the case of Soering2, and the arguments of counsel for the applicants in the case of Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General of Jamaica. 4.4 Regarding the claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (d), the Committee noted that the author was refused legal aid for the purpose of petitioning the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. There being no indication that the author was not entitled to pursue such an appeal, the Committee concluded that this claim, which also appeared to raise issues under article 14, paragraph 5, should be considered on the merits. 3.2 It is submitted that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 3 (d), by denying the author legal aid for the purpose of petitioning the Judicial Committee for special leave to appeal. Counsel relies on the Committee’s jurisprudence, pursuant to which legal aid must be made available to convicted prisoners under sentence of death, and that this applies to all stages of the criminal proceedings"3 Reference is also made to judgments of the Supreme Court of the U.S.4 4.5 On 12 October 1995, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 7, 10, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraphs 3 (d) and 5, of the Covenant. The Committee’s admissibility decision Examination of the merits 4.1 During the 55th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted that the State party had forwarded a note dated 9 February 1994, stating that the author’s death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment on 31 December 1993; the State party observed that the commutation was the consequence of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Pratt and Morgan v. AttorneyGeneral of Jamaica5. No further information under rule 91 of the Committee’s rules of procedure was received from the State party, despite a reminder addressed to it on 7 December 1994. 5.1 The State party’s deadline for the submission of information and observations under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol expired on 16 May 1996. No submission was received from the State party, in spite of a reminder addressed to it on 11 March 1997. The Committee regrets the lack of cooperation on the part of the State party. It has examined the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 The Committee must first determine whether the length of the author’s detention on death row from July 1975 to December 1993 (over 18 years) amounts to a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Counsel claims a violation of these provisions merely by reference to the length of detention the author was confined to death row at the State Prison in Port-of-Spain. The length of detention on death row in this case is unprecedented and a matter of serious concern. However, it remains the jurisprudence of the Committee that the length of detention on death row does not, per se, amount to a violation of articles 7 or 10, paragraph 1. The Committee’s detailed Views on this issue were set out in the Views on communication No. 588/1994 (Errol Johnson v. Jamaica)6. Because of the importance of the issue, the Committee deems it appropriate to reiterate its position. 4.2 The Committee welcomed the information of 9 February 1994 but noted that the State party had not provided information and observations relating to the admissibility of the author’s claims, which had not been made moot by the commutation of sentence. Due weight had thus to be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they had been substantiated. 4.3 As to the claims under articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, the Committee observed that the State party had itself commuted the author’s death sentence, so as to comply with the Guidelines formulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the above-mentioned case. The Government had not informed the Committee of the existence of any further remedies available to the author in respect of the above claims; indeed, the State party’s silence in this respect constituted an admission that no such remedies existed. 2 5.3 In assessing whether the mere length of detention on death row may constitute a violation of articles 7 and 10, the following factors must be considered: Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 EHRR 439 (1989). (a) The Covenant does not prohibit the death penalty, though it subjects its use to severe restrictions. As detention on death row is a 3 Views on communication No. 250/1987 (C. Reid v. Jamaica), adopted 20 July 1990, paragraph 11.4; Views on communication No. 230/1987 (Henry v. Jamaica), adopted 1 November 1991, paragraph 8.3. 4 E.g. Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 (1963). 6 Views on communication No. 588/1994 (Errol Johnson v. Jamaica), adopted 22 March 1996, paragraphs 8.1 to 8.6. 5 Privy Council Appeal No. 10 of 1993, judgment of 2 November 1993. 83