Communication No. 203/1986 Submitted by: Rubén Toribio Muñoz Hermoza Date of communication: 31 January 1986 Alleged victim: The author State party: Peru Date of adoption of Views: 4 November 1988 (thirty-fourth session) the author resubmitted the case to the Committee, the State party orally informed the Committee, at its seventieth session in October 2000, that a remedy had been granted to the author. No written confirmation of this information or clarification of the nature of the remedy was provided (A/56/40, para. 195). Response, dated 24 September 1996, of the Government of Peru to the Committee’s Views* In its submission dated 24 September 1996, the State party indicated that it had contacted the author’s counsel. Since 1989 the author had complained that the State party had not given effect to the Committee’s Views. After ____________ * For the Committee’s Views, see Selected Decisions, vol. 3, p. 106. _______________ Communication No. 253/1987 Submitted by: Paul Kelly (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 15 September 1987 Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of adoption of Views: 8 April 1991 (forty-first session) Morgan case. The State party informed the Committee also that the death sentence against Clyde Sutcliffe had been commuted (see Views on case No. 271/1988 in this volume). Response, dated 22 November 1995, of the Government of Jamaica to the Committee’s Views* By a note dated 22 November 1995, the State party informed the Committee that the death sentence had been commuted. During the follow-up mission to Jamaica in June 1995, the Special Rapporteur had been informed that 22 death sentences had been commuted on the basis of reclassification of the offence or as a result of the Privy Council judgment of 2 November 1993 in the Pratt and __________ * For the Committee’s Views, see this volume, supra, p. 60. _______________ 129