The author of the communication (initial letter dated 14 June 1988, further submission dated 12 December 1988) is R. M., a Finnish citizen born in 1956, currently serving a prison sentence in Finland. The author claims to be a victim of a violation by the Government of rinland of articles 7, and 3 (g), and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
On 5 May 1986, the author was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months of imprisonment by the Municipal Court of Helsinki lor having smlAggled into Finland 4.5 kilos of hashish. In July 1986 an accomplice was arrested and a retrial was ordered, in which the author was sentenced, on 12 January 1987, to 8 yearl and 8 month. of imprisonment and to pay a fine of 1 million Finnish markkaa. On 25 March 1988, the Supreme Co~rt dismissed the author's petition for leave to appeal.
The author complains that the Municipal Court admitted into evidence against him testimonies of a mentally disturbed co-defendant, which were allegedly obtained under duress. The author further claims that the policemen who conducted the interrogation made illegal promises in ~~~er to obtain the information and that one testimony was obtained abroad under the threat of extradition.
The author further alleges that the courts did not evaluate fairly the evidence presented by the prosecutor, and that they were unduly influencod by the media. In addition, he allegel that his plea of not guilt.y W8R IlSl'!d flgAinst him and that his sentence was disproportionate in comparison with thnl of 1116 co-defendants. Finally, he allegeG that he was unable to defend IdmsH 1r lHllpt',ly in the Court of Appeal since there were no oral proceedingll.
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the out-.hclI conI nndr. "hat. he has exhausted all domestic remedies inasmuch as all three inBl.nuc·e~ provJelod under the Finnish legal system have already adjudictlt.ed all hili ecH'£!.
In it. IUbmlllion un,Ser rule 91, dated 8 November 1988, the State party confirm! that the author has e.haulted all the domestic remedies available to him. It doe., however, contest the admis.ibility of the communication on the ground that the facts of the ca.e do not reveal any breach of the author's tight,. The State party submit, that the author's allegation that article 7 hal been violated i. unfounded, since the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment stipulated therein does not concern the alleged right of a defendant to have legal aSlistance and a tap8 recorder during the .tage of preliminary investigation. Moreover, the State party contends that the author ha. not adduced any facts which could substantiate his claims that the Finnish authorities violated article 7.
With regard to the ~lleg.d violations of article 14, the State party ob.erv•• that the Human Rights Committee is not a further instance of appeal and, therefore, ie not competent to pronounce on th. proper weighing of evidence or the measurement of sentences. Furthermore, with respect to whether the non-availability of a lawyer and a tape recorder at the preliminary investigation might be deemed a violation of article 14, paragraph 3, the Flnnijh Government notes that upon ratification of the Covenant it made a reservation concerning the right to have legal assistance at the stage of preliminary investigation, and contends that it cannot be assumed that the provisions of article 14 establish a personal right to have one's criminal investigation tap~-recorded.
As to the alleged violation of article 17, the State party argues that serious offences - and in particular offences in which several pGople, drugs and large sums of money are involved - frequently are closely followed by the press and that press coverage in itself can hardly be held to be a violation of the defendant's rights. ,_ 5. Commenting on the State party's submission, the author, in a letter dated 12 December 1988, reiterates his previous allegations and contends that the absence of a lawyer and of a tape recorder at the stage of preliminary i~vestigation makes it impo~sible to prove the condition. of ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected. He fur\~her argues that the weighing of the evidence constitutes the essence of a faic and public hearing by a competent, independent And impartial tribun"l, that he is not Bubmitting his communication to the Committee as an appeal to a fourth instance for a review of his case and that the procedure actually followed by the Finnish system of judicial appeal does not conform to the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the H\~an Rights Committee ~hall, in accordance w.ith rule 87 of its prc',1 sional rules or procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under t.lle Opt.iohal ProtOl:oJ t.o t hA COvflnant.
The author of the communication claims thAt there have been br-eadlea of articles 7, 14, paragraphs land 3 (e) and (g), and 17 of the Covenant.
A thorough eXNnination by the Commi Hee oC all the material Hllbrnittod by the author has not revealed any precise allegations or fact in 6ubstuIIUaHoll of the claim that he is a victim of violations by the ~t8te party of his rights set forth in article 0'. e. Tb. oommunication dOl. not 4i.olose .ny facti in lupport of the author's all.gation that the pre•• oov.r.q8 in hi. ca.e adver.ely affected the procedure. before the oourt.. A. to hi••lleg.tion that the press cover.ge Rar B' constituted • viol.tion of .rticle 17, the Committee not•• that the author has not exhausted dom.stio r.m.di.. ag.inst those claimed to b. responRibl. for the violation of his priv.cy, honour aDd reput.tion.
The Human Ri9htl Committee therefore decidesl (.) Th.t the communication i. ina4mil.ible; (b) Th.t the decision be oommunicated to the author and to the State party concerned.