nor at appeal. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. against the author and the judge's instructions to the jury with regard to the evidence. The Committee observes that article 14, paragraph 5, does not require that a Court of Appeal proceed to a factual retrial, but that a Court conduct an evaluation of the evidence presented at the trial and of the conduct of the trial. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 In so far as the author complains that the police used violence against him and discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the Committee notes that, to the extent that these allegations do not form part of the author's claim of unfair trial, they cannot be examined because the purported events occurred in July 1986, that is, before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Australia on 25 December 1991 and do not have continuing effects which in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible ratione temporis. 6.5 With regard to the author's claim that the appeal against his retrial was unfair, because one of the judges had participated in his prior appeal against the first conviction, the Committee notes that the judge's participation on appeal was not challenged by the defence and that domestic remedies with respect to this matter have thus not been exhausted. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 6.6 As regards the author's claim about the failure to provide him with the services of an interpreter, the Committee notes that this issue was never brought to the attention of the courts, neither during the trial, (a) The communication is inadmissible; (b) The present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. Communication No. 541/1993 Submitted by: Errol Simms (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Declared inadmissible: 3 April 1995 (fifty-third session) Facts as submitted by the author Subject matter: Claim of unfair trial and police beatings by individual under sentence of death – Prolonged detention on death row – Execution of sentence allegedly amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2.1 On 17 May 1987, the author was charged with the murder, on 12 April 1987, of one Michael Demercado. He was convicted and sentenced to death in the Kingston Home Circuit Court on 16 November 1988. On 24 September 1990, the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed his appeal. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his petition for special leave to appeal on 6 June 1991. With this, it is submitted, domestic remedies have been exhausted. The murder for which the author stands convicted has been classified as capital murder under the Offences against the Person (Amendment) Act, 1992. Procedural issues: Evaluation of facts and evidence by domestic tribunals – Lack of substantiation of claim – Inadmissibility ratione materiae – Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Right to life – Right to a fair trial – Trial judge’s instructions to jury – Inhuman treatment Articles of the Covenant: 6 (2), 7, 14 (1) (3) (b) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3, 5 (2) (b) 2.2 The case for the prosecution was that, on 12 April 1987, at approximately 3 a.m., the author together with two other men followed one Carmen Hanson, who returned from a party, into her house. They demanded money, threatened her and hit her. In the course of the robbery, Carmen Hanson's son, Owen Wiggan, together with Michael Demercado and another man, arrived at the house and called her. The author and his companions left the house and 1. The author of the communication is Errol Simms, a Jamaican citizen, currently awaiting execution at the St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of violations by Jamaica of articles 6, paragraph 2; 7; and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 18