Subject matter: Conviction of author for drug-related offence Allegation of testimony under duress Procedural issues: Requirement to substantiate allega-tions Inadmissibility ratione materiae Substantive issues: Effective remedy Equality before the court Articles of the Covenant: 7, 14 (1) and 3 (g) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 3 and 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication (letter dated 3 May 1980; subsequent submission dated 13 December 1988) is J. H., a Finnish citizen born in 1954, currently serving a prison sentence in Finland. The author claims to be the victim of a violation by the Government of Finland of articles 7 and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (g), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2.1 The author states that on 5 May 1986 the Municipal Court of Helsinki found him guilty of having smuggled and sold in Finland 15 kilos of drugs (hashish) and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment and to pay a fine of 399,000 Finnish marks. On 17 September 1987, the Court of Appeal modified the sentence to six and a half years and reduced the fine to 378,000 Finnish marks. On 21 Janu-ary 1988, the Supreme Court refused the author's application for leave to appeal. The author thus claims to have exhausted domestic remedies available to him. 2.2 The author also claims that he did not smuggle any drugs and that he merely sold 4.6 kilos of hashish. He further alleges that the Municipal Court admitted into evidence against him the testimony of a mentally disturbed codefendant who, during the trial, had retracted his testimony. This person's testimony was allegedly obtained under duress, in the course of an interrogation said to have lasted from 3 p. m. until midnight. Moreover, he contends that the court based its judgement on the hearsay evidence produced by some of the co-defendants in the case. Lastly, he claims that the court used his earlier confession against him, so as to be able to convict him on additional charges. 3. By its decision of 8 July 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication to the State party, requesting it, under __________ * The Committee has dealt with a similar communi-cation involving the same State party: communication No. 301/1988. rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. It further requested the State party to provide the Committee with the English translations of the judgements of the Municipal Court of Helsinki and of the Court of Appeal. 4.1 In its submission under rule 91 dated 8 November 1988, the State party confirms that the author has 82