3.3 The author further contends that his lawyer did not comply with many of his instructions; this is said to constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e). Thus, he had requested that witnesses be called on his behalf; counsel, in a letter of 19 April 1990, states that he had been given the names of prospective witnesses but was unable to trace them, and that none of the author's relatives had come to see him. Towards the end of the trial, one person who claimed to know the author spoke to counsel and told him that she had not testified because she did not want to "get involved". In the author's opinion, the only reason why witnesses were not traced and called was that the legal aid rates were so inadequate that the lawyer was not able to make the necessary inquiries and initiate the necessary steps in order to prepare his defence, 3.4 The author specifically instructed his lawyer that the evidence presented by one of the investigating police officers was incorrect. He was told that this matter would have to be addressed at a later stage during the trial; in the end, it was not addressed at all. The author also informed counsel that the two investigating officers had beaten him during interrogation and forced him to sign a statement without knowing what it was about. Although so informed, counsel did not act on these instructions. Neither the trial transcript nor any of the depositions taken during the preliminary hearing indicate that the police officers' evidence was challenged or objected to, as it should have been in accordance with the author's instructions. Counsel contends that, notwithstanding, the judge should have given due consideration to the admissibility of unwritten confessional material. In this context, she refers to the Judges Rules, which police officers must respect. Under rule 2, an officer must caution anyone whom he suspects may have committed an offence before putting further questions to that person. The author submits that he was not cautioned. Under rule 9, statements taken in accordance with the Rules should, wherever possible, be taken down in writing and signed by the person making them, after having been given an opportunity to make appropriate corrections. The author was not asked by the police officers whether he wished to write down his statement, nor was he invited to make any corrections. 3.5 Counsel notes that the Judges Rules have been adopted by several Commonwealth jurisdictions, including Jamaica. Whenever a statement made in breach of the Eujjss. is sought to be admitted, the judge must exercise his discretion as to whether or not to admit such a statement. If the judge decides to admit it ( he must carefully instruct the }ury as to how to treat it; the author submits that the judge did not display this particular care. He concludes that as he was never advised that he had a right to remain silent, he was, in effect, compelled to make a statement, in violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (g). 3.6 The author, while conceding that it is in principle for the domestic courts and not for the Committee to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, contends that the instructions to the jury in respect of the author's trustworthiness were so tainted by the judge's own opinion as to amount to a denial of justice, especially if combined with his instructions concerning the circumstantial evidence and motive and with respect to the failure of counsel to challenge the confession statement. Counsel points, in particular, to the following remark made by the judge when summing up the author's unsworn statement: "It would be your duty as fudges of fact to pay -234-