(e) Expulsion of aliens (Covenant, art. 13) 661. Article 13 of the Covenant provides that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State party may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall/ except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by a competent authority, 662. In case Ho. 319/1988 (Edgar A, Canon Garcia v. Ecuador), the author, a Colombian citizen, was lawfully in the territory of Ecuador when he was arrested at his hotel by the anti-drug section of the Ecuadorian police, which delivered him to agents of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and had him flown to the United States without a proper expulsion or extradition proceeding. The State party informed the Committee that "a thorough and meticulous investigation of the act has been conducted, which has led to the conclusion that there were indeed administrative and procedural irregularities in the expulsion of the Colombian citizen, a fact which the Government deplores and has undertaken to investigate in order to punish the persons responsible for this situation and to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the country" (annex IX, sect. M, para, 4.1). 663. In finding a violation of the Covenant, the Committee welcomed the frank cooperation of the Government of Ecuador and requested further information from the State party on the results of all its investigations as well as on measures taken to remedy the situation. 664. Article 14, paragraph 1, gives everyone the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of criminal charges against him. In case No. 289/1988 (Dieter Wolf v. Panama), the Committee observed: "The author claims that he was denied a fair trial; the State party has denied this allegation by generally affirming that the proceedings against Mr. Wolf complied with domestic procedural guarantees. It has not, however, contested the allegation that the author was not heard in any of the cases pending against him, nor that he was never served a properly motivated indictment. The Committee recalls that the concept of a 'fair trial' within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, must be interpreted as requiring a number of conditions, such as equality of arms and respect for the principle of adversary proceedings. These requirements are not respected where, as in the present case, the accused is denied the opportunity to personally attend the proceedings, or where he is unable to properly instruct his legal representative. In particular, the principle of equality of arms is not respected where the accused is not served a properly motivated indictment. In the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that the author's right under article 14, paragraph 1, was not respected." (annex IX, sect. K, para. 6.6) 665. In communication No. 349/1989 (Clifton Wright v. Jamaica), the Committee had to determine whether the court's failure to consider the evidence tendered by the forensic expert who had performed the post-mortem on the deceased made -157-