2.3 The author's trial began on 14 October 1985, Mr. Campbell made an unsworn statement from the dock. Several witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution, but the author contends that there remain several serious discrepancies between the trial transcript, the judge's summing up and the facts as found by the Court of Appeal. On 16 October 1985, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the author was sentenced to death, 2.4 For his appeal, which was filed on 22 October 1985/ the author was assigned a different legal aid attorney. On 15 May 1987, supplementary grounds of appeal were filed by this lawyer, and the Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 18 May 198*7. On 19 May 1987, the appeal was dismissed. The author, who had. indicated on the appeal form that he wished to be present during the hearing of the appeal, did not attend the hearing; he indicates that he merely was informed by his lawyer, by letter of 19 May 1987, that the appeal had been dismissed. The attorney further indicated the possibility of a further petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Campbell indicates that he had no opportunity to instruct this lawyer. 2.5 On 27 October 1988, the author petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. On 21 November 1988, the Judicial Committee refused leave to appeal. With this/ it is submitted, available domestic remedies have been exhausted. lint 3.1 The author alleges a violation of article 9, paragraphs 1 to 3. He indicates that when he was arrested on 12 December 1984, the police officer who brought him to the Frankfield police station and questioned him without informing him of his rights merely told him that Mr. Thompson had been reported missing and that as he (the author) was the last person to have been seen with Mr. Thompson, he was suspected of h&ving killed him. It is submitted that the author was detained from 12 December 1984 to 12 March 1985 without being formally charged with the only offence on which he was finally indicted, murder. During this time, he claims, he did not have access to legal representation. The author contends that, in violation of article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, he was not promptly informed of the charges against him, or brought before a judge or other judicial officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power between 12 December 1984 and 26 January 1985. In this context, he invokes the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee as well as the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of McGoff y. Sweden, concerning article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Eights and Fundamental Freedoms, a/ 3.2 The author further alleges a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant, in that both time and facilities available to him for the preparation of his defence were severely curtailed. Thus, he was not given the opportunity of speaking with his counsel prior to the preliminary hearing. The same legal aid lawyer represented the author for the trial; the author states that this lawyer visited him in prison three days before the start of the trial and prepared a statement for him. Although that statement appears to have formed the basis for the author's unsworn statement from the dock on 15 October 1985, he was not given a copy; he submits that his lawyer did not review the prosecution's case with him. -233-