3.2 The author also appears to claim inhuman and degrading treatment* in violation of article 7, and that he was not treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the person, in violation of article 10. In several submissions spread over a period of three years (1989 to 1992), he refers (a) to his cell as being "cold as ice"; (b) to prison warders who regularly "try to kill some prisoners"; (c) to beatings sustained during the years 1933 to 19S6; and (d) to the absence of medical or dental care in the prison. State party's information and observations and author's comments 4.1 In his initial transmittal of the communication to the State party, dated 14 November 1989, the Committee's Special Rapporteur on New Communications requested the State party, inter alia, to provide information about the admissibility of the communication, including about the author's mental health. 4.2 By submission of 12 February 1990, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of noa-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author has failed to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. 4.3 In a further submission, the State party adds that a mental status examination "was carried out on C.P. on 6 February 1990. The examination revealed a "young man who spoke freely and was not depressed. He displayed no psychotic features and no evidence of cognitive impairment. His intelligence seemed average. He is presently displaying no features of psychological disturbance 1 . Prior to his examination, C.F. had not undergone any psychiatric examination. His behavior had been normal throughout the period of his incarceration. He had been treated on numerous occasions by general practitioners for medical conditions, but on no occasion was it considered necessary to have him examined by a psychiatrist". 4.4 On 28 May 1992, the author's representative before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council indicated that leading counsel had advised that a petition would have merits, that it would be filed within two weeks, and that it would be based on three main grounds {delay; issue of accident inadequately left to jury; inadequate directions on identification). Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party's contention that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author has failed to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. It observes that the author has secured pro bono legal representation for this purpose, and that his representative is endeavouring to submit a petition for special leave to appeal on his behalf. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), or the Optional Protocol have not been met. -379-