The author of the communication (initial letter dated 16 January 19n6 and a further letter of 7 September 1987) is A. P., an Italian citizen born on 12 March 1940 in Tunisia, at present residing in France. He claims to be the victim of a violation of articlft 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant by the Italian Government. He is represented by counsel.
The author states that he was convictod on 27 September 1979 by the Criminal Court of Lugano, Switzerland, for complicity in the crime of conspiring to exchange currency notes amounting to the sum of 297,650,000 lire, which was the ransom paid for the release of a person who had been kidnapped in Italy in 1978. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, which he duly served. He was subsequently expelled from Switzerland.
It is claimed that the Italian Goverl~ent, in violation of the principle of DOD-blain idem, is now sleking to punish the author for the same offence as that for which he had already been convincted in Switzerland. He was thus indicted by an Italian Court in 1981 (after which he apparently left Italy for France) and on 7 March 1983 the Milan Court at Appeal ~uJlvictcd him in ablle.nU.a. On 11 January 1985, the Second Division of the Court of Cassation in Rome uph~ld the conviction and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment And A fine of 2 million lire. * Pursuant to rule 85 of the provisional rules of procedure, Committee member Fa\\sto Pocar did not take part in the adoption of the decision. He further rejects the Italian Government'. int.rpretat~.on of this provi.ion a. bein9 applicable only with re9ard to judicial d.cision. of the .ame State and not with regard to deci.ions ot different States
The author further indicates that in 1984 the Italian Gov.rnm.nt addr••••d an extradition requ.st to the Government of France, but that the P~ri. Court of Appeal, by judgem.nt of 13 November 1985, denied e.tradition bec&u.e it would violate French QIdre Publ~ to make the author suffer two term. ot impri.dnment based on the same facts.
The Committee has ascertained that the eame matter ha. uot been submitted to another procedure of international inve.tigation or .ettlement.
By its deci.ion of 19 March 1986, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provi.ional rule. ot procedure to the State party concerned, requesting intormation and observations relevant to the que.tion of the admissibility of the communication, in particular details of the effective remedies available to the author in the particular circumstances of his cale. It also requested the State party to provide the Co~ni~tee with the te.t of any court orders or decisions of r.levance to the ca.e, including the 1981 indictment of the author, the judgement of 7 March 1983 of the Milan Court of Appeal and the judgement ot 11 January 1985 of the Court of Cassation in Rome.
In its submission under rule 91, dated 24 June 1981, the State party provides copies of the court orders and deciwions in the author's case and objects to the admissibility of the communication, which it considers unfoun~ed (Ianl fondement). :n particular, the State party argues that Mr. P. was triod for two different offences in Switzerland and in Italy.
The State party first provides an outline of the factual situation. "A few months after the kidnapping of M. G. M., in Milan on 25 May 1978, and the payment by her family of 1,350 million lire, attempts were made to 'launder' sums deriving from the crime. In particular, on 4 September 1978, a person later identified as J. M. F. attempted to convert into a bank cheque the sum of 4,735,000 lire at the Milan branch of the Banca Na.ionale del Lavorol on 6 September 1918, the same individual negotiated the sum of 120 million lire at several banks in Lugano (Swit.erland)1 on 12 September 1918, again at dJ fferent banks in Lugano, J. M. r., this time accompanied by the author changed 100 million lire into Swiss francs. On that or-cas ion, the Swiss police intervened and J. M. F. absconded, whil~ A. P. was arrested. Some time later, a further sum of 57,650,000 lire was found hidden in a rented car that had been used by J.
In his comm,nte. dated 7 September 1987. the aut:,or contends that his allegations with reapect to a violation of article 1•• paragraph 7. are well founded and argue. that article 14. paragraph 7. of the Covenant should be interpreted broadly. so as to apply to judicial decisions of diftereut States.
Before considering any claimB c,~ntalned in a communication. the Human Rights Committee shall. In accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure. decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Th. Committee notes that t~e State party does not claim t~~t the communication is inadmissible under article 5. paragraph 2. of the Optional Protocol. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a). the Committee observes that the matter complained of by A. P. ha~ not been submitted to another procedure of iLcernational investigation or settlemepl. With regard to article 5. ~araqraph 2 (b). the State party has not claimed that there are domestic r~mftdies which the author could still pursue in his case.
With regard to the admissibility of the communication under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. the Committee has examined the State party's objection that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. since article 14, paragraph 7. or the Covenant, which the author invokes. does not guarantee non biB in idem ~ith regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more State.. The Committee observes th~t this provision prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State.
In the light of the above. the Human R:\.,ght:s Committee concludes that thtt communication is incompatlbld with the provi&ions of the Covenant and thus inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The Human Rights Con~\ttee therefore decidess (a) That the communication is inadmissible' (b) That this decision shall be communicat.ed to the State party and the author of the communicat~on.
COUIDuni(;atlou No. Z}..Ul.9-~~..f-,-C-L-_v-----thJLlle.t.htulADds (Dlci.ioD-A~.d OD 24 Mo~ 1988 at the tbirtY-I~ond .e8Iion) Submitted bys