ÿWPC®  Ü/ºƒ=Fb$c‚ïU"ÅyæÿyÒÝÙ p¶:E%3 ‚¯n™’h='¸-Ú‚ž†½ýW¿ Ëf(ºU&À×Øg¯ …e‡EÆ‹‰BD¥}±qèŽbge…DÄ2¹¼×ó¼;ÍŽ;÷ NÅJ›`4î‚ÙíËÀ#²$¦¸ôÄAçê.±ØnV飾…rô¸çðLN2:¿†ëýeÏNvˆGœ’KU¸Nn¨3 Ñþå2!÷¸í{ž<ÔÛÓû¨5àò¾Ò­‹pp„° ã^NËZ¥õIñPˇ„Š¿x¿­ j{äˆv÷½Ã¾8Ù/^;ÇKRµ·ÃÄlõ±€µ>6‚¦NV{‰)RÖrÝ*Áêܨëbà8a$éW_«”[´¯bd* «Ä´o¿VH¡­BÌÅ”_ëÇÖ³8–eÃää¬þ¾‚0†Ïÿ¾E5 ›Šì8Ô_u!¤^aã–)8Â%Vþ€ïË«¶“oƒ\W@UáåÍ{±‚Šnâž™î%;Åí,-kÑáêzKW>mñƒ—i]4̆ç” ªÈó_Ñ+­½œO í‘\0à¸Ö-xî“ê˜#ýH­eºý]K3#­úöÿ.(!Ç#5øgNQ *ý ‘„ñ‹‘î%0{o?µZ#ÁìUN­ %û 0: ^ ; wG 4K _ n mp ‡ ‡ N B‘ ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ô©¤u) 'gt) œk1X 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  dÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòC.€G.€v.€JamaicaóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€€281/1988Ð `° ÐÌ30€October€1989Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€€C.€G.€[name€deleted]Ð À  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorÐ ˜è  ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€€JamaicaÐ pÀ ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€€10€February€1988€(date€of€initial€letter)óóÐ H˜ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ  \ Ðand€Political€Rights,Ð øH ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€30€October€1989,Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ l¼ ÐÓKÓÌÌ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€10€February€1988€and€subsequentÐ 0"€  Ðcorrespondence€)€is€C.€G.,€a€Jamaican€citizen€currently€awaiting€execution€at€St.€Catherine€DistrictÐ #l! ÐPrison,€Jamaica.€€He€is€represented€by€counsel.Ð $X" ÐÌ2.1€€The€author€was€arrested€on€7€April€1984€and€charged€with€the€murder,€together€with€a€co„Ð à%0!$ Ðdefendant,€N.€D.,€of€one€A.€I.,€in€the€District€of€Manchester,€Jamaica;€he€claims€to€be€innocent.€€OnÐ Ì&"% Ð11€October€1984,€he€was€sentenced€to€death€in€the€Ô_ÔWestmorelandÔ_Ô€District€Court;€his€co„defendantÐ ¸'#& Ðwas€convicted€of€manslaughter€and€sentenced€to€30€years€imprisonment€(reduced€to€20€years€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappeal).€€The€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed€his€appeal€on€28€July€1987.Ð )à$( ÐÌ2.2€€As€to€the€facts€of€the€case,€òòaóó/€it€is€submitted€that€the€author€broke€into€Mr.€I.ððs€house€at€dawn,Ð h+¸&* Ðtogether€with€three€other€men,€allegedly€with€the€intention€of€stealing€money.€€Mr.€I.€€and€his€familyÐ T,¤'+ Ð(his€wife€and€two€daughters)€were€threatened€with€death€and€forced€to€hand€over€all€their€money.€Ð @-(, ÐAccording€to€Mrs.€Iððs€account,€her€husband€was€shot€during€the€robbery.€€One€of€his€daughters,€L.Ð ° ÐI.,€also€testified€that€C.€G.€€allegedly€had€admitted€to€her€that€he€had€shot€her€father.€€During€theÐ œì Ðidentification€parade€on€11€May€1984,€L.€I.€€purported€to€identify€the€author€as€the€murderer.€€In€thisÐ ˆØ Ðconnection,€the€author€claims€that€the€police€officers€who€conducted€the€parade€influenced€theÐ tÄ Ðdeceasedððs€widow€and€daughter€as€to€whom€they€were€to€identify.€€He€further€points€out€that€theÐ `° Ðdeceasedððs€widow€failed€to€identify€him.Ð L œ ÐÌ2.3€€The€author€states€that€the€conduct€of€the€identification€parade€was€challenged€unsuccessfully€byÐ $ t Ðhis€legal€aid€attorney€during€the€trial.€€He€further€claims€that€he€had€no€opportunity€to€consult€withÐ  ` Ðhis€lawyers€prior€to€or€during€the€trial€and€appeal€proceedings.Ð ü L  ÐÌ3.€€By€decision€of€21€March€1988,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmittedÐ Ô$  Ðthe€communication€to€the€State€party€and€requested€it,€under€rule€91€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€toÐ À  Ðprovide€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðcommunication.€€It€further€requested€the€State€party,€under€rule€86€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€not€toÐ ˜è  Ðcarry€out€the€death€sentence€against€the€author€while€his€communication€was€under€consideration€byÐ „Ô  Ðthe€Committee.Ð pÀ ÐÌ4.€€In€his€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€25€October€1988,€the€State€party€argues€that€theÐ H˜ Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€pursuant€to€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ 4„ Ðbecause€the€author€may€still€apply,€for€special€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€PrivyÐ  p ÐCouncil.€€It€further€submits€that€legal€aid€will€be€available€for€that€purpose.Ð  \ ÐÌ5.€€In€his€comments,€dated€28€December€1988,€authorððs€counsel€argues€that€the€sole€issue€in€the€caseÐ ä4 Ðrelates€to€the€treatment€of€identification€evidence.€€He€challenges€the€authorððs€identification€by€theÐ Ð  Ðdeceasedððs€daughter€and€reiterates€that€the€deceasedððs€widow€did€not€identify€the€author.€€WhileÐ ¼  Ðconceding€that€the€case€does€not€fall€into€the€category€of€ð ðfleeting€glance€identificationðð,€counselÐ ¨ø Ðcontends€that€the€nature€of€the€identification€by€the€deceasedððs€daughter€called€for€a€careful€andÐ ”ä Ðprecise€summing€up€by€the€judge,€given€the€absence€of€corroborative€or€other€supporting€evidence.€Ð €Ð ÐHe€further€submits€that€the€judge€did€not€comply€with€the€strict€rules€on€identification€guidelines€laidÐ l¼ Ðdown€by€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€England€in€the€case€of€òòR.€v.€Ô_ÔTurnbullÔ_Ôóó€(1976)€€òòbóó/€€and€that,€as€a€result,Ð X ¨ Ðhe€misdirected€the€jury€on€several€relevant€issues.€€In€particular,€the€judge€is€said€to€have€failed€toÐ D!” Ðwarn€the€jury€that€a€mistaken€witness€may€be€a€credible€witness;€that€he€misdirected€the€jury€as€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€lack€of€corroborative€or€other€supporting€evidence€for€the€authorððs€identification€by€theÐ #l! Ðdeceasedððs€daughter;€that€he€inadequately€directed€the€jury€in€relation€to€identification€on€theÐ $X" Ðconditions€prevailing€during€the€robbery€in€the€middle€of€the€night;€that€he€wrongly€inferred€thatÐ ô$D # Ðsupport€for€the€identification€by€the€deceasedððs€daughter€could€come€from€identification€evidenceÐ à%0!$ Ðof€N.€D.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌ6.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÐ )à$( Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌ6.2€€The€Committee€has€ascertained€as€it€is€required€to€do€under€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€theÐ T,¤'+ ÐOptional€Protocol,€that€the€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€another€procedure€of€internationalÐ @-(, Ðinvestigation€or€settlement.Ð ° ÐÌ6.3€€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€has€notedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€State€partyððs€contention€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),Ð tÄ Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol,€since€the€author€may€still€petition€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€PrivyÐ `° ÐCouncil.€€It€observes€that€the€author€has€obtained€legal€representation€for€this€purpose,€and€that€hisÐ L œ Ðcounsel€in€London€is€currently€preparing€a€petition€for€special€leave€to€appeal€to€the€JudicialÐ 8 ˆ ÐCommittee€of€the€Privy€Council€on€his€behalf.€€It€cannot€conclude,€on€the€basis€of€the€informationÐ $ t Ðbefore€it,€that€a€petition€for€special€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€CouncilÐ  ` Ðwould€not€constitute€an€effective€remedy€available€to€the€author€within€the€meaning€of€article€5,Ð ü L  Ðparagraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð è 8  ÐÌ7.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Ð À  ÐÌ(a)€€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€OptionalÐ ˜è  ÐProtocol;Ð „Ô  ÐÌ(b)€€That,€since€this€decision€may€be€reviewed€under€rule€92,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Committeeððs€rulesÐ \¬ Ðof€procedure€upon€receipt€of€a€written€request€by€or€on€behalf€of€the€author€containing€informationÐ H˜ Ðto€the€effect€that€the€reasons€for€inadmissibility€no€longer€apply,€the€State€party€shall€be€requested,Ð 4„ Ðtaking€into€account€the€spirit€and€purpose€of€rule€86€of€the€Committeeððs€rules€of€procedure,€not€toÐ  p Ðcarry€out€the€death€sentence€against€the€author,€before€he€has€had€a€reasonable€time,€after€completingÐ  \ Ðthe€effective€domestic€remedies€available€to€him,€to€request€the€Committee€to€review€the€presentÐ øH Ðdecision;Ð ä4 ÐÌ(c)€€That€this€decision€shall€be€transmitted€to€the€State€party,€to€the€author€and€to€his€counsel.Ð ¼  ÐÌòòóó__________Ð ”ä ÐÌòòaóó/€€The€authorððs€submissions€do€not€provide€a€detailed€account€of€the€facts.€€The€followingÐ l¼ Ðdescription€follows€the€outline€of€the€facts€in€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeal.Ð X ¨ ÐÌòòbóó/€See€63€Cr.€App.€R€132.€€These€guidelines€are€also€applied€by€Jamaican€courts.€€Subsequent€toÐ 0"€  Ðcounselððs€comments,€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council€allowed€the€appeal€of€OliverÐ #l! ÐÔ_ÔWhylieÔ_Ô€and€quashed€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€in€his€case.€€In€its€judgment€of€27€JulyÐ $X" Ð1989,€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council€stated€that€ð ðTheir€Lordships€have€no€hesitationÐ ô$D # Ðin€concluding€that€a€significant€failure€to€follow€the€guidelines€laid€down€in€òòÔ_ÔTurnbullÔ_Ôóó€will€cause€theÐ à%0!$ Ðconviction€to€be€quashed€because€it€will€have€resulted€in€a€substantial€miscarriage€of€justice.ðð