WPC +l\YaF%H)W%PqllI I.nqS&Cr,j Li ߰ŧ0$ BkPo-z/g١OfhdgJNw ,E#ѧs گ ÄPiA׉/&JC*|5&C ,S+NL @fݠjkMw Y#ul{^~X>oa9i&'.C6')i(_/TvO&aePƻC5t7 i0T2NBڡ%aKnS\!țI?R~܁¡`#K[@v:CM ClTns0+V >K`s >g I-w]t?[Ԑök1VIK֛,1W.pRzu:'qCҀ8fs)P`vh6f{U>z 0 0<9 0Yu 0_ 0i- 0P 0 0( D+ AM - 0= # UN %M(ND^ FwR4Vj ml\  `&Times New Roman' J. H. [name deleted] v. Finland, Communication No. 300/1988 (23 March 1989), U.N. Doc. Sup4 1989), U.N. Doc. Sup"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(2O$ 8!..      XgXXXXgXXXg  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(8$..      X}XXXX}XXX}HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX8E) .)+00U 8!..      XqXXXXqXXXq  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  J.H.v.Finland | CommunicationNo.300/1988 H 23March1989  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:J.H.[namedeleted] x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Statepartyconcerned:Finland ` Dateofcommunication:31May1988 ,   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenant  onCivilandPoliticalRights, t Meetingon23March1989, @ Adoptsthefollowing:  \   Decisiononadmissibility     1.Theauthorofthecommunication(letterdated3May1980;subsequentsubmissiondated p!  13December1988)isJ.H.,aFinnishcitizenbornin1954,currentlyservingaprison V"! sentenceinFinland.TheauthorclaimstobethevictimofaviolationbytheGovernmentof <#" Finlandofarticles7and14,paragraphs1and3(g),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil "$r# andPoliticalRights. %X $ 2.1Theauthorstatesthaton5May1986theMunicipalCourtofHelsinkifoundhimguilty &$"& ofhavingsmuggledandsoldinFinland15kilosofdrugs(hashish)andsentencedhimto ' #' sevenyears'imprisonmentandtopayafineof399,000Finnish_markkaa_.On17September (#( 1987,theCourtofAppealmodifiedthesentencetosixandahalfyearsandreducedthefine )$) to378,000Finnish_markkaa_.On21January1988,theSupremeCourtrefusedtheauthor's l*%* applicationforleavetoappeal.Theauthorthusclaimstohaveexhausteddomesticremedies R+&+ availabletohim. 8,',  -n(- 2.2Theauthoralsoclaimsthathedidnotsmuggleanydrugsandthathemerelysold4.6  kilosofhashish.HefurtherallegesthattheMunicipalCourtadmittedintoevidenceagainst  himthetestimonyofamentallydisturbedcodefendantwhoduringthetrialhadretracted | histestimony.Thisperson'stestimonywasallegedlyobtainedunderduress,inthecourseof b aninterrogationsaidtohavelastedfrom3p.m.untilmidnight.Moreover,hecontendsthat H thecourtbaseditsjudgementonthehearsayevidenceproducedbysomeoftheco . ~ defendantsinthecase.Lastly,heclaimsthatthecourtusedhisearlierconfessionagainst  d him,soastobeabletoconvicthimonadditionalcharges.  J 3.Byitsdecisionof8July1988,theWorkingGroupoftheHumanRightsCommittee    transmittedthecommunicationtotheStateparty,requestingit,underrule91oftherulesof    procedure,toprovideinformationandobservationsrelevanttothequestionofthe   admissibilityofthecommunication.ItfurtherrequestedtheStatepartytoprovidethe x  CommitteewiththeEnglishtranslationsofthejudgementsoftheMunicipalCourtof ^  HelsinkiandoftheCourtofAppeal. D  4.1Initssubmissionunderrule91dated8November1988,theStatepartyconfirmsthatthe ` authorhasexhaustedallthedomesticremediesavailabletohimdoes,however,contestthe F admissibilityofthecommunicationonthegroundthatthefactsofthecasedonotrevealany , breachoftheauthor'srights.TheStatepartysubmitsthattheauthor'sallegationthatarticle  7hasbeenviolatediscompletelyunfounded,sincehissubmissioncontainsnoevidenceto  supporthisclaim.Norhasheadducedanyfactswhichcouldsubstantiateaviolationof  article14,paragraph3(g),oftheCovenant. t 4.2Withregardtotheallegedviolationofarticle14,theStatepartyobservesthattheHuman @ RightsCommitteeisnotafurtherinstanceofappealand,therefore,isnotcompetentto &v pronounceontheproperweighingofevidenceorthemeasurementofsentences.Inthis  \ connection,theStatepartyobjectsthattheauthorissubmittinghiscommunicationtothe B Committeeasanappealtoafourthinstanceforafurtherreviewofhiscase. ( 5.CommentingontheStateparty'ssubmission,theauthor,inaletterdated13December  1988,reiterateshisinitialallegationswithrespecttothelackofincriminatingevidence   againsthim.Hefurtherarguesthat,althoughtheHumanRightsCommitteeisnotafurther p!  instanceofappealwithrespecttothemeasurementofsentences,neverthelessitshouldbe V"! deemedcompetenttopronounceontheproperweighingoftheevidentiarymaterialby <#" domesticcourts. "$r# 6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights %>!% Committeeshall,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide &$"& whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. ' #' 6.2Theauthorofthecommunicationclaimsthattherehavebeenbreachesofarticles7and )$) 14,paragraphs1and3(g),oftheCovenant. l*%* 6.3AthoroughexaminationbytheCommitteeofallthematerialsubmittedbytheauthor 8,', hasnotrevealedanyfactsinsubstantiationoftheclaimthatheisavictimofaviolationby -n(- theStatepartyofhisrightssetforthinarticle7.  6.4TheCommitteeobservesthattheassessmentofevidentiarymaterialisessentiallya | matterforthecourtsandauthoritiesoftheStatepartyconcerned.TheCommitteefurther b notesthatitisnotanappellatecourtandthatallegationsthatadomesticcourthascommitted H errorsoffactorlawdonotinthemselvesraisequestionsundertheCovenantunlessitalso . ~ appearsthatsomeof.therequirementsofarticle14maynothavebeencompliedwith.J.H.'s  d complaintsrelatingtotheallegedviolationsofarticle14donotappeartoraisesuchissues.  J 6.5TheHumanRightsCommitteeconsidersthattheauthorhasfailedtoprovideevidence    tosubstantiatehisclaims.    7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: x  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; D  (b)ThatthedecisionbecommunicatedtotheauthorandtotheStateparty. `