on his hand, which required medical attention and several stitches to mend his injury. Complaint 3.1 The author contends that the conduct of his retrial in October 1983 violated article 14, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (e), of the Covenant. In particular, he submits that the judge was biased against him, as manifested by his previous statement made in the Portland Magistrates Court. In the author's opinion, the appointment of the judge violated his rights to equality before the court, to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal, and to be presumed innocent until found guilty according to law. In this context, he explains that it is a general rule of criminal procedure in Jamaica that the judge presiding over a trial should not have any prior involvement in the case, and no prior involvement with the defendant, unless such prior involvement is notified to all the parties and no objections are raised. It is further explained that the rationale for the general rule is that the presentation of the evidence at preliminary hearings in criminal cases is not subject to the same strict rules of evidence governing a trial, and that it is, accordingly, considered wrong for a trial judge to have heard evidence in those circumstances at an earlier stage of the proceedings. No such procedure was followed in the author's case. 3.2 As to the claim of jury tampering by Detective G., the author explains that although such allegations are rare in capital cases, they are not unheard of in Jamaica. In his case. Detective G. took charge of a police investigation in a matter in which he was personally involved through his family links with C.E., whom the author suspected of having killed Mr. Johnson. The author claims that G.'s tampering with jury members, including the foreman of the jury, during the retrial, as well as his intimidation of a key defence witness who might otherwise have testified on his behalf, constitute a serious violation of his rights under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2. 3.3 The author affirms that the conduct of his defence by H.C. during the second trial, in its effect, deprived him of a fair trial and violated his right, under article 14, paragraph 3 (e), to have witnesses testify on his behalf under the same conditions as the witnesses against him. Thus, counsel aid not call several witnesses who were present in court throughout the retrial and ready to testify on his behalf, including B. H. and Bl. H.; nor did he arrange for the author's bank manager to testify at the retrial, although he had given evidence at the first trial. 3.4 It is further submitted that the non-availability of the author's alibi evidence during the retrial was particularly crucial, in the light of the weakness of the prosecution's case which was based on the evidence of a witness who had initially been detained in connection with the murder and who, at the time of his testimony, had just served a prison term of 18 months for the theft of three cars. These circumstances are said to corroborate the author's claim of a violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e): the absence of defence evidence violated a fundamental prerequisite of a fair trial, and H.C.'s failure to ensure that defence evidence be put before the court is said to constitute a gross violation of the author's rights. -222-