13 November 1987


Communication No. 252/1987


human rights committee

  Thirty-First Session  
  26 October 13 November 1987  







  Return Home
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Joseph A.L. Cooray (Sri Lanka), Mr. Birame Ndiaye (Senegal), Mr. Fausto Pokar (Italy)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Vojin Dimitriyevic (Yugoslavia)
MEMBERS: Mr. Andres Aguilar (Venezuela), Mr. Nisuke Ando (Japan), Ms. Christine Chanet (France), Mr. Omran El-Shafei (Egypt), Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom), Mr. Rajsoomar Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Andreas V. Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Joseph A. Mommersteeg (Netherlands), Mr.Anatoly P. Movchan (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Mr. Alejandro Serrano Caldera (Nicaragua), Mr. S. Amos Wako (Kenya), Mr. Bertil Wennergren (Sweden), Mr. Adam Zielinski (Poland)

Except for the absence of Mr. Aguilar all the members attended the thirty-first session. Pursuant to rule 85 of the provisional rules of procedure, Committee member Christine Chanet did not take part in the adoption of the decision.

PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1987.11.13_X_v_S.htm
Citation: X. v. S., Comm. 252/1987, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, at 4 (HRC 1987)
Publications: Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, Vol. II, at 4, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, U.N. Sales No. E.89.XIV.1 (1990)

The Human Rights Committee,


Noting that the communication is submitted by a person under sentence of death, X,


Considering that further factual information would be needed from the author before the Committee can consider the question of the admissibility of the communication,


Relying on the willingness of the Government of S to co-operate with the Committee at this early stage in the consideration of the subjectmatter,




1.         To transmit the communication, for information, to the State party and to request the State party, under rule 86 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against X before the Committee has had an opportunity to consider further the question of the admissibility of the present communication;


2.         To request the author (a) to describe, in as detailed a manner as possible, the treatment receive

Hunts Bay police station on 5 April 1984; (b) to specify when he was informed of the charges against him, and when he was brought before a judge or judicial officer; (c) to explain what he considers to have been unfair in the conduct of his trial and appeal; (d) to clarify whether he was assisted by a lawyer in the preparation of his defence and during the trial and appeal; (e) to clarify whether he had adequate opportunity to consult with his lawyer prior to and during the trial and appeal; (f) to clarify whether the witnesses against him were cross-examined; (g) to clarify whether he or his lawyer sought to have witnesses testify on his behalf and, if so, whether these witnesses were given the opportunity to testify under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (h) to elaborate on his allegation that only poor persons are on death row, because "they have neither money nor friends"; and (t) to clarify whether legal aid was offered to him during his trial and appeal and whether it is now available for petitioning for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;


3.         Further to request the author to provide the Committee with the text of the written judgement of the trial court and the written judgement of the Court of Appeal;


4.         To request the author under rule 91 to provide the information sought not later than I February 1988;


5.         That any reply received from the author be communicated to the State party for information;


6.         That this decision be communicated to the author and to the State party.


[Not previously published in the annual report of the Human Rights Committee.]






home | terms & conditions | copyright | about


Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.