6.4 As to the author's allegation that he was denied a fair trial because the judge misdirected the jury on the issue of "corroborative evidence", the State party, by reference to the Committee's jurisprudence, d/ submits that this claim seeks to raise issues of evaluation of facts and evidence in the case, which the Committee has no competence to evaluate. 6.5 In June 1991, counsel informed the Committee that the Supreme (Constitutional) Court had rendered its judgement in the cases of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan, on whose behalf constitutional motions had been filed earlier in 1991, e/ In the light of this judgement and in order better to appreciate whether recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court was a remedy which the author had to exhaust for purposes of the Optional Protocol, the Committee adopted an interlocutory decision during its forty-second session, on 24 July 1991, In this decision, the State party was requested to provide detailed information on the availability of legal aid or free legal representation for the purpose of constitutional motions, as well as examples of such cases in which legal aid might have been granted or free legal representation might have been procured by applicants. The State party did not forward this information within the deadline set by the Committee, that is, 26 September 1991. By submission of 10 October 1991, the State party replied that no provision for legal aid in respect of constitutional motions exists under Jamaican law, and that the Covenant does not require the States parties to provide legal aid for this purpose. Post-admissibility proceedings and examination of merits 7.1 In the light of the above, the Committee decides to proceed with its consideration of the communication. It has taken note of the State party's arguments on admissibility formulated after the Committee's decision declaring the communication admissible in so far as it raised issues under article 14 of the Covenant, and the author's further claims concerning violations of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, which were only substantiated after the Committee's admissibility decision. 7.2 The State party argues that the provision to section 25 (2) of the Jamaican Constitution cannot apply in the case, as the alleged breach of the right to a fair trial was not placed before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and thus not subject to judicial determination by that body. Based on the material placed before the Committee by the author, this statement would appear to be misleading. The author's petition to the Judicial Committee, dated 23 January 1989, submits that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The Committee observes that the issue of whether or not a particular claim was the subject of a criminal appeal should not necessarily depend upon the semantic expression given to a claim, but on its underlying reasons. From this broader perspective, Mr. Little was in fact also complaining to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that his trial was 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, the State party indicated that legal aid is not provided for constitutional motions. In the view of the Committee, this supports the finding, made in its decision on -273-