meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 5.3 above. Accordingly, it may be concluded that the final sentence of death was passed without having met the requirements of article 14, and that as a result the right protected by article 6 of the Covenant has been violated. have been concluded earlier, or that the author complained in this respect to the authorities. 5.12 However, because of the absence of a written judgement of the Court of Appeal, the author has, for almost five years since the dismissal of his appeal in April 1986, been unable effectively to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as shown in paragraph 5.3 above. This, in the Committee’s opinion, entails a violation of article 14, paragraph 3(c), and article 14, paragraph 5. The Committee reaffirms that in all cases, and in particular in capital cases, the accused is entitled to trial and appeal proceedings without undue delay, whatever the outcome of these judicial proceedings may turn out to be.5 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 the Committee disclose violations of articles 6, 9, paragraphs 2 to 4, 10 and 14, paragraphs 3(c)and (d) and 5 of the Covenant. 7. It is the view of the Committee that, in capital punishment cases, States parties have an imperative duty to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee is of the view that Mr. Paul Kelly, victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3(c) and (d) and 5 of the Covenant, is entitled to a remedy entailing his release. 5.13 Finally, inasmuch as the author’s claim of judicial bias is concerned, the Committee reiterates that it is generally for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case. It is not in principle for the Committee to review specific instructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury, unless it can be ascertained that the instructions to the jury were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. The Committee does not have sufficient evidence that the author’s trial suffered from such defects. 8. The Committee would wish to receive information on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee’s Views. APPENDIX I Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Waleed Sadi, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communication No 253/1987, Paul Kelly v. Jamaica 5.14 The Committee is of the opinion that the imposition of a sentence of death upon the conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes, if no further appeal against the sentence is available, a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. As the Committee noted in its general comment 6(16), the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies that “the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal”. In the present case, while a petition to the Judicial Committee is in theory still available, it would not be an available remedy within the I respectfully submit hereafter a separate opinion to the Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 8 April 1991 with regard to communication No. 253/1987, submitted by Paul Kelly against Jamaica. In the Committee’s view, the complainant was a victim of a violation of, inter alia, article 14, paragraph 3(d), of the Covenant, in the sense that he was essentially deprived of effective representation, as called for in said provision, because court-appointed counsel did not pursue Mr. Kelly’s right of appeal properly by deciding against pursuing it without prior consultation with his client. The central issue which the Committee had to determine is whether any error of judgement by the complainant’s legal counsel may be imputed to the State party, and therefore render it responsible for the alleged errors of counsel and accordingly serve as a ground to order the release of the victim from imprisonment and thus escape from the sentence imposed upon him by the Westmoreland Circuit Court for a murder committed on 2 July 1981. 5 See, for example, the Views of the Committee in communications Nos. 210/1986 and 225/1987, para. 13.5 (Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan), adopted on 6 April 1989. 66