Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement the conviction and sentence and as long as the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case”.234 5.2 The availability of a judgement As seen in subsections 3.10 and 3.10.1 above, for the right of appeal to be effectively available, a convicted person is entitled to have, within a reasonable time, access to duly reasoned written judgements; failing the availability of such judgement, article 14(5) of the International Covenant has been violated. Article 14(5) has also been violated in cases where the defence lawyers have abandoned all grounds of appeal, and where the domestic court has not ascertained that this was done in accordance with the wishes of the client. However, this jurisprudence does not apply to cases where it appears that the relevant domestic court “did ascertain that the applicant had been informed and accepted that there were no arguments to be made on his behalf”.235 5.3 Transcripts of the trial The right to appeal can also be affected by a delay in producing the transcripts of the trial. Because of such delay in the Pinkney case, the author’s leave to appeal was not heard until 34 months after he had applied for leave to appeal, a delay that “was incompatible with the right to be tried without undue delay” contrary to article 14(3)(c) and (5) of the International Covenant.236 5.4 Preservation of evidence The Committee has further recognized “that in order for the right to review of one’s conviction to be effective, the State party must be under an obligation to preserve sufficient evidential material to allow for” an effective review of one’s conviction.237 However, it does not see “that any failure to preserve evidential material until the completion of the appeals procedure constitutes a violation of” article 14(5), but only “where such failure prejudices the convict’s right to a review, i.e. in situations where the evidence in question is indispensable to perform such a review”. Moreover, in its view, “this is an issue which it is primarily for the appellate courts to consider”.238 Consequently, where the State party’s “failure to preserve the original confession statement was made one of the grounds of appeal” and the court dismissed the appeal since it had no merit and “without giving further reasons”, the Committee considered 234 Communication No. 662/1995, P. Lumley v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 31 March 1999), in UN doc. GAOR, A/54/40 (vol. II), p. 145, para. 7.3. 235 Communication No. 731/1996, M. Robinson v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 29 March 2000), in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II), p. 129, para. 10.5. 236 Communication No. R.7/27, L. J. Pinkney v. Canada (Views adopted on 29 October 1981), in UN doc. GAOR, A/37/40, p. 113, para. 35, read in conjunction with p. 103, para. 10. 237 Communication No. 731/1996, M. Robinson v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 29 March 2000), in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/40 (vol. II), p. 130, para. 10.7; emphasis added. 238 Ibid., loc. cit.; emphasis added. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 307