WPC[0 Fq*|@ jFI,ɣ2婩2w[6a |4@@E2ƒnujhFisCj;ru}==ïnz~>x\%0!!Q)507}bDQXe#ğ+zLd=lK,>TƕM! $Xw] 1\Ҥ3&,֐r4+YS#It1mwؼ]m!Dgz ,c8o4u{u \2\ ӆEE;V&eŕ;´/.d713 +Acݺ'E'9U=$FKydʳu >]*J*H2&%CRV *bƉn52I#UN %  0: 0M 0A 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0u 0W 06 0 0 0 0 0d 01 0 0 0 0 0m 0B 0 0 0 00x 0< 0 0> 0v 0`V! 0`! 0`" 0`v" 0`" 086# 0n# 02@$ 0r$ 0:n% 0Y% 0_& 0 `& 0jj' 0( B*X* D/* D+* 0* D/`, 0, 06]- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<3/U6o/U>/U*/^ 0w04010@0 mB0NY0HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(\$CEUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial* p* DocumeA3|x U \!CEUS.,  _  HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _G;mez_Ԁv.Spain  CommunicationNo701/1996* p 20July2000 P  _CCPR_/C/69/D/701/1996 0  VIEWS  P  Submittedby:_Cesario_Ԁ_G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_Ԁ(RepresentedbyJosLuis_Maz;n_ԀCosta)   Allegedvictim:Author  Stateparty:Spain  Dateofcommunication:29May1995 p TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil @ andPoliticalRights, 0 Meetingon20July2000, ` HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.701/1996submittedtotheHumanRights @ CommitteebyMr._Cesario_Ԁ_G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_ԀundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternational 0 CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,   Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthe "  communicationandtheStateparty, #! Adoptsthefollowing: % #    Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol  P(#& _1.Theauthorofthecommunicationis_Cesario_Ԁ_G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_,aSpanishcitizenbornin1966in  +p&) Murcia,formerlyemployedasaphysicaleducationteacher.Heiscurrentlylivinginhiding ,`'* somewhereinSpain.HeclaimstobethevictimofviolationsbySpainofarticles14,paragraph5, -P(+ and26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthorisrepresentedby -@), counsel,Mr.JosLuis_Maz;n_ԀCosta.  Factsassubmittedbytheauthor  2.1On22February1992,theauthorwassentencedto12yearsandonedaybytheProvincialCourt p (_Audiencia_ԀProvincial)ofToledofortheattemptedmurder(_asesinato_Ԁen_grado_Ԁde_frustraci;n_)of `  oneAntonio_Rodrguez_Ԁ_Cottin_.TheSupremeCourt(TribunalSupremo)rejectedhisappealon9 P  November1993. @  2.2Ataround4a.m.on10January1988,Antonio_Rodrguez_Ԁ_Cottin_Ԁwasstabbedfivetimesinacar  p  lotoutsideadiscothequein_Mocej;n_,Toledo.Thewoundsrequired336days'hospitalizationand `  atotalof635daysforcompleterecovery. P  2.3Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthattheauthor,whohadbeenworkingasdoormanatthe 0  discotheque,sawthevictimdriveintothecarlotandwentouttotalktohim,askinghimtogetout   ofthecar.Whiletheyargued,anunidentifiedcarcameuptothem,apersongotoutaskingforalight  and,whenMr._Rodrguez_Ԁturnedaround,theauthorallegedlystabbedhiminthebackandneck.  2.4Theauthorhasconsistentlydeniedthisdescriptionoftheeventsandmaintainsthat,on10  January1988,heleftthediscothequebetween2and2.30a.m.,goinghometoMostoles,Madrid,as  hewasfeelingill.HewastakenhomebyBenjamin_Sanz_ԀCarranza,_Manuela_ԀVidal_Ramrez_Ԁand p anotherwoman.Whenhearrivedathishomeat3.15a.m.,heaskedhisflatmateforanaspirinand ` remainedinbedallthefollowingday.Theauthorknewthevictim,whowasafrequentvisitortothe P discotheque,andconsideredhimtobeaviolentperson.Theauthorstatesthat,on5December1987, @ Mr._Rodrguez_Ԁhad_had_ԀanargumentwithJulio_Prez_,theownerofthediscotheque,anddrawna 0 knifeonhim.Duringthetrial,theauthorclaimedthattheassaultonMr._Rodrguez_Ԁon10January  p 1988wasasettlingofaccountsbetweenthevictimandsomeoneintheunderworldofwhichheis ` apart. P 2.5Duringthetrial,boththeauthorandtheprosecutorcalledwitnessestocorroboratetheir 0 respectiveversions.1   2.6Counselstatesthattheauthordidnotfileanappeal(_recurso_Ԁde_amparo_)because,astheright "  toanappealisnotcoveredbyarticles1438and,inparticular,article24,paragraph2,oftheSpanish #! Constitution,theappealwouldsimplyhavebeenrejected.Helatersubmittedanadditionalallegation $" totheeffectthattheConstitutionalCourt'srepeatedrejectionof_amparo_applicationsmadetheman % # ineffectiveremedy.Consequently,heconsiderstherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies p&!$ tohavebeendulymet. `'"% Complaint @)$' 3.1Theauthor'scomplaintconcernsprimarilytherighttoaneffectiveappealagainstconvictionand  +p&) sentence.HearguesthattheSpanishCriminalProcedureAct(Leyde_Enjuiciamiento_ԀCriminal) ,`'* violatesarticles14,paragraph5,and26oftheCovenantbecausethosechargedwiththemostserious -P(+ crimeshavetheircasesheardbyasinglejudge(_Juzgado_Ԁde_Instrucci;n_),whoconductsallthe -@), pertinentinvestigationsand,onceheconsidersthecasereadyforthehearing,refersittothe  ProvincialCourt(_Audiencia_ԀProvincial),whereapanelofthreejudgesisinchargeofproceedings  andhandsdownthesentence.Theirdecisionissubjecttojudicialreviewproceedingsonlyonvery  limitedlegalgrounds.ThereisnopossibilityofareevaluationoftheevidencebytheCourtof  Cassation,asallfactualdeterminationsbythelowercourtarefinal.Bycontrast,thoseconvictedof p lessseriouscrimesforwhichsentencesoflessthansixyears'imprisonmenthavebeenimposedhave `  theircasesinvestigatedbyasinglejudge(_Juzgado_Ԁde_Instrucci;n_)who,whenthecaseisreadyfor P  thehearing,refersittoasinglejudgeadquo(_Juzgado_ԀdeloPenal),whosedecisionmaybeappealed @  beforetheProvincialCourt(_Audiencia_ԀProvincial),thusensuringaneffectivereviewnotonlyofthe 0  applicationofthelaw,butalsoofthefacts.  p  3.2Counselclaimsthat,astheSupremeCourtdoesnotreevaluateevidence,theaboveconstitutes P  aviolationoftherighttohaveone'sconvictionandsentencereviewedbyahighercourtaccording @  tolaw.Inthiscontext,theauthor'slawyercitesthedecisionof9November1993rejectingthe 0  applicationforjudicialreviewfiledonbehalfofMr._Cesario_Ԁ_G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_,thefirstgroundof   whichstates:  0  "sinceitmustalsobepointedoutthatsuchevidencehastobeevaluatedexclusivelybythe  courtadquoinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle741oftheCriminalProcedureAct."(#(# 0  "Theappellantthereforerecognizesthatthereisagreatdealofevidencefortheprosecution p andhisargumentsconsistonlyininterpretingthisevidenceaccordingtohisownwayof ` thinkingandthisapproachisinadmissiblewhentheprincipleofthepresumptionof P innocenceisinvokedbecause,ifitwereallowed,itwouldchangethenatureofthejudicial @ reviewandturnitintoanappeal".0(#(# Thesecondgroundstates: ` 0  "[inthiscase]oftheprinciplein'_dubio_Ԁpro_reo_',theresultisalsorejectionbecausethe @ complainantforgetsthatthisprinciplecannotbethesubjectofareviewfortheobvious 0 reasonthat_that_Ԁwouldmeanreevaluatingtheevidenceandsuchanevaluationis,aswehave   statedandrepeated,notadmissible."!(#(# 3.3Counselfurtherclaimsthattheexistenceofdifferentrecourseprocedures,dependingonthe #! gravityoftheoffence,impliesadiscriminatorytreatmentofpersonsconvictedofseriousoffences, $" constitutingaviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant. % # 3.4Theauthorstatesthatthecommunicationhasnotbeensubmittedtoanotherprocedureof `'"% internationalinvestigationorsettlement. P(#& Stateparty'sobservationsandcommentsonadmissibilityandauthor'scomments 0*%( 4.1Initssubmissionunderrule91oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,theStatepartyrequested ,`'* theCommitteetodeclarethecommunicationinadmissibleforfailuretomeettherequirement -P(+ containedinarticle5,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,namely,exhaustionofdomestic -@), remedies,astheauthorhadnotlodgedanappealwiththeConstitutionalCourt,andreferredinthis  connectiontothepositionoftheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights,whichhassystematically  deniedadmissibilityincasesinvolvingSpainwhenan_amparo_applicationhasnotbeenfiled.The  Statepartyclaimedthattheauthor'sdefencewasinconsistent,ascounselhadstatedinafirst  submissionthathehadnotfiledanapplicationfor_amparo_becausetherighttoanappealisnot p protectedbytheSpanishConstitutionandhadsubsequentlycorrectedthatallegationinasecond `  submissioninwhichhehadstatedthathisfailuretofileanapplicationfor_amparo_hadbeendueto P  theConstitutionalCourt'srepeatedrejectionofsuchappeals.TheStatepartyalsomaintainedthat @  thecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies,sincethisquestion 0  hadneverbeenbroughtbeforetheSpanishcourts.  p  4.2TheStatepartyfurtherclaimedthatthecasewasinadmissiblebecausetheauthorhadabusedhis P  righttosubmitacommunication,ashiswhereaboutswereunknownandhehadplacedhimself @  beyondthereachofthelaw.Lastly,theStatepartyexpresseddoubtsregardingcounsel'srightto 0  representtheauthor,ascounseldidnothavesufficientauthorityandhadnotsoughtthepermission   ofthepreviousdefencecounsel.  5.1Counseladmittedthathehadclaimedinhisinitialsubmissionthatnoeffectiveremedywas  availablebeforetheConstitutionalCourt.Whenherealizedhiserror,hehadmadeanadditional  submission,however,claimingthatthesaidremedywasineffectivebecausetheConstitutionalCourt  hadrepeatedlyrejectedit(ConstitutionalCourtjudgementattached),andhereferredtothe p Committee'scaselawonthispoint.2 ` 5.2.Counseladmittedthattheauthor'swhereaboutswereunknown,butclaimedthatthishadnot @ beenanobstacleinothercaseswhichtheCommitteehadaccepted.Withregardtothedoubtsabout 0 hisrighttorepresenttheauthor,counselregrettedthattheStatepartydidnotclearlyexplainthereal  p reasons,ifany,forsuchdoubts. ` DecisionoftheCommitteeonadmissibility @ 6.1Atitssixtyfirstsession,ofOctober1997,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthe   communication.Itascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol, ! thatthesamematterhadnotbeenexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigation "  orsettlement. #! 6.2TheCommitteenotedthattheStatepartyhadchallengedthecommunicationonthegroundof % # failuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteereferredtoitscaselaw,inwhichithad p&!$ repeatedlyfoundthat,forthepurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol, `'"% domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.WithregardtotheStateparty'sargument P(#& thattheauthorshouldhavefiledanappealfor_amparo_beforetheConstitutionalCourt,the @)$' CommitteenotedthattheConstitutionalCourthadrepeatedlyrejectedsimilarapplicationsfor 0*%( _amparo_.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,inthecircumstancesofthecase,aremedywhichhadno  +p&) chanceofbeingsuccessfulcouldnotcountassuchanddidnotneedtobeexhaustedforthepurposes ,`'* oftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteeaccordinglyfindsthatarticle5,paragraph2(a),ofthe -P(+ OptionalProtocolisnotanobstacletoconsiderationofthecomplaint,whichmightraiseissues -@), underarticle14,paragraph5,andarticle26oftheCovenant.  CommentsoftheStatepartyonthemeritsandauthor'sresponse  7.1Initssubmissiondated31May1999,theStatepartyreiteratesitsviewwithregardtothe p inadmissibilityofthecomplaintbecausetheissueswhicharenowbeingbroughtbeforethe `  Committeewerenotraisedatthedomesticlevel.ItalsobelievesthatthedomesticappealsFrom P  informationsubmittedbytheStateparty,thisrefersonlytotheapplicationfor_amparo_,eventhough @  thepluralform"appeals"isused3inrespectoftheallegationsofviolationofarticle14,paragraph 0  5,andarticle26,oftheCovenantwerenotlodgedontimeandinthecorrectform,resultingintheir  p  dismissal. `  7.2CounselfortheStatemaintainsthattheallegationsmadetotheCommitteeareabstractandaim @  toamendthelawingeneral;theydonotrelatespecificallytoMr._G;mez_Ԁ_Vsquez_,andthereforehe 0  doesnothavethestatusofavictim.Consequently,sincethereisnovictiminthesenseofarticle1   oftheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyconsidersthatthecaseshouldbedeclaredinadmissible.  7.3CounselfortheStatealsomaintainsthat,sinceMr._G;mez_Ԁ_Vsquez_Ԁhasplacedhimselfbeyond  thereachofthelawandisafugitivefromjustice,thecaseshouldbedismissed,sincethe"clean  hands"principlehasbeenviolated.CounselfortheStateconsidersthat,sincethecomplaintwasnot  broughtbeforethenationaljudicialbodies,theauthordoesnothavethecapacitytobethevictimof p aviolationofahumanright,particularlysincenotonlywasnoviolationinvokedatthedomestic ` level,butalsothefactsestablishedbythejudiciarywereexplicitlyaccepted. P 7.4CounselfortheStateaffirmsthatitwasonlyaftertheappointmentofanewlawyerthatthe 0 authorrequestedareviewofallthejudicialproceedings.Healsocontendsthattheappointmentof  p thelawyertoappearattheinternationallevelwasdefectiveintermsofform.Accordingtocounsel ` fortheState,whenappointingalawyeratthedomesticlevel,theauthormadetheappointment P throughapublicdocument,whileattheinternationallevelhedidsobymeansofamerepaper. @ 7.5Astotheallegationofviolationofarticle26,theStatepartymaintainsitsviewalreadyexpressed   atthestageofadmissibilitythattwoseparatetypesofcrimesarebeingcompared,ontheonehand ! themostseriouscrimesand,ontheotherhand,lessseriouscrimes.InthisrespecttheStateparty "  believesthatadifferentiationinthetreatmentofthetwodifferenttypesofcrimescannotpossibly #! constitutediscrimination. $" 7.6Astothequestionofviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,intheauthor'scase,theStateparty p&!$ explainsthatnotonlydidtheauthor'slawyernotraisethequestionofthelackofafullappealorof `'"% acompletereviewoftheproceedingswhenapplyingforareview,buthealsoexplicitlyrecognized P(#& inhissubmissiontotheSupremeCourtthat:"Inclaimingaconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence, @)$' wedonotaimtosubvertordistortthepurposesofanappeal,andconvertitintoasecondjudicial 0*%( instance".Moreover,notonlydidtheauthornotfileanappealfor_amparo_withtheConstitutional  +p&) Courtaftertherejectionoftheappealon9December1993,butalso,andinstead,on30December ,`'* heappliedtotheMinistryofJusticeforapardon,andasafirstpleaaffirmed:"Theconductofthe -P(+ undersignedhasalwaysbeenirreproachable,withtheexceptionofthecrimecommitted,whichwas -@), anisolatedincidentinhislifeandforwhichhehasgivenampledemonstrationsofremorse".Also,  inasubmissiontothecourtofToledo,of14January1994,theauthoraffirms:"Thecrimeforwhich  heisbeingsentencedisanisolatedincidentinhislife,andatalltimeshehasshownaferventand  sinceredesiretobereintegratedintosociety".TheStatepartythereforeconsidersthatitcannotbe  arguedthattherewasaviolationoftheCovenant,sincetheauthorhasacceptedthefactsas p establishedbytheSpanishcourts. `  8.1Theauthor'slawyer,inhisresponsetotheStateparty'sallegationsdated8November1998, @  rejectstheStateparty'scontentionsthatthecommunicationisabstractandtheauthordoesnothave 0  thestatusofavictim,sincetheauthorwassentencedonthebasisofcontradictoryevidenceanddid  p  nothaveanopportunitytorequestareview,orareevaluationoftheevidenceinahighercourt, `  whichtookuponlythelegalaspectsofthesentence. P  8.2Theauthor'slawyerrejectstheStateparty'sclaimthatheisnotauthorizedtorepresenttheauthor 0  sincehesoughtthepermissionofthepreviousrepresentativeofMr._G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_Ԁbefore   beginningtoactinhisdefenceattheinternationallevel;healsocontendsthatneithertheCovenant,  noritsOptionalProtocol,northeCommittee'scaselawrequiresthatrepresentationbycounsel  shouldbeeffectedbymeansofadocumentgrantedbyapublicauthenticatingofficer,sothathe  believesthattheStateparty'sallegationiscompletelygroundless.  8.3AstotheallegationbycounselfortheStatethatarticle26hasnotbeenatissuebecausethere p aretwodifferentcategoriesofcrimesandthereforetheydonothavetobetreatedinthesameway ` underthelaw,theauthor'scounselreiteratesthattheclaimisnotbasedondifferentialtreatmentof P twodifferenttypesofcrimes,butonthefactthatintheSpanishlegalsystem,personsconvictedof @ themostseriouscrimesdonothavethepossibilityofacompletereviewoftheirconvictionsand 0 sentences,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.  p 8.4Withregardtotheallegedrenunciationofhisrightsunderarticle14,paragraph5,bydrafting P theappealdocumentsubjecttothelimitationslaiddownundertheCriminalProcedureAct,counsel @ explainsthatintheSpanishsystemofjudicialappeals,acceptanceofthelegallimitsofappealsmade 0 beforeacourtisaconditionsinequanonfortheappealtobeacceptedforprocessingand   subsequentlyconsidered.Thiscannotpossiblybeinterpretedasarenunciationoftherighttoa ! sentencebeingreviewedinitsentirety.Theauthor'scounselmaintainsthattheauthor'slawyerin "  thedomesticcourtappliedonlyforthepartialreviewallowedunderSpanishlaw,anditisprecisely #! forthisreasonthatthereisaviolationofarticle14,paragraph5;inthisrespect,hecitesthe $" Committee'scaselaw.4 % # 8.5CounselexplainsthattheCommitteeisnotbeingaskedtoevaluatethefactsandevidence `'"% establishedinthecase,amatterwhichinanycaseisbeyonditsjurisdiction,astheStateaffirms,but P(#& merelytoascertainwhetherthereviewofthesentencewhichconvictedtheauthormetthe @)$' requirementsofarticle14,paragraph5oftheCovenant.Counselmaintainsthatthecaselaw 0*%( submittedbytheStateparty,29verdictsoftheSupremeCourt,havenoconnectionwiththedenial  +p&) oftheauthor'srightofappeal.Moreover,acarefulexaminationofthetextsoftheverdictsshowsthat ,`'* theyleadtoconclusionswhicharetheoppositeofthoseclaimedbytheState,sincemostofthem -P(+ recognizethatcriminalappealsaresubjecttoseverelimitationsastothepossibilityofreviewingthe -@), evidencebroughtbeforethecourtofthefirstinstance.ThecriminalsectionoftheSupremeCourt  didnotreviewtheevaluationoftheevidencecarriedoutbythecourtofthefirstinstanceinanyof  thesecasesunlesstherewassomeviolationofthelawortherewasagapintheevidencewhich  wouldsupportaviolationoftherighttopresumptionofinnocenceorifthefactualobservations  madeinthesentencewereincontradictionwithdocumentswhichdemonstratedtheerror. p 8.6TheStatepartyallegesthatarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenantdoesnotrequirethata P  remedyofreviewshouldbespecificallytermedaremedyofappealandthattheSpanishcriminal @  appealfullysatisfiestherequirementsinthesecondinstancealthoughitdoesnotallowreviewof 0  theevidenceexceptinextremecaseswhicharespecifiedinthelaw.Inviewoftheforegoing,  p  counselbelievesthatthecriminalproceedingsagainsthisclientandspecificallythesentence `  convictinghimwerevitiatedbythelackofafullreviewofthelegalandfactualaspects,sothatthe P  authorwasdeniedtherightguaranteedunderarticle26oftheCovenant.5 @  Considerationonthemerits   9.TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofallthe  informationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle5,  paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.  Reviewofadmissibility p 10.1WithrespecttotheStateparty'sclaimofinadmissibilityonthegroundoffailuretoexhaust P domesticremedies,theCommitteehasconsistentlytakentheviewthataremedydoesnothaveto @ beexhaustedifithasnochanceofbeingsuccessful.Inthecaseunderconsideration,thecaselaw 0 oftheSpanishConstitutionalCourtshowsrepeatedandrecentrejectionsofapplicationsfor_amparo_  p againstconvictionandsentence.TheCommitteethereforeconsiders,asitdidupondeterminingthe ` admissibilityofthiscaseon23October1998,thatthereisnoobstacletoitsconsiderationofthe P merits. @ 10.2WithrespecttotheStateparty'sclaimthattheauthorisnotavictimbecausehiscounsel's   objectiveistoamendSpanishlegislation,andthatthecaseisthereforeinadmissible,theCommittee ! pointsoutthattheauthorwasconvictedbyaSpanishcourtandthattheissuebeforetheCommittee "  isnottheamendment,intheabstract,ofSpanishlegislation,butwhetherornottheappeals #! procedurefollowedintheauthor'scaseprovidedtheguaranteesrequiredundertheCovenant.The $" Committeethereforeconsidersthattheauthorcanbeconsideredavictiminaccordancewiththe % # requirementsofarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol. p&!$ 10.3WithrespecttotheStateparty'sallegationthatthecommunicationshouldbedeclared P(#& inadmissiblebecausetheauthorabusedhisrighttolodgeacomplaint,sincehedidnotservehis @)$' sentenceandiscurrentlyafugitivefromjustice,inviolationofSpanishlaw,theCommittee 0*%( reiterates6itspositionthatanauthordoesnotlosehisorherrighttolodgeacomplaintunderthe  +p&) OptionalProtocolsimplybecauseheorshehasnotcompliedfullywithanorderimposedbya ,`'* judicialauthorityoftheStatepartyagainstwhichthecomplaintwaslodged. -P(+  -@), 10.4Lastly,withrespecttothefinalgroundofinadmissibilityclaimedbytheStateparty,tothe  effectthattheauthor'scounseldoesnothavetherighttorepresenthimbeforetheHumanRights  Committee,theCommitteetakesnoteoftheStateparty'sclaim,butreiteratesthatthereareno  specificrequirementsforrepresentationbeforeitandthattheStatepartydoesnotquestionwhether  ornotMr._G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_'scounselrepresentshim,butonlywhethercertainformalitiesthatare p notrequiredbytheCovenanthavebeenfulfilled.TheCommitteethereforeconsidersthatthe `  author'scounselisactinginaccordancewiththeinstructionsoftheprincipaland,therefore, P  legitimatelyrepresentshim. @  Substantiveissues  p  11.1Astowhethertheauthorhasbeenthevictimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,ofthe P  CovenantbecausehisconvictionandsentencewerereviewedonlybytheSupremeCourtonthe @  basisofaprocedurewhichhiscounsel,followingthecriterialaiddowninarticle876etseq,ofthe 0  CriminalProcedureAct,characterizesasanincompletejudicialreview,theCommitteetakesnote   oftheStateparty'sclaimthattheCovenantdoesnotrequireajudicialreviewtobecalledanappeal.  TheCommitteeneverthelesspointsoutthat,regardlessofthenameoftheremedyinquestion,it  mustmeettherequirementsforwhichtheCovenantprovides.Theinformationanddocuments  submittedbytheStatepartydonotrefutetheauthor'scomplaintthathisconvictionandsentence  werenotfullyreviewed.TheCommitteeconcludesthatthelackofanypossibilityoffullyreviewing  theauthor'sconvictionandsentence,asshownbythedecisionreferredtoinparagraph3.2,the p reviewhavingbeenlimitedtotheformalorlegalaspectsoftheconviction,meansthattheguarantees ` providedforinarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenanthavenotbeenmet.Theauthorwastherefore P deniedtherighttoareviewofhisconvictionandsentence,contrarytoarticle14,paragraph5,ofthe @ Covenant. 0 11.2Withregardtotheallegationthatarticle26oftheCovenantwasviolatedbecausetheSpanish ` systemprovidesforvarioustypesofremedydependingontheseriousnessoftheoffence,the P Committeeconsidersthatdifferenttreatmentfordifferentoffencesdoesnotnecessarilyconstitute @ discrimination.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheauthorhasnotsubstantiatedtheallegation 0 ofaviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant.   12.TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocolto "  theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeit #! discloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph5,inrespectofMr._Cesario_Ԁ_G;mez_Ԁ_Vzquez_. $" 13.Underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy. p&!$ Theauthor'sconvictionmustbesetasideunlessitissubjectedtoreviewinaccordancewitharticle `'"% 14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtotakethenecessary P(#& measurestoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinfuture. @)$' 14.Consideringthat,bybecomingapartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognized  +p&) thecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenant ,`'* ornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoall -P(+ individualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenant -@), andtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,the  CommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasures  takentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.  _________________ p *ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent P  communication:Mr._Abdelfattah_ԀAmor,Mr._Nisuke_ԀAndo,Mr._P.N._Ԁ_Bhagwati_,Ms.Christine @  _Chanet_,Lord_Colville_,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.Pilar_Gaitan_Ԁde_Pombo_,Mr.Louis_Henkin_,Mr. 0  _Eckart_ԀKlein,Mr.David_Kretzmer_,Mr._Rajsoomer_Ԁ_Lallah_,Ms.CeciliaMedina_Quiroga_,Mr.Martin  p  _Scheinin_,Mr.Roman_Wieruszewski_,Mr.Maxwell_Yalden_,Mr._Hip;lito_Ԁ_Solari_Ԁ_Yrigoyen_ԀandMr. `  _Abdallah_Ԁ_Zakhia_. P  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theSpanishbeingtheoriginalversion.Itwillsubsequently 0  betranslatedalsointoArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheannualreportoftheCommitteeto   theGeneralAssembly.]  Notes  1/Theauthor'switnessesatthetrialwerehisgirlfriendandhisflatmate,whoclearlyhadcloseties p withhim,whereastheprosecutionwitnessesknewhimonlybysight. ` 2/CommunicationNo.445/1991,Champagne,PalmerandChisholmv.Jamaica.Viewsadopted @ on18July1994. 0 3/FrominformationsubmittedbytheStateparty,thisrefersonlytotheapplicationfor_amparo_, ` eventhoughthepluralform"appeals"isused. P 4/Communications623626/1995,_Domukovsky_Ԁandothersv.Georgia.Viewsadoptedon6April 0 1998.   5/Inthisrespectcounselcitesinformationfromthepressreferringtopartofthejudicial "  memorandumof1998oftheBasqueSupremeCourtofJusticeindicatingthattheSupremeCourt #! ofJusticeoftheBasquecountryconsiderstheneedforreferraltothesecondinstanceincriminal $" casestobeindisputable,since,initsview,thereisnodoubtthatthisshortcomingisnotremedied % # byanappeal. p&!$ 6/Communication526/1993,Willv.Spain.Viewsadoptedon2April1997.