Communication No. 349/1989 Submitted by: Clifton Wright (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 12 January 1989 Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of adoption of Views: 27 July 1992 (forty-fifth session) the release of the author of the communication. By a subsequent note dated 22 November 1995, the State party informed the Committee that the death sentence had been commuted. Response, dated 16 June 1995, of the Government of Jamaica to the Committee’s Views* In a submission dated 16 June 1995, the State party informed the Committee that the Jamaican Privy Council had recommended commutation of the death sentence rather than __________ * For the Committee’s Views, see this volume, supra, p. 100. _______________ Communication No. 387/1989 Submitted by: Arvo O. Karttunen (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 2 November 1989 Alleged victim: The author State party: Finland Date of adoption of Views: 23 October 1992 (forty-sixth session) compensation would be examined afterwards. Counsel had failed to present a request for annulment or compensation. The State party further informed the Committee that the Code of Judicial Procedure had been amended effective 1 May 1998. According to the new provisions of the Code, oral hearings could be requested by any of the parties before the Court of Appeal. Response, dated 20 April 1999, of the Government of Finland to the Committee’s Views* In a submission dated 20 April 1999, the State party informed the Committee that it had contacted the author’s lawyer in 1993 and that agreement had been reached to request an annulment of the domestic decision to it by the Supreme Court and that the matter of awarding ___________ * For the Committee’s Views, see this volume, supra, p. 108. _______________ 132