is required to do under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, and bases its Views on the following findings. against the Person (Amendment) Act of 1992. Since the author was, at that time, still availing himself of remedies, the Committee does not consider that this delay constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9.2 The Committee has noted the author's contention that his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) have been violated because of the beatings he was subjected to on death row by a prison warder. It observes that while the author's allegation in this respect has remained somewhat vague, the State party itself concedes that the author suffered injuries as a result of use of force by warders; the author has specified that these injuries were to his head, and that he continues to have problems with his right eye as a sequel. The Committee considers that the State party has failed to justify, in a manner sufficiently substantiated, that the injuries sustained by the author were the result of the use of "reasonable force" by a warder. It further reiterates that the State party is under an obligation to investigate, as expeditiously and thoroughly as possible, incidents of alleged ill-treatment of inmates. On the basis of the information before the Committee, it appears that the author's complaint to the Ombudsman was acknowledged but neither investigated thoroughly nor expeditiously. In the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that the author was treated in a way contrary to articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 9.5 The author has alleged a violation of article 9 (2), because he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest promptly. However, it is uncontested that Mr. Stephens was fully aware of the reasons for which he was detained, as he had surrendered himself to the police. The Committee further does not consider that the nature of the charges against the author were not conveyed "promptly" to him. The trial transcript reveals that the police officer in charge of the investigation, a detective inspector from the parish of Westmoreland, cautioned Mr. Stephens as soon as possible after learning that the latter was kept in custody at the Montego Bay Police Station (pp. 54-55 of trial transcript). In the circumstances, the Committee finds no violation of article 9, paragraph 2. 9.6 As to the alleged violation of article 9 (3), it remains unclear on which exact day the author was brought before a judge or other officer authorized to exercise judicial power. In any event, on the basis of the material available to the Committee, this could only have been after 2 March 1983, i.e. more than eight days after Mr. Stephens was taken into custody. While the meaning of the term "promptly" in article 9 (3) must be determined on a case by case basis, the Committee recalls its General Comment on article 9 9 and its jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol, pursuant to which delays should not exceed a few days. A delay exceeding eight days in the present case cannot be deemed compatible with article 9, paragraph 3. 9.3 The Committee has noted counsel's argument that the eight years and 10 months Mr. Stephens spent on death row amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7. It is fully aware of the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of 2 November 1993 in the case of Pratt and Morgan, which has been adduced by counsel, and has taken note of the State party's reply in this respect. 9.7 With respect to the alleged violation of article 9 (4), it should be noted that the author did not himself apply for habeas corpus. He could have, after being informed on 2 March 1983 that he was suspected of having murdered Mr. Lawrence, requested a prompt decision on the lawfulness of his detention. There is no evidence that he or his legal representative did do so. It cannot, therefore, be concluded that Mr. Stephens was denied the opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed in court without delay. 9.4 In the absence of special circumstances, none of which are discernible in the present case, the Committee reaffirms its jurisprudence that prolonged judicial proceedings do not per se constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that, in capital cases, even prolonged periods of detention on death row cannot generally be considered to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.8 In the instant case, a little over five years passed between the author's conviction and the dismissal of his petition for special leave to appeal by the Judicial Committee; he spent another three years and nine months on death row before his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment under the Offences 9.8 Finally, the author has alleged a violation of article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and (5), on account of the delay between his trial and his appeal. In this context, the Committee notes that during the preparation of the author's petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a London 8 See Views on communications Nos. 270/1988 and 271/1988, Barrett and Sutcliffe v. Jamaica, adopted on 30 March 1992, paragraph 8.4. 9 General paragraph 2. 41 Comment 8 [16] of 27 July 1982,