R. M. v Finland, UN Human Rights Committee (1988) (excerpts)

R. M. v Finland, UN Human Rights Committee Communication 301/1988 (excerpts)


(...)

6.4 The Committee takes note of the Finnish reservation on article 14 and further reiterates the view that the assessment of the evidentiary material or the measurement of sentences are essentially matters for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned. The Committee further observes that it is not an appellate court and that allegations that a domestic court has committed errors of fact or law do not in themselves raise questions of violation of the Covenant unless it also appears that some of the requirements of article 14 may not have been complied with. R. M. 's-complaints relating to the alleged violations of article 14 do not appear to raise such issues. The Committee believes that the absence of oral hearings in t h appellate t proceedings raises no issue under article 14 of the Covenant.