WPC 2gUpjܙ` `u(QNo97?OPNiHf&`.ԕyO U>z 0 0<9 0Yu 0_ 0i- 0P 0 0( D+ AM - 0= # UN %M(ND^ FwR4Vj ml\  `&Times New Roman' L. C. et al. v. Jamaica, Communication No. 257/1987 (26 July 1988), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 404.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jS0.Strong     ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(28J$ !..      Xo'XXXXo'XXXo'  ($'dxd A<< c#|x($..      XzXXXXzXXXzHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXài) ȭF):i+00U !..      Xo'XXXXo'XXXo'  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  L.C.etal.v.Jamaica | CommunicationNo.257/1987 H 26July1988  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:L.C.etal.[namesdeleted] x  Allegedvictims:Theauthors D  Statepartyconcerned:Jamaica ` Dateofcommunication:14October1987(dateofinitialletter) ,   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenant  on_Civll_ԀandPoliticalRights, t Meetingon26July1988, @ Adoptsthefollowing:  \   Decisiononadmissibility   1.Theauthorsofthecommunication(initialletterdated14October1987;furtherletter p!  dated24May1988)areL.C.etal.,JamaicancitizenscurrentlyawaitingexecutionatSt. V"! CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica. <#" 2.1Theauthorsstatethattheywereconvictedonamurderchargeandsentencedtodeath %X $ intheKingstonHomeCircuitCourton8March1979.Theystatethattheirappealwas %>!% rejectedbytheJamaicaCourtofAppealon10June1981.Allegedly,itthentookalmostsix &$"& yearsforthejudgementoftheCourtofAppealtobeputintowriting.Thedelayinthe ' #' renderingofawrittenjudgementistermedan"anomalyofthejudicature"inJamaica; (#( referenceismadetochapterIII(3)'oftheJamaicanConstitution,whichpurportstoprotect )$) "theindividualagainstabuseofpowerbyactofState,whethertheactbelegislative,judicial l*%* orexecutive".Theauthorsfurtheraffirmthat,becauseofthenonavailabilityofthewritten R+&+ judgementoftheCourtofAppeal,theywereunabletocomplywiththerequirementsfor 8,', filingapetitionforleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil. -n(- Ї2.2TheauthorsclaimthatthedelayintheproductionofawrittenCourtofAppeal  judgementcausedthemseverementaldistressthatamountedtocruel,inhumanand  degradingtreatmentinviolationoftheirrightsundersection17(1)oftheJamaican | Constitution.Theyacknowledgethattheresponsibilityoftheaccusedforassertinghisrights b isanimportantfactorinconsideringallegationsofbreachoftherighttobetriedwithina H reasonabletime.Theyclaim,however,tohavecontactedthejudicialauthoritieswithaview . ~ toobtainingthewrittenjudgementoftheCourtofAppeallongbeforeitwasactually  d produced.Theyweretoldthatitwasnotyetavailable.  J 3.On1December1987,theSpecialRapporteuroftheHumanRightsCommittee,Mr.A.    _Mavrommatis_,actingunderamandateconferredonhimbytheCommitteeon12November    1987,requestedtheauthors,underrule91oftheCommittee'sprovisionalrulesofprocedure,   tofurnishclarificationsonanumberofissuesrelatingtotheircommunicationand x  transmittedthecommunicationforinformationtotheStateparty,requestingit,underrule ^  86oftheprovisionalrulesofprocedure,nottocarryoutthedeathsentencesagainstthe D  authorsbeforetheCommitteehad_had_Ԁanopportunitytoconsiderfurtherthequestionofthe *z  admissibilityoftheircommunication. ` 4.Byasubmissiondated18March1988,theStatepartyobjectedtotheadmissibilityofthe , communication.Inparticular,itstatedthat:  "thecommunicationfromMessrs.L.C.etal.isinadmissiblebecauseoftheirfailureto  exhaustallavailabledomesticremediesasrequiredbyarticle5,paragraph2,oftheOptional t ProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Section25ofthe Z JamaicanConstitutiongrantstoanypersonarighttoapplytotheSupremeCourtforredress @ inrespectofanallegedbreachofthefundamentalrightssetoutinchapterIIIofthe &v Constitution.Theserightsincludeprotectionfromtorture,inhumanordegradingpunishment  \ andtherighttoafairhearingwithinareasonabletime." B 5.Byadecisiondated22March1988,theWorkingGroupoftheHumanRightsCommittee  requestedtheStateparty,underrule91oftheprovisionalrulesofprocedure,toprovide  furtherinformationandobservationsrelevanttothequestionoftheadmissibilityofthe   communication,inparticularastowhethertheauthorsstillhadthepossibilityoffiling p!  petitionsforleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilandwhether V"! legalaidwouldbemadeavailabletotheminthatrespect.On23June1988,theStateparty <#" repliedthatthe"authorsmaystillappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilby "$r# wayofpetitionforspecialleavetoappealinforma_pauperis_",andthatlegalaidwouldbe %X $ availabletothempursuanttothePoorPrisoners_Defence_ԀAct.Theauthorshadpreviously %>!% confirmed,byaletterdated24May1988,thataLondonbasedlawfirmhadagreedto &$"& representthembeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil;byaletterdated14June ' #' 1988,theauthors'counselrequestedtheCommitteetodeferconsiderationofthe (#( communicationpendingtheoutcomeoftheauthors'petitionforspecialleavetoappealto )$) theJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil. l*%* 6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights 8,', Committeemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide -n(- _whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  6.2TheCommitteehasascertained,asitisrequiredtodounderarticle5,paragraph2(a), | oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterisnotbeingexaminedunderanother b procedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement. H 6.3Withrespecttotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremediesunderarticle5,  d paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,theCommitteehasnotedthelettersfromthe  J authorsandtheircounsel,dated24Mayand14June1988,respectively,whichindicatethat  0 apetitionforspecialleavetoappealwillbeplacedbeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthe    PrivyCouncil.Itthusconcludesthatoneavailableremedyhasnotbeenexhaustedbythe    authors.Article5,paragraph2(b),however,precludestheCommitteefromconsideringa   communicationpriortotheexhaustionofallavailabledomesticremedies. x  7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: D  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptional ` Protocol; F (b).That,sincethisdecisionmaybereviewedunderrule92,paragraph2,oftheCommittee's  provisionalrulesofprocedureuponreceiptofawrittenrequestbyoronbehalfoftheauthors  containinginformationtotheeffectthatthereasonsforinadmissabilitynolongerapply,the  Statepartyshallberequested,takingintoaccountthespiritandpurposeofrule86ofthe t Committee'sprovisionalrulesofprocedure,nottocarryoutthedeathsentenceagainstthe Z authorsbeforetheyhavehadareasonabletime,aftercompletingtheeffectivedomestic @ remediesavailabletothem,torequesttheCommitteetoreviewthepresentdecision; &v (c)ThatthisdecisionshallbetransmittedtotheStatepartyandtotheauthors. B j