629. In case No. 439/1990 (CL.D. v. France), the complainant claimed to be a victim of a violation of the right to a fair trial (art. 14 of the Covenant). Article 14, paragraph 3 (f), guarantees the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the accused in a criminal trial cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The complainant, while understanding the language used in court, preferred the use of another language and requested the assistance of an interpreter, which was refused by the judge. The Committee considered that the right to a fair trial did not imply that the accused be afforded an opportunity to express himself in the language of his choice. It therefore concluded that the complainant had failed to advance a claim under the Optional Protocol {annex X, sect. X ) . (c) Competence of the Committee and incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant (Optional Protocol, art. 3) 630. In its work under the Optional Protocol the Committee has had several occasions to point out that it is not a further court of appeal on the domestic law of States parties against whom communications are brought. 631. In case No. 331/1988 (G.J. v. Trinidad and Tobago), the author, who had been sentenced to death, had complained that the Court of Appeal, although acknowledging that there had been irregularities during the trial at first instance, had concluded that the irregularities had not affected the outcome of the trial and had dismissed the author's appeal. The Committee, after having examined the case, recalled that it was generally for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant and not for the Committee to evaluate the facts and evidence and to review the interpretation of domestic law by those courts. Similarly, it was for appellate courts and not for the Committee to review the judge's attitude during the trial, unless it was apparent that the judge manifestly violated his obligations of impartiality. Accordingly, the Committee declared the communication inadmissible (annex X, sect* C ) . 632. Communication No. 351/1989 (N.A.J. v. Jamaica) concerned a Jamaican citizen under sentence of death. The author claimed that his trial was unfair and that a number of irregularities had occurred in its conduct. The Committee decided that the communication was inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. It found that the allegations flid not come within the scope of the Covenant under the right to a fair trial, as they related primarily to the judge's instructions to the jury and the evaluation of evidence, which were beyond the Committee's competence unless there was manifest partiality or arbitrariness on the part of the judge (annex X, sect. H ) . 633. In case No. 446/1991 (J.P. v. Canada), the Committee observed that the scope of protection of the right to freedom of conscience and religion, as covered by article 18 of the Covenant, did not entail a right for a conscientious objector to refuse to pay taxes, part of which would be used to defray military expenditures. It concluded that the facts as submitted did not raise issues under any of the provisions of the Covenant and declared the communication inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant (annex X, sect. 25). Communication No. 483/1991 (J.v.K. and G.M.G.v.K.-S. v. the Netherlands), also concerning a refusal to pay taxes for military expenditures, was similarly declared inadmissible (annex X, sect. C C ) . -150-