CCPR/C/39/D/278/1988

of 13 July 1990, adopted at the thirty-ninth sogsion)

Submitted by: N. C. [name deleted]

Alleged victim: The author

State party concerned: Jamaica

Datie of communication: 8 February 1988 (date of initial letter)

Committee, established under article 28 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 13 July 1990,

Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1. The author of the communication (initial communication dated 8 February 1988

and subsequent correspendence) is N. C., a Jamaican citizen currently awaiting

execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of

a violation of his human rights by Jamaica.

2.1 The author states that he was sentenced to death on 12 February 1985 for the

murder of a boy which bad occurred in March 1982. The Jamaican Court of Appual

Gismissed his appeal on 1 December 1986.

2.2 The author states a/ that he was convicted primarily on the evidence of one

prosecution witness. This witness testified that on the night of the crime, at

about 3 a.m., he and the deceased were walking down a road when ha heard a shot.

He began to run down the road; turning back after a few moments, he saw the

accused, who was holding a short gun, with two of his friends standing next to a

gate. The author asserts that thie witness, when cross-examined during the trial

by his legal aid attorney, made several contradictory statements; still, the

evidence was admitted by the judge. It is also stated that prior to the opening of

the trial, the witness was seen talking to the police for an entire morning. Asked

by the author's lawyer what had been the subject of the discussion with the police,

the witness allegedly failed to answer. According to the author, it would have

been possible to prove that he was confined to bed when the murder occurred. He

states that he had just been released from the hospital following an operation, and

that he could prove this. He further states that there were witnesses who could

have testified on his behalf; they did not do so, according to the author, because

they were never informed of the trial date.

3. By decision of 21 March 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee

transmitted 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 che admissibility of the communication. It further requested the State

party, under rule 86 of the rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence

against the author while his communication was under consideration by the Committee

-166-

4. In its submission under rule 91, dated 20 July 1988, the State party argues

that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the

Optional Protocol, on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, because

the author may still apply, under Section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, for

special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The State

party further indicates that legal aid would be available to N. C. for that purpose

under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act.

5. In his comments, dated 28 September 1988, the author states that he

unsuccessfully requested assistance from the Jamaica Council for Human Rights for

the purpose of filing a petition for svecial leave to eppeal to the Privy Council.

By further letters dated 17 May and 22 June 1989, he indicates that a London law

firm has agreed to assist him for the purpose of filing such a petition, adding,

however, that his case "is not ready to be tried in the Privy Council”, presumably

because of the unavailability of relevant court documents. He therefore requests

the Committee to postpone consideration of his communication until the Privy

Council has adjudicated his case.

6.1 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.

6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5,

paragraph 2 ‘a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not Leing

exemined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

6.3 With regard to the requiremeat of exhauscavn of domestic remedies, the

Committee has taken note of the State party's contention that the communication is

inadmissible because of the author's failure to petition the Judicial Committee of

the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, pursuant to Section 110 of the

Jamaican Constitution. It observes that the author has secured pro bono legal

representation from a London law firm for this purpose, after submitting his

communication to the Human Rights Committee, and that his representative continues

to investigate the possibility of filing a petition for special leave to appeal on

his behalf. While expressing grave concern about the apparent unavailability of

relevant court documents in the case, the Committee cannot conclude that a petition

for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council must be

considered a priori futile. It therefore finds that the requirements of article 5,

paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met.

7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b),

of the Optional Protocol;

(b) That the State party be requested to make the written judgment of the

Court of Appeal available to the author without further delay, so as to permit an

effective recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and to ensure

that adequate legal aid be made available to the author;

(c) That, since this decision may be reviewed under rule 92, paragraph 2, of

the Committee's rules of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or on

behalf of the author containing inforration to the effect that the reasons for

inadmissibility no longer apply, the State party is requested, taking into account

-167-

the spirit and purpose of rule 86 of tie Committee's rules of procedure, not to

carry out the death sentence against the author before he has had a reasonable

time, after completing the effective domestic remedies available to him, to request

the Committee to review the present decision;

(a) That this decision shall be tranemitted to the State party and to the

author.

Notes

a/ The suthor's account is confusing. The secretariat has endeavoured to

reflect what appears to be the intended meaning.

~168-