6.9 The Committee is of the opinion that the imposition of a sentence of death upon the conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes, if no further appeal against the sentence is available, a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. As the Committee observed in its General Comment 6 (16), the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies that "the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal". In the instant case, while a constitutional motion to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court might in theory still be available, it would not be an effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.7 above. It may thus be concluded that the final sentence of death was passed without having met the requirements of article 14, and that as a result the right protected by article 6 of the Covenant has been violated. 7. The Human Eights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of articles 6; 9, paragraphs 2 to 4; and 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant. 8. In capital punishment cases, the obligation of State parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in article 14 of the Covenant admits of no exception. The Committee is of the view that Mr. Glenford Campbell is entitled, according to article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, to an effective remedy, in this case entailing his release. The State party is under an obligation to take measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 9. The Committee would wish to receive information, within 90 days, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's Views. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] 6/ See S ECHK 246 [1986]. b_/ Communication No. 8/1977 (Weismann and Lanza Perdomo v. Uruguay) in: Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.89.XIV.1), vol. I, pp. 45-49. c/ See Official Records of the General Assembly,, Forty-fifth Session. Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, annex X, sects. M and S, communications Nos. 290/1988 (A.W. v. Jamaica), decisions of 8 November 1989, para. 8.2, and 369/1989 (G.S. v. Jamaica), para. 3.2. -240-