relevant in interpreting article 6 (1), as noted in some of the individual opinions. death. No less than five members of the Committee dissented from the Committee’s Views, precisely on the nature, operation and interpretation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. The reasons which led those five members to dissent were individually expressed in separate individual opinions which are appended to this separate opinion as A, B, C, D and E. In the case of the separate opinion at E, only the fact that appears most relevant is reproduced (paragraph 19 to 25). It is also encouraging that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that in similar cases assurances must, as the Committee notes, be obtained, subject to exceptions. I wonder to what extent these exceptions could conceptually be envisaged given the autonomy of article 6 (1) and the possible impact of article 5 (2) and also article 26 which governs the legislative, executive and judicial behaviour of States parties. That, however, is a bridge to be crossed by the Committee in an appropriate case. My second observation is that other provisions of the Covenant, in particular, articles 5 (2) and 26, may be Communication No. 836/1998 Submitted by: Kestutis Gelazauskas (represented by K. Stungys) Alleged victim: The author State party: Lithuania Views: 17 March 2003 combination of blows to his body and stabs to his eyes, heart and lungs. There were 27 injuries on the victim's body and an attempt to saw off his leg. Several witnesses alleged that they had been told by the defendants that both of them had killed the victim. Both defendants were found guilty as charged and were sentenced to the same period of imprisonment. Subject matter: Impossibility for a convicted to file a cassation appeal against his/her sentence/ conviction Procedural issues: Incompatibility ratione materiae with provisions of the Covenant Substantive issues: Right to a fair trial -Right to have his/her sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal - Right not to be compelled to testify against oneself 2.2 Applications for cassation motions were made on behalf of the author on four occasions but a review of the author’s case was always denied. On 28 September 1995, the author's mother made an application for cassation motion.1 On the same day, the author's counsel made a similar application for cassation motion, which was rejected by the chairman of the Division of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court on 8 December 1995. On 2 April 1996, the author's counsel made another application for cassation motion, which was also rejected by the chairman of the Supreme Court. Finally, on 15 April 1996, the author's counsel made a last application for cassation motion which was rejected on 12 June 1996. Articles of the Covenant: 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (g), and 5 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 3; 5, paragraph 2 (a) Finding: Violation (article 14, paragraph 5) 1. The author of the communication, dated 14 April 1997, is Mr. Kestutis Gelazauskas, a citizen of Lithuania and currently serving a prison term of 13 years in Pravieniskes penitentiary No. 2, Lithuania. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Lithuania of article 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (g) and 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). He is represented by counsel. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant on the grounds that he had no possibility to make an appeal against the judgement of 4 May 1994. In this case, the court of first instance was the Supreme Court and, under the State party's legislation, its judgements are not subject to appeal. Such a judgement may be reviewed by an application for cassation motion to The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 4 May 1994, the author was sentenced, together with a co-defendant, to 13 years' imprisonment for the murder, on 20 March 1993, of Mr. Michailas Litvinenka. According to the judgement, the victim was murdered in his home by both defendants after they had been drinking together. The victim was found hidden in his sofa and had died, in the opinion of medical experts, by a 1 The author claims that he has not received any answer on this application. 101