undermined when a lawyer is imposed against the wishes of the accused. charges or the behaviour of the accused. Moreover, the State party has not provided any objective and sufficiently serious reasons to explain why, in this instance of a relatively simple case, the absence of a court-appointed lawyer would have jeopardized the interests of justice or why the author’s right to selfrepresentation had to be restricted. The Committee concludes that the right to defend oneself in person, guaranteed under article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant has not been respected. 7.4 The right to defend oneself without a lawyer is not absolute, however. Notwithstanding the importance of the relationship of trust between accused and lawyer, the interests of justice may require the assignment of a lawyer against the wishes of the accused, particularly in cases of a person substantially and persistently obstructing the proper conduct of trial, or facing a grave charge but being unable to act in his own interests, or where it is necessary to protect vulnerable witnesses from further distress if the accused were to question them himself. However, any restriction of the accused’s wish to defend himself must have an objective and sufficiently serious purpose and not go beyond what is necessary to uphold the interests of justice. 8. The Committee recalls that by acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the Committee’s competence to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, it has undertaken to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, and to take the necessary steps and provide an effective and enforceable remedy in cases where a violation has been established. The Committee considers that the author is entitled to an effective remedy under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant. The State party should amend its laws to ensure their conformity with article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant. Consequently, within 90 days of communicating these views, the Committee would like to receive from the State party information on the measures taken to give effect to them. The State party is also requested to make the Committee’s views public. 7.5 The Committee considers that it is the task of the competent courts to assess whether in a specific case the assignment of a lawyer is necessary in the interests of justice, inasmuch as a person facing criminal prosecution may not be in a position to make a proper assessment of the interests at stake, and thus defend himself as effectively as possible. However, in the present case, the legislation of the State party and the case law of its Supreme Court provide that the accused can never be freed from the duty to be represented by counsel in criminal proceedings, even if he is a lawyer himself, and that the law takes no account of the seriousness of the Communication No. 1126/2002 Submitted by: Marlem Carranza Alegre (represented by counsel, Carolina Loayza Tamayo) Alleged victim: The author State party: Peru Date of adoption of Views: 28 October 2005 Subject matter: Trial and conviction of an individual under anti-terrorist legislation 1.1 The author of the communication is Ms. Marlem Carranza Alegre, a Peruvian citizen, currently imprisoned in the Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison, Lima. She claims to be the victim of violations by Peru of articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She is represented by counsel, Carolina Loayza Tamayo. Procedural issues: Possible failure to exhaust domestic remedies following the annulment of the conviction and initiation of new proceedings Substantive issues: Violation of the right to liberty and security of person and the guarantees of due process 1.2 The Optional Protocol entered into force for Peru on 3 January 1981. Articles of the Covenant: 2, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 The facts as presented by the author Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 5, para. 2 (b) 2.1 The author worked as a doctor in Casimiro Ulloa Emergency Hospital, Lima. On 16 February 1993 she was stopped in the street by individuals in civilian clothes who forced her into a vehicle for an unknown destination. Once in the vehicle the Finding: Violation (arts. 2, para. 1; 7; 9; 10; and 14) 102