the domestic courts of the State party. It recalls that the evaluation of facts and evidence is primarily a matter for the domestic courts of a State party, and in the absence of such evaluation in the present case the Committee’s task is greatly impeded. therefore reject the author’s argument that the requirement of obtaining a fishing licence would in itself violate his rights under article 27. 12.8 The Committee notes that the evidence and arguments presented by the State party show that the author has the possibility to fish, either pursuant to a treaty right on and adjacent to the reserves or based on a licence outside the reserves. The question whether or not this right is sufficient to allow the author to enjoy this element of his culture in community with the other members of his group, depends on a number of factual considerations. 12.11 The Committee considers that it is not in a position to draw independent conclusions on the factual circumstances in which the author can exercise his right to fish and their consequences for his enjoyment of the right to his own culture. While the Committee understands the author’s concerns, especially bearing in mind the relatively small size of the reserves in question and the limitations imposed on fishing outside the reserves, and without prejudice to any legal proceedings or negotiations between the Williams Treaties First Nations and the Government, the Committee is of the opinion that the information before it is not sufficient to justify the finding of a violation of article 27 of the Covenant. 12.9 The Committee notes that, with regard to the potential catch of fish on and adjacent to the reserves, the State party and the author have given different views. The State party has provided detailed statistics purporting to show that the fish in the waters on and adjacent to the reserves are sufficiently abundant so as to make the author’s right to fish meaningful and the author has denied this. Similarly, the parties disagree on the extent of the traditional fishing grounds of the Hiawatha First Nation. 13. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 12.10 The Committee notes in this respect that these questions of fact have not been brought before Communication No. 886/1999 Submitted by: Natalia Schedko (represented counsel) Alleged victim: The author and her son Anton Bondarenko (deceased) State party: Belarus Date of adoption of Views: 3 April 2003 Subject matter: Failure of State authorities to reveal date of execution or burial place of an executed person to relative of violations of articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. From her submissions, it transpires that the communication also raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant. The author is represented by counsel. Procedural issues: Level of substantiation of claim Substantive issues: Right to life - Fair trial Inhuman treatment/torture 1.2 On 28 October 1999, in accordance with rule 86 of its rules of procedure, the Human Rights Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on New Communications, requested the State party not to execute the death sentence against Mr. Bondarenko, pending the determination of the case by the Committee. As it transpired from the State party’s submission of 12 January 2000 that Mr. Bondarenko’s death sentence had been executed on an unspecified previous date, the Committee addressed specific questions both to the author and to the State party.2 From the answers, it transpired Articles of the Covenant: 6, 7, 14 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 Finding: Violation (art. 7) 1.1 The author of the communication is Natalia Schedko, a Belarusian national. She acts on behalf of herself and of her deceased son, Anton Bondarenko, also a Belarusian national, who at the time of submission of the communication, 11 January 1999, was detained on death row, having been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. She claims that her deceased son is a victim by the Republic of Belarus1 2 The Committee requested on 11 July 2002 the following information: (a) From the State party: 1. “When exactly the execution took place, and 1 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force for the State party on 23 March 1976 and the Optional Protocol on 30 December 1992. 136