I United Nations
| Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Published date | 01 December 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419501300405 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Part B: Human Rights News
IUNITED NATIONS
Manfred Nowak
Human Rights Committee
At its 54th session held at Geneva from 10to 28 July 1995, the Human Rights Committee
adopted 5 final views (on 6 communications) in accordance with Article 5(4) of the first
Optional Protocol (OP) to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and declared
4 communications inadmissible. In all final views violations of the Covenant were found.
Three communications and two views relate to capital punishment in Jamaica. The
brothers Garfield and Andrew Peart (Nos. 464 and 482/1991) were arrested in 1986 and
1987 and in January 1988 convicted of murder en sentenced to death. The death sentence
was later commuted. The Committee found a violation of Article 14(3)(e) CCPR on the
grounds that the police statement of the only eye-witness had not been made available to
the defence and thereby the cross-examination of the witness had been seriously
obstructed. Since the final sentence of death was passed without due respect for the
requirements offair trial, the Committee, in accordance with its established jurisprudence,
also found a violation of the right to life in Article 6, notwithstanding the fact that the
death sentences finally had been commuted. In addition, assaults, maltreatment and death
threats by prison warders on death
row
were considered cruel treatment in violation of
Articles 7 and 10(1) CCPR. The final views in Clement Francis vs. Jamaica (No.
606/1994) is the first case in which the Committee simultaneously decided on admissibility
and on the merits since the communication had already before been inadmissible for non-
exhaustion of domestic remedies and since the Government had not objections. Mr.
Francis had been arrested in February 1980 and in January 1981 convicted
of
murder and
sentenced to death. His appeal was dismissed by oral judgement of the Court of Appeal
in November 1981 but the written judgement was not issued for more than 13 years. This
was considered a violation of Article 14(3)(c) and Article 14(5) but not of Article 6.
Regular beatings and maltreatment by prison warders on death row were found to
constitute violations of Articles 7 and 1
O(
1).
Another violation of the right to fair trial was established in Isidora Barroso vs.
Panama (No. 473/1991). She submitted the communication on behalf
of
her nephew, mr.
del Cid, a military officer who had been arrested in December 1989, several days after the
intervention of US troops in Panama. He was indicted, allegedly on political charges, on
1 February 1990 but not tried until the summer of 1993. The Committee considered a
delay of
312
years between indictment and trial an 'undue delay' and found a violation
of
Article 14(3)(c) CCPR.
Political issues were also involved In Jong-Kyu Sohn vs. Republic
of
Korea (No.
518/1992). Mr. Sohn, president of a trade union, in February 1991 issued a statement in
which he supported a strike and condemned the Government's threat to send in troops.
Under the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act which prohibits third party intervention into
labour disputes he was arrested and sentenced to 1
Yz
years' imprisonment. The Committee
found a violation
of
the right to impart information and ideas in Article 19(2) since this
serious restriction of freedom of expression could not be justified as necessary for the
purpose of protecting national security and public order.
441
To continue reading
Request your trial