Committee's admissibility decision 6.1 At its thirty-sixth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted the State party's contention that the communication was inadmissible because of the author's failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In this connection, the Committee observed that a petition to the Governor General for a stay of execution is not a domestic remedy that can render a communication inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 On 18 July 1989, accordingly, the Committee declared the communication admissible. Review of admissibility 7. The State party, in submissions dated 10 January 1990 and 4 September 1990, maintains that the communication is inadmissible. It submits that, pending the outcome of three other appeals before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council regarding the issue of identification, the author is seeking to petition the Governor General for mercy under section 90 of the Jamaican Constitution. The State party further argues that remedies under sections 20 and 25 of the Constitution are still available to the author. Finally, it argues that the Committee is not competent to evaluate issues of facts and evidence. 8. Counsel, by submission of 10 April 1990, indicates that he has lodged a petition with the Governor General to allow the rehearing of the author's case under section 29 of the Judicature Act. 9.1 The Committee observes that a petition for mercy addressed to the Governor General cannot be considered a domestic remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. Nor does the author's filing of a petition with the Governor General for a rehearing preclude the consideration of the communication by the Committee. 9.2 The Committee further refers to its decisions in communications Kos. 230/1987 and 283/1988 £./ and reaffirms that, in view of the absence of legal aid for constitutional motions, a constitutional motion does not, in the circumstances of this case, constitute an available and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 9.3 The Committee thus confirms its decision on admissibility. Examination of the merits 10.1 The Human Eights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 Having considered the information before it, the Committee finds that the evidence discloses no violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 10.3 The Committee further finds that the evidence discloses no violation of article 7 of the Covenant. -259-