8.5 The Committee is of the opinion that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes, if no further appeal against the sentence is available, a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. As the Committee noted in its general comment 6 (16), the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies that "the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence and the right to review by a higher tribunal", d/ In the present case, since the final sentence of death was passed and an important requirement set forth in article 14 was not met, it must be concluded that the right protected by article 6 of the Covenant has been violated. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before the Committee disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, and consequently of article 6 of the Covenant. 10. In capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in article 14 of the Covenant admits of no exception. The Committee is of the vie-w that Mr. Raphael Henry, a victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, and consequently of article 6, is entitled, according to article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, to an effective remedy, in this case entailing his release; the State party is under an obligation to take measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 11. The Committee would wish to receive information, within 90 days, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's views. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] Notes &/ See Eagle Trust Ltd. v. Pigot-Brown [19S5] 3 All ER 119; Norton Tools Co. Ltd. v. Tewson [1973], 2 WLR 45; R. v. Immigration appeal Tribunal, ex parte Khan (Mahmud) [1983], 2 WLR 759. b_/ Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] 1 All ER 940. £/ On 6 April 1989, the Human Rights Committee had adopted its views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of these cases: see Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), annex X, sect. F. d/ See Official Records of the General Assembly. Thirty-seventh Session. Supplement No. 40 (A/37/40), annex V, para. 7* -218-