communication was inadmissible because of the author's failure to apply for constitutional redress. In tne circumstances of the case, the Committee found that recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court under section 25 of the Constitution was not a remedy available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 On 24 July 1989, accordingly, the Committee declared the communication admissible in respect of article 14 of the Covenant. Review of admissibility decision 8. The State party, in its submission dated 10 January 1990, maintains that the communication is inadmissible since constitutional remedies under section 25 are still open to the author. 9. In his reply to the State party's submission, counsel submits that the constitutional remedy is not available in practice because of the author's lack of funds and the unavailability of legal aid. 10.1 The Committee observes that the same issues concerning admissibility have already been examined by the Committee in its views on communications Hos. 230/1987 (Raphael Henry v. Jamaica^ b/ afld 3S4/19B6 <ft.ston Little v. Jamaica), c/ 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 the merits. 10.2 In the instant case, considering that the State party does not provide legal aid for constitutional motions, the Committee finds that a constitutional motion would not constitute an available and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 <b), of the Optional Protocol, and thus confirms its decision on admissibility. Examination of the merits 11.1 As to the substance of the author's allegation of violations of his human rights, the Committee notes with concern that the State party has confined itself to the observation that the Committee is not competent to evaluate issues of facts and evidence; it has not addressed the author's specific allegations that his right to a fair trial was violated. The Committee is of the opinion that the summary dismissal of the author's allegations, in general terms, does not meet the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 With respect to the alleged violations of article 14 of the Covenant, three issues are before the Committeej (a) whether the composition of the jury violated the author's right to a fair trial; <b) whether the author was allowed adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence; and (c) whether the author was denied effective representation during his appeal. 11.3 In respect of the first claim, the Committee notes that while the author alleges that the jury was biased because of the presence of acquaintances and "in-laws" of the deceased, his counsel did not raise any objections. The Committee finds therefore that this allegation has not been substantiated. -255-