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 disclose a violation of Messrs Davlatovs’ rights under articles 6, paragraph 2; article 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (g) read together; article 10; and article 14, paragraph 2; as well as Messrs. Karimov’s and Askarov’s rights under article 6, paragraph 2; article 7 read together with article 14, paragraph 3 (g); article 10; and article 14, paragraphs 2 and 3 (b) and (d), of the Covenant. party is also under an obligation 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, the State party has undertaken to ensure to 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 taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide Messrs. Karimov, Askarov, and Abdumadzhid and Nazar Davlatovs with an effective remedy, including compensation. The State Communication No. 1123/2002 Submitted by: Carlos Correia de Matos (not represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Portugal Date of adoption of Views: 28 March 2006 Subject matter: Right to defend oneself in person dated 24 September 1993 of the Bar Council, which considered the exercise of the profession of lawyer to be incompatible with that of auditor. Procedural issues: Status of “victim”; amnesty; final decision of inadmissibility by the European Court of Human Rights; exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to substantive issues 2.2 On 4 July 1996, the author was committed to trial at the Ponte de Lima District Court. He was accused of insulting a judge. The investigating magistrate officially assigned a lawyer to represent the author contrary to his wishes, as he considered he was entitled to defend himself in person. Substantive issues: Right to defend oneself in person; fair trial; proper dispensation of justice Article of the Covenant: 14, para. 3 (d) 2.3 The author appealed against the committal order (despacho de pronúncia) to the Oporto Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação do Porto). The investigating magistrate declared the appeal inadmissible, however, on the grounds that it had not been lodged by a lawyer, and the appellant could not defend himself in person. A complaint by the author to the President of the Court of Appeal was dismissed on the same grounds. Article of the Optional Protocol: 5, para. 2 (a) Finding: Violation (art. 14, para. 3 (d)) 1. The author is Mr. Carlos Correia de Matos, a Portuguese citizen, born on 25 February 1944 and residing at Viana do Castelo, Portugal. He states that he is a victim of a violation by Portugal of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author is not represented by counsel. The Covenant and the Optional Protocol came into force for Portugal on 15 June 1978 and 3 May 1983 respectively. 2.4 The author then lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. In an order of 16 May 1997, the President of the Court of Appeal ruled that the issue raised by the author, that he was not allowed to defend himself in person, should be decided by the Constitutional Court, and accordingly ordered the appeal to be referred to that Court. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author is an auditor and lawyer in Portugal. However, his name was temporarily removed from the Bar Council’s roll by decision 2.5 On 23 September 1997, the judge rapporteur at the Constitutional Court, noting that the 98