Constitutional Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 6.2 The State party affirms that such delays as occurred in the judicial proceedings are attributable to the authors, who failed to avail themselves of their right to appeal against conviction and sentence in an expeditious manner. As there is no indication that the State party was responsible for any of these delays by either act or omission, the State party cannot be deemed to be in breach of article 7. 6.3 The State party adds that notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the claims under article 7, "it will, prompted by humanitarian considerations, take steps to have investigated the allegations concerning the conditions [of detention] on death row and brutal acts [in] the prison". 7.1 The Committee has taken due note of the State party's submissions, dated 23 and 30 January 1992, that the communications remain inadmissible on account of the authors' failure to resort to constitutional remedies. 7.2 The same issues concerning admissibility have already been examined by the Committee in its views on communications Nos. 230/1987 {Henry v. Jamaica) and 283/1988 (Little v. Jamaica). b_/ In the circumstances of those cases, the Committee concluded that a constitutional motion was not an available and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, and that, accordingly, the Committee was not precluded from examining tUe merits. 7.3 The Committee has taken note of the fact that subsequent to its decision on admissibility the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Jamaica has had an opportunity to determine whether aa appeal to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council constitute "adequate means of redress" within the meaning of section 25 (2) of the Jamaican Constitution. The Supreme Court has answered this question in the negative by taking jurisdiction over and examining the constitutional motions filed on behalf of Ivan Morgan and Earl Pratt (judgement entered on 14 June 1991). The Committee reiterates that whereas the issue is settled for purposes of Jamaican law, the application of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is determined by different considerations, such as the length of judicial proceedings and the availability of legal aid. 7.4 In the absence of legal aid for constitutional motions and bearing in mind that the authors were arrested in July 1977, convicted in July 1978, and that their appeals were dismissed in March 1981 by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica a»d in July 1991 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Committee finds that recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court is not required under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, There is, accordingly, no reason to reverse the Committee's decision on admissibility of 21 July 1989. Examination of merits 8.1 The Committee notes that, several requests for clarifications notwithstanding, the State party has essentially confined itself to issues of admissibility. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol enjoins a -249-