2.3 With respect to the "fabricated nature" of the evidence against him, the author claims that in November 1980, he was forced by A.M. to pull out some pubic hair. The police also allegedly took some clothes from his room and perforated them, purportedly to show the bullet holes from the shooting at the scene of the crime. 2.4 On 12 January 1981, the author was indicted for robbery with aggravation, illegal possession of firearms and rape. On 28 May 1981, the Gun Court sentenced hirft to life imprisonment; on separate unspecified accounts, three concurrent 14-year sentences were also imposed on him. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in March 1983. It appears that after the dismissal of the appeal/ the Review Board of the Gun Court reduced his sentence to 20 years, to run from August 1981. 2.5 The author submits that, once he had ascertained that he fulfilled all the necessary requirements, lie applied for parole in November 1987. As of the end of 1989, there had been no reply from the Parole Board which, according to him, is reluctant to ensure that the documents necessary for release on parole - such as a medical report and the superintendent's report - are prepared and processed in a timely manner. He alleges that he has been discriminatecl against, as six other inmates who were sentenced after him and who applied for parole after he did were granted parole. 2.6 The author further submits that he is unable to obtain the court documents pertaining to his case, and that his request for legal aid for the purpose of filing a petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was turned down by the Jamaica Council for Human Rights in 1992. Complaint 3.1 The author contends that he was "framed" by the police, who abducted him from his home, with the intention of killing him. Although article 6 of the Covenant is not specifically invoked, it transpires from the submissions that the author claims a violation of his right to life. 3.2 The author further claims that he had an unfair trial and submits that: (a) The judge ignored the fact that he had been indicted in the absence of a prior identification par&de; (b) The judge did not investigate the discrepancy between the evidence of A.M. and that of the alleged rape victim; (c) The author was denied the right to prove his claim that the bullet holes in the clothes did not correspond with the wounds inflicted upon him by the police; (d) The evidence of the police was that he was shot from a distance of approximately 5 yards, whereas the medical certificate issued by the surgeon of the Kingston Public Hospital clearly indicates that he was shot from pointblank range; a/ -417-