newspapers cited by the author were supportive of the government then in force. Moreover, the Committee notes that it does not appear that the author instituted proceedings against those he considered responsible for the defamation. author’s rights under article 12 may be linked to the violation of his right, under article 14, to a fair trial. 5.4 On the other hand, the Committee does not find that the author’s right, under article 14, paragraph 2, to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law was violated. Whereas the remarks attributed to judges involved in the case may have served to justify delays or inaction in the judicial proceedings, they cannot be deemed to encompass a predetermined judgement on the author’s innocence or guilt. 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 disclose violations of articles 12, paragraph 2, and 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 7. The Committee is of the view that Mr. González del Río is entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, to an effective remedy, including the implementation of the decision of 15 September 1986, delivered in his favour by the Constitutional Court. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 5.5 Finally, the Committee considers that what the author refers to as a libelous and defamatory press campaign against him, allegedly constituting an unlawful attack on his honour and reputation, does not raise issues under article 17 of the Covenant. On the basis of the information before the Committee, the articles published in 1986 and 1987 about the author’s alleged involvement in fraudulent procurement policies in various local and national newspapers cannot be attributed to the State party’s authorities; this is so even if the 8. The Committee would wish to receive information, within ninety days, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee’s Views. _______________ Communications Nos. 270/1988 and 271/1988 Submitted by: Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 4 and 7 January 1988 Alleged victims: The authors State party: Jamaica Date of adoption of Views: 30 March 1992 (forty-fourth session) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 4(2) and 5(2)(b) Subject matter: Death-row phenomenon Procedural issues: State party failure to make a submission on the merits—Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies—Availability of effective domestic remedies—Unreasonably prolonged remedies Rules of Procedure: Rules 86 and 94(3) Individual opinion: Dissenting Ms. Christine Chanet opinion by 1. The authors of the communications are Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe, two Jamaican citizens awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. They claim to be victims of a violation of their human rights by Jamaica. They are represented by counsel. Although counsel only invokes a violation of Substantive issues: Effective remedy—Right to life—Inhumane treatment or punishment—Right to a fair hearing Articles of the Covenant: 6(1), 7, 10(1) and 14(1) 71