Th. author of the oommunlcat~oa (l.tt.r dat.d 3 May 1geO, lubl.;u.nt lubmll.10a dat.d 13 D.c.mb.r 19a8) i. J. H., • ,1nal.h oltl••n ~ora in 19S4, ourr.aUy l.rv·lft9 a pdlon I.nt.nc. In rlnland. Th. author clalml to ~. the victim of a ViolAtion ~y the Gov.rameat of 'lnlaa4 of artlal.1 7 and 14, para9raphl 1 and 3 (9), of tb. Int.raatloaal Cov.naat oa Clvll and Political 119htl. a.l Th. autll0~ Itat•• that on S May 1086 the Munialpal Court of H.lllnkl fouad him 9ul1ty of havln9 Imu991ed aad lold ln rlnland IS kl101 of dru9M (halhllh) and lent.ac.d him to I.v.n y.arl' lmprl.oam.nt and to pay a fla. of 311,000 rlnnllh markkaa. OD 17 S.ptember 1987, the Court ot App.al modlfild the l.ntIDc. to 11. and a halt y.arl and r.duc.d the fla. to 378,000 rlRD11h m.rkka.. Oa 21 Jaauary 1088, the Supr.me Court r.fuI.d the author'••ppllc.tlon tor 1.av, to app.al. Th. author thuI olalml to hav•••hault.d dom'ltic r.m.dl,. aval1abl. to him. a.a Thl author allo cl.lml that h. did not Imu991, aay dru,l and that hi m.r.ly 101d 4.6 kl101 of halhllh. He furth.r alll,.1 that the MuniCipal Court ~4mltt.d Into .vldlac. '9alalt him thl te.tlmoay of a m.ntally dl.turbed co-d,f.ndaat who durla9 the trial had r.tract.d hl1 t'ltlmony. Thl1 p,rlon'l t'ltlmony wa. all.g,dly o~t.!a.d uad.r dur••• , la the courl. of .a lat.rl'09atioD laid to have la.t.d from 3 p.m. uatll midnight. Mor.ov.r, h. oont.nd. that the court ba••d it. jUdq.m.at on the h.ar.ay .vld.ac. produced ~y .om. of the ao-d.t.nd.at. la the a.... La.tly, h. cl~iml that the court uI.d hi••arll.r oontl••lon a9alalt him, 10 al to b. abl. to convict him Oft additional char9.1.
By It. d.cll10a of 8 July 1988, the Norkln; Group of the Human light. Commltt•• traaumltt.d the co~\~ftication to the State party, ~.~u••tlng it, und.r rule 11 of the rul•• of proc.our., to provide informatloD and obi.rvation. r,l.vant to the ~u••tloa of the admil.ibllity of the communic.tion. It furth.r r_;u.lt.d tb. Stat. party to provide the Comm~tt•• with thl ID,111h traullatioal of the judgem.ntl of the Municlpal Court of H,lltnki and of the Court of App.al • •
With re9ard to the alleged violation of article l4~ the State party ob.erve. that the Human Rl~hts Committee i. not a furth.r instance of appeal and, therefor., il not competent to pronounce on the proper weighing of evidence or the meas~rement of .entenc.s. In this connection, the State party objects that the author is .ubmitting hi. communication to the Committee a. an appeal to a fourth instance for a further review of hi. ca.e.
Commenting on the State party's submission, the author, in a letter dated 13 Decemb.r 1988, reiterates hi. initial allegations with respect to the lack of incriminatin9 evidence against him. He further ar9ues that, although the Human Right' Committee i. not a further in.tance of appeal with respect to the mea.urement of .entenc.s, neverthelels it should be deemed competent to pronOllDce on the proper weighing of the evidentiary material by domestic courts.
Before considerin; any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee Ihall, 1n accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, deoide whether or not it is admissible under the Option~l Protocol to the Covenant.
The author of the communication claims that there have been breaches of articles 7 and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (9), of the Covenant.
A thorough examination by the Committee of all the material submitted by the author has not reveale~ any fact. in substantiation of the claim that he is a viotim of a viOlation by the State party of his rights set forth in article I.
The Committee observes that the assessment of evidentiary material is essentially a matter for the courts and &uthorities of the State party concerned. The Committee further notes that it is not an appellate court and that alle9ationl that a domestic court has committed er~ors of fact or law do not in themselves raise que.tions under the Covenant unle.s it also appears that some of the requirements of article 14 may not have been complied with. J. H. 's complaints relatin9 to the alleged violations of article 14 do not appear to rftls~ such issue•.
The Human Rights Committee considers that the Duthor has failed to provide evidence to substantiate his claims.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decidesl (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That the decision be communicated to the l\uthCf nnd to thf' fitntf' pArt.y.