F. Communications ttos. 270/1988 and 271/1988. Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe v. Jamaica (views adopted on 30 March 1992. at the forty-fourth session) Submitted by: Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe (represented by counsel) Alleged victims: The authors State partyi Jamaica Date of communications; 4 and 7 January 1988, respectively Date of decision on admissibility: 21 July 1989 The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 30 March 1992, Having concluded its consideration of communications Nos. 270/1988 and 271/1988, submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Messrs. Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the authors of the communications and by the State party, Adopts its views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol.* Facts as submitted by the authors 1. The authors of the communications are Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe, two Jamaican citissens 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 invokes only a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it transpires from some of the authors' submissions that they also allege violations of article 14. 2.1 The authors were arrested on 10 and 11 July 1977, respectively, on suspicion of having murdered two policemen at the Runaway Bay police station in the parish of St. Ann. The prosecution contended that they belonged to a group of five men who had been stopped by the police in the context of the investigation of a robbery that had occurred at a nearby petrol station. One of the men (neither Mr. Barrett nor Mr. Sutcliffe) took a sub-machine-gun out of a bag and opened fire on the police officers, killing two of them. The authors were subsequently charged with murder on the basis of "common design"; they denied having participated in the robbery and having been in possession of stolen goods. An individual opinion by Ms. Christine Chanet is appended. -246-