B. Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol Communication No. 812/1998 Submitted by: Raymond Persaud and Rampersaud (not represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The authors State party: Guyana Date of adoption of Views: 21 March 2006 Subject matter: Death row phenomenon, mandatory imposition of the death penalty articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The authors are not represented by counsel. Procedural issues: State party’s failure to cooperate 1.2 In accordance with rule 92 (former rule 86) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur for New Communications, requested the State party on 9 April 1998 not to carry out the death sentence against the authors, to make it possible for the Committee to examine the communication. Substantive issues: Arbitrary deprivation of life Articles of the Covenant: 6 and 7 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 4, para. 2 Finding: Violation (art. 6, para. 1) The facts as presented by the author 1.1 The authors are Raymond Persaud and Rampersaud, nationals of Guyana. 1 Raymond Persaud is currently detained in Georgetown Prisons and awaiting execution. Rampersaud died on 21 August 1998 (of natural causes) and the Committee has received no notification from any of his heirs that his communication is maintained. Although the authors do not invoke any specific provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the communication appears to raise issues under 2.1 On 21 January 1986, the authors were arrested for the murder of Bibi Zorina Alli, who was found buried in a shallow grave at the back of the Hollywood Hotel in Rose Hall, Corentyne. They were found guilty of the murder and were sentenced to death on 11 December 1990. The authors appealed and on 25 May 1994, the Court of Appeal confirmed their death sentences. They applied to have their sentences commuted to life sentences, but their application was dismissed on 31 July 1997. They lodged an appeal against this decision, which was dismissed on 25 February 1998. 1 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party respectively on 15 May 1977 and 10 August 1993. On 5 January 1999, the State party notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to denounce the Optional Protocol with effect from 5 April 1999, that is, subsequent to the initial submission of the communication. On the same date, the State party reacceded to the Optional Protocol with the following reservation: “[...] Guyana reaccedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a reservation to article 6 thereof with the result that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications from any person who is under sentence of death for the offences of murder and treason in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, detention, trial, conviction, sentence or execution of the death sentence and any matter connected therewith. Accepting the principle that States cannot generally use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Guyana stresses that its reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Guyana and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.” 2.2 On 16 or 17 July 1998, warrants of execution were mistakenly issued and read to the authors, because the Office of the President had not been notified that interim measures had been granted by the Committee. The warrants were withdrawn and the authors subsequently received letters of apology for the mistake. The complaint 3. The authors claim that their death sentences should be commuted to life sentences as a result of their long delay on death row. By letter received on 14 January 2004 from the brother and sister of the remaining living author, Raymond Persaud, on his behalf, he claims that his remaining on death row is inhumane and that the delay amounts to a violation of his fundamental rights. The communication therefore raises issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Submission by the State party on the admissibility of the communication 4. By letter of 30 June 1998, the State party conceded that the communication was admissible 51