had a clear incidence on the conduct of the appeal; the written judgement of the Court of Appeal of 19 June 1987 emphasizes that no objections were raised by the defence in respect of the confessional evidence. Furthermore, although the author had specifically indicated that he wished to be present during the hearing of the appeal, he was not only absent when the appeal was heard but, moreover, could not instruct his representative for the appeal, despite his wish to do so. Taking into account the combined effect of the above-mentioned circumstances, and bearing in mind that this is a case involving the death penalty, the Committee considers that the State party should have allowed the author to instruct his lawyer for the appeal, or to represent himself at the appeal proceedings. To the extent that the author was denied effective representation in the judicial proceedings and in particular as far as his appeal is concerned/ the requirements of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), have not been met." (annex IX, sect. D, para. 6.6) 672. Pursuant to paragraph 3 (e) of article 14, an accused person shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him^ In case No. 269/1987 (Delroy Prince v. Jamaica), the author claimed that that right had not been respected at his trial. The Committee found no violation of that provision. It noted that the trial transcript disclosed that the prosecution witnesses were in fact crossexamined by the defence, and observed: "The Committee is not in a position to ascertain whether the failure of the defence to call witnesses on the author's behalf was a matter of counsel's professional judgement or the result of intimidation. The material before the Committee does not disclose whether either counsel or author complained to the trial judge that potential defence witnesses were subjected to intimidation. Similarly, the Committee is unable to conclude, from the information before it, that the defence was actually denied the opportunity to call witnesses. The Committee therefore finds no violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant." (annex IX, sect. E, para. 8.2) 673. The Committee similarly did not find a violation of this provision in case Ho. 240/1987 (Willard Collins v. Jamaica), where it observed: "the Committee notes that at least two witnesses who would have been willing to testify on the author's behalf were present in the courtroom during the retrial, notwithstanding the author's repeated requests, they were not called. As author's counsel had been privately retained, his decision not to call these witnesses cannot, however, be attributed to the State party. In the view of the Committee, counsel's failure to call defence witnesses did not violate the author's right under article 14, paragraph 3 (e)." (annex IX, sect. C , para. 8.5) 676. Paragraph 5 of article 14 gives everyone convicted of a crime the right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. The right of appeal can be effectively exercised only if there is a written judgement of a lower tribunal. In its views on communication No. 230/1987 (Raphael Henry v. Jamaica), the Committee found a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, and observed: -160-