CCPR/C/GC/32 Page 15 does not require a full retrial or a “hearing”,102 as long as the tribunal carrying out the review can look at the factual dimensions of the case. Thus, for instance, where a higher instance court looks at the allegations against a convicted person in great detail, considers the evidence submitted at the trial and referred to in the appeal, and finds that there was sufficient incriminating evidence to justify a finding of guilt in the specific case, the Covenant is not violated.103 49. The right to have one’s conviction reviewed can only be exercised effectively if the convicted person is entitled to have access to a duly reasoned, written judgement of the trial court, and, at least in the court of first appeal where domestic law provides for several instances of appeal,104 also to other documents, such as trial transcripts, necessary to enjoy the effective exercise of the right to appeal.105 The effectiveness of this right is also impaired, and article 14, paragraph 5 violated, if the review by the higher instance court is unduly delayed in violation of paragraph 3 (c) of the same provision.106 50. A system of supervisory review that only applies to sentences whose execution has commenced does not meet the requirements of article 14, paragraph 5, regardless of whether such review can be requested by the convicted person or is dependent on the discretionary power of a judge or prosecutor.107 51. The right of appeal is of particular importance in death penalty cases. A denial of legal aid by the court reviewing the death sentence of an indigent convicted person constitutes not only a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), but at the same time also of article 14, paragraph 5, as in such cases the denial of legal aid for an appeal effectively precludes an effective review of the conviction and sentence by the higher instance court.108 The right to have one’s conviction reviewed is also violated if defendants are not informed of the intention of their counsel not to put any arguments to the court, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to seek alternative representation, in order that their concerns may be ventilated at the appeal level.109 Communication No. 1110/2002, Rolando v. Philippines, para. 4.5; No. 984/2001, Juma v. Australia, para. 7.5; No. 536/1993, Perera v. Australia, para. 6.4. 103 E.g. communications No. 1156/2003, Pérez Escolar v. Spain, para. 3; No. 1389/2005, Bertelli Gálvez v. Spain, para. 4.5. 104 Communications No. 903/1999, Van Hulst v. Netherlands, para. 6.4; No. 709/1996, Bailey v. Jamaica, para. 7.2; No. 663/1995, Morrison v. Jamaica, para. 8.5. 105 Communication No. 662/1995, Lumley v. Jamaica, para. 7.5. 106 Communications No. 845/1998, Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 7.5; No. 818/1998, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 7.3; No. 750/1997, Daley v. Jamaica, para. 7.4; No. 665/1995, Brown and Parish v. Jamaica, para. 9.5; No. 614/1995, Thomas v. Jamaica, para. 9.5; No. 590/1994, Bennet v. Jamaica, para. 10.5. 107 Communications No. 1100/2002, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, para. 10.13; No. 836/1998, Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, para. 7.2. 108 Communication No. 554/1993, LaVende v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 5.8. 109 See communications No. 750/1997, Daley v Jamaica, para. 7.5; No. 680/1996, Gallimore v Jamaica, para. 7.4; No. 668/1995, Smith and Stewart v. Jamaica, para.7.3. See also Communication No. 928/2000, Sooklal v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 4.10. 102