ÿWPC®  I3뇬o Å_Þ.Ä/^œÁ¿ÅÓˆ‰øÔÌ œ£0Õ.oœ-ÇzZ~An¿í>»šˆûïkm‹£ÉW›@Ô_åÉËI.™êx”]õ)À¯5¶2ÙÅgòöé#Ì–D”ª²º¨‘~1!•j¿–œÀ¡AT åÆ{ŽFúÇKFO~>b0Ãw jí¾E, …Ê5îÈ48Åbú8“OFpV¬”Ïz\„—mnIq² c%4]#¯¼1%r†Lܳ +Ï.ä†×œQ=w}%¯¸éÑÑ£ÎixÊñ7£‘çdÃåWñ·×—5ÎKèñpOÎðÄß8<ù¤ð‘ÊR=0-Ûm°‘}ÌæÞ°±<{ÌŽ‰S,¤_ô1läíìý]ò1R:Próø-¨ºÔw'@³q<µU² zå÷‡gˆƒ‰'ª(´ÎS*Ö_{þ4:gá ^ØsÒÿ}˜Á Âß[r{tåÃÖxЭEtEåcÌ0l”Sm†íYnJšri›šì¡ MnÔîÛè´9Íû‘0¶ã;´Ž…_ˉi±€¶×‡@œV«Ž­#ËøæõòKèÐýÃåÌ7ßÌ gùaøÚÚ›¾{¼ Æ^R“^Fñ€hþÂKmÆéXX±Z#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)ÈÕŸ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ  dÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòA.€W.€v.€JamaicaóóÐ ˆØ ÐòòóóÌCommunication€No.€290/1988Ð `° ÐÌ8€November€1989Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ü L  ÐòòóóÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€€A.€W.€[name€deleted]Ð À  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorÐ ˜è  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€€JamaicaÐ pÀ ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€€16€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€8€November€1989,Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòÌò òÓ  ÓDecision€on€admissibilityó óóó*Ð l¼ ÐÓMÓÌÌ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€16€February€1988€and€subsequentÐ 4"„  Ðcorrespondence)€is€A.€W.,€a€Jamaican€citizen€currently€awaiting€execution€at€St.€Catherine€DistrictÐ  #p! ÐPrison,€Jamaica.€€He€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€his€human€rights€by€Jamaica.€€He€isÐ  $\" Ðrepresented€by€counsel.Ð ø$H # ÐÌ2.1€€The€author,€who€claims€to€be€innocent,€was€arrested€on€14€June€1983€and€charged,€together€withÐ Ð& "% Ðone€G.€S.,€òòaóó/€€with€a€murder,€on€13€June€1983,€of€one€R.€H.€€He€was€tried€in€the€WestmorelandÐ ¼' #& ÐCircuit€Court,€Jamaica,€convicted€and€sentenced€to€death€on€June€1984.€€On€7€April€1986,€the€CourtÐ ¨(ø#' Ðof€Appeal€of€Jamaica€dismissed€his€appeal.Ð ”)ä$( ÐÌ2.2€€The€author€states€that€on€13€June€1983€he€was€working€in€his€cane€field,€when€Mr.€H.Ð l+¼&* Ðapproached€him€and€attacked€him€with€a€knife;€in€the€course€of€ensuing€struggle,€the€assailantÐ X,¨'+ Ðsuffered€head€injuries.€€Afterwards,€the€author€stopped€a€passing€police€car€and€informed€the€policeÐ D-”(, Ðofficer€of€the€incident.€€This€officer€reportedly€told€the€author€and€his€co„defendant€to€place€theÐ ° Ðwounded€man€into€the€back€of€the€police€car€and€drove€him€to€the€hospital.€€Later€that€day,€the€sameÐ œì Ðofficer€returned€to€the€authorððs€home,€informed€him€that€Mr.€H.€had€died€and€proceeded€to€arrestÐ ˆØ Ðhim.€€He€was€charged€with€murder€the€following€day.Ð tÄ ÐÌ2.3€€It€is€alleged€that€the€trial€was€conducted€in€a€biassed€way.€€Although€the€authorððs€lawyerÐ L œ Ðallegedly€cross„examined€the€two€witnesses€against€him,€the€judge€is€said€to€have€constantlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðinterrupted€the€defence,€objected€to€several€relevant€questions€and€even€suggested€answers€to€theÐ $ t Ðwitnesses.€€No€witnesses€are€said€to€have€testified€on€the€authorððs€behalf.Ð  ` ÐÌ3.€€By€decision€of€8€July€1988,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ è 8  Ðcommunication€to€the€State€party€and€requested€it,€under€rule€91€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€to€provideÐ Ô$  Ðinformation€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€Ð À  ÐIt€further€requested€the€State€party,€under€rule€86€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€not€to€carry€out€the€deathÐ ¬ü  Ðsentence€against€the€author€while€his€communication€was€under€consideration€by€the€Committee.€Ð ˜è  ÐThe€author€was€requested€to€provide€several€clarifications€concerning€his€case.Ð „Ô  ÐÌ4.€€In€his€reply,€dated€10€October€1988,€the€author€claims€that€the€statements€of€the€two€prosecutionÐ \¬ Ðwitnesses€were€contradictory.€€In€particular,€one€of€the€witnesses€referred€to€a€machete€allegedly€usedÐ H˜ Ðby€the€author€as€the€lethal€weapon,€the€other€one€to€an€iron€pipe€and€a€stone.€€No€iron€pipe€was,Ð 4„ Ðhowever,€exhibited€and€no€forensic€tests€were€carried€out€on€a€stick€and€a€stone€which€had€beenÐ  p Ðintroduced€in€evidence.€€Moreover,€the€knife€allegedly€used€by€Mr.€H.€was€not€recovered€by€theÐ  \ Ðpolice€and,€although€the€trial€judge€requested€that€this€point€be€clarified,€the€police€apparently€didÐ øH Ðnot€comply€with€the€request.€€The€author€contends,€in€particular,€that€he€did€not€get€a€fair€trial€sinceÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€judge€failed€to€direct€the€jury€on€the€issue€of€self„defence.Ð Ð  ÐÌ5.€€In€his€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€2€December€1988,€the€State€party€argues€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€pursuant€to€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ ”ä Ðbecause€the€author€may€still€apply,€under€Section€110€of€the€Jamaican€Constitution,€for€special€leaveÐ €Ð Ðto€appeal€to€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council.Ð l¼ ÐÌ6.€€By€further€letter€dated€5€May€1989,€counsel€indicates€that€the€authorððs€petition€for€special€leaveÐ D!” Ðto€appeal€was€heard€and€dismissed€by€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council€on€4€May€1989.Ð 0"€  ÐÌ7.€€In€a€further€submission€dated€12€July€1989,€the€State€party€contends€that,€in€spite€of€the€dismissalÐ $X" Ðof€the€authorððs€petition€by€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council,€the€communication€remainsÐ ô$D # Ðinadmissible€for€failure€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies,€since€the€author€has€failed€to€pursue€remediesÐ à%0!$ Ðavailable€to€him€under€the€Jamaican€Constitution.€€In€this€context,€the€State€party€submits€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðprovision€of€the€Covenant€invoked€by€the€author€(art.€14)€is€coterminous€with€the€right€guaranteedÐ ¸'#& Ðby€Section€20€of€the€Jamaican€Constitution,€which€provides€for€due€process.€€Under€Section€25€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Constitution,€if€anyone€alleges€that€any€one€of€the€rights€guaranteed€by€Section€25€has€been,€isÐ )à$( Ðbeing,€or€is€to€be€contravened€in€relation€to€him,€he€may,€without€prejudice€to€any€other€action€withÐ |*Ì%) Ðrespect€to€the€same€matter€which€is€lawfully€available,€apply€to€the€Supreme€Constitutional€CourtÐ h+¸&* Ðfor€redress.€€The€State€party€thus€reiterates€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible.Ð T,¤'+ ÐÐ @-(, Ð8.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ ° Ðmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÐ œì Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð ˆØ ÐÌ8.2€€The€Committee€has€considered€the€material€submitted€by€the€authorððs€counsel,€including€theÐ `° Ðauthorððs€petition€for€special€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Judicial€Committee€of€the€Privy€Council.€€FromÐ L œ Ðthis€information,€it€appears€that€the€author€claims€bias€of€the€court,€in€particular€in€respect€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðadequacy€or€otherwise€of€the€judgeððs€instructions€to€the€jury,€in€the€light€of€the€evidence€that€was€putÐ $ t Ðbefore€the€jury€and€which€it€was€for€the€jury€to€accept€or€reject.€€While€article€14€of€the€CovenantÐ  ` Ðguarantees€the€right€to€a€fair€trial,€it€is€for€the€appellate€courts€of€the€States€parties€of€the€CovenantÐ ü L  Ðto€evaluate€facts€and€evidence€in€a€particular€case.€€òòbóó/€€Thus€the€review,€by€the€Committee,€of€specificÐ è 8  Ðinstructions€to€the€jury€by€the€judge€in€a€trial€by€jury€or€of€generalized€claims€of€bias€is€beyond€theÐ Ô$  Ðscope€of€application€of€article€14.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concludes€that€theÐ À  Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€as€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€pursuant€toÐ ¬ü  Ðarticle€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð ˜è  ÐÌ9.€€The€Human€Rights€therefore€decides:Ð pÀ ÐÌ(a)€€The€communication€is€inadmissible;Ð H˜ ÐÌ(b)€€This€decision€shall€be€transmitted€to€the€State€party,€to€the€author€and€to€his€counsel.Ð  p ÐÌ__________Ð øH ÐÌòò*óó/€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€by€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô€is€reproduced€in€the€appendix.Ð Ð  ÐÌòòaóó/€€Mr.€G.€S.ððs€communication€No.€369/1989€was€declared€inadmissible€by€the€Committee€on€8Ð ¨ø ÐNovember€1989.Ð ”ä ÐÌòòbóó/€€For€an€application€of€this€principle,€see€communication€No.€201/1985€(Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€v.€€Netherlands),Ð l¼ Ðfinal€views€adopted€on€27€July€1988,€para.€10.4.Ð X ¨ ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓAppendixó óóóÐ #l! ÐÓ¸"ÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion:€submitted€by€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô€pursuant€to€rule€92,€paragraph€3,€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐCommitteeððs€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€the€admissibility€of€communication€No.€€290/1988€(A.Ð Ì&"% ÐW.€v.€Jamaicaóó)Ð ¸'#& ÐÌAs€emphasized€by€the€Committee€in€the€case€of€communication€No.€290/1988,€it€is€within€theÐ )à$( Ðcompetence€of€national€courts,€particularly€appeal€courts,€to€assess€the€fairness€of€the€conditions€inÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhich€a€trial€takes€place.€Ð h+¸&* ÐÌHowever,€this€competence€cannot€exclude€that€of€the€Committee€in€implementation€of€InternationalÐ @-(, ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€€When€a€communication€is€submitted€to€it,€the€CommitteeÐ ° Ðassesses€whether€the€trial€was€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€article€14€of€theÐ œì ÐCovenant.Ð ˆØ ÐÌAt€the€admissibility€stage,€the€Committee€proceeds€to€a€òòprima€facieóó€review€of€the€applicantððsÐ `° Ðgrievances.€€The€author€of€this€communication€challenges€the€regularity€of€the€judgeððs€conduct€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€hearing.€€In€particular,€A.€W.€referred€to€an€examination€of€the€witnesses€which€might€be€contraryÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€article€14,€paragraph€3€(e),€of€the€Covenant.Ð $ t ÐÌIt€is€therefore€my€view€that,€while€the€facts€adduced€by€the€applicant€could€be€regarded€asÐ ü L  Ðinsufficiently€substantiated,€they€could€not€be€declared€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€theÐ è 8  ÐCovenant€on€the€basis€of€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€