CCPR/C/37/D/369/1989

S. Communication No, 3269/1989, G. §. v. Jamaica

{Decision of § November 1989, adopted at the

thirty-seventh seasion)

Submitted pay: G. 8S. (name deleted]

Alleged victim: The author

State party concerned: Jamaica

Date of communication: 25 May 1989 (date of initial letter)

The Human Rights Committea, established under article 28 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 8 November 1989,

Adopts the foilowing:

Decision on admisaibility*

1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 25 May 1989 and

subsequent submission) is G. S., a Jamaican citisen currently awaiting execution at

St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of a violation

by Jamaica of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. He is represented by counsel.

2.1 The author states that he was arrested on 14 June 1983 and charged, together

with Mr. A. W. a/, with murder, on 13 June 1983, of one R. H. He was tried in the

Westmoreuland Circuit Court, convicted and sentenced to death on 7 June 1984. The

Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 7 April 1986. A subsequent petition for

special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was

dismissed on 4 May 1989.

2.2 The author states that on 13 June 1983 he was working in his cane field, when

Mr. H. approached him and attacked him with a knife. in the course of the ensuing

struggle, the assailant sustained head injuries. Afterwards, he stopped a passing

police car and informed the police officer of the incident. This officer

reportedly asked the author and his co-defendant to carry the wounded man to the

back of the police car and then drove to the hospital. Later that day, the same

officer informed the author that Mr. H. had died and proceeded to arrest him. The

following day he was charged with murder.

2.3 According to the author, his trial in the Circuit Court was unfair. Thus, the

judge is said to have solicited evidence which would not be admissible in law.

Furthermore, the judge allegedly misdirected the jury on the issue of self-defence,

thus depriving the author of the possibility of a conviction of manslaughter or of

an acquittal.

w The text of an individual opinion by Ms. Christine Chanet is reproduced

in the appendix.

-198-

2.4 It is stated that the case has not been submitted to any other instance of

international investigation or settlement.

3.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication the Human Rights

Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide

whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

3.2 The Committee has considered the material cubmitted by the author's counsel,

including the author's petition for special leave to appeel to the Judicial

Comnittee of the Privy Council. From this information, it appears that the author

claims bias of the court, in particular in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of

the judge's instructions to the jury, in the light of the evidence that was put

before the jury and which it was for the jury to accept or reject. While

article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right to a fair trial, it is for the

appellate courts of the States parties of the Covenant to evaluate facts and

evidence in a particular case. b/ Thus the review, by the Committee, of specific

instructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury or of generalised claims

of bias is beyond the scope of application of article 14. In the circumstances,

the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible as incompatible with

the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

4. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a) The communication is inadmissible;

(b) This decision shall be transmitted to the author, to his counsel and, for

information, to the State party.

Notes

B/ = =s Mr. -W's communication No. 290/1988 was declared inadmissible by the

Committee on 8 November 1989.

b/ = For an application of this principle, see communication No. 201/1985

(Hendriks v. Netherlands), final views adopted on 27 July 1988, para. 10.4.

-199-

As emphasised by the Committee in the case of communication No. 369/1989, it

is within the competence of national courts, particularly appeal courts, to assess

the fairness of the conditions in which a trial takes place.

However, this competence cannot exclude that of the Committee in

implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When a

communication ia submitted to it, the Committee assesses whether the trial was

conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant.

At the admissibility stage, the Committee proceeds to a prima facie review of

the applicant's grievances. The author of this communication challenges the

regularity of the judge's conduct of the hearing.

It is therefore my view that, while the facts adduced by the applicant could

be regarded as insufficently substantiated, they could not be declared incompatible

with the provisions of the Covenant on the basis of article 3 of the Optional

Protocol.

-200-