From our point of view, irrespective of the content and impact of the remarks attributed to Judge G. in the course of the proceedings, the fact that he had taken part in the proceedings in the Portland Magistrates Court in 1981 gave him a knowledge of the case prior to the trial. And this knowledge necessarily related to the charges against the author and the evaluation of those charges and of his character, since the purpose of the Magistrate’s Court hearing was indictment and transfer. In our opinion, therefore, his appointment to preside over the second trial of the author in the Kingston Home Circuit Court in October 1983 was incompatible with the requirement of impartiality in article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. first is that the violation of article 7 of the Covenant should cease, and the author should be treated in accordance with the requirements of article 10, paragraph 1. In this regard the State party should promptly notify the Committee as to the steps it is taking to terminate the maltreatment and to secure the integrity of the author’s person. The State party should also take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. The second consequence is that the author should receive an appropriate remedy for the violations he has suffered. 11. The Committee would wish to receive information, within three months of the transmittal to it of this decision, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee’s Views. It is for the State party to decide on any incompatibility between the different judicial functions and to enforce its decision, so that a magistrate who has been involved in one phase of the proceedings concerning the pertinent albeit preliminary evaluation of charges against a person, may not take part in any capacity whatsoever in the trial of that person on matters of substance. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by Ms. Christine Chanet, Mr. Kurt Herndl, Mr. Francisco José Aguilar Urbina and Mr. Bertil Wennergren, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communication No. 240/1987, Willard Collins v. Jamaica. Failing that, there is a violation of article 14, paragraph 1. This is our opinion in this particular case. _______________ 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) judge—Entitlement to take proceedings before a court—Right to be informed promptly of any charges—Right to humane treatment—Right to a fair trial—Right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence—Right to be tried without undue delay—Right to legal assistance—Right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt—Right to examine witnesses—Right to have one’s sentence and conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal Subject matter: Alleged denial of a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in a capital punishment case Interim measures of protection: Stay of execution granted Procedural issues: Substantiation of claim— Burden of proof—State party failure to make a submission on the merits—Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies—Lack of competence to re-evaluate facts and evidence Articles of the Covenant: 6(2), 7, 9(2), (3) and (4), 10(1) and 14(1), (3) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) and (5) Substantive issues: Effective remedy—Right to life—Right to be promptly brought before a 60