hand of prison officers. He submits that he unsuccessfully tried to seize the prison authorities and the Parliamentary Ombudsman of his complaint in respect of ill-treatment on death row, and that, far from investigating the matter, prison officers have urged him not to pursue the matter further. Concerning the first allegation, the author's contention that he was placed on the identification parade in "a battered state" has not been further substantiated; moreover, it transpires from the judgement of the Court of Appeal that the author's allegation was before the jury during the trial in July 1978. In that respect, therefore, the Committee cannot conclude that a violation of articles 7 or 10 has occurred. As to alleged ill-treatment in November 1986, however, the author's claim is better substantiated and has not been refuted by the State party. The Committee considers that the fact of having first been beaten unconscious and then left without medical attention for almost one day, in spite of a fractured arm and other injuries, amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 and, therefore, also entails a violation of article 10, paragraph 1. In the Committee's view, it is an aggravating factor that the author was later warned against further pursuing his complaint about the matter to the judicial authorities. The State party's offer, made in January 1992, that is over five years after the event, to investigate the claim "out of humanitarian considerations" does ivot change anything in this respect, 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4/ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in respect of Mr, Sutcliffe. 10.1 In accordance with the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to take effective measures to remedy the violations suffered by Mr. Sutcliffe, including the award of appropriate compensation, and to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 10.2 The Committee would wish to receive information, within 90 days/ on any relevant measures adopted 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.] Notes 3/ Reference is made to the judgement of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 US 238, quoted in the dissenting opinion in Riley S others v. Att. General of Jamaica (1982) 2 All SR 469, at 479a. b/ See sect. B above, communication No. 230/1987, views adopted on 1 November 1991, paras. 7.2-7.4; and sect. J below, communication No. 283/1988, views adopted on 1 November 1991, paras. 7.2-7.5. -251-