The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to de under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the OptionAl Protocol, that the same matter is not being e.amined under another procedur~ of international investigation or settlement.
With respect Lo the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5, paragraph ~ (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has noted the author's letter, dated 3 June 1988, which indicate. that his legal representative. are currently preparing a petition for leave to appeal to the JUdicial COBmittee of the Privy Council on his behalf. It thus conclude. that one a~ailable rem~ ha. not been exhausted by the author. Article 5, paragr~ph 2 (b), however, precludes the Committee from considering a communication prior to the ~xhaustion of all availbble domestic remedies.
The Humaa Right. Committee therefore decide.1 (a) That the communication is inadmis.ible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That, siace this decision may be reviewed under rule ~ " paragraph 2, of the Committee's pr~visional rules of procedure upon receipt of . written request by or on behalf of the author containing information to the effec_ that the rea.ons for inadmissibility no longer apply, the State party sh~ll be requested, taking into account the spirit and purpose of rule 86 of the Committee's proviRional rulfts 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 requeRt the Committee to review the present decision; (c) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author.
February 1988 (date of initial letter) The Human Rights Committae, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Haeting on 26 JUly 1988, Adopts the followingl lett~r dated 1 June 19£8) i. L. S., a 24-year-old Jamaican citi.en currently awaiting execution at St. Catherine Di.trict ~rison, Jamaica.
The author 60e. not .tate when he w~. convicted and .entenced to death. He .tat.~ that the Jamalc& Court of ApPllal ha. re.erved it. judgement, and that hi. case is being lent to the JUdicial Committee of the Privy Council.
L. S. affirm. that he i. accu.ed of having murdere~ a man who.e body wa. never recovG~ed and whom he claim. he did not know. According to him. the police testified in court that thure wa. proof that a fight had taken Flece betw~en the author aud the victiml the .ole vitne•• ag_inst hl~ wa. the mi••ing man's uncle, who allegedly had had seriou. but unsper:ified differ.nce. with the author.
According to the author, t.he jury at first returned a verdict of not guilty. The Crown's coun.el, however, told it to return to the verdict room and con.ider a guilty verdict. The judge, in turn told the ~ury th~t, if it believed the author's account, it would have to acquit him. The jury, after recon.ideration, ~eturned a verdict of guilty.
Upon regIstering the communication on 21 March 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee instructed the Secretariat to leek further information from the author about a number of issue. pertaining to hil ccmmunication, in particular about the question of exhaulticn of domestic remedies.
By a letter dated 1 June 1988, the author, in re.ponse, informed the Committee that he was still watti~g for the judgement of the Jamaica Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, hA stated that the Jamaica Council for Human Right. W3. preparing a petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee o~ the Privy Council on his behalf, and a London-bftsed lawyer had informed him that he would be willing to assist him for that purpose.
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the 6uman Rj~hts Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of itl provi.lonal rule. at procedure, decide whether or not it ls admissible un~er the Optional Protocol to ~he Covenant.
The Committee hal alcertained, al it i. required to do unde= articie 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the lame matter 1. not being examined under another procedure of 1nternational investigation or .~t~lement.
With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies ander article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has noted the author's letter, dated I June 1988, indicating that he is still awa1clnq the jUdgement of the Jamaica Court at Appeal and that a petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is being prepared on hiw behalf. It thus concludes that available remedies have not been exhausted hy the author. Article 5, paragraph 2 (b), however, precludes the Committee fr"m considering a communication prior to the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decidess (a) That the communication is inl,dmissible under article 5, p~ra9raph 2 (b), of the Opti~nal Protocol 1 (c) That thil decIsIon Ihall be trensmltted to the State party and to the .uth~l. Hot•• A/ Official I.cords of thl alnlral Assembly. r~rty-'Icond SI"ion. Sugglem,nt Ho. iQ (A/42/iO), anne. VIII, .ect. B to D. ~/ 1h1d., Thlrty-.l.tb SI.,i04. Stwglement Ng. 40 (A/36/40), annex XVII. ~/ 1h14., Thirty-ninth SI••ion. Sugg1emlnt No. 40 (A/39/10 and Corr.l and 2), annex VI, general comment 13 (21), para. 4.