fundamental rights has been, is being or is lively to be contravenes in relation to hint/ may, without prejudice to any other available action with respect to the same matter, apply for constitutional redress. Committee's admissibilitv considerations and decision 5.1 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 apply for constitutional redress. In the circumstances of the case, the Committee found that recourse to the Constitutional Court under section 25 of the Constitution was not a remedy available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 On 24 July 1989, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under article 14 of the Covenant. State party's objections to the admissibility decision and the Committee's request for further clarification 6.1 The State party, by submission of 10 January 1990, rejects the Committee's findings on admissibility and challenges the reasoning described in paragraph 5.1 above. It argues, in particular, that the Committee's arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the relevant Jamaican law, especially the operation of section 25 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. In its opinion, the proviso to section 25 (2) cannot apply to the case, as the constitutional remedy under section 25 is distinct from and independent oi any appellate remedies pertaining to a criminal charge. The State party refers to the case of Noel Riley v. Attorney General (see para. 3.7), in which the appellant, after exhausting his criminal appeals, filed a constitutional motion alleging violations of certain of his constitutionally guaranteed rights. The decision of the Supreme Court was in turn appealed to the Court of Appeal and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 6.2 In a further submission dated 10 October 1990, the State party argues that the proviso to section 25 (2) would only be applicable to a person whose criminal appeal had been adjudicated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if the right whose violation has been alleged, has been the subject of judicial determination by the Judicial Committee. In Mr. Little's case, the State party notes, the issue of a violation of the right to a fair trial was not determined by the Judicial Committee. In the State party's opinion, the Committee's admissibility decision "would render meaningless and nugatory the h&rd earned constitutional rights of Jamaicans and persons in Jamaica by its failure to distinguish between the right to appeal against the verdict and sentence of the court in a criminal case and the "brand new right" to apply for constitutional redress granted in 1962." 6.3 As to the author's claim concerning inadequate preparation of his defence,, the State party notes that article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant is coterminous with section 20, paragraph 6 (b), of the Jamaican Constitution, and adds that the author should have seized the Supreme Court of the alleged violation of his rights under this provision. -272-