Communication No. 252/1987*
Submitted by: X (name deleted) on 9 September 1987
Alleged victim: The author
State party: S
Date of decision: 13 November 1987 (thirty-first session)
Human Rights Committee
Thirty-first Session
Subject matter: Claim of innocence by individual under
death sentence, awaiting execution
Procedural issues: Interim measures of protection--Exhaustion of domestic
remedies--Request for further information from author
Exhaustion of domestic remedies--Request for further information
from author
Substantive issues: Fair trial--Review of conviction and sentence
Articles of the Covenant: 6 (4) and 14 (5)
Article of the Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b)
Rules of Procedure: 86 and 91
Decision under rule 86 and rule 91
The Human Rights Committee,
Noting that the communication is submitted by a person under sentence
of death, X,
Considering that further factual information would be needed from
the author before the Committee can consider the question of the admissibility
of the communication,
Relying on the willingness of the Government of S to co-operate
with the Committee at this early stage in the consideration of the subject-matter,
Decides:
1. To transmit the communication, for information, to
the State party and to request the State party, under rule 86 of the Committee's
provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against
X before the Committee has had an opportunity to consider further the question
of the admissibility of the present communication;
2. To request the author (a) to describe, in as detailed a manner as possible,
the treatment receive
Hunts Bay police station on 5 April 1984; (b) to specify when he
was informed of the charges against him, and when he was brought before
a judge or judicial officer; (c) to explain what he considers to
have been unfair in the conduct of his trial and appeal; (d) to clarify
whether he was assisted by a lawyer in the preparation of his defence and
during the trial and appeal; (e) to clarify whether he had adequate opportunity
to consult with his lawyer prior to and during the trial and appeal; (f)
to clarify whether the witnesses against him were cross-examined; (g) to
clarify whether he or his lawyer sought to have witnesses testify on his
behalf and, if so, whether these witnesses were given the opportunity to
testify under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (h) to
elaborate on his allegation that only poor persons are on death row, because
"they have neither money nor friends"; and (t) to clarify whether
legal aid was offered to him during his trial and appeal and whether it
is now available for petitioning for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council;
3. Further to request the author to provide the Committee with the text
of the written judgement of the trial court and the written judgement of
the Court of Appeal;
4. To request the author under rule 91 to provide the information sought
not later than I February 1988;
5. That any reply received from the author be communicated to the State
party for information;
6. That this decision be communicated to the author and to the State party.
* Not previously published in the annual
report of the Human Rights Committee.