Inadmissibility decision; Substantive issues: accused persons / convicted persons fair trial; Articles: 14 (1); Procedural issues: victim status; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
T. Communication No. 3768/1989, £. B. vw. italy
(Decision of 26 March 1990, sdopted at the
thirty-eighth session)
Submitted by: BE. E. (name deleted)
Alleged victimes: The author and M. M.
State party concerned: Italy
Pate of somnunication: 19 April 19686 (date of initial letter)
The Human Rights Committees, established under article 28 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meating on 26 March 1990,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. ‘The authof of the communication ‘(initial submission dated 19 April 1988 and
subsequent correspondence) is E. E., a Bangladeshi citisen currently detained at
the Regina Coeli Prison in Rome. He submits the communication on his own behalf
and on that of his business associate, M. M., who is cetained at the same
institution. They claim to be victims of a violation of their human rights by
Italy.
2.1 It de stated that the author and Mr. M. were engaged in business activities in
Italy prior to their arrest on 23 January 1986 in Rome. The author indicates that
on 24 December 1987, a suitcase belonging to himself and Mr. M., containing among
other items $US 4,500 in cash, was stolen by other Bangladeshi citisens then
residing in Rome. These citisens were known to the author, who, together with
Mr. M., sought to recover the suitcase and the money during the following month.
On 23 January 1988, in a Rome market, the author claims they were attacked with a
dagger by one of the thieves, one Mr. J. In the course of thy struggle, Mr. J. waa
injured, and upon their return to their hotel, they were arreated. It appears that
Mr. J. subsequently died of his injuries.
2.2 The author alleges that there has been a "conspiracy" by some Bangladeshi
citisens, reportedly all criminal elements, against him and Mr. M. Some time
during the epring of 1989 (no date is given), the Tribunal of Rome sentenced them
to 16 years imprisonment, apparently on a conviction of manslaughter. It is
Claimed that in the course of the trial, the Italian police called a false witness
and also produced evidence that the author and Mr. M. had intended to kill the men
who had stolen the suitcase. It is submitted that there was no evidence on the
basis of which the author and Mr. M. could have been convicted. The author accuses
the Tribunal and the Italian judicial authorities of “racism” in this connection,
without further specifying the charge.
2.3 By the time of the author's initial submission, the case had not been
adjudicated by the Italian courts. By letters dated 21 July 1988 and 26 May 1989,
the author was informed by the Secretariat about the conditions for submission of
-201-
communicat/ons under the Optional Protocol. Ina the euthor's latest submission,
dated 23 June 1989, no mention is made of an appeal against the sentence pronounced
by the Tribunal of Rome in the spring of 1989.
2.4 It ie stated that the matter has not been submitted to another inetance of
international investigation or settlement.
3.1 Refore considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human ltighte
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 submitted by the author. On the
basis of the information before the Committee, it appears that the author primarily
Claims bias on the part of the court, in particular in respect of the evaluation by
the trial judge of the evidence presented, which is said to have been
“fabricated”. While article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right to a fair
trial, it is in principle for the appellate courts of States parties to the
Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in any particular case, unless it can be
ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were clearly arbitrary
Or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee reiterates that the review of
generalised claims of bias is beyond the scope of application of article 14. a/ In
the circumetances, the Committee considers that the author has no claim under
article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
4. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) The communication is inadmissible;
(b) This decision shall be transmitted to the authors and, for information,
to the State party.
Notes
B/ See communication No. 369/1989 (G. S. v. Jamaica), inadmissibility
decision of 8 November 1989, para. 3.2.
-202-