B. Comrctunication Ho, 230/1987. Raphael Henry v. Jamaica (views adopted on 1 November 1991. at the forty-third session) Submitted by: Raphael Henry (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of communication: 29 May 1987 (initial submission) Date of decision on admissibilitv: 15 March 1990 The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights/ Meeting on 1 November 1991, Having considered communication Ho. 230/1987, submitted to the Committee by Mr. Raphael Henry under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant oa Civil and Political Rights, Haying taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and by the State party, Adopts the following views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol. Facts as submitted by the author 1. The author of the communication is Raphael Henry, a Jamaican citizen currently awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be the victim of a violation by Jamaica of his rights under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.1 The author was arrested in August 1984 and charged with the murder, on 12 August 1984 in the parish of Portland, Jamaica, of one Leroy Anderson. He was tried in the Portland Circuit Court in March 1985, found guilty as charged and sentenced to death on 7 March 1985. The Jamaican Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 28 January 1986, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed his petition for special leave to appeal in February 1987. 2.2 It is stated that, on 12 August 1984, the author was walking from his home to the fields along railroad tracks when he was approached and suddenly attacked by Mr. Anderson. He sought to defend himself with a machete and, in the ensuing struggle, Mr. Anderson was fatally wounded. 2.3 With respect to the circumstances of the appeal, the author states that he was not present when it was heard and dismissed. Furthermore, the legal aid lawyer assigned to represent him before the Portland Circuit Court and who was familiar with his file, did not himself argue the appeal but assigned substitute counsel to the hearing of the appeal; the author adds that the -210-