Inadmissibility decision; Substantive issues: accused persons / convicted persons fair trial; Articles: 14 (1); [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
ce ris ALANA Oe EERE: EOE EPTESUNS ©:427RET PMO TT LO PONTE RAIS AY IIRETIRNSINT NST SORTS arrscm s curmriaree wn
Q. Communication No. 329/1988. D, FP. v. Jamaica
(Decigion of 26 March 1990, adopted at the
thirty-eighth session)
Submitted by: D. F. [name deleted]
Alleged victim: ‘The author
State party concerned: Jamaica
Date of communication: 6 May 1988 (date of initial letter)
The Human Rights Committes. established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Naeating on 26 Narch 1990,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. ‘The author of the communication (initial letter dated 6 May 1988 and subsequent
correspondence) is D. F., a Jamaican citisen born in 1954, currently serving a
i2-year prison term at St. Catherine Dietrict Prisen, Jamaica. He claims to be the
victim of a violation of his human rights by Jamaica.
2.1 The author indicates that he was convicted of felonious wounding by the
Circuit Court in Spanish Town on 24 January 1986 and sentenced to 12 years of hard
iebour. He claims to be innocent of the crime,
2.2 The author, a shopkeeper, states that on 10 March 1985 he was involved in a
fight with one younger brother of the victia, BE. &., who had allegedly insulted hin
ard tried to steal several bottles of liquor from his shop. On 19 March 1985,
stones and a bottle were Chrown at his shop, destroying several windows. The
author claims that at the time of the crime he was at his shop repairing the damage
perpetrated earlier that day, and that he was not the person who, in a fight, had
eut four fingers off the victina‘’s hand.
2.3 The author alleges that the testimony of the prosecution's main witness, one
R. B., an acquaintance of the victim and of the author, was entirely fabricated.
He further claims that the judge misdirected the jury, both about the evaluation of
Me. B.'s testimony, by stating that she was testifying on his behalf, and about the
conflicting evidence presented by the public prosecutor and by the author.
2.4 On 16 December 1986, the author's appeal was diamissed by the Court of Appeal
of Jamaica. The author states that he cannot afford to file a petition for special
leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because he lacks the
financial means to do sc. A request for legal aid to the Jamaica Council for Human
Rights spparently remains unanswered. It appears, however, that the author has not
formally applied for legal aid under section 3, paragraph 1, of the Poor Prisoners’
Defence Act.
#189
3. By decision of 24 October 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights
Committee tranemitted the communication to the State party and requested it, under
rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant
to the question of the admiesibility of the communication. It further requested
the author to provide several clarifications about his efforts to apply for special
leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In several
subsequent submissions the author claims, in essence, that the judge misdirected
the jury, in the light of the contradictory evidence that was put before the jury
and which it was for the jury to accept or reject.
4. In its submission under rule 91, dated 20 January 1989, the State party argues
that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2, of the
Optional Protocol, on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, because
the author did not apply, pursuant to section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, for
special leuve to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
5.1 Before considering any claims cont ‘ed in a communication the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule ./ of its rules of procedure, decide
whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.
5.2 The Committee has considered the material submitted by the author. From this
information it appears that the author claims that the judge misdirected the jury,
in the light of the contradictory 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 States
parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case. a/ It
is not in principle for the Committee to review specific instructions to the jury
by the judge in a trial by jury, unless it can be ascertained that the instructions
to the jury were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The
Committee has no evidence that the trial judge's instructions suffered from such
defects. Accordingly, the author has no claim under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.
6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) The communication is inadmissible;
(b) This decision shall be transmitted to the author and to the State party.
Notes
a/ = See communication No. 369/1989 (G. S. v. Jamaica), inadmissibility
decision adopted on 8 November 1989, para. 3.2.