The author of the communication is Shukuru Juma, an Australian citizen born in Tanzania, currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at Wolston Correctional Centre, Queensland, Australia. He claims to be a victim of violations by Australia of article 14, paragraphs 3(f) and 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is not represented by counsel. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 2 February 1997, the author was arrested and brought to Dutton Police Station where he was charged with murder. On 25 November 1998, he was convicted of murder and on 26 November 1998 sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction and applied for an extension of time for the filing of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Both his appeal and request for an extension of time were dismissed on 16 July 1999. The author then sought special leave to appeal from the High Court of Australia. On 24 November 2000, the High Court dismissed his application. 2.2 From the time of his arrest to the final appeal of his case the author was not provided with interpretation facilities, despite his requests for an interpreter at each stage of the proceedings. He claims that he requested the assistance of an interpreter prior to the interview with the police, and that he requested interpretation from his lawyer during the trial at first instance. During the Court of Appeal hearing, the author was provided access to an interpreter to conduct interpretation by telephone conference. However, the author refused this facility as the interpreter was not in the courtroom and he believed that he could not trust him/her. He states that he refused to talk to the interpreter, as "the police had forced me against my will to give a record of interview and I was assaulted by …[a Detective] of the Queensland police". (1) 2.3 In his application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, the author alleged that he was "forced" to accept a legal aid lawyer who was only assigned to his case on the morning of the appeal, and was, therefore, unfamiliar with it. In addition, the lawyer refused to refer to the points of law raised in the application prepared by the author. Also during the hearing, the author alleges that one of the judges asked on three occasions where the interpreter was but his counsel merely responded that he knew the case.

Naciones Unidas. (s.f.). Shukuru Juma v. Australia: Communication No. 984/2001.. 1 Jan. , v. II, (1),31-38. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/984-2001.html

Naciones Unidas. "Shukuru Juma v. Australia: Communication No. 984/2001.". 1 Jan. , II, s.f., 31-38. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/984-2001.html

Naciones Unidas. "Shukuru Juma v. Australia: Communication No. 984/2001.", 1 Jan. . V. II  No. 1  s.f.. pp. 31-38  http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/984-2001.html