H. Communication No. 351/1989. N.A.J. v. Jamaica (decision of 6 April 1992. adopted at the forty-fourth session) Submitted by: H.A.J. {name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of communication: 3 February 1989 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Bights, Meeting on 6 April 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 3 February 1989) is N.A.J./ a Jamaican citizen currently awaiting execution at St, Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be a victim of violations of his human rights by Jamaica. He is represented by counsel. Although neither author nor counsel invoke specific provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from the submissions that they invoke a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author states that he was charged with the murder of A.Y., but claims to be innocent. On the evening of 19 January 1983/ he was at the locus in quo where he saw the deceased with two other persons, one Co. and Ch., the deceased's brother. Co. and the deceased were holding guns; Co. was hitting Ch. with his gun, and when the author approached them, he was told not to interfere. Walking away from the scene of the fight, he heard gunshots and began running. A.Y. was taken to the hospital, where he died of gunshot wounds on 21 January 1983. 2.2 On 3 November 1983, the Home Circuit Court in Kingston found the author guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. The Jamaican Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 20 June 1985. A subsequent petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was dismissed on 25 January 1988. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution's main witness, Ms. P.M., girlfriend of the deceased and the only eyewitness to the crime, testified that A.Y. was shot in the back. The pathologist, however, opined that the entry wound was to the right of the abdomen, two inches from the midline of the body. 2.4 The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of the apparent inconsistency in the evidence, stating, inter alia, that: "it was open to the jury to accept as a reasonable explanation Ms. P.M. concluding that a wound on the deceased's -355-