D. Communication Ho. 33 5/1988. M.F. v. Jamaica (decision of 17 July 1992. adopted at the forty-fifth session} Submitted byt M.F, (name deleted) Alleged,victim: The author State party: Jamaica Date of communication: 28 June 1988 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights, Meeting on 17 July 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 28 June 1988, and subsequent submissions) is M.F., a Jamaican citizen currently awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be a victim of violations of his human rights by Jamaica. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author, a construction worker, was arrested on 1 September 1985, following a Shootout at a local cinema during which a woman was killed; later in the month, he was charged with murder, At his trial in the Home Circuit Court, during 1986, the jury failed to return a unanimous verdict. A retrial was ordered, and the author was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death on 19 January 1987. 2.2 The author claims to be innocent; he submits that, at the time of the murder, he was together with some friends at a construction site, some 8 kilometres away from the place of the murder. He claims that he was convicted for political reasons, as he had a longstanding political argument with the investigating officer in the case. He also surmises that the murder was the result of political fighting between two youth gangs, one adhering to the People's National Party and the other to the Jamaican Labour Party. The author himself states that he is a supporter of the Jamaican Labour Party. 2.3 The author contends that during his retrial, his legal aid counsel refused to have him cross-examined, and failed to call witnesses for the defence. The witnesses for the prosecution allegedly committed perjury; according to the author, they told him in prison that they did not know who had fired the shots, but that they decided to testify against him for political reasons. The witnesses, who were awaiting trial for other, apparently unrelated charges, allegedly were released on bail on the condition that they would testify against the author. The author further alleges that the jury was biased against him, and that the judge misdirected the jury about the witnesses. -340-