CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 page 24 7 Article 4: “Any judge who, invoking the silence, obscurity or inadequacy of the law, refuses to deliver a judgement may be prosecuted for denial of justice.” 8 Article 166: “Any judge who, on whatever pretext, including the silence or obscurity of the law, refuses to render the justice he owes to the parties after being requested to do so, and who persists in his refusal after a warning or order from his superiors, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of two months to one year and a fine of 50,000 to 300,000 francs. A judge found guilty of this offence may, furthermore, be barred from any judicial function for a period of not more than five years.” 9 Communication No. 886/1999, Schedko et al. v. Belarus, Views of 3 April 2003. 10 Article 111 of order No. 91-0051/PRES of 26 August 1991: “The following are nevertheless exempted from payment of a bond: persons sentenced to ordinary imprisonment or light imprisonment; persons who are in receipt of, or have requested, legal aid; minors under the age of 18.” 11 Equivalent to approximately 7.6 euros, according to the authors. 12 Communications Nos. 563/1993, Nydia Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Views of 27 October 1995, 612/1995, Vicente v. Colombia, Views of 29 July 1997, and 778/1997, Coronel v. Colombia, Views of 24 October 2002. 13 Communication No. 612/1995, Vicente v. Colombia, Views of 29 July 1997. 14 Communication No. 886/1999, Schedko et al. v. Belarus, Views of 3 April 2003. 15 Communication No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views of 29 March 1982. 16 “At this juncture, matters must not be confused. To date, the Minister of Defence has not been called upon to intervene as such in the Thomas Sankara case. I have no judicial document or a document from a claimant calling on me to act. If one day this problem arises, courageously and with the President of Burkina Faso as the supreme chief of the armed forces, we shall ensure that a solution is found to the problem. Thomas Sankara was in fact one of our brothers in arms. There is no reason why any problem raised concerning him cannot be solved.” Le Pays, No. 2,493, 22 October 2001. 17 Communication No. 345/1998, R.A.V.N. et al. v. Argentina, decision of 26 March 1990 on inadmissibility. 18 Communications Nos. 24/1997, S. Lovelace v. Canada, Views of 30 July 1981, 196/1985, I. Gueye v. France, Views of 3 April 1989, 516/1992, J. Simunek et al. v. Czech Republic, Views of 19 July 1995, 520/1992, E. and A.K. v. Hungary, decision of 7 April 1994 on inadmissibility, and 566/1993, Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Views of 23 July 1996. 19 Communication No. 612/1995, Vicente v. Colombia, Views of 29 July 1997.