CCPR/C/33/D/227/1987

weight in interpreting the scope of the Christian object clause and that the authors would have stood a reasonable chance of challenging the Christian object clause of the D~y Nurseries Act and the prevailing practice as to their compatibility with the Covenant had they submitted the case to the Norwegian courts; the Committee notes further that there was a possibility for an expeditious handling of the authors' case before the local courts. The Committee finds, accordingly, that the pursuit of the authors' case before Norwegian courts could not be deemed a priori futile and that the authors' doubts about the effectiveness of domestic r,~medies did not absolve them from exhausting them. Thus, the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional ~rotocol have not been met. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decisioh shall be communichted to the authors of the communication and to the State party. D. Communication No. 227/1987, Q. W. y. Jamaica (Decision adopted on 26 July 1988 at the thirty-third session) Submitted ~: O. W. [name deleted] Alleged victim: The author State party gOncerned: Jamaica Date of commupication: 2 March 1937 (date of initial letter) Tbe Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meetipg on 26 July 1988, Adopts the following: Decision On admissibility 1. Tbe author of the communication (initial letter dated 2 March 1987 and a subsequent letter dated 1 May 1987) is O. W., a Jamaican citizen, awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison in Jamaica. He claims to be innocent of the crimes imputed to him and alleges irregularities in the various judicial proceedings leading to his death sentence. 2.1 O. W. states that in June 1974 he was questioned by the police in connection with a robbery, in the course of which two suspects had allegedly killed a female employee of an unnamed institution. Although the author explained to the police officers that he did not know the men in question or. anything about the incident under investigation, he was taken to the scene of the crime, where two witnesses allegedly stated that he was not one of the men they had seen. NevertheleSB O. W. was detained and taken to the police station for furtl!er investi9at!on. When he was told to .tand in line for purpo~e. of identification, he requ••t.d the presence of a lawyer or of a member of his famUy, all alleged1y I:'l'ovided in Jamaican law, but hi. request was not grant.d. On 14 Auqust 1~74, he ~a6 allegedly tried, fOllnd guilty and .entftnced to "indefinite detention" for po.a••sion of a tirearm. The author claim. that no firearm was found in hi. po•••••i04 and none was produced in court. 2.2 On 25 November 1975, a ••cond tri~l took place before the Home Circuit Court. O. W. does not .pecify the chftr~e. again.t him in the second t~ial, but, lrt~' the ov~rall cont••t of his lett5r, they appe~r to have bften mur.de~ charges stemming from the robb.ry in June 1974 dur~ng which a woman was killed. A. the jury could not arrive at a unanimous verdict, the judg* ordered a new trial which took place on 13 July 1076. After being convicted and .entenced to d.ath, the author app.al.d te the :o~rt of App.al, which, on 17 April 1977, order.d a new trial on the qroundl of "unfair idf"ntification". The new trial took plac. in July 1978 and O. W. was again convict.d and .entenced to death. Hi••econd appeal to the Court of App.al w~. dismi••ed in Oec.mber 1980. He ~aintains hi. innocec. and claim. that the .ole witness again~t him wa. \nltructed by the police to Id.ntify him a. on. of th. su.pect. and that defence el:hibits from previous proceedings, whicl,·,er. to be us.d to imp.ach the witn.ss and which were supposed to be in the pO•••• h,1D of the court, could not be found for his trial in 1978. O. W. did not mention in hi. initial letter wh.ther h. had fil.d a petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of ~h. Privy Council. 3. By doci.ion of 8 April 1987, the Human Rights Committee r.~u.st.d o. W., und.r rule 91 of th. Committe.'. provisional rules of proce~ure, to furnisL clarification. on a I,umb.r or is.ue. r.latinq to hi. communication and lranEmltted the comm\ nicatioi. ror information to the State party, reque.ting it, under rule 86 of the provisional rule. of proc.dure, not to carry out the death sentence aqainst the author b.to:,e the Committee had had an o,tlportunity to consider further t.~1J que.tion of th. admi••ibility of the communication. By letter dated 1 May 1987, the author provided a n\lmbe. of clarifi~ationl and state~ that the Jamaica Council for Human Right. had fileo a petition on hi. behalf for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, indicating that this appeal, to the be.t of hi. knowledge, was still pendinq. 4. By a telegram dated 23 July 1987 addres.ed to t~. Deputy Prime Mini.ter and Minister for Foreiqn Affair., the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee informed the State party that the consideration of the que.tion ~I admis.ibility of the communication would be further delayed and reiterated the Committee's reque.t that the death sentence against o. W. should not be carried out bdlore the Committee had had an opportunity to con.ider further the question nf the admi••ibility of the communi~ation. By a letter dated 11 October 1987, the auth01'~ ~ounsel informed the Committee that the .Judicial Committee of the Privy Conncil h8d granted the aut.hor' 8 petition for special leave to appeal on 8 Octo'oer 1987 and would conduct a hearing on the merits of the case at a dat6 to be determined. He requested the Committee to P08tpo~e consideration of the case pending the outcome of the author's appeal to the Judicial Committ.e of the Privy Council, 5.1 Before considering any r.laims contained in a communication, the Human Kights Committee must, in accordance with rule 8? of its prov18ion~1 rul~5 of procedure, decide whether ur not it is adrnissib~e under t~e Optional Protorol to the Covenant, l51- 5.2 The Committee hdl alcertained al it 1. required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the lame matter il not being examined un~er another procedure of international inve.tigation or settlement. 5.3 With ~e.pect to the requirement ot exhaultion of dom,.tic ~ernedie. under article 5, paragraph l (b), of tho Optional Protocol, th~ CO~littee ha. noted the letter from the author', counlel, dated 11 October 1981, indicating that the JUdicial Committee of the Privy Council granted the author'. petition for special leave to appeal and would conduct a hQaring on the merits of the caae at a date to be determined. It thus concludes that one available remedy has not been exhaulted by th. author. Article 5, paragraph 2 (b), however, precludes the Committee from con.idering a comm~nication prior to the exhaultion of all available domestic r_medie•• 6. The Buman Rightl Committee therefore decide. 1 (a) That the communication i. inadmi8sible un~er article 5, paragraph 2 (b), ('f the Optionel Protoc\>l, (b) Thet, .inee this d~ei.ion may be reviewed under rule 02, paragraph 2, of the Committee's provllion&1 rules of pl'ocedure upon recelpt of a written requelt by or on behalf of the author containing information to the effect th~t the rea.~n. for inadmi,.ibility no longer apply, the State party qhall ba requested, taking into account the spirit and purpose of rule 86 of the Committee'8 pr~vi8ional rulel of procedure. not to carry out the deetn lent8nce aqainlt the author bel ore he has hmd a reD80nable time, after compleLing th8 effective dome8tic remedies &vailable to him, to request the Committee to review the present decislonl (c) That. this deci8ion shall be tran8mitted to the State party and to the author. E, comnunicatioD N.o.... ~28/1987.L ..c.. _J..... D.

y. fi-A.W:Jl (Deci,ion adopted OD 18 July ~6 at the thirty-third lelsion) Submitted byl C. L. D. [name deleted] Alleged victim. The author. Stat. party cODcernedl rrance DAte of communicatiODI 16 May 1981 (date of initial letter) The Humaa Right. Committe., established under article 28 of the InternatJonal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 18 July 1988, Adopts the followlngl -252-