Tribunal Correctionnel and of the Court of Appeal of Rennes, that the accused are sufficiently proficient in the court’s language, it need not take into account whether it would be preferable for the accused to express themselves in a language other than the court language. the official court language, the services of an interpreter, if that person is capable of understanding and expressing himself or herself adequately in the official language. Only if the accused or the witnesses have difficulties in understanding or expressing themselves in the court language is it obligatory that the services of an interpreter be made available. 5.8 French law does not, as such, give everyone a right to speak his or her own language in court. Those unable to speak or understand French are provided with the services of an interpreter. This service would have been available to the authors had the facts required it; as they did not, they suffered no discrimination under article 26 on the ground of their language. 5.7 On the basis of the information before it, the Committee finds that the French courts complied with their obligations under article 14, paragraph 1, in conjunction with paragraphs 3(e) and (f). The authors have not shown that they, or the witnesses called on their behalf, were unable to understand and express themselves adequately in French before the tribunals. In this context, the Committee notes that the notion of a fair trial in article 14, paragraph 1, juncto paragraph 3(f), does not imply that the accused be afforded the possibility to express himself or herself in the language that he or she normally speaks or speaks with a maximum of ease. If the court is certain, as it follows from the decision of the 6. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not sustain the authors’ claim that they are victims of a violation of any of the provisions of the Covenant. _______________ Communication No. 237/1987 Submitted by: Denroy Gordon (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 29 May 1987 Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of adoption of Views: 5 November 1992 (forty-sixth session) Subject matter: Denial of a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal in a capital punishment case Articles of the Optional Protocol: 4 (2) and 5(2)(b) Procedural issues: Burden of proof—State party failure to make a submission on the merits— Exhaustion of domestic remedies— Unreasonably prolonged domestic remedies—Effective remedy 1. The author of the communication, dated 29 May 1987, is Denroy Gordon, a Jamaican citizen, born in 1961, formerly a police officer. At the time of submission the author was awaiting execution of a death sentence. Following the commutation of sentence in 1991, the author has been serving a sentence of life imprisonment at Gun Court Rehabilitation Centre, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of a violation by Jamaica of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3(b), (d) and (e) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. Substantive issues: Right to a fair hearing— Right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence—Right to be tried in one’s presence—Right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance—Right to examine witnesses—Availability of legal aid Articles of the Covenant: 6(4) and 14(1) and (3)(b), (d) and (e) 47