandcounsel'scommentsthereon7.12..2Inasubmissiondated6June1997,theStatepartyinformedtheCommitteeithadbeenunabletoinvestigatetheauthor'sallegationthathewasbeatenbyapoliceofficer,intheabsenceofadditionalinformation,suchastheplacewheretheauthorwasheld,thetimeatwhichtheincidentsallegedlyoccurredandifpossiblethename(s)oftheofficersinvolved.UntilthisinformationwasreceivedtheStatepartywouldbeunabletoinvestigatetheallegations.7.22..2Withrespecttotheallegationthattheauthorwasnotsegregatedfromconvictedprisonerswhiledetained,theStatepartycontendsthatsincetheauthorrefersto"policedetention"itmustrefertoapolicestationorremandfacilityforpersonsawaitingtrial.Convictedoffendersarenotheldinthesefacilitiesunlesstherehasbeenashortdelayintransferringthemtoacorrectionalinstitution.Thecommitteeisaskedtonotethatintheparishinwhichtheauthorwastried,Clarendon,thereisnoinstitutioninwhichconvictedpersonscanbedetainedwithoutcreatingmajorsecurityrisks.7.32..2TheStatepartydeniesanybreachoftheCovenantinrespectofthe23monthsdelaybetweenconvictionandthedismissaloftheappealinviolationofarticles14,paragraph3(c),and14paragraph5,althoughitconcedesthatthisperiodislongerthandesirable.7.42..2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationthathistrialwasunfairbecauseofthematerialirregularitiesinthedeliberationsofthejury,thewayinwhichtheverdictwasreachedandthetrialjudge'sinstructionstothejurytellingthemthattheyhadtoreachaunanimousverdict.TheStatepartycontendsthatwithrespecttotheissueofthejudge'sinstructionstothejurythishasbeenreceivedbytwoappellatecourts.TheStatepartyfurthersubmitsthattheCommittee'sownjurisprudenceonthissubjectisthatitisforappellatecourtstoreviewsuchinstructions,andonlyinparticularcircumstanceswilltheCommitteeconductareview.TheStatepartyconsidersthattheseparticularcircumstancesasdefinedbytheCommitteedonotariseinthiscaseandthereforeitassertsthatthisissueisnotoneoverwhichtheCommitteeshouldassumejurisdiction.7.52..2Astothequestionofjurydeliberationandthemannerinwhichtheverdictwasarrivedat,theStatepartydeniesthatthisisabreachforwhichtheStatepartycanbeheldaccountable.Thejurymemberswereclearlyawareoftheirdutyandobviouslyunderstoodcorrectlythejudge'sinstruction;theychosetodisregardthoseinstructions.Theyknewtheywereentitledtodisagreeiftheyfeltstronglyontheissue,butchosenottodoso.TosaythattheStatepartyisresponsiblebecausesomejurorsweretiredandwantedtogohomeandthereforedidnotinsistthattheyhadreasonabledoubts,isuncalledfor.Thejurors,wereawarethatamanwasontrialandifconvictedcouldlosehislife.Theirfailuretodischargetheirdutiesaccordingtotheirconscienceandbeliefs,havingheardtheevidence,cannotbelaidatthedooroftheState.TheStatepartyfurthercontendsthatthejurysystemisbasedonthepresumptionthathavingheardalltheevidencewithanopenmind,thosecalledontodosowillrenderaverdictingoodfaithaccordingtotheirviewoftheevidence.Wherepersonschoosenottodosofortheirownreasons,thefaultdoesnotliewiththeState.8.2..2Bysubmissiondated14January1998,counseladdressedseveralquestionstotheStatepartyinrespectoftheobservationshehadsubmittedtotheStateparty'sadmissibilitysubmission.Herequestedconfirmationthatapreliminaryenquiryhadtakenplace,additionalinformationinrespectofwhenMr.Thomaswasbroughtbeforeajudgeandtheestablishmentofaprimafacecaseagainsttheauthor.HealsorequestedinformationinrespectoftheinvestigationstheStatepartyclaimeditwascarryingoutinrespectoftheauthor'sallegationsofbeatingsandhavingbeenheldindetentionwithconvictedprisonerswhileawaitinghisowntrial.HealsorequestedclarificationinrespectofwhattheStateparty'smeanswhenitstatesthatintheparishwheretheauthorwaskeptthereisnofacilityforkeepingconvictedpersons.Examinationofthemerits9.12..2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedforinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.22..2Theauthorhasputforwardtwocomplaintsinrespectarticle10oftheCovenant,a)illtreatmentwhileinpolicedetentionand,b)nonsegregationfromconvictedprisonerswhileinpolicedetention.TheCommitteenotesthattheauthor'sallegationsinrespectofthetreatmenthewassubjectedtowhileinpolicedetentionareveryvague(seeparagraph3.3supra),andconsidersthatitisincumbentuponanallegedvictimtoprovidesufficientinformation,inorderthataStatepartymayinvestigateanallegation.Inthisrespect,theCommitteealsonotesthattheStatepartydidinfactrequestadditionalinformationinordertoinvestigatetheclaims.IntheCommittee'sopinion,theinformationprovidedbytheauthorandhiscounselinrespectoftheconditionsdescribedinparagraph3.3.areinsufficientforaStatepartytobeabletoadequatelyinvestigatethematter.Consequently,theCommitteeconsidersthatneithertheauthornorhiscounselhavesufficientlysubstantiatedaclaimunderarticle3oftheCovenantinrespecttotheallegedviolationofarticle10paragraph1.9.32..2Theauthorhasclaimedthathewasnotseparatedfromconvictedprisonerswhileinpolicedetention,howevernofurthersubstantiationhasbeenprovidedinthisrespect.TheCommitteenotestheStateparty'sinformationthatintheparishinwhichtheauthorwastriedthereisnoinstitutioncapableofholdingconvictedprisoners.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheauthor'sclaimhasnotbeensufficientlysubstantiatedandgiventheStateparty'sdenial,andonthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit.TheCommitteeisunabletofindthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticle10,paragraph2. UK 9.42..2TheissuebeforetheCommitteeinrespecttoarticle14iswhetherthejudge'sinsistencethatthejurymustreachaunanimousverdictandtheallegedmaterialirregularitiesinthejury'sdeliberationsconstitutedaviolationoftheCovenant.TheCommitteeobservesthattheissueofthejudge'ssumminguptothejuryandhisemphasisthatthejuryreachaunanimousverdictwasexaminedbytheCourtofAppealofJamaicaandtheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,andthatbothinstancesfoundtheinstructionstobeacceptable.ItisnotfortheCommitteetoreviewthefindingsofthesebodiesintheabsenceofanyindicationthattheirconclusionswerearbitraryorotherwiseamountedtoadenialofjustice.Consequently,therehasbeennoviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.9.52..2Theauthorhasclaimedthattheperiodof23monthsfromhisconvictiontothehearingofhisappealconstitutesabreachofarticle14,paragraph3(c),and5,oftheCovenant.TheCommitteereiteratesthatallguaranteesunderarticle14oftheCovenantshouldbestrictlyobservedinanycriminalprocedure,particularlyincapitalcases,andnoteswithregardtotheperiodof23monthsbetweentrialandappealthattheStatepartyhasconcededthatsuchadelayisundesirable,butthatithasnotofferedanyfurtherexplanation.Intheabsenceofanycircumstancesjustifyingthedelay,theCommitteefindsthatwithregardtothisperiodtherehasbeenaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(c),inconjunctionwithparagraph5,oftheCovenant.9.62..2However,withregardtotheperiodofnearlyfourteenmonthswhichlapsedfromtheauthor'sarrest(27February1989)tohistrial(23to25April1990),theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotaddressedtheissue,nonethelessitconsidersthatthisdelaydoesnotintheoverallcircumstancesofthecaseconstituteaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3.10.2..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(c),and5,oftheCovenant.11.2..2Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Samuelwithaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.12.2..2OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitcontinuestobesubjecttotheapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]@..\APPENDIX@.. IndividualopinionHip;litoSolariYrigoyen@..(dissenting)2..2ThefollowingistheCommitteemember'sversionofhowparagraphs6.4and9.4ofthedecisionshouldhaveread.6.42..2Theauthor'slawyerhasmaintainedthathisdetentionondeathrowinSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonconstitutescruelandinhumantreatment,bothbecauseofthetimespentthereandbecauseofthegeneralconditionsofdetention,whichhedescribesas"frightful"inparagraph3.1.Inthisconnectionitshouldbepointedoutthatalthough,inaccordancewiththeCommittee'sjurisprudence,timeisnotafactorwhichcausesthedetentiontoconstituteaviolationoftheCovenant,thisisnotthecasewithconditionsofdetention.InthepresentcasetheStatehasnotrefutedthespecificallegationsaboutthetreatmentreceivedbytheauthorinbreachofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenantandithasnotprovidedanyinformationonthispoint,despitetheobligationimposedonitbyarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol.Moreover,inthepresentcasetheStatepartyhasnotfulfilleditsobligationtoindicatewhethertheprisonregimeandthetreatmentofthedetaineeareinconformitywiththeprovisionsofarticle10oftheCovenant.Becauseofthesesignificantcircumstancesthecomplaintshouldbeupheld.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheauthorhasbeenthevictimofcrueltreatmentdenyinghimtherespectduetotheinherentdignityofahumanbeing,inbreachoftheprovisionsoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsalreadymentionedinthisparagraph.9.42..2Theauthor'scounselconsidersthathisrighttoafairtrialwasviolated,incontraventionofarticle14oftheCovenant.Heclaimsinparagraph3.4thatthejuryforemancommitteda"materialirregularity"byannouncingaunanimousguiltyverdictwhennosuchverdicthadbeenreached,andinparagraph3.5hearguesthatthetrialjudgeviolatedhisobligationofimpartialitybyoverstressingtothejurytheneedforunanimity,withoutadvisingthemembersofthejuryabouttheirrightanddutytodisagree,andbystatingthatundernocircumstanceswouldhebepreparedtoacceptamajorityverdict.TheStatepartypointsoutthatitcouldnotbeheldresponsibleifthemembersofthejurydidnotdotheirdutyinaccordancewiththeirconscienceandbeliefs,havingheardtheevidenceandaccordinglydeniesthattherewasaviolationattributabletoit.Itcontendsthatif,fortheirownpersonalreasons,themembersofthejurydonotrenderaverdictingoodfaithinaccordancewiththeirviewoftheevidencethefaultdoesnotliewiththeState.Notwithstandingthesearguments,itmustbepointedoutthatitistheState'sresponsibilitytoprovideforcompetent,independentandimpartialcourtsofjusticeestablishedbylawtoproduceadeterminationofanycriminalcharge,inaccordancewitharticle14oftheCovenant.2..2TheswornstatementsofjurymembersTerenceDouglasandDaphneHarrison,broughttotheCommittee'sattentionbytheauthor'scounselandnotrebuttedbytheStateparty,showthattheforemanactedirregularlybypressuringthemembersofthejurytodeliveraunanimousverdict,whennineofthembelievedthattheauthorwasnotguiltyandonlythreebelievedtheopposite,andthatmoreoverthechangemadeintheannouncementoftheverdictshowsthattheauthordidnotenjoythedueprocessaccordedtodefendantsincriminalcasesbyarticle14oftheCovenant.Thiscircumstanceisparticularlyseriousinviewofthefactthattheverdictannouncedashavingbeenreachedbythejuryamountstoadeathsentencefortheconvictedperson.TheconfirmationoftheverdictbytheAppealCourtsupportstheviewthattheaccuseddidnothaveafairtrial.IntheCommittee'sopinion,theirregularitiesdescribedaboveconstituteaviolationoftherightscontainedinarticle14oftheCovenant.#..X(Signed)Hip;litoSolariYrigoyen[DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theSpanishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.] ES CH<6X9`(CourierC G UK     \R3'\ X      +CH<6X9`(CourierCS I $ 1.(a)(i) a.(1)(a) i) a)S882   ݀I.CommunicationNo.616/1995,Hamiltonv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon23July1999,sixtysixthsession)*       88,   Submittedby:0 .. 0 .. 0 .. ZephiniahHamilton(representedbycounseloftheLondonlawfirmMacfarlanes)Allegedvictim:0 .. 0 .. TheauthorStateparty:0 .. 0 .. 0 .. JamaicaDateofcommunication:0 .. 6January1995Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  ..  .. 7July1997,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,Meetingon23July1999,,..,HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.616/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.ZephiniahHamiltonundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,,..,Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.,..,TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.ZephiniahHamilton,aJamaicancitizenwhoatthetimeofsubmissionofhiscommunicationwasawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles6;7;9,paragraph3;10and14,paragraphs1,3(c)and5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyacounseloftheLondonlawfirm,Macfarlanes.Theauthor'sdeathsentencehasbeencommuted.Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.1,..,Theauthorwasarrestedon28March1989andchargedwiththemurdersofLynvalHenryandRobertBell,whichhadoccurredon13October1988.ThepreliminaryenquirywasheldinMay1990.On24December1991,theauthorwasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeath.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedhisappealon12October1992.AfurtherapplicationforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilhasnotbeenfiledandtherehasbeennoappealtotheSupreme(Constitutional)CourtofJamaica.̇2.2,..,Theauthorwasconvictedbythejuryofmurderasbeingpartofajointenterprise;thetwovictimswereattackedintheevening,inthepresenceoftwoothermen,oneofwhomgaveevidencethatherecognisedtheauthor,asapersonknowntohimfromchildhood,andtheotherofwhomsaidthathehadseentheauthoronpreviousoccasions.Theauthor'sdefence,basedonanalibiandmistakenidentity(supportedbyanunswornstatement)wasrejectedbythejury.2.3,..,Atthetimeoftheoriginalcommunicationtheauthorwasundersentenceofdeath.HisappealtotheCourtofAppealofJamaicawasdismissedtwodaysbeforetheOffencesagainstthePersons(Amendment)Act1992cameintoforce;thecommunicationalsoincludedadetailedsubmissionabouttheclassificationprocedureunderthatAct,leadingtoacomplaintofviolationsofarticles6and14paragraph1,and5,oftheCovenant,withfullsupportingargument.Thecommutationoftheauthor'ssentencebytheGovernorGeneralhasmadeitunnecessarytodealwiththeseissuesindetail.Thecomplaint3.1,..,Counselexplainsthattheauthorwasshot,inthelowerareaofhisspinebyapoliceofficerafterahearingbytheMagistrateaspartofthePreliminaryEnquiry.Hehad,forotherreasons,beeninhospitalpriortohisarrest.Hewasthenreadmittedtohospital,becauseoftheinjurytohisback,wherehespentthreemonthsbetweenhisarrestandhistrial.Asalongtermoutcome,asaresultofthis,heisparalysedinbothlegsandisunabletomovefromhiscellunlessheiscarriedbyotherinmates.Heisalsounabletoremovehisslopbucketfromthecellhimselfandhehasthereforebeenobligedtopayotherinmatestoremoveit.Thismeansthatsometimesithastoremaininhiscelluntilhehasobtainedthenecessaryfunds.Theauthorcomplainedseveraltimestothesuperintendentabouttheconditionsinwhichheiskept,tonoavail.Furthermore,theLondonsolicitorswrotetwicetothePrisonGovernoronMr.Hamilton'sbehalf,requestinghimtoensurethattheauthorisgivenproperassistancetoenablehimtoleavehiscellforsomeperiodduringeachday,andalsotomakeproperarrangementsforhisslopbuckettoberemovedfromhiscelldaily.Todatenoreplyhasbeenreceived.Counselreferstoa1993reportfromanongovernmentalorganisationinwhichitisstatedthat,althoughtheParliamentaryOmbudsmanseemstomakeagenuineefforttoaddresstheproblemsintheprisonsofJamaica,hisofficedoesnothavesufficientfundingtobeeffective,andtheOmbudsmanhasnopowersofenforcinghisrecommendationswhicharenonbinding.Therefore,counselargues,theofficeoftheParliamentaryOmbudsmandoesnotprovideaneffectiveremedyinthecircumstancesoftheauthor'scase.Itissubmittedthattheauthor'srightsunderarticles7and10oftheCovenanthavebeenviolated,becauseoftheprisonauthorities'failuretotakeintoaccounttheauthor'sparalysedconditionandtomakeproperarrangementsforhim.ThelackofpropercareisalsosaidtobeinviolationoftheUNStandardMinimumRulesforthetreatmentofPrisoners.3.2,..,Counselpointsoutthattheauthorwasarrestedon28March1989,butwasnottrieduntil24December1991,andthatittookafurthertenmonthsbeforehisappealwasheardanddismissed.Thedelayofthirtythreemonthsbetweenarrestandconvictionissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticles9,paragraph3,and14,paragraph3(c).4.,..,OnMay11,1995thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStateparty,witharequesttosubmittotheCommitteeinformationandobservationsinrespectoftheadmissibilityofthecommunication.AsofJuly1997noreplyhadbeenreceived.&  Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility5.1,..,Duringits60thsessiontheCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.'  5.2,..,TheCommitteenotedwithconcerntheabsenceofcooperationfromtheStatepartyonthematterunderconsideration.Inparticular,itobservedthattheStatepartyhadfailedtoprovideinformationonthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunication.OnthebasisoftheinformationbeforeittheCommitteefoundthatitwasnotprecludedfromconsideringthecommunicationunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.5.3,..,TheCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadnotcontestedtheadmissibilityoftheauthor'sallegationsabouttheconditionsofhisdetentionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonwhichhavebeenaggravatedbyhishandicap.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefoundthattheauthorandhiscounselhadmettherequirementsofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolinthisrespect,andmadenofindingaboutthecomplaintunderarticles6and14,paragraphs1,and5(ashavingbeenovertakenbythecommutationofthedeathsentence),butconsideredthattheallegationsmightraiseissuesunderarticles10,paragraph1andalsoarticles9,paragraph3,and14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.Statesparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandcounsel'scomments6.1,..,Inasubmissiondated28September1998,theStatepartyinformedtheCommitteethatwithrespecttotheallegationofviolationsofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,paragraph3,(c)duetothedelaysbetweenarrestandtrialandtrialandappeal,itdeniedthatthoseperiodsweresoprolongedastoconstituteunduedelay,sinceapreliminaryenquirywasheldoverseveralsessionsbetweenarrestandtrialtherebymitigatinganypotentialdelay.6.2,..,Withregardtotheallegedbreachofarticle10,paragraph1,duetothecircumstancesoftheauthor'sdetentionandthedifficultiesheisexperiencingbecauseofhisdisability,theStatepartycontendsthatsincetheauthorisnolongerondeathrowtheconditionsinwhichheisnowdetainedwillfacilitatehismovementsmoreeffectively.Thisissubjecttothefactthattheprisonisnotdesignedtoaccommodatedisabledpersons,thereforespecialarrangementshavetobeputinplacetoassistthesepersons.6.3,..,TheStatepartyalsorespondedtopointsconcerningtheclassificationprocess.7.1,..,Bysubmissiondated22December1998,counselreiterateshisaffirmationthatarticles9,paragraph3,and14,paragraph3,(c)havebeenviolatedsincetherewasa33monthdelaybetweentheauthor'sarrestandhistrial,herejectstheStateparty'scontentionthatapreliminaryenquiryheardwithinthatperiodmitigatesany"potentialdelay".7.2,..,Counselhasprovidedacopyofthe"reportofinvestigation"inrespectoftheauthor'scomplaintagainstspecialconstableMendez,whichreflectscontradictoryversionsoftheshootingincidentinwhichtheauthorwasinjured.ItalsocontainsanotefromthePolicePublicComplaintsAuthorityrecommendingthatproceedingsbeinitiatedagainstSpecialConstableMendezforwoundingwithintent.7.3,..,WithregardtotheStateparty'sinformationthatsincetheauthorisnolongerondeathrowandthatthereforetheconditionsofhisdetentionhaveimproved,counselarguesthattheauthorcontinuestoneedsomeonetoslopoutforhimandsincewhatmoneyhehadwasconfiscatedbyaprisonguardheisinanuntenableposition.Counselreiteratesthattheauthordoesnotreceivealowfatdietasprescribedbythedoctor.Healsopointsouttheauthor'sfearofbeingtransferredtotheprisonhospitalsincehecouldbecomethevictimofahomosexualassaultandhisdisabilitywouldimpedehimfromdefendinghimself.7.4,..,Furthermore,counselreaffirmsthatnospecialarrangementshavebeenputinplacetoaccommodatetheauthorinprison.Inthisrespecthepointsoutthatsincetheauthor'sdisabilityissoseverethathewillneverpresentathreattosocietyheshouldbetransferredtoarehabilitationcentre.Examinationofthemerits8.1,..,TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedforinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.8.2,..,Withregardtotheauthor'scomplaintswithrespecttohisconditionsofdetentionatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrison,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorhasmadeverypreciseallegations,relatingtothedifficultieshehasencounteredasadisabledperson(seeparagraph3.1supra).AllofthishasnotbeencontestedbytheStateparty,excepttosaythatmeasureswouldhavetobeputinplacetoaccommodatetheauthorasadisabledpersoninprison.IntheCommittee'sopinion,theconditionsdescribedinpara3.1,aresuchastoviolatetheauthor'srighttobetreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson,andarethereforecontrarytoarticle10,paragraph1.8.3,..,Theauthorhasclaimedaviolationofarticles9,paragraph3,and14paragraph3(c)inthathewasnottriedwithoutunduedelay,sincetherewere33monthsbetweentheauthor'sarreston28March1989andhistrialon24December1991.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartycontendsthatsinceapreliminaryhearingwasheldinthatperiodthisconstitutedamitigatingcircumstanceandconsequentlyrejectsanyviolationoftheCovenant.Nevertheless,theCommitteeisoftheviewthatthemereaffirmationthatadelaydoesnotconstituteaviolationisnotsufficientexplanation.TheCommitteethereforefindsthat33monthsbetweenarrestandtrialdoesnotcomplywiththeminimumguaranteesrequiredbytheCovenant.Consequently,andinthecircumstancesofthecasetheCommitteefindsthattherehasbeenaviolationofarticles9,paragraph3and14,paragraph3(c).9.,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,9,paragraph3,and14,paragraph3(c),oftheCovenant.10.,..,Inaccordancewitharticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Hamiltonwithaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensationandplacementinconditionsthattakefullaccountofhisdisability.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.11.,..,OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitcontinuestobesubjecttotheapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisrequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]ǀJ.CommunicationNo.618/1995,Campbellv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon20October1998,sixtyfourthsession)      Submittedby: ..  .. 0 .. BarringtonCampbell(representedbyMr.GeorgeBrownfromNabarroNathanson,alawfirminLondon)Victim: ..  ..  ..  .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  ..  .. JamaicaDateofcommunication:0 .. 10January1995(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  ..  .. 20October1998,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,Meetingon20October1998,,..,HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.618/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.BarringtonCampbell,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,,..,Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.,..,TheauthorofthecommunicationisBarringtonCampbell,aJamaicancitizenatthetimeofsubmissionawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticles7,10,paragraph1,and14,paragraphs3(b)(d)and(e),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyGeorgeBrownofNabarroNathanson,alawfirminLondon.Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.1,..,Theauthorwastakenintocustodyon30March1989.On12April1989,hewasputonanidentificationparadeandhewassubsequentlyarrestedandchargedwiththemurder,on23March1989,ofonePaulVassell.ThepreliminaryenquirywasheldinearlyJuly1989.On8March1990,theauthorwasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathintheKingstonHomeCircuitCourt.On13March1990,heappliedforleavetoappealagainstconvictionandsentence.Whiletreatingtheapplicationforleavetoappealasthehearingoftheappeal,theCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedtheappealon27April1992;thewrittenjudgmentwasmadeavailableon17February1993.AfurtherpetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasdismissedon12December1994.Withthis,itissubmitted,alldomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedtolifeimprisonmentin1995.2.2,..,Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,on23March1989,atapproximately7:00p.m.,afterhavingattendedameetingattheSeventhDayBaptistChurchinKingston,PaulVasselltookamacheteoutofhiscarandreenteredthepremisesofthechurchtogetherwitheyewitnessKarlBowenandtwoothermen.Thefourmenwalkedalongapassagewaytotherearofthechurch,wheretheywereapproachedbytwomen,whoorderedthemtoputtheirhandsup,andaskedfortheirmoney.Mr.Bowentestifiedduringthetrialthatheobservedaman,whomhelateridentifiedastheauthor,armedwithashotgun.Hecompliedwiththeorderwhilehistwocompanionsranoff.However,Mr.Vassell,whowasholdingthemachete,attackedthegunmanallegedtobetheauthor,whoretreatedinthepassageway.WhileMr.Bowenwasheldatgunpointbytheauthor'scompanion,theauthorandMr.Vassellmovedoutofsight,thelatterstillchoppingathisassailant.Mr.Bowenfurthertestifiedthathethenheardsomeonescreaming,thesoundofrunningfeetandofashotgun,andthattheauthorreappearedstillcarryinghisshotgunandwithhislefthandbleeding.Mr.BowenwastoldtorunandashemadehisescapehecameacrossthebodyofMr.Vassell,lyingattheentrancetothechurchinapoolofblood.2.3,..,Apoliceofficertestifiedthattheauthor'sleftthumbwasbandagedwhenhewastakenintocustodyon30March1989.Furthermore,theinvestigatingofficertestifiedthat,afterhavingcautionedhimon10April1989,theauthoradmittedthathehadshotthedeceased.Furtherevidenceagainsttheauthorwasthefactthat,atanidentificationparadeheldon12April1989,Mr.Bowenpickedhimoutasoneoftheparticipantsintherobbery.2.4,..,Thedefencewasbasedonalibiandmistakenidentity.Theauthormadeaswornstatement,testifyingthatatthetimeoftheincidenthewasonhiswaytohisthengirlfriend'shomeatSeaforth,intheparishofSt.Thomas,andthathehadinjuredhishandwhenchoppingacoconut.2.5,..,Inrespectoftheauthor'sthengirlfriend,NormaLewis,oneofthepoliceofficerstestifiedduringthetrialthathehadtakenastatementfromheron7April1989.Itappearsfromthetrialtranscriptthatatthepreliminaryenquiry,MissLewis'statementwassubmittedaspartoftheprosecution'scase,butthattheprosecutionlaterdecidednottocallher.Itfurtherappearsthaton26February1990,theauthor'sattorneyrequestedthejudgetoadjournthetrialandaskedforNormaLewistobesubpoenaed.Thetrialwasthenadjournedandthewitnesssubpoenaed.Sheappearedlateonthefirstdayofthetrial,andhadleftbeforecounselhadachancetospeaktoher.Onthesecondandlastdayofthetrial,afterthecloseoftheprosecution'scase,theattorneyagainsoughtanadjournmentfor15minutesbecausehehadnothadachancetointerviewthewitness,andtheauthorhadinstructedhimtodoso.Thehearingwasadjournedfrom12:15p.m.to1:25p.m.;uponresumption,theauthorgavehisswornevidenceandnofurthermentionismadeofMissLewis.2.6,..,Thetrialtranscriptfurtherrevealsthattheattorneywhorepresentedtheauthorattrialhadalsoassistedhimduringtheidentificationparadeupontheauthor'srequest.Onappeal,theauthorwasrepresentedbytwodifferentattorneys.Althoughtheyarguedonlyonegroundofappealontheauthor'sbehalf(relatingtotheissueofprovocation),theCourtofAppeal,takingintoaccountthenatureofthecase,alsoconsideredthevisualidentificationevidenceandthetrialjudge'sdirectionsthereon.&  ԇThecomplaint3.1,..,Astoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,counselpointsoutthatMr.'  Campbellhasbeenondeathrowforalmostfiveyears.WithreferencetothedecisionoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofEarlPrattandIvanMorganv.TheAttorneyGeneralforJamaica X   ,    ׀itissubmittedthatthe"agonyofsuspense"resultingfromsuchlongawaitedandexpecteddeathamountstocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment.3.2,..,Astoafurtherviolationofarticle7,andofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,counselreferstothereportsofnongovernmentalorganisationsconcerningtheconditionsofdetentionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.Inthiscontext,itissubmittedthattheprisonisholdingmorethantwicethecapacityforwhichitwasconstructedinthe19thcentury;thatthefacilitiesprovidedbytheStatearescant:nomattresses,otherbeddingorfurnitureinthecells;nointegralsanitationinthecells;brokenplumbing,pilesofrefuseandopensewers;noartificiallightinginthecellsandonlysmallairventsthroughwhichnaturallightcanenter;almostnoemploymentavailabletoinmates;andnodoctorattachedtotheprisonsothatmedicalproblemsaregenerallytreatedbywarderswhoreceiveverylimitedtraining.TheparticularimpactofthesegeneralconditionsuponMr.Campbellaresaidtobethatheisconfinedtohiscellfortwentytwohoursofeachandeveryday;thathiscellisverysmall,dirtyandinfestedwithratsandcockroaches;thathespendsmostofhistimeisolatedfromothermen,withnothingwhatsoevertokeephimoccupied,andthatmuchofhistimeisspentinenforceddarkness.3.3,..,Counselfurtherreferstoarticle36oftheUNStandardMinimumRulesfortheTreatmentofPrisoners,andsubmitsthatduetotheconstantfearofreprisalsfromwarders,itisextremelydifficultandriskyforinmatestocomplainaboutilltreatment.Inthiscontext,theauthorclaimsinaletteraddressedtoLondoncounsel,dated7March1994,that"[...]Iamnotsafeatanytime[...]overtheyearsthey(thewarders)havekilledalotofdeathrowinmates.In1988,theykillone,in1990theykillthreeandlastyeartheykillfouratConstantSpringPoliceStationandseeingthatwhatIsawhappenonthe31OctoberandIgaveawrittenstatementtothepolicesothatalonemakememorevulnerabletothesewarders[...]mylifeisthreatenedmostlybecauseIamawitnessagainstthewarders".3.4,..,On18April1994,counselwrotetotheParliamentaryOmbudsmanandtotheCommissionerofCorrections,requestinganinvestigationintotheauthor'sallegationsandanundertakingthathewillbeprotectedfromsuchthreatsandattacksinthefuture.Inspiteofareminder,theOmbudsmanneverreplied,andtheCommissionerofCorrectionsmerelyinformedcounsel,byletterof27April1994,that:"Itiscleartoallcorrectionalofficersthatexcessiveforce,threatsandbrutalityisnotcondoned,andifandwhenthisisfound,thestrongestdisciplinaryactionistaken".On19May1994,counselrequestedtheCommissionerofCorrectionswhatmeasureshadbeentakeninrespectofMr.Campbell'scase,towhichheagainreceivedareplyingeneralterms.3.5,..,Counselsubmitsthatheandtheauthormadeallreasonableeffortstoseekredressinrespectoftheilltreatmentsufferedbytheauthor,andthatthedomesticcomplaintsprocess,andinparticulartheinternalprisonprocess,isnotanavailablenoraneffectiveremedyintheauthor'scase.3.6,..,Astothepreparationoftheauthor'sdefenceattrial,itisstatedthattheattorneywasassignedtotheauthorthroughlegalaid.Accordingtocounsel,itisclearthattheattorneyhadnotseentheauthorinconferencebeforethestartofthetrial,hadtakennoinstructionsonthestatementsoftheprosecutionwitness,andfailedtointerviewanalibiwitness.3.7,..,Inthiscontext,itissubmittedthattheevidenceMissNormaLewiscouldhavegivenwouldhaveconfirmedtheauthor'salibi,i.e.thathewasinSeaforth,atownsomeseventoeightmilesawayfromKingston,andthathewastherefrom8:00p.m.onwards,whereastheshootingtookplacearound7:00p.m.Theattorney'sfailureorrefusaltocallMissLewisasawitness,inspiteoftherelevanceandimportanceofherevidence,issaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,paragraphs3(b)and(e).3.8,..,Inrespectofviolationsofarticle14,paragraph3(d),theauthorclaimsthatpriortotheidentificationparadehewastakentotheCIDofficeontwooccasionswiththepossibilitythathewasseenbyMr.Bowen.Itissubmittedthathisattorneyfailedtocrossexamineproperlytheofficerwhoconductedtheidentificationparadeastotheauthor'smovementspriortotheparade,andfailedtocrossexamineMr.Bowenadequatelyoratallonthispoint.CounselconcludesthatthewayinwhichtheidentificationparadewasconductedwasnotinaccordancewiththeJamaicaConstabularyForceAct1939andits1977amendment.3.9,..,Itisfurthersubmittedthattheauthor'sattorneyfailedtocrossexaminetheinvestigatingofficersadequatelyorconsistentlyastowhethertheallegedadmissionbytheauthorwasevermadeorwhetheritwasmadeasaresultofoppression.3.10Finally,itissubmittedthattheattorneyfailedtoexamineinchieftheauthorabouttheallegedadmissionandthecircumstancesthatgaverisetoit.Theauthor'srightsunderarticle14,paragraph3(d),arefurthersaidtohavebeenviolatedbythetwolegalaidattorneyswhorepresentedhimonappeal,sincetheyallegedlyfailedtodiscussthecasewithhimpriortothehearing,andthereforedidnottakehisinstructions.Inthiscontext,referenceismadetotheCommittee'sfindingsincommunicationNo.356/1989(TrevorCollinsv.Jamaica),    andtothecaseofR.v.Clinton,wherecounsel'sdecisionnottocallthedefendantorwitnessestorebutidentificationevidenceresultedintheconvictionbeingquashed.    Stateparty'ssubmissionandcounsel'scomments4.1,..,Initsobservations,theStatepartydoesnotraiseanyobjectiontoadmissibilityandofferscommentsonthemeritsofthecommunication,inordertoexpeditetheconsiderationofthecase.4.2,..,Withregardtotheclaimthatthereisaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,becauseofthelengthoftimespentondeathrow,theStatepartypointsoutthatareasonablelengthoftimemustbeallowedfortheexhaustionofdomesticremediesbyaconvictedperson,includingthehearingofappealsaswellashearingsbyinternationalhumanrightsbodies.TheStatepartytakestheviewthatthetimespentondeathrowwhiletheauthorwasexhaustinghisappealsisnotunreasonable,andarguesthatitshouldnotbeheldinviolationofarticle7becauseitallowsaconvictedpersontoexhaustallavailableremediesbeforethesentenceofdeathiscarriedout.4.3,..,ConcerningtheconditionsofdetentioninSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,theStatepartyassertsthateffortsarebeingmadetoimprovetheconditions.ItreferstoareportbytheInterAmericanCommissiononHumanRightsfollowingavisittoJamaicanprisonsinDecember1994.4.4,..,Inrespectofthewaytheauthor'sattorneyconductedthedefence,theStatepartypointsoutthatallissuesrelatingtothepreparationandhandlingofacasefallwithintheambitoftherelationshipbetweenanattorneyandhisclient.TheStatedoesnotinterfereintheconductofthedefencebycounselfortheaccused.AdecisiononwhetherornottocallawitnessisamatterofjudgementforcounselanddecisionsmadebycounselinhisbestjudgementcannotengagetheresponsibilityoftheState.Likewise,inrespectoftheallegationthattheauthorhadnotimetopreparehisdefence,theStatepartyassertsthattherewasnoactoromissiononitsparttopreventhimandhiscounselfrompreparingthecaseadequately.TheStatepartythereforedeniesanybreachesofarticle14(3)(b)and(e).4.5,..,Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimunderarticle14(3)(d),becausehedidnoseehiscounselbeforethehearingoftheappeal,theStatepartysubmitsthatthereisnoevidencethatcounselwithdrewanygroundsorarguedthattheappealhadnomerit.AccordingtotheStateparty,theconductoftheappealisamatterbetweencounselandhisclient.TheStatepartydeniesthattherehasbeenabreachofarticle14(3)(d).5.1,..,InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselarguesthatthePrivyCouncil'srulinginPratt&Morganappliestotheauthor,sincetheauthorhasbeenondeathrowforover5years.5.2,..,Inrespectoftheconditionsofdetention,counselnotesthattheStatepartyhasnotchallengedtheauthor'sdescriptionoftheconditions.5.3,..,Withregardtocounsel'sconductofthedefenceattrialoronappeal,itisarguedthattheStatepartymustbeartheresponsibilityfortheconductofcounsel,sinceitprovideslegalaidatsuchalowrateofremunerationthatthedefenceisinadequatelyresourcedandcounselwhoacceptinstructionsincapitalcasesareundersuchintensepressureofworkthattheycannotproperlyoradequatelyrepresenttheirclients.5.4,..,CounselhasnoobjectiontotheCommitteeconsideringbothadmissibilityandmeritsatthisstage.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee6.1,..,Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewitharticle87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.6.2,..,TheCommitteehasascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.3,..,TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasforwardedcommentsonthemeritsofthecommunicationandthatithasnotchallengedtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.TheCommitteeconsidersthecommunicationadmissibleandproceeds,withoutfurtherdelay,toanexaminationofthesubstanceoftheclaimsinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asrequiredbyarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.7.1,..,Theauthorhasclaimedthathiscontinueddetentionondeathrowinitself,aswelltheconditionsofthisdetention,constituteaviolationofarticles7and10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.TheCommitteereaffirmsitsconstantjurisprudencethatdetentionondeathrowforaspecificperiodinthiscaseforaboutfiveyearsbeforethesentencewascommuteddoesnotviolatetheCovenantintheabsenceoffurthercompellingcircumstances.7.2,..,Mr.Campbellalsoallegesthatheisdetainedinparticularlybadandinsalubriousconditionsondeathrow.Thereislackofsanitation,light,ventilationandbedding.Heisinhiscell22hoursaday,hiscellisinfestedwithratsandcockroaches,andheisisolatedfromothers.Furthermore,theauthorhasclaimedthathehasbeenthreatenedbywardersandthattheStatepartyhastakennomeasurestoprotecthim.Theauthor'sclaimshavenotbeenrefutedbytheStateparty.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheconditionsofdetentiondescribedbytheauthorandhiscounselaresuchastoviolateMr.Campbell'srighttobetreatedwithhumanityandrespectfortheinherentdignityofhisperson,andarethuscontrarytoarticle10,paragraph1.7.3,..,Theauthorhasclaimedthatthebadqualityofthedefenceputforwardbyhiscounselattrialresultedindeprivinghimofafairtrial.Referencehasbeenmadeinparticulartocounsel'sallegedfailuretointerviewtheauthor'sgirlfriend,andtohisallegedfailuretocrossexamineproperlytheprosecutionwitnessesinrelationtotheconductoftheidentificationparadeandinrelationtotheauthor'sallegedoralstatement.TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudencethattheStatepartycannotbeheldaccountableforallegederrorsmadebyadefencelawyer,unlessitwasorshouldhavebeenmanifesttothejudgethatthelawyer'sbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedoesnotshowthatthiswassointheinstantcaseandconsequently,thereisnobasisforafindingofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(b)(d)and(e),inthisrespect.7.4,..,Withregardtocounsel'sclaimthattheauthorwasnoteffectivelyrepresentedonappeal,theCommitteenotesthattheauthor'slegalrepresentativesonappealarguedgroundsforappeal.TheCommitteerecallsitsjurisprudencethatunderarticle14,paragraph3(d),thecourtshouldensurethattheconductofacasebyalawyerisnotincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.Intheinstantcase,nothingintheconductoftheappealbytheauthor'srepresentativesshowsthattheywereexercisingotherthantheirprofessionaljudgement,intheinterestoftheirclient.Accordingly,theCommitteeconcludesthattheinformationbeforeitdoesnotshowaviolationofarticle14,paragraph3(d),inrespecttotheauthor'sappeal.8.,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.,..,Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideBarringtonCampbellwithaneffectiveremedy,includingcompensation.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtotakemeasuresthatsimilarviolationsnotoccur.10.,..,OnbecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,JamaicarecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornot.ThiscasewassubmittedforconsiderationbeforeJamaica'sdenunciationoftheOptionalProtocolbecameeffectiveon23January1998;inaccordancewitharticle12(2)oftheOptionalProtocolitissubjecttothecontinuedapplicationoftheOptionalProtocol.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished.TheCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisalsorequestedtopublishtheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.]ǀK.CommunicationNo.628/1995,TaeHoonParkv.RepublicofKoreà(Viewsadoptedon20October1998,sixtyfourthsession)*      Submittedby: ..  .. 0 .. TaeHoonPark(representedbyMr.Yong-WhanChoofDuksuLawOfficesinSeoul)Victim: ..  ..  ..  .. TheauthorStateparty:0 ..  ..  ..  .. RepublicofKoreaDateofcommunication:0 .. 11August1994Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  ..  .. 5July1996,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,Meetingon20October1998,,..,HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.628/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyTaeHoonPark,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,,..,Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,,..,Adoptsthefollowing:@..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  1.,..,TheauthorofthecommunicationisMr.TaeHoonPark,aKoreancitizen,bornon3November1963.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbytheRepublicofKoreaofarticles18,paragraph1,19,paragraphs1and2,and26oftheCovenant.HeisrepresentedbyMr.YongWhanChoofDuksuLawOfficesinSeoul.TheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocoltheretoenteredintoforcefortheRepublicofKoreaon10July1990.&  Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor2.1,..,On22December1989,theSeoulCriminalDistrictCourtfoundtheauthorguiltyofbreachingparagraphs1and3ofarticle7ofthe1980NationalSecurityLaw      andsentencedhimtooneyear'ssuspendedimprisonmentandoneyear'ssuspension'  ofexercisinghisprofession.TheauthorappealedtotheSeoulHighCourt,butinthemeantimewasconscriptedintotheKoreanArmyundertheMilitaryServiceAct,followingwhichtheSeoulHighCourttransferredthecasetotheHighMilitaryCourtofArmy.TheHighMilitaryCourt,on11May1993,dismissedtheauthor'sappeal.TheauthorthenappealedtotheSupremeCourt,which,on24December1993,confirmedtheauthor'sconviction.Withthis,itisargued,allavailabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Inthiscontext,itisstatedthattheConstitutionalCourt,on2April1990,declaredthatparagraphs1and5ofarticle7oftheNationalSecurityLawwereconstitutional.Theauthorarguesthat,althoughtheCourtdidnotmentionparagraph3ofarticle7,itfollowsfromitsdecisionthatparagraph3islikewiseconstitutional,sincethisparagraphisintrinsicallywovenwithparagraphs1and5ofthearticle.2.2,..,Theauthor'sconvictionwasbasedonhismembershipandparticipationintheactivitiesoftheYoungKoreansUnited(YKU),duringhisstudyattheUniversityofIllinoisinChicago,USA,intheperiod1983to1989.TheYKUisanAmericanorganization,composedofyoungKoreans,andhasasitsaimtodiscussissuesofpeaceandunificationbetweenNorthandSouthKorea.TheorganizationwashighlycriticalofthethenmilitarygovernmentoftheRepublicofKoreaandoftheUSsupportforthatgovernment.TheauthoremphasizesthatallYKU'sactivitieswerepeacefulandinaccordancewiththeUSlaws.2.3,..,TheCourtfoundthattheYKUwasanorganizationwhichhadasitspurposethecommissionofthecrimesofsidingwithandfurtheringtheactivitiesoftheNorthKoreanGovernmentandthusan"enemybenefitingorganization".Theauthor'smembershipinthisorganizationconstitutedthereforeacrimeunderarticle7,paragraph3,oftheNationalSecurityLaw.Moreover,theauthor'sparticipationindemonstrationsintheUSAcallingfortheendofUS'interventionconstitutedsidingwithNorthKorea,inviolationofarticle7,paragraph1,oftheNationalSecurityLaw.Theauthorpointsoutthatonthebasisofthejudgmentagainsthim,anymemberoftheYKUcanbebroughttotrialforbelongingtoan"enemybenefitingorganization".2.4,..,Fromthetranslationsofthecourtjudgmentsintheauthor'scase,submittedbycounsel,itappearsthattheconvictionandsentencewerebasedonthefactthattheauthorhad,byparticipatingincertainpeacefuldemonstrationsandothergatheringsintheUnitedStates,expressedhissupportorsympathytocertainpoliticalslogansandpositions.2.5,..,Itisstatedthattheauthor'sconvictionwasbasedonhisforcedconfession.TheauthorwasarrestedattheendofAugust1989withoutawarrantandwasinterrogatedduring20daysbytheAgencyforNationalSecurityPlanningandthenkeptindetentionforanother30daysbeforetheindictment.Theauthorstatesthat,althoughhedoesnotwishtoraisetheissueoffairtrialinhiscommunication,itshouldbenotedthattheKoreancourtsshowedbadfaithinconsideringhiscase.2.6,..,Counselsubmitsthat,althoughtheactivitiesforwhichtheauthorwasconvictedtookplacebeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantfortheRepublicofKorea,theHighMilitaryCourtandtheSupremeCourtconsideredthecaseaftertheentryintoforce.ItisthereforearguedthattheCovenantdidapplyandthattheCourtsshouldhavetakentherelevantarticlesoftheCovenantintoaccount.Inthisconnection,theauthorstatesthat,inhisappealtotheSupremeCourt,hereferredtotheHumanRightsCommittee'sCommentsafterconsiderationoftheinitialreportsubmittedbytheRepublicofKoreaunderarticle40oftheCovenant(CCPR/C/79/Add.6),inwhichtheCommitteevoicedconcernaboutthecontinuedoperationoftheNationalSecurityLaw;hearguedthattheSupremeCourtshouldapplyandinterprettheNationalSecurityLawinaccordancewiththerecommendationsmadebytheCommittee.However,theSupremeCourt,initsjudgmentof24December1993,stated:0,.., .. "EventhoughtheHumanRightsCommitteeestablishedbytheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightshaspointedoutproblemsintheNationalSecurityLawasmentioned,itshouldbesaidthatNSLdoesnotloseitsvaliditysimplyduetothat....Therefore,itcannotbesaidthatpunishmentagainstthedefendantforviolatingofNSLviolatesinternationalhumanrightsregulationoriscontradictoryapplicationoflawwithoutequity."(translationbyauthor)Thecomplaint3.1,..,TheauthorstatesthathehasbeenconvictedforhavingopinionscriticalofthesituationinandthepolicyofSouthKorea,whicharedeemedbytheSouthKoreanauthoritiestohavebeenforthepurposeofsidingwithNorthKoreaonlyonthebasisofthefactthatNorthKoreaisalsocriticalofSouthKoreanpolicies.Theauthorarguesthatthesepresumptionsareabsurdandthattheypreventanyfreedomofexpressioncriticalofgovernmentpolicy.3.2,..,Theauthorclaimsthathisconvictionandsentenceconstituteaviolationofarticles18,paragraph1,19,paragraphs1and2,and26,oftheCovenant.Hearguesthatalthoughhewasconvictedforjoininganorganization,therealreasonforhisconvictionwasthattheopinionsexpressedbyhimselfandotherYKUmemberswerecriticaloftheofficialpolicyoftheSouthKoreanGovernment.Hefurthercontendsthat,althoughfreedomofassociationisguaranteedundertheConstitution,theNationalSecurityLawrestrictsthefreedomofassociationofthosewhoseopinionsdifferfromtheofficialgovernmentpolicy.Thisissaidtoamounttodiscriminationinviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant.BecauseofthereservationmadebytheRepublicofKorea,theauthordoesnotinvokearticle22oftheCovenant.3.3,..,TheauthorrequeststheCommitteetodeclarethathisfreedomofthought,hisfreedomofopinionandexpressionandhisrighttoequaltreatmentbeforethelawinexercisingfreedomofassociationhavebeenviolatedbytheRepublicofKorea.HefurtherrequeststheCommitteetoinstructtheRepublicofKoreatorepealparagraphs1,3and5,ofarticle7oftheNationalSecurityLaw,andtosuspendtheapplicationofthesaidarticleswhiletheirrepealisbeforetheNationalAssembly.Hefurtheraskstobegrantedaretrialandtobepronouncedinnocent,andtobegrantedcompensationfortheviolationssuffered.Stateparty'sobservationsandcounsel'scomments4.1,..,Bysubmissionof8August1995,theStatepartyrecallsthatthefactsofcrimeintheauthor'scasewere,interalia,thathesympathizedwiththeviewthattheUnitedStatesiscontrollingSouthKoreathroughthemilitarydictatorshipinKorea,alongwithotherantistateviews.4.2,..,TheStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorhasclaimedthathewasarrestedwithoutawarrantandarbitrarilydetained,mattersforwhichhecouldhavesoughtremedythroughanemergencyreliefprocedureorthroughanappealtotheConstitutionalCourt.Further,theStatepartyarguesthattheauthorcoulddemandaretrialifhehasclearevidenceprovinghiminnocentorifthoseinvolvedinhisprosecutioncommittedcrimeswhilehandlingthecase.4.3,..,TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblesinceitdealswitheventsthattookplacebeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocol.4.4,..,Finally,theStatepartynotesthaton11January1992anapplicationwasmadebyathirdpartytotheConstitutionalCourtconcerningtheconstitutionalityofarticle7,paragraphs1and3,oftheNationalSecurityLaw.TheConstitutionalCourtisatpresentreviewingthematter.5.1,..,InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselfortheauthornotesthattheStatepartyhasmisunderstoodtheauthor'sclaims.Heemphasizesthatthepossibleviolationsoftheauthor'srightsduringtheinvestigationandthetrialarenotatissueinthepresentcase.Inthiscontext,counselnotesthatthematterofaretrialhasnorelevancetotheauthor'sclaims.Hedoesnotchallengetheevidenceagainsthim,ratherhecontendsthatheshouldnothavebeenconvictedandpunishedfortheseestablishedfacts,sincehisactivitieswerewellwithintheboundariesofpeacefulexerciseofhisfreedomofthought,opinionandexpression.5.2,..,AsregardstheStateparty'sargumentthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblerationetemporis,counselnotesthat,althoughthecaseagainsttheauthorwasinitiatedbeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocol,theHighMilitaryCourtandtheSupremeCourtconfirmedthesentencesagainsthimafterthedateofentryintoforce.TheCovenantisthereforesaidtoapplyandthecommunicationtobeadmissible.5.3,..,AsregardstheStateparty'sstatementthattheconstitutionalityofarticle7,paragraphs1and3,oftheNationalSecurityLaw,isatpresentbeingreviewedbytheConstitutionalCourt,counselnotesthattheCourton2April1990alreadydecidedthatthearticlesoftheNationalSecurityLawwereconstitutional.LaterapplicationsconcerningthesamequestionwereequallydismissedbytheCourt.HethereforearguesthatafurtherreviewbytheConstitutionalCourtisdevoidofchance,sincetheCourtisnaturallyexpectedtoconfirmitspriorjurisprudence.&  Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.1,..,Atits57thsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthe'  communication.6.2,..,TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'sargumentthatthecommunicationwasinadmissiblesincetheeventscomplainedofoccurredbeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantanditsOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteenoted,however,that,althoughtheauthorwasconvictedinfirstinstanceon22December1989,thatwasbeforetheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocoltheretoforKorea,bothhisappealswereheardafterthedateofentryintoforce.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconsideredthattheallegedviolationshadcontinuedaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocoltheretoandthattheCommitteewasthusnotprecludedrationetemporisfromexaminingthecommunication.6.3,..,TheCommitteealsonotedtheStateparty'sargumentsthattheauthorhadnotexhaustedalldomesticremediesavailabletohim.TheCommitteenotedthatsomeoftheremediessuggestedbytheStatepartyrelatedtoaspectsoftheauthor'strialwhichdidnotformpartofhiscommunicationtotheCommittee.TheCommitteefurthernotedthattheStatepartyhadarguedthattheissueoftheconstitutionalityofarticle7oftheNationalSecurityLawwasstillpendingbeforetheConstitutionalCourt.TheCommitteealsonotedthattheauthorhadarguedthattheapplicationtotheConstitutionalCourtwasfutile,sincetheCourthadalreadydecided,forthefirsttimeon2April1990,andseveraltimessince,thatthearticlewascompatiblewiththeKoreanConstitution.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteedidnotconsiderthatanyeffectiveremedieswerestillavailabletotheauthorwithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.6.4,..,TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.5,..,TheCommitteeconsideredthatthefactsassubmittedbytheauthormightraiseissuesunderarticles18,19and26oftheCovenantthatneedtobeexaminedonthemerits.7.,..,Accordingly,on5July1996theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissible.Stateparty'sobservationsconcerningthemeritsandcounsel'scommentsthereon8.1,..,Initsobservations,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorhasbeenconvictedforatransgressionofnationallaws,afteraproperinvestigationbringingtolighttheundisputedfactsofthecase.TheStatepartysubmitsthatinspiteoftheprecarioussecuritysituationithasdoneitsutmosttoguaranteefullyallbasichumanrights,includingthefreedomtoexpressone'sthoughtsandopinions.TheStatepartynotes,however,thattheoverridingnecessityofpreservingthefabricofitsdemocraticsystemrequiresprotectivemeasures.̇8.2,..,TheKoreanConstitutioncontainsaprovision(article37,paragraph2)stipulatingthat"thefreedomsandrightsofcitizensmayberestrictedbylawonlywhennecessaryfornationalsecurity,themaintenanceoflawandorderandforpublicwelfare."PursuanttotheConstitution,theNationalSecurityLawcontainssomeprovisionswhichmaypartiallyrestrictindividuals'freedomsorrights.AccordingtotheStateparty,anationalconsensusexiststhattheNSLisindispensabletodefendthecountryagainsttheNorthKoreancommunists.Inthisconnection,theStatepartyreferstoincidentsofaviolentnature.AccordingtotheStateparty,itisbeyonddoubtthattheauthor'sactivitiesasamemberofYKU,anenemybenefittingorganizationthatendorsesthepoliciesoftheNorthKoreancommunists,constitutedathreattothepreservationofthedemocraticsystemintheRepublicofKorea.8.3,..,Inrespecttotheauthor'sargumentthattheCourtshouldhaveappliedtheprovisionsoftheCovenanttohiscase,theStatepartysubmitsthatthe"authorwasconvictednotbecausetheCourtintentionallyprecludedtheapplicationoftheCovenantbutbecauseitwasamatterofnecessitytogivetheNSL'sprovisionspriorityovercertainrightsofindividualsasembodiedintheCovenantinviewofKorea'ssecuritysituation."9.1,..,InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,counselarguesthatthefactthattheStatepartyisinaprecarioussecuritysituationhasnorelationwiththeauthor'speacefulexerciseofhisrighttofreedomofthought,opinion,expressionandassembly.CounselarguesthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoestablishanyrelationbetweentheNorthKoreancommunistsandtheYKUortheauthor,andhasnotprovidedanysoundexplanationaboutwhichpoliciesoftheNorthKoreancommuniststheYKUortheauthorendorsed.Accordingtocounsel,theStatepartyhaslikewisefailedtoshowwhatkindofthreattheYKUortheauthor'sactivitiesposedtothesecurityofthecountry.9.2,..,ItissubmittedthattheauthorjoinedtheYKUasastudentwithaspirationfordemocracyandpeacefulunificationofhiscountry.Inhisactivities,heneverhadanyintentiontogivebenefittoNorthKoreaorputthesecurityofhiscountryindanger.Accordingtocounsel,thekindofopinionexpressedbytheauthorcanberebuttedbydiscussionanddebate,but,asfarassuchexpressionisdischargedinapeacefulmanner,itshouldneverbesuppressedbycriminalprosecution.Inthiscontext,counselsubmitsthatitisnotfortheStatetoassumetheroleofdivinejudgeaboutwhatisthetruthorthefalseandthegoodortheevil.9.3,..,Counselmaintainsthattheauthorwaspunishedforhispoliticalopinion,thoughtandpeacefulexpressionthereof.Healsoclaimsthathisrighttoequalprotectionbeforethelawunderarticle26oftheCovenantwasdenied.Inthisconnection,heexplainsthatthisissobecause,whileeverycitizenisguaranteedtoenjoytherighttofreedomofassociationunderarticle21oftheConstitution,theauthorwaspunishedandtherebysubjectedtodiscriminationforjoiningtheYKUwhichhadallegedlydifferentpoliticalopinionsthanthoseoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofKorea.9.4,..,TheauthorreferstothereportonthemissiontotheRepublicofKoreabytheSpecialRapporteuronthepromotionandprotectionoftherighttofreedomofopinionandexpression.    ׀TheauthorrequeststheCommitteetorecommendtotheGovernmenttopublishitsViewsonthecommunicationanditstranslationintoKoreanintheOfficialGazette.&  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthe'  lightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2TheCommitteetakesnoteofthefactthattheauthorhasnotinvokedarticle22oftheCovenant,relatedtofreedomofassociation.Asareasonfornotinvokingtheprovision,counselhasreferredtoareservationordeclarationbytheRepublicofKoreaaccordingtowhicharticle22shallbesoappliedastobeinconformitywithKoreanlawsincludingtheConstitution.Astheauthor'scomplaintsandargumentscanbeaddressedunderotherprovisionsoftheCovenant,theCommitteeneednotonitsowninitiativetakeapositiontothepossibleeffectofthereservationordeclaration.Consequently,theissuebeforetheCommitteeiswhethertheauthor'sconvictionundertheNationalSecurityLawviolatedhisrightsunderarticles18,19and26oftheCovenant.10.3TheCommitteeobservesthatarticle19guaranteesfreedomofopinionandexpressionandallowsrestrictionsonlyasprovidedbylawandnecessary(a)forrespectoftherightsandreputationofothers;and(b)fortheprotectionofnationalsecurityorpublicorder(ordrepublic),orofpublichealthormorals.Therighttofreedomofexpressionisofparamountimportanceinanydemocraticsociety,andanyrestrictionstotheexerciseofthisrightmustmeetastricttestofjustification.WhiletheStatepartyhasstatedthattherestrictionswerejustifiedinordertoprotectnationalsecurityandthattheywereprovidedforbylaw,underarticle7oftheNationalSecurityLaw,theCommitteemuststilldeterminewhetherthemeasurestakenagainsttheauthorwerenecessaryforthepurposestated.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasinvokednationalsecuritybyreferencetothegeneralsituationinthecountryandthethreatposedby NorthKoreancommunists.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheStatepartyhasfailedtospecifytheprecisenatureofthethreatwhichitcontendsthattheauthor'sexerciseoffreedomofexpressionposedandfindsthatnoneoftheargumentsadvancedbytheStatepartysufficetorendertherestrictionoftheauthor'srighttofreedomofexpressioncompatiblewithparagraph3ofarticle19.TheCommitteehascarefullystudiedthejudicialdecisionsbywhichtheauthorwasconvictedandfindsthatneitherthosedecisionsnorthesubmissionsbytheStatepartyshowthattheauthor'sconvictionwasnecessaryfortheprotectionofoneofthelegitimatepurposessetforthbyarticle19(3).Theauthor'sconvictionforactsofexpressionmustthereforeberegardedasaviolationoftheauthor'srightunderarticle19oftheCovenant.10.4Inthiscontext,theCommitteetakesissuewiththeStateparty'sstatementthatthe"authorwasconvictednotbecausetheCourtintentionallyprecludedtheapplicationoftheCovenantbutbecauseitwasamatterofnecessitytogivetheNSL'sprovisionspriorityovercertainrightsofindividualsasembodiedintheCovenantinviewofKorea'ssecuritysituation."TheCommitteeobservesthattheStatepartybybecomingapartytotheCovenant,hasundertakenpursuanttoarticle2,torespectandtoensureallrightsrecognizedtherein.Ithasalsoundertakentoadoptsuchlegislativeorothermeasuresasmaybenecessarytogiveeffecttotheserights.TheCommitteefindsitincompatiblewiththeCovenantthattheStatepartyhasgivenprioritytotheapplicationofitsnationallawoveritsobligationsundertheCovenant.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotmadethedeclarationunderarticle4(3)oftheCovenantthatapublicemergencyexistedandthatitderogatedcertainCovenantrightsonthisbasis.10.5Inthelightoftheabovefindings,theCommitteeneednotaddressthequestionofwhethertheauthor'sconvictionwasinviolationofarticles18and26oftheCovenant.11.,..,TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,findsthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle19oftheCovenant.12.,..,Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisundertheobligationtoprovideMr.TaeHoonParkwithaneffectiveremedy,includingappropriatecompensationforhavingbeenconvictedforexercisinghisrighttofreedomofexpression.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.,..,Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,withinninetydays,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.TheStatepartyisrequestedtotranslateandpublishtheCommittee'sViewsandinparticulartoinformthejudiciaryoftheCommittee'sViews.[AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.SubsequentlyissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartofthepresentreport.] G UK     \R3'\ X      +CH<6X9`(CourierC f S I $ 1.(a)(i) a.(1)(a) i) a)S882   ݀L.CommunicationNo.633/1995,Gauthierv.Canadà(Viewsadoptedon7April1999,sixtyfifthsession)*      2(8 82  H2Submittedby: ..  ..  .. RobertW.GauthierAllegedvictim: ..  .. TheauthorStateparty: ..  ..  .. CanadaDateofcommunication: .. 5December1994Dateofdecisiononadmissibility: ..  ..  .. 10July19972..2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Meetingon7April1999,2..2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.633/1995submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.RobertW.GauthierundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2..2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,andtheStateparty,2..2Adoptsthefollowing:  @..4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol1.2..2TheauthorofthecommunicationisRobertG.Gauthier,aCanadiancitizen.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyCanadaofarticle19oftheCovenant.Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor2.12..2TheauthorispublisheroftheNationalCapitalNews,anewspaperfoundedin1982.TheauthorappliedformembershipintheParliamentaryPressGallery,aprivateassociationthatadministerstheaccreditationforaccesstotheprecinctsofParliament.Hewasprovidedwithatemporarypassthatgaveonlylimitedprivileges.Repeatedrequestsforequalaccessonthesametermsasotherreportersandpublishersweredenied.2.22..2Theauthorpointsoutthatatemporarypassdoesnotprovidethesameaccessasapermanentmembership,sinceitdeniesinteralialistingonthemembershiprosterofthePressGallery,aswellasaccesstoamailboxforthereceiptofpresscommuniques.2.32..2Asregardstheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthorexplainsthathehasfilednumerousrequests,notonlywiththePressGallery,butalsowiththeSpeakeroftheHouse,alltonoavail.Accordingtotheauthor,noreasonshavebeengivenfordenyinghimfullaccess.TheauthorappliedtotheFederalCourtforareviewofthedecisionofthePressGallery,buttheCourtdecidedthatitdidnothavejurisdictionoverdecisionsofthePressGallerysinceitisnotadepartmentoftheGovernmentofCanada.AcomplaintfiledwiththeBureauofCompetitionPolicy,arguingthattheexclusionoftheNationalCapitalNewsfromequalaccessconstitutedunfaircompetitionwasdismissed.2.42..2TheauthortheninitiatedanactionintheProvincialCourtagainsttheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,requestingadeclarationbythecourtthatthedenialofaccesstotheprecinctsofParliamentonthesametermsasmembersoftheCanadianParliamentaryPressGalleryinfringedtheauthor'srighttofreedomofthepressasprovidedintheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.TheCourtruled,on30November1994,thatthedecisionoftheSpeakernottopermittheauthortohaveaccesstothefacilitiesintheHouseofCommonsthatareusedbymembersofthePressGallerywasmadeintheexerciseofaparliamentaryprivilegeandthereforenotsubjecttothecharterortoreviewbytheCourt.2.52..2TheauthorpointsoutthathehasbeentryingtoobtainequalaccesstopressfacilitiesinParliamentsince1982,andhearguesthereforethattheapplicationofdomesticremediesisunreasonablyprolonged,withinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.Healsoexpressesdoubtsabouttheeffectivenessoftheappeal.Thecomplaint3.2..2TheauthorclaimsthatthedenialofequalaccesstopressfacilitiesinParliamentconstitutesaviolationofhisrightsunderarticle19oftheCovenant.Stateparty'sobservations4.12..2Bysubmissionof28November1995,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissible.4.22..2TheStatepartyrecallsthattheauthorrunsanOttawabasedpublication,theNationalCapitalNews,whichisissuedwithvaryingdegreesofregularity.4.32..2TheCanadianParliamentaryPressGalleryisaprivate,independent,voluntaryassociationformedforthepurposeofbringingtogethermediaprofessionalswhoseprincipaloccupationisthereporting,interpretingandeditingofnewsaboutParliamentandthefederalGovernment.4.42..2TheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonsistheguardianoftherightsandprivilegesoftheHouseanditsmembers,andassuch,byvirtueofparliamentaryprivilege,hasexclusivecontroloverthosepartsoftheParliamentaryprecinctsoccupiedbytheHouseofCommons.Oneofhisresponsibilitiesinthisregardiscontrollingaccesstotheseareas.4.52..2TheStatepartyexplainsthatallCanadiancitizensenjoyaccesstoParliament,whichisobtainedbymeansofapass,ofwhichtherearedifferenttypes.ThepresspassprovidesaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliamentandisissuedautomaticallytoaccreditedmembersofthePressGallery.̇4.62..2TheStatepartyexplainsthatthereisnoformal,officialorlegalrelationshipbetweentheSpeakerandthePressGallery.ThePressGalleryhasbeenaccommodatedbytheSpeakerbymaintainingthemediafacilitiesofParliament,suchasworkingspace,telephones,accesstotheLibraryandRestaurantandtheprovisionofdesignatedseatinginthepublicgalleries.TheSpeakerhasnoinvolvementwiththedaytodayoperationsofthesefacilities,whichareindependentlyrunbythePressGallery.4.72..2TheStatepartypointsoutthatmostofthePressGallery'sfacilitiesarelocatedoffParliamentHillandthusoutsidetheParliament'sprecincts.TheStatepartyalsonotesthatlivetelevisioncoverageofallproceedingsintheHouseofCommonsisavailablethroughoutCanadaandmanyjournaliststhusseldomactuallyusethemediafacilitiesofParliament.4.82..2ThePressGalleryknowsseveralcategoriesofmembership,themostrelevantbeingtheactiveandtemporarymembership.ActivemembershipallowsaccesstoallmediafacilitiesofParliamentforaslongasthemembermeetsthecriteria,thatisforaslongasheorsheworksforaregularlypublishednewspaperandrequiresaccesstothemediafacilitiesaspartofhisorherprimaryoccupationofreportingParliamentaryorfederalGovernmentnews.TothosewhodonotmeetthesecriteriathePressGallerygrantstemporarymembershipwhichisgrantedforadefinedperiodandprovidesaccesstosubstantiallyallofthemediafacilitiesofParliament,exceptforaccesstotheParliamentaryRestaurant.4.92..2AccordingtotheStateparty,theauthorhasappliedseveraltimesformembershipinthePressGallerysincefoundingtheNationalCapitalNewsin1982.Hisrequestsforactivemembershiphavenotbeengranted,becausetheGalleryhasbeenunabletoascertainwhetherhesatisfiesthecriteria.Temporarymembershipwasgiventohiminstead,whichwasrenewedonseveraloccasions.Inthiscontext,theStatepartypointsoutthattheauthorhasbeenuncooperativeinprovidingthePressGalleryinformationabouttheregularityofhisnewspaper.Withoutsuchinformationnecessarytoseewhethertheauthorfulfilsthecriteriaforactivemembership,theGallerycannotadmithimasafullmember.4.10TheauthorhasrequestedthattheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonsinterveneonhisbehalf.ThepositionoftheSpeaker'sofficebeingoneofstrictnoninterferencewithPressGallerymatters,theSpeakerdeclinedtointervene.TheStatepartyemphasizesthatatalltimestheauthorhasenjoyedaccesstotheprecinctsofParliament,andaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliamentduringtheperiodsoftimewhenhehadatemporarymembershipcardofthePressGallery.4.11TheStatepartysubmitsthattheauthorhasinstitutedseveralproceedingsagainsttherefusalofthePressGallerytogranthimactivemembership.In1989,hefiledacomplaintwiththeBureauofCompetitionPolicy,whichconcludedthattheCompetitionActhadnotbeencontravened.InOctober1991,theauthor'sapplicationforjudicialreviewofthisdecisionwasdeniedbytheFederalCourtsincethedecisionwasnotreviewable.In1990,theFederalCourtdismissedanapplicationbytheauthorforjudicialreviewofthePressGallery'sdecisionnottogranthimactivemembership,sincetheCourtlackedjurisdiction.4.12AnactionagainstthePressGalleryintheOntarioCourt(GeneralDivision)isstillpending.Inthisaction,theauthorseeksdamagesof$5million.̀4.13On30November1994,theOntarioCourt(GeneralDivision)struckouttheactionbroughtbytheauthoragainsttheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,inwhichhesoughtadeclarationthat"thedenialofaccesstotheprecinctsofParliamentonthesametermsasmembersoftheCanadianParliamentaryPressGallery"infringedhisrighttofreedomofthepressasguaranteedintheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.TheCourtbaseditselfonjurisprudencethattheexerciseofinherentprivilegesofaCanadianlegislativebodyisnotsubjecttoCharterreview.TheauthorhasfiledaNoticeofAppealagainstthisdecisionwiththeOntarioCourtofAppeal,buthasnotasyetfiledtherequireddocumentationinproperform.4.14TheStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblefornonexhaustionofdomesticremedies.TheStatepartynotesthatthefocusoftheauthor'scommunication,againsttheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,ismisdirectedsincetheSpeaker'spolicyhasbeentoadministeraccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliamentbasedonthePressGallery'sdeterminationsregardingmembership.DeterminationofmembershipisentirelywithinthejurisdictionofthePressGalleryandliesoutsidethecompetenceoftheSpeaker.AccordingtotheStateparty,thesuggestionthattheSpeakershouldoverridethePressGallery'sinternalaffairswouldunderminefreedomofthepress.Sincethesourceoftheauthor'scomplaintisthePressGallery'srefusaltogranthimactivemembership,theStatepartyisoftheopinionthattheauthorhasfailedtoexhausttheremediesavailabletohiminthisregard.4.15TheStatepartysubmitsthattheauthor'sfailuretocooperatewiththePressGalleryconstitutesaclearfailuretoexhaustremediesavailabletohimdomestically.TheStatepartyfurthernotesthatlegalproceedingsagainstthePressGalleryarestillongoingintheOntarioCourt(GeneralDivision)andthattheauthor'sappealagainsttheorderoftheOntarioCourt(GeneralDivision)strikingouthisactionagainsttheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonsremainsunresolved,pendinghissatisfactionofproceduralrequirements.4.16Moreover,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretosubstantiatetheallegationthatthefailuretogranttheauthorfullmembershipofthePressGalleryamountstoadenialofhisrightsunderarticle19oftheCovenant.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyrecallsthattheauthorhasneverbeendeniedaccesstotheParliamentaryprecincts,andthathehashadaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliamentwheneverhewasinpossessionofatemporarypresspass.TheauthorhasnotshownanyinstanceinwhichhehasbeenfrustratedinhisabilitytogainaccesstoordisseminateinformationaboutParliament.Theauthor'scommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission5.12..2Inasubmission,dated17January1996,theauthorinformstheCommitteethathehasbeenprohibitedaccesstothemediafacilitiesinParliament(sincehehasnopresspass).Theauthorexplainsthatwhilethevisitorsgalleryisopentohim,itisoflittlevaluetoaprofessionaljournalistasoneisnotallowedtotakenoteswhenseatedinthevisitorsgallery.5.22..2TheauthorfurtherstatesthatthePressGalleryhasobtainedaCourtorder,dated8January1996,thatprohibitshimfromenteringitspremises.TheauthoracknowledgesthatthesepremisesarelocatedoffParliamentHill,butstatesthattheGovernmentpressreleasesandothermaterialprovidedinthePressGallery'spremisesarefundedbythetaxpayersofCanadaandformpartofthefacilitiesandservicesprovidedbytheGovernmentforthemedia.6.12..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,dated5February1996,theauthorcontendsthattheStateparty'sreplyconsistsoffalseorincompleteinformationandnumerousmisleadingstatements.6.22..2HesubmitsthatalthoughnopowersorauthorityhavebeenlegallytransferredfromParliamentortheGovernmentofCanadatotheCanadianparliamentaryPressGallery,theGalleryassumespowerstopermitordenyaccesstothefacilitiesandservicesprovidedbytheParliamentandGovernmentofCanadatothemedia.TheauthorstatesthathisnumerousrequestsforaccesswerepresentedtothePressGallerywithoutsuccess,andthathemaderepeatedapplicationstotheAdministrativeOfficialswithintheParliamentforaccesstothemediafacilities,alsowithoutsuccess.HisattemptstohavethematterremediedbytheCourtshavealsobeenunsuccessful.6.32..2Theauthorsubmitsthathehasbeentryingtohaveasolutiontohisdenialofaccesstothemediafacilitiessince1982,whenhefoundedhisnewspaper,andarguesthattheapplicationofdomesticremediesshouldbeconsideredasunreasonablyprolonged.Inthiscontext,theauthorpointsto"thehistoryofdeliberateandcontriveddelays,failuretoreplytoorevenacknowledgereasonablerequestsforinformationandassistance,andtheevidencethatthesedelayswillcontinue".6.42..2Inaddition,theauthorstatesthatthepossibilityofachievinganeffectiveremedyinCanadawithintheforeseeablefuturedoesnotexist.Inthiscontext,henotesthatthemeasurestopreventhimfromexercisinghisprofessionhaveonlyincreasedintherecentpast,asisshownbythenoticedenyinghimaccesstothePressGallerypremises,theconvictionagainsthimfortrespassingonthepremisesofthePressGallery,theconvictionagainsthimfortrespassingonParliamentHill,andtheCourtorderprohibitinghimaccesstothepremisesofthePressGallery,thatistothe"publiclysubsidizedfacilitiesandservicesprovidedbytheGovernmentofCanadaforthemedia".6.52..2Theauthoralsostatesthat"theCanadianParliamentaryPressGallery,whilemaintainingthatitisbendingoverbackwardstoallowaccesstothefacilitiesandservicesprovidedforthemediabytheGovernmentofCanadacontinuestoenforcetheCourtorderedinjunctionprohibitingaccessforthePublisheroftheNationalCapitalNewstoanyofthesepublicfacilitiesandservicesnowinadditiontobeingdeniedaccesstoinformationtheauthorisalsounderthethreatofcontemptofCourtshouldheattempttoevenseekequalaccessashiscompetitorsenjoytoinformationspecificallyandpurposelyprovidedforthemedia,domesticandforeign,bytheGovernmentandParliamentofCanada".6.62..2Theauthorcomplainsabouttheridiculeandtrivializingtowhichhehasbeensubjected.HereferstoaFederalCourtJusticewhocomparedtheauthorwith"DonQuixote,tiltingatwindmills",aProvincialCourtJusticewhocommentedtohim:"Youseemtotakeoffenceateveryslight",aswellastheStateparty'sreplytotheHumanRightsCommittee,whichaccordingtohimtrivializesthematterbroughtbeforetheCommittee.Inhisopinion,thisshowsthathewillneverbeabletoobtainaneffectiveremedyinCanada.6.72..2TheauthorconteststheStateparty'sstatementthatlivetelevisioncoverageofalltheactivitiesintheHouseofCommonsisavailable.6.82..2TheauthortakesissuewiththeStateparty'ssuggestionthathisconflictiswithaprivateorganization.HestatesthathiscomplaintisthathehasbeendeniedaccesstothefacilitiesandservicesprovidedforthemediabytheParliamentandGovernmentofCanada,byCanadianofficialsandCourts.Headdsthat"thepretextthatsuchaccessrequiresmembershipinconjunctionwithagroupofselfanointedjournalistscallingthemselvestheCanadianParliamentaryPressGalleryisnotmaterialtothisissueforthepurposesofarticle19(2)oftheCovenant".HepointsoutthatthePressGalleryhasbeenincorporatedin1987inordertolimitthepersonalliabilityofitsmembers,andthatinpracticeitcontrolsaccesstothemediafacilitiesprovidedbyCanada.However,intheauthor'sopinionheisundernoobligationtomeetpriorconditionsestablishedbythePressGallerythatlimithisfreedomofexpression.TheauthoralsosubmitsthatthemediafacilitiesinParliamentarestaffedbygovernmentemployeesandthattheofficeequipmentisownedbythegovernment.6.92..2TheauthorstatesthathepublishesTheNationalCapitalNews"witharegularitymorethanappropriatetosatisfythedefinitionofwhatconstitutesnewspapers".       ׀HeclaimsthatnoproperapplicationprocedureformembershipoftheGalleryexistsandthataccessisgrantedorwithheldatwhim.Accordingtotheauthor,thePressGalleryatnotimeseriouslyconsideredhisapplicationanddidnotreviewtheinformationheprovided.Inthiscontext,heclaimsthatalistofthedatesofpublicationofhisnewspaperswaswithheldfromthemembersofthePressGallery.HeconteststheStateparty'sassertionthathefailedtocooperatewiththePressGallery.HefurtherclaimsthattheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonscaninterveneinsituationsinvolvingjournalistsandhasdonesointhepast.6.10Further,theauthorstatesthathewasgivendailypassesin198283,whichwerelaterconvertedtoweeklyandthenmonthlypasses.Onlyin1990washegrantedasixmonthtemporarymembership.Hestatesthathereturnedthetemporarymembershipsinceitdidnotgranthimequalaccess.Theauthorstatesthattemporarymembershipdeniedhimtherighttovote,toaskquestionsatpressconferences,tohaveamailslotforreceivingalltheinformationavailabletoactivemembersandalistingonthemembershiplist.Accordingtotheauthor,asaresult"therewasnoassurancethatalltheinformationwouldbeprovidedtotheauthorandanyinformationthatwassentindividuallybypeopletowhomthemembershiplistwascirculatedwouldnotincludetheauthor".6.11Theauthorstatesthaton4January1996,theOntarioCourtdismissedhisactionagainstthePressGallery.Theauthorstatesthathewillbeappealingthejudgment,butthattheproceedingsareunreasonablyprolongedandthusnoobstacletotheadmissibilityofhiscommunication.Moreover,hestatesthathiscommunicationisdirectedagainsttheStateparty,andthathisactionagainstthePressGallerycanthusnotbearemedytobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Theauthoraddsthathehasdiscontinuedhisappealagainstthe30November1994judgmentoftheOntarioCourtconcerninghisclaimagainsttheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,sinceitisaccuratethattheCourtshavenojurisdictionoverParliament.6.12AsregardstheStateparty'sassertionthathehasnotmadeaprimafaciecase,theauthorstatesthattheStatepartyhasprohibitedhimaccesstothepremisesofthePressGalleryintheParliamentBuildings,andthatithasnotintervenedtoallowaccessfortheauthortothePressGallerypremisesoutsidetheprecinctsofParliament.AccordingtotheauthoritisevidentthattheStateparty"hasnodesireorintentiontorespectitsresponsibilitiesandobligationstoabidebyarticle19(2)".Stateparty'sfurthersubmission7.12..2Bysubmissionof25October1996,theStatepartyprovidessomeclarificationsandacknowledgesthattheauthorwasdeniedaccesstotheParliamentaryprecinctsfrom25July1995until4August1995,followinganincidenton25JulyafterwhichhewaschargedwithtrespassforattemptingtoenterthePressGalleryinParliament.Hewasconvictedfortrespassingon26April1996andon9July1996hisappealwasdismissed.7.22..2TheStatepartyexplainsthatalthoughtheauthorhasaccesstotheParliamentarybuildings,hedoesnothaveaccesstothepremisesofthePressGallerylocatedinthebuildingsofParliament.However,thereisnoCourtorderprohibitinghimthisaccess;theCourtorderonlyrelatestothepremisesofthePressGallerylocatedoffParliamentHill.7.32..2TheStatepartyprovidesacopyofthejudgmentbytheOntarioCourt(GeneralDivision)of4January1996,inwhichitwasdecidedthattherewasnogenuineissuefortrialintheauthor'sactionagainstthePressGallery.Thejudgefound,onthebasisofuncontradictedaffidavitevidence,thattheprivileges(accesstothemediafacilitiesinParliament)theauthorwasseekingwereadministeredbytheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,notbythePressGallery.Asregardstheissueofdenialofmembership,theJudgefoundthatthePressGalleryhadnotfailedtoaccordtheauthornaturaljustice.TheJudgenotedthattheauthorhadbeengiventemporarymembershiponanumberofoccasionsandthathisfailuretoobtainactivemembershipwasattributabletohisrefusaltoanswerquestionsposedtohimbytheBoardofDirectorsofthePressGalleryforthepurposesofdeterminingwhetherornothefulfilledtherequirementsforactivemembership.7.42..2TheStatepartyreiteratesthattheauthor'sfailuretogainaccesstotheParliamentaryPressGalleryisdirectlyattributabletohisfailuretocooperatewiththePressGalleryinthepursuitofhisapplicationforactivemembership.AccordingtotheStateparty,hehasthusfailedtoexhaustthesimplestandmostdirectdomesticremedyavailabletohim.TheStatepartyaddsthattheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommonshas"goodreasontoexpectindividualstofollowthenormalchannelsforobtainingaccesstotheParliamentaryPressGallerypremiseslocatedontheParliamentaryprecincts.InordertomakeaccesstoParliamentaryprecinctsmeaningful,theSpeakerneedstoensurethataccesstoanylocationontheprecinctsiscontrolled.Forthispurpose,intheparticularcaseoftheParliamentaryPressGallerypremiseslocatedintheParliamentaryprecincts,theSpeakerhaschosen,asamatterofpractice,toconditionsuchaccessonmembershipoftheCanadianPressGallery."TheStatepartysubmitsthattheSpeaker'spracticeisreasonableandappropriateandconsistentwiththefreedomofexpressionandofthepress.Author'sfurthercomments8.12..2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'sfurthersubmission,theauthorcomplainsaboutthedelaystheStatepartyiscausingandsubmitsthathiscomplaintiswellfoundedandhasmerit,particularlyinthelightoftheStateparty'sdemonstratedpracticeandintentiontoprolongadomesticresolution.8.22..2TheauthorreiteratesthattheGovernmentofCanadapreventshimtoseekandreceiveinformationandobserveproceedingsonbehalfofhisreaders,andprohibitshisaccesstofacilitiesandservicesprovidedforthemedia.Heemphasizesthatfavouredjournalistsbenefitfromspecialprivileges,amongothersfreephones,servicesofaGovernmentstaffofnine,accesstoPressConferences,officespace,accesstopressreleasesandtoinformationabouttheitinerariesofpublicofficials,parking,accesstotheLibraryofParliament.8.32..2TheauthorsubmitsthattheCourthasruledthathecannotobtaintheprivilegeshewantsfromthePressGallery,sincetheyfallunderthecontroloftheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons.Atthesametime,theSpeakerrefusestointerveneinwhatheseesasinternalmattersofthePressGallery.TheauthorstatesthathetriedtocomplywiththePressGallery'srequirements,    ׀butthatthereisnoappealavailableagainsttheirdecisions.Heconteststhatthetemporarypassdoesnotrestrictthefreedomofexpression,asitdeniedfullaccesstoallfacilitiesandservicesprovidedforthepress.8.42..2TheauthoracknowledgesthatthePressGallerymayhavesomemeritinscreeningapplicantswhorequestaccesstothefacilitiesandservicesprovidedforthemedia,butarguesthatthereshouldbearecourseavailableofanydecisionthatisunfairorinviolationoffundamentalhumanrights.HestatesthatCanadaclearlyisunwillingtoprovidesucharecourse,asshownbytherefusalsoftheSpeakeroftheHousetoaddressthematteraswellasbyitsreplytotheCommittee,andarguesthatallavailableandeffectivedomesticremedieshavethusbeenexhausted.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility9.12..2Atits60thsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.9.22..2TheCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadarguedthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteecarefullyexaminedtheremedieslistedbytheStatepartyandcametotheconclusionthatnoeffectiveremedieswereavailabletotheauthor.Inthiscontext,theCommitteenotedthatitappearedfromtheCourtdecisionsinthecasethattheaccesstheauthorwasseeking,fellwithinthecompetenceoftheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,andthatdecisionsoftheSpeakerinthismatterwerenotreviewablebytheCourts.TheStateparty'sargumentthattheauthorcouldfindasolutionbycooperatinginthedeterminationofhisqualificationsformembershipintheCanadianParliamentaryPressGallerydidnotaddresstheissueraisedbytheauthor'scommunication,whetherornotthelimitationofaccesstothepressfacilitiesinParliamenttomembersofthePressGalleryviolatedhisrightunderarticle19oftheCovenant.9.32..2TheStatepartyhadfurtherarguedthattheauthorhadfailedtopresentaprimafaciecaseandthatthecommunicationwasthusinadmissiblefornonsubstantiationofaviolation.TheCommitteenotedthatitappearedfromtheinformationbeforeitthattheauthorhadbeendeniedaccesstothepressfacilitiesofParliament,becausehewasnotamemberoftheCanadianParliamentaryPressGallery.TheCommitteefurthernotedthatwithoutsuchaccess,theauthorwasnotallowedtotakenotesduringdebatesinParliament. US  UK ԀTheCommitteefoundthatthismightraiseanissueunderarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,whichshouldbeconsideredonitsmerits.9.42..2TheCommitteefurtherconsideredthatthequestionwhethertheStatepartycanrequiremembershipinaprivateorganizationasaconditionfortheenjoymentofthefreedomtoseekandreceiveinformation,shouldbeexaminedonitsmerits,asitmightraiseissuesnotonlyunderarticle19,butalsounderarticles22and26oftheCovenant.10.2..2Accordingly,on10July1997,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissible.&  Stateparty'ssubmissiononthemerits11.1Bysubmissionof14July1998,theStatepartyprovidesaresponseonthemeritsofthecommunication.Itreiteratesitsearlierobservationsandexplains'  thattheSpeakeroftheHouseofCommons,byvirtueofParliamentaryprivilege,hascontroloftheaccommodationandservicesinthosepartsoftheParliamentaryprecinctsthatareoccupiedbyoronbehalfoftheHouseofCommons.OneoftheSpeaker'sdutiesinthisregardiscontrollingaccesstotheseareas.TheStatepartyemphasizesthattheabsoluteauthorityofParliamentoveritsownproceedingsisacrucialandfundamentalprincipleofCanada'sgeneralconstitutionalframework.11.2WithregardtotherelationshipbetweentheSpeakerandthePressGallery,theStatepartyexplainsthatthisrelationshipisnotformal,officialorlegal.WhiletheSpeakerhasultimateauthorityoverthephysicalaccesstothemediafacilitiesinParliament,heisnotinvolvedinthegeneraloperationsofthesefacilitieswhichareadministeredandrunentirelybythePressGallery.11.3PresspassesgrantingaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliamentareissuedtoGallerymembersonly.TheStatepartyreiteratesthatthedeterminationofmembershipinthePressGalleryisaninternalmatterandthattheSpeakerhasalwaystakenapositionofstrictnoninterference.Itsubmitsthatasamemberofthepublic,theauthorhasaccesstotheParliamentbuildingsopentothepublicandthathecanattendthepublichearingsoftheHouseofCommons.11.4Inthisconnection,theStatepartyreiteratesthattheproceedingsoftheHouseofCommonsarebroadcastedontelevisionandthatanyjournalistcanreporteffectivelyontheproceedingsintheHouseofCommonswithoutusingthemediafacilitiesofParliament.TheStatepartyaddsthatthetranscriptsoftheHousedebatescanbefoundonInternetthefollowingday.SpeechesandpressreleasesofthePrimeMinisteraredepositedinalobbyopentothepublic,andarealsopostedonInternet.GovernmentreportsandpressreleasesarelikewisepostedonInternet.11.5TheStatepartyarguesthattheauthorhasnotbeendeprivedofhisfreedomtoreceiveandimpartinformation.Althoughasamemberofthepublic,hemaynottakenoteswhilesittinginthePublicGalleryoftheHouseofCommons,hemayobservetheproceedingsintheHouseandreportonthem.TheStatepartyexplainsthat"NotetakinghastraditionallybeenprohibitedinthepublicgalleriesoftheHouseofCommonsasamatteroforderanddecorumandforsecurityreasons(e.g.thethrowingofobjectsatthemembersofParliamentfromthegalleryabove)".Moreover,theinformationheseeksisavailablethroughlivebroadcastingandInternet.11.6Alternatively,theStatepartyarguesthatanyrestrictionontheauthor'sabilitytoreceiveandimpartinformationthatmayresultfromtheprohibitiononnotetakinginthepublicgalleryintheHouseofCommonsisminimalandisjustifiedtoachieveabalancebetweentherighttofreedomofexpressionandtheneedtoensureboththeeffectiveanddignifiedoperationofParliamentandthesafetyandsecurityofitsmembers.AccordingtotheStateparty,statesshouldbeaccordedabroadflexibilityindeterminingissuesofeffectivegovernanceandsecuritysincetheyareinthebestpositiontoassesstherisksandneeds.11.7TheStatepartyalsodeniesthataviolationofarticle26hasoccurredintheauthor'scase.TheStatepartyacknowledgesthatadifferenceintreatmentexistsbetweenjournalistswhoaremembersofthePressGalleryandthosewhodonotsatisfythecriteriaformembership,butsubmitsthatthishasnotleadtoanysignificantdisadvantagefortheauthor.TheStatepartyalsoreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudencethatnoteverydifferentiationcanbedeemedtobediscriminatoryandsubmitsthatthedistinctionmadeiscompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantandbasedonobjectivecriteria.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyemphasizesthataccesstopressfacilitiesinParliamentmustnecessarilybelimitedsincethefacilitiescanonlyaccommodatealimitednumberofpeople.ItisreasonabletolimitsuchaccesstojournalistswhoreportregularlyontheproceedingsinParliament.TheSpeakerisawareofthecriteriaformembershipinthePressGalleryandreliesonthesecriteriaasanappropriatestandardfordeterminingwhoshouldorshouldnothaveaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliament.Itissubmittedthatthesecriteria,whichtheSpeakerhasbyimplicationadoptedandendorsed,arespecific,fairandreasonable,andcannotbedeemedarbitraryorunreasonable.11.8Withregardtoarticle22oftheCovenant,theStatepartyobservesthattheauthorisnotbeingforcedbytheGovernmenttojoinanyassociation.HeisfreenottoassociatewiththePressGallery,norishisabilitytopracticetheprofessionofjournalismconditionedinanywayuponhismembershipofthePressGallery.Theauthor'scommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission12.1Inhiscomments,dated25September1998,theauthorreferstohisearliersubmissions.HeemphasizesthatheiswithoutremedybecauseoftherefusaloftheSpeakertointerveneonhisbehalfandtogranthimaccesstothepressfacilitiesorevenhearhim.TheauthoremphasizesthatnopowershavebeentransferredfromtheSpeakertothePressGallery,norhastheSpeakertheauthoritytodelegatehisresponsibilitiestoanindividualgroupwithoutaccountabilitytotheMembersofParliament.Accordingtotheauthor,theParliamentaryprivilegesareofnoforceoreffectwhentheyinfringefundamentalrightssuchasthosecontainedintheCovenant.TheauthorarguesthattheStatepartyisallowingaprivateorganizationtorestrictaccesstonewsandinformation.12.2TheauthoralsogivesexamplesofhowSpeakershaveintervenedinthepastandgivenaccesstothemediafacilitiesinParliamenttoindividualjournalistswhohadbeendeniedmembershipbythePressGallery.HerejectstheStateparty'sargumentthattheSpeakerwouldbeinterferingwiththefreedomofthepressifheweretointervene,onthecontrary,hearguesthattheSpeakerhasadutytointerveneinordertoprotectthefreedomofexpression.12.3TheauthorreiteratesthatasajournalistherequiresequalaccesstothemediafacilitiesofParliament.    ׀Hestatesthat,althoughitcanbeseenasreasonablefortheSpeakertohavetheaccreditationofjournalistshandledbythestaffassignedtothePressGallery,thingsgotoutofcontrolandthePressGallerybeganusingfavouritismontheonehandandcoercionandblackmailontheother,andasaresulttheauthorwasdeniedaccessandhasnorecourse.Heemphasizesthathemeetsalltherequirementsforaccreditation.Inanyevent,hearguesthattheGallery'sbylawscanneveraffecthisfundamentalrightsunderarticle19,paragraph2,tohaveaccesstoinformation.HeaddsthattheGallery'sbylawsarearbitrary,inconsistent,tyrannicalandinviolationnotonlyoftheCovenantbutalsooftheStateparty'sownconstitution.Theauthorsubmitsthatifagroupofjournalistswishestoformtheirownassociation,theyshouldfeelfreetodoso.Thisprivate,voluntaryorganizationshouldinnowaybegivenauthorityorsupervisionoveranypubliclyfinancedactivitiesandservicesasithastoday,especiallysincenopossibilityofappealfromitsdecisionsisprovided.HerejectsmembershipinthisassociationasaprerequisitetoenjoyinghisfundamentalrighttofreedomofexpressionandsubmitsthatheshouldnotbeforcedtobelongtothePressGalleryinordertoreceiveinformationthatismadeavailablebytheHouseofCommons.12.4WithregardtotheStateparty'sargumentthatlivecoverageofallproceedingsintheHouseofCommonsisavailable,theauthorsubmitsthattheCablePublicAffairsChannelwhichbroadcaststheHouseofCommonsproceedings,isanewsserviceincompetitionwiththeauthor.Hestatesthatitisofverylittleuseasajournalist,sinceonehastowatchwhatevertheydecidetobroadcast.TheauthormoreoverconteststhatlivecoverageofallproceedingsintheHouseofCommonsisavailable,sinceveryoftendebatesarebroadcastedasreplays,andmostCommitteemeetingsarenottelevized.TheauthoralsoarguesthatthereismuchmoretoreportingontheactivitiesofParliamentthanobservethesessionsthattakeplaceintheHouseofCommons.Inaddition,beingrecognizedintheeyesoftheGovernmentcommunityaspartoftheacceptedmediaisessentialtotheprocessofnetworkingwithinthatcommunity.TheauthorthereforemaintainsthattherestrictionsbynothavingaccesstothemediafacilitiesinParliamentseriouslyimpedeifnotrenderimpossiblehisabilitytoseekandobtaininformationabouttheactivitiesoftheParliamentandGovernmentofCanada.12.5TheauthorrejectstheStateparty'sargumentthathisbeingallowedtodohisworkalongwiththeother300accreditedjournalistswouldencroachontheeffectiveanddignifiedoperationofParliamentandthesafetyandsecurityofitsmembers.Withregardtoarticle26oftheCovenant,theauthordeniesthatthedifferenceintreatmentbetweenhimandjournalistsmembersofthePressGalleryisreasonableandreiteratesthathehasbeenarbitrarilydeniedequalaccesstomediafacilities.AlthoughheacceptsthattheStatepartymaylimitaccesstopressfacilitiesinParliament,hesubmitsthatsuchlimitsmustnotbeundulyrestraining,mustbeadministeredfairly,mustnotinfringeonanyperson'srighttofreedomofexpressionandtherighttoseekandreceiveinformation,andmustbesubjecttoreview.Accordingtotheauthor,theabsenceofanavenueofappealofadecisionbythePressGalleryconstitutesaviolationofequalprotectionofthelaw.Theauthordoesnotacceptthatlimitedspacemeansthathecannotbeallowedtousethepressfacilities,sinceothernewjournalistshavebeenadmittedandsincetherewouldbeotherpossibilitiesofsolvingthis,suchaslimitingthenumberofaccreditedjournalistswhoworkforthesamenewsorganization.    12.6Finally,theauthorsubmitsthattheexclusionfromaccesstoessentialservicesandfacilitiesprovidedbytheHouseofCommonsforthepressofthosejournalistswhoarenotamemberoftheCanadianPressGalleryconstitutesaviolationoftherighttofreedomofassociation,sincenooneshouldbeforcedtojoinanassociationinordertoenjoyafundamentalrightsuchasfreedomtoobtaininformation.&  Committee'sexaminationofthemerits13.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedin'  article5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.13.2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimsunderarticles22and26oftheCovenant,theCommitteehasreviewed,underarticle93(4)ofitsRulesofProcedure,itsdecisionofadmissibilitytakenatits60thsessionandconsidersthattheauthorhadnotsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimunderthesaidarticles.Norhashefurthersubstantiatedit,forthesamepurposes,withhisfurthersubmissions.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthor'scommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol,asfarasitrelatestoarticles22and26oftheCovenant.Inthisregard,theadmissibilitydecisionisthereforerepealed.13.3TheissuebeforetheCommitteeisthuswhethertherestrictionoftheauthor'saccesstothepressfacilitiesinParliamentamountstoaviolationofhisrightunderarticle19oftheCovenant,toseek,receiveandimpartinformation.13.4Inthisconnection,theCommitteealsoreferst