Communication No. 354/1989 Submitted by: L. G. (name deleted) Date of communication: 17 February 1989 Alleged victim: The author State party: Mauritius Declared inadmissible: 31 October 1990 (fortieth session)* his client’s wife requested the author to return the 7000 rupees, allegedly because the client was ill and needed the money for medical expenses; she was accompanied by two plainclothes policemen who posed as relatives of the client. The author asked to personally meet his client, and a meeting was arranged at the client’s house where, in the presence of the undercover agents, the author returned the 7000 rupees to his client. Upon leaving the house, he was arrested in a nearby street, and charged with possession of stolen money. Subject matter: Removal from the Mauritian Bar in connection with alleged possession of proceeds from a robbery Procedural issues: Inadmissibility ratione materiae—Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Alleged miscarriage of justice Articles of the Covenant: 14(6) and 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3 and 5(2)(b) 2.2 The author claims that he was framed by the police, who were in exclusive charge of the investigation related to the robbery. He alleges that there was strong evidence that a number of individuals of Chinese origin were directly associated with the crime but that all the participants of Chinese origin except one either denied their participation in the hold-up or were never questioned by the police about it. He further indicates that the police, instead of completing its investigations within a short period of time, engaged in “secret dealing” with those participants in the hold-up who were of Chinese origin. Individual opinions: Ms. Christine Chanet and Mr. Birame Ndiaye (appendix I) Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins and Mr. Amos Wako (appendix II) Mr. Nisuke Ando (appendix III) Mr. Bertil Wennergren (appendix IV) 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 17 February 1989 and subsequent submissions) is L. G., a Mauritian citizen and former barrister. He claims to be the victim of a violation of articles 1, 2, 3, 14, 15 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Mauritius. 2.3 During the trial the author’s client appeared as the prosecution’s principal witness, testifying that he had given the author the 7000 rupees for safekeeping. On 12 August 1979, the court of first instance, in a two to one majority decision, convicted the author. He appealed, but on 5 August 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of first instance. The author envisaged a further appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but claims that this was bound to fail due to the fact that the grounds of appeal were limited to the court record and the issues of law were not of fundamental importance; moreover, he submits that the Privy Council very rarely intervenes on issues of fact. This information was imparted to him by an English professor whose services he had retained; as a result, the author chose not to proceed with his petition, and on 20 December 1980, the Privy Council dismissed his appeal for The facts as submitted 2.1 On 16 February 1979, the author was arrested in connection with the possession of parts of the proceeds from a robbery at a casino, perpetrated on the night of 21 January 1979. On 29 January 1979, a self-confessed participant in the robbery retained the services of the author and remitted two sums of money to him, first 3000 rupees representing the author’s legal fees and then 7000 rupees to be put aside for the eventuality of retaining the services of senior counsel. Several days before the author’s arrest, * Pursuant to rule 85 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah did not participate in the consideration of the communication or in the adoption of the Committee’s decision. 12