remedy, including the opportunity to lodge a new appeal, or should this no longer be possible, to give due consideration of granting him release. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. May 1995 as argued by the State party, do not constitute a remedy that has to be exhausted for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Covenant. 7.6 Moreover, the Committee, recalling its reasoning under paragraph 7.2 above, is of the opinion that this remedy does not constitute a right of review in the sense of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant because the cassation motion cannot be submitted to a higher tribunal as it is required under the said provision. 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. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 9. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author(s) with an effective Communication No. 848/1999 Submitted by: Mr. Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Orejuela (represented by Pedro Pablo Camargo) Alleged victim: The author State party: Colombia Views: 23 July 2002 Bogotá Prosecution Commission, which was established by resolution of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, adopted in accordance with article 250 of the 1991 Constitution of Colombia,1 was given responsibility for conducting the proceedings as from 1993 and bringing the charge against him. Subject matter: Criminal proceedings held before authorities and jurisdictions established subsequently to the moment when the offences in question were committed Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Fair trial - Right to be tried by a competent tribunal - Right to a hearing 2.2 In a judgement handed down by the Bogota Regional Court on 21 February 1997, the author was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment and a fine. He appealed against the sentence before the National Court, which, in a judgement of 4 July 1997, upheld the conviction at first instance but reduced the sentence to 21 years’ imprisonment and a lower fine. An appeal was lodged on 20 October 1997 before the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice, which upheld the conviction on 18 January 2001. Articles of the Covenant: 14 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 5, paragraph 2 (b) Finding: Violation (article 14, paragraph 5) 1. The author of the communication is Mr. Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Orejuela, a Colombian citizen currently held at La Picota General Penitentiary in Colombia for the offence of drug trafficking. He claims to be a victim of the violation by Colombia of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He author is represented by counsel. 2.3 Both the Bogotá Regional Court and the National Court were established by Emergency Government Decree No. 2790 of 20 November 1990 (Defence of Justice Statute), and were incorporated in the new Code of Criminal Procedure enacted by Decree No. 2700 of 30 November 1991, which entered into force on 1 July 1992, and which was repealed by Law No. 600 of 2000 which is currently The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 Miguel Ángel Rodríguez Orejuela was charged with, among other activities, the offence of engaging in drug trafficking on 13 May 1990. The 1 Adopted by Decree No. 2700 of 30 November 1991, which entered into force on 1 July 1992. 106