since the authors had exhausted all available domestic remedies. jurisprudence that the automatic and mandatory imposition of the death penalty constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed without regard being able to be paid to the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence.2 It follows that the automatic imposition of the death penalty on the authors violated their rights under article 6, paragraph 1. State party’s failure to cooperate 5. On 14 December 2000, 24 July 2001, 21 October 2003 and 7 July 2004, the State party was requested to submit to the Committee information on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received; it regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the substance of the authors’ claims. It recalls that it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that States parties examine all the allegations brought against them, and that they make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that these have been properly substantiated. 7.3 As regards the issues raised under article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee would be prepared to consider that the prolonged detention of the author on death row constitutes a violation of article 7. However, having also found a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, it does not consider it necessary in the present case to review and reconsider its jurisprudence that prolonged detention on death row, in itself and in the absence of other compelling circumstances, does not constitute a violation of article 7. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it reveal violations by the State party of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 93 of its rules and procedures, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol of the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol and that the authors have exhausted all domestic remedies, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. In the present case, the Committee further notes that the State party, in its submission of 30 June 1998, does not contest the admissibility of the communication. Accordingly, the Committee proceeds directly with the examination of the merits. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the remaining living author with an effective remedy, including commutation of his death sentence. The State party is also under an obligation to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, that State party has undertaken to ensure all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as provided under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 As regards the issues under article 6 of the Covenant, and basing itself on the examination of the applicable law in Guyana, the Committee presumes that the death sentence was passed automatically by the trial court, once the jury had rendered its verdict that the authors were guilty of murder, in application of section 101 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act. This provision requires that “Everyone who commits murder shall be guilty of felony and liable to suffer death as a felon”, without regard being able to be paid to the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence. The Committee refers to its 2 See communication No. 806/1998, Thompson v. St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Views adopted on 18 October 2000, para. 8.2; communication No. 845/1998, Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 7.3; communication No. 1077/2002, Carpo et al. v. Philippines, Views adopted on 28 March 2003, para. 8.3; communication No. 1167/2003, Ramil Rayos v. Philippines, Views adopted on 27 July 2004, para. 7.2; communication No. 862/1999, Hussain et al. v. Guyana, Views adopted on 25 October 2005, para. 6.2; and communication No. 913/2000, Chan v. Guyana, Views adopted on 31 October 2005, para. 6.5. 52