by the judge to reconsider the evidence, it again retired and thereafter returned a guilty verdict. During the trial, the woman who had initially been charged with him, O.B., did in fact testify against the author, and it was, inter alia, on the basis of her testimony that he was convicted. 2.3 On 31 July 1984, the author appealed to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica on the grounds that the judge had misdirected the jury (a) on the issue of corroborative evidence, and (b) on the value of the author's alleged confession made after his arrest. On 20 January 1986, the appeal was dismissed. Early in 1989, the author petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal; the petition was dismissed on 5 May 1989. With this, it is submitted, available domestic remedies have been exhausted, Complaint 3.1 The author submits that the conduct of the trial violated article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the Issue of "corroborative evidence" were inadequate. It is submitted that these directions were vitally important given that (a) the testimony of O.B. provided the only evidence against the author (b) her evidence was inconsistent with respect to the author's possession of the knife with which Mr. Dawes had been stabbed; and (c) no motive on the part of the author was ever established. Counsel further submits that the trial judge wrongly directed the jury that the statement made by the author in the presence of Det. Corp. C. ("ah no mi alone involve. L. and 0. no about it too") amounted to a confession of murder: these words could not have amounted, in law, to a confession. It is further submitted that the judge should have directed or warned the jury that a mere "involvement" in any crime cannot necessarily be deemed, in the absence of further evidence, to amount to participation sufficient to establish guilt. Pursuant to the judge's instructions, the jury had to convict Mr. Little if it was convinced that he had played some part in the overall enterprise but remained unsure as to whether he was a principal or an abettor. 3.2 The author further claims that he was denied adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, contrary to article 14, paragraph 3 (b), as well as inadequate facilities to cross-examine witnesses, contrary to article 14, paragraph 3 (e). He states that he was assigned two representatives, Mr. A.S, and his assistant, Ms. H.M.; although they were assigned to the case prior to the hearing before the examining magistrate, the author only had a brief interview with Ms. H.M. prior to the preliminary hearing. He further only met once for about 30 minutes with Mr. K.S, about one month before the trial. The author submits that his representatives were inexperienced and did not adequately consult with him in preparation of the defence. Thus, (a) The statements of the prosecution witnesses were not reviewed with the author; (b) His comments on the case of the prosecution were not acted upon by the representatives; <c) counsel; He had only 10 minutes at the end of each trial day to consult with -269-