C. L. D. v France, UN Human Rights Committee (1990) (excerpts)

C. L. D. v France, UN Human Rights Committee Communication 439/1990 (excerpts)

(...)


4.2 The Committee has noted the author's claim to be a victim of violations of articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant. It considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, how he was discriminated against within the meaning of article 26 and how his right to a fair trial was violated by the court's refusal to provide him with the services of an interpreter. The Committee reiterates that article 14, paragraph 1, juncto paragraph 3(f), does not imply that the accused be afforded an opportunity to express himself in the language which he normallyspeaks or in which he expresses himself with a maximum of ease. [ See communication No. 219/1986 ( Guesdon v. France ), views adopted on 25 July 1990, paragraph 10.3 (Annual Report 1990, A/45/40, Vol. II, Annex IX.G.).] In this respect, therefore, the author has failed to advance a claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.