The authOr of the communication, dated 18 January 1984, is J. M., who claims to be a Jamaican citizen born in Kinqston, Jamaica, in 1954. He is represented hv Rev. Yves-Jean Gabel, the Director of the Foyer evanaeliaue universel «FEU) in Brussels, Belqium, where he resided without a residence permit at the time of the submission of the communication. It is alleaed that, after losina his passport in Paris on 22 June 1983, he has been unsuccessful in obtaininq a new passport and also unable to return to his home country, Jemaica. A one-paae letter signed bv J. M. authorizina Rev. Gabel to represent him before the Human Riahts Committee is enclosed with the communication.
The facts are described as follows: UQan losinq his passport On 22 June 1983 J.M. obtained, on the same day, a certificate from the Jamaican Consulate in paris confirminq his identity. The certificate was issued for the'puroose of facilitatina his travel to the Jamaican Embassy in Brussels, Belaium, where he hooed to Obtain a new passQOrt. On 7 July 1983, J.M. was denied a new passport at the Jamaican Embassy in Brussels as he was not in possession of a birth certificate. He alleaedly requested the reSPOnsible officer at the EmbassV to contact the competent services in Kinqston in order to provide a birth certificate. Alleaedly, however, the Jamaican Embassy had him evicted from the EmbassV and he was arrested by the Belqian oolice. From 8 to 27 Julv 1983, he was detained in various prisons in Belaium and then deported to France. He went back to the Jamaican Consulate in Paris which, at that stage, also refused to help him and had him arrested by the French POlice# who kept him under rletention for two days. On 18 AUGust 1983, he flew back to Kinqston, Jaaaica, but he was refused entry, because he did not. have a passoort and, allegedly, because the only documents in his possession were in French, and not in Enalish. He waa then made to board an Aeroflot fliqht to Moscow. The followina day, havinq landed at Moscow airport, he was put on a fliqht to Luxemboura, from where he flew to Paris. On 23 ~uqust 1983, he returned to Brussels and was given refuqe at FEU. All his subsequent efforts durinq the months of Auaust to December 1983 and in Januarv 1984 to obtain a passport, includina the intervention of a Belaian attorney, were in vain. -164-
It is stated that the same matter has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investiqat10n or settlement.
By its decision of 22 March 1984, the WOrkinq Group of the Human RiQhts Committee, throuqh a note verbale from the Secretary-General dated 16 Mav 1984, tran~mitted the communication under rUle 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the Permanent Mission of Jamaica to the United Nations Office at Geneva, requestinQ from the State party information and observations relevant to the question of admissibilitv of the communication. The deadline for the State party's 8~bmi8sion under rule 91 expired on 16 July 1984. There was no reply from the State par~v before the adoption of the Com_ittee's decision on admissibility on 26 March 1985.
On th~ basis of the information before it, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5, paraqraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol from considerinq the communication, as the author's indication that the same matter had not been submitted to another procedure of international investiQation or settlement had remained uncontested by the State party. The Co~~ittee was also unable to conclude that in the circumBtances of the case there were effective remedies available to the alleqed victim which he had failed to exhaust. Accordinqly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Opt~onal Protocol. .
On 26 March 1985, the Human Riqhts Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible and reauested the State party, in accordance with article 4, paraqraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of transmittal to it of the decisionl written explanations or statements clarifyinq the matter and the remedy, if any, that miaht have been taken by it. The State party was asked to explain, In particular, why the author had been SUbjected to the treatment he alleqedlv suffered, which miqht raise 1s8ues under articles 1 and 12 of the CO~enant. S.l BV a note dated 23 October 1985, the State party contended that the decision of the Committee to declare the communication admissible was !n~alid, claiminq that it had never received the Secret8ry-General's note of 16 May 1984 transmittinq the WOrkina Group's rule 91 decision and the text of the author's communication. The State party arQued that -this non-receipt by the Jamaican Government of the Secretary-GeneralIs note of 16 May 1984 is important ••• since rule 91, paraaraph 2, of the provisional rules of procedure prOhibits a declaration of admissibilitv of a communication In circumstances where a State part~ concerned has not received the text of the communication and been given an opportunity to comment on it ••• The effect of non-receipt of (J.K.'s) communication was to deprive the Government of Jamaica of an OpPOrtunity to comment on the fulfilment of the pre-conditions set out in article S, paraaraOh 2, of the Optional Protocol for the Committee's consideration of (J.M.'s} communication w • -165-
The State party further exolained that J.M. "arrived in Jamaica on 18 Auoust 1983 and was refused leave to ~and because he was unable tu substantiate his claim that he was a Jamaican-. The State party added "that [J.M.l, who said he had lost his Jamaican passport and also told the Immioration Officers that he hac lived in Jamaica up to three vears prior to the date of his arrival in Jamaica, was unable to provide even the most basic information about Jamaica. For example, he could not say where he was born, whe~e he had lived prior to leavino Jamaica, what school he had attended ~r qive the names of anybody who knew him".
The State party submitted that the suqaestion that J.M. had been SUbjected to treatment Which, in the words of paragraph 2 of the decision "may raise issues under article 7", strained credulity since that article provided protection from cruel, inhuman or deqradinq treatment or punishment, and it was difficult to see how there could be any reasonable basis for even hintina that the Government of Jamaica miqht somehow be in breach of that article. The fact was that on one of the occasions of J.M.'s visits to the Jamaican Consulate in Paris he had behaved boisterously, installed himself in the main entrance of the buildinq, lyina on the carpet, and so conducted himself that it was necessary to call the police who took charqe of him. Clearly in such circumstances there was nothing to substantiate even a suqqestion that J.M. had been subjected to cruel, inhuman or dearadino treatment bV the Jamaican Government. On one of the occasions of J.M.'s visits to the 3amaican Embassy in Brussels he had become noisy and aaqressive and had spent several hours sittinq in the reception area quarrellino boisterously. He had been abusive, had shouted and had viaorously shaken the door le~dina to the Embassy. After several hours of pleadina with J.K. by the staff of the Embassy, who had asked him to leave quietly, it had been necessary to call in the police who came and took charqe of him. I~ those circumstances, any suggestion of conduct on the part of the Government of Jamaica constituting a breach of article 7 would be baseless.
As far as remedies available to J.M. are concerned, the State party indicated that "he could have applied to the relevant Minister of Government under section 10 of the Jamaican Nationality Act to exercise the discretion which the law aives him to issue a certificate of citi~enship in cases of doubtful citizenship. He could also have instituted proceedinqs in the Supreme Court for a declaration that he was a citizen of Jamaica and therefore entitled to enter Jamaica as well as for the issue of the preroqative writ of mandamus compellinq the Government to allow him to enter Jamaica on the around that he is a citl~en of Jamaica".
On 21 November 1985, the text of the State party's submission was transmitted to the author's representative for comments under rule 93, paraqraph 3, of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure. In the circumstances, a copy of the Secretary-Generalis not~ of 16 May 1984, transmittinq to the State party the text of the Workinq Group's rule 91 decision of 22 March 1984 together with the text of the communication in question, was also transmitted to the author's representative.
In the liqht of the abOve considerations, the Committee finds that it is precluded under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol from considerinq the merits of the case and decidesl
The deciBi~n of 26 March 1985 is set aside.
The communication is inadmissible. -167-