INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS A. Decisions transmitting a communication to the State party (rule 91) and requesting interim measures of protection (rule 86) Communication No. 210/1986* Submitted by: X (name deleted) on 28 January 1986 Alleged victim: The author State party: S Date of decision: 21 July 1986 (twenty-eighth session) Subject matter: Claim of innocence by individual sentenced to death—Petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Procedural issues: Interim measures of protectionExhaustion of domestic remedies—Request for fur­ ther information from State party Substantive issues: Right to appeal—Right to seek par­ don or commutation of sentence—Review of con­ viction and sentence Articles of the Covenant: 6 (4) and 14 (5) Article of the Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) Rules of Procedure: 86 and 91 The Human Rights Committee, Noting that the communication is submitted by a per­ son under sentence of death, Noting further the author's allegation that the Privy Council of S will no longer grant stays of execution to anyone whose time for filing papers for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London has expired, and his expressed concern that a change from the earlier policy, allowing persons under death sentence to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council after the time-limit for so doing has expired, may result in a war­ rant for his execution to be issued without further notice, Wishing to be sufficiently informed about the rel­ evant legislative provisions and orders in council con­ cerning appeals procedures and implementation of death sentences in S before considering further the ques­ tion of the admissibihty of the present 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 subject-matter. * N o t previously published in the annual report of the Human Rights Committee. Decides: 1. To request the State party, under rule 86 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author, before the Committee, in the light of the State party's reply to the present decision, has had the opportunity to con­ sider further at its next session, scheduled, at this time, to be held from 23 March to 10 April 1987, the question of admissibility of the present communication; 2. To transmit the communication to the State party under rule 91 of its provisional rules of procedure and to request the State party (a) to clarify whether persons sentenced to death have a right of appeal to the Privy Council in London or whether they must first apply for leave to appeal; [b) to clarify whether there is a statutory time-limit for filing such appeals or for seeking leave to so appeal; (c) to furnish the Committee with the text of the relevant legislative provisions and orders in council concerning appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; (d) to clarify whether appeal to the Privy Council constitutes a first or second appeal in this in­ stance; (e) to inform the Committee whether the author has, in fact, been allowed to appeal to the Privy Council in London; and (/) to inform the Committee whether persons sentenced to death may seek pardon or com­ mutation of sentence up to the time of execution or whether there is a time-limit for applying for clemency; 3. To request the State party to provide the, infor­ mation sought not later than 10 December 1986; 4. That any reply received from the State party be communicated, for information, to the author of the communication or to his legal counsel, as may be in­ dicated by him; 5. That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication and his legal counsel.