depend upon the semantic expression given to a claim, but on its underlying reasons. Looked at from this broader perspective, Mr. Henry was in fact also complaining to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that his trial had been unfair, in violation of section 20 of the Jamaican Constitution. Furthermore, the courts of every State party should ex officio test whether the lower court proceedings observed all the guarantees of a fair trial, a fortiori in capital punishment cases. 7.3 The Committee recalls that, by submission of 10 October 1991 in a different case, the State party indicated that legal aid was not provided for constitutional motions. In the view of the Committee, this supports the finding made in its decision on admissibility, that a constitutional motion is not an available remedy which must be exhausted for purposes of the Optional Protocol, In this context, the Committee observes that it is not the author's indigence which absolves him from pursuing constitutional remedies, but the State party's unwillingness or inability to provide legal aid for this purpose. 7.4 The State party claims that it has no obligation under the Covenant to make legal aid available in respect of constitutional motions, as such motions do not involve the determination of a criminal charge, as required by article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant. But the issue before the Committee has not been raised in the context of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), but only in the context of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.5 Moreover, the Committee notes that the author was arrested in 1984, tried and convicted in 1985 and that his appeal was dismissed in 1986. The Committee deems that for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, a further appeal to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court would, in the circumstances of the case, entail an unreasonable prolongation of the application of domestic remedies. 7.6 For the above reasons, the Committee maintains that a constitutional motion does not constitute a remedy which is both available and effective within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, there is no reason to reverse the decision on admissibility of 15 March 1990. 8.1 With respect to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Covenant, four issues are before the Committee: (a) whether the author had adequate time for the preparation of his defence; (b) whether he could have witnesses on his behalf examined under the same conditions as the witnesses against him; (c) whether the author's legal representation before the Court of Appeal was in conformity with that required under article 14, paragraph 3 (d); and (d) whether any volation of the Covenant ensued from the Court of Appeal's failure to issue a written judgement after dismissing his appeal. 8.2 In respect of the first claim, the State party has not denied the author's claim that he did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence, that his opportunities to consult with counsel prior to the trial were minimal, and that his defence actually was prepared on the first day of the trial. The Committee cannot ascertain, however, whether the court actually denied counsel adequate time for the preparation of the defence. Similarly, the Committee cannot ascertain whether the prosecution witnesses -216-