admissibility, that a constitutional motion is not an available remedy which must be exhausted for purposes of the Optional Protocol. In this context, the Committee observes that it is not the author's indigence which absolves him from pursuing constitutional remedies, but the State party's unwillingness or inability to provide legal aid for this purpose. 7.4 The State party claims that it has no obligation under the Covenant to make legal aid available in respect of constitutional motions, as such motions do not involve the determination of a criminal charge, as reguired by article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant. But the issue before the Committee has not been raised in the context of article 14, paragraph 3 <d), but only in the context of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.5 The Committee further notes that the author was arrested in 1982/ tried and convicted in 1984, and that his appeal was dismissed in 1986. The Committee deems that for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, a further appeal to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court would, in the circumstances of this case, entail an unreasonable prolongation of the application of domestic remedies. 7.6 For the above reasons, the Committee maintains that a constitutional motion does not constitute a remedy which is both available and effective within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, there is no reason to reverse its decision on admissibility of 24 July 1989, as far as article 14 is concerned. 7.7 With regard to the author's allegations of ill-treatment during detention, the Committee notes that the substantiation thereof was not submitted by the author until after the Committee's decision declaring the communication admissible with respect to article 14 of the Covenant. Moreover, the Committee observes that the issues concerning the conditions of detention on death row and the question whether prolonged detention on death row constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment were not placed before the Jamaican courts, nor brought before any other competent Jamaican authority. Since domestic remedies in this respect have not been exhausted, the Committee is precluded from considering these allegations on the merits. 8.1 With respect to the alleged violation of article 14, three issues are before the Committee: (a) whether the judge's instructions to the jury violated the author's right to a fair trial; (b) whether the author had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and (c) whether any violations of the Covenant ensued from the Court of Appeal's failure to issue a written judgement after dismissing his appeal, 8.2 Inasmuch as the alleged inadequacy of, and mistakes in, the judge's instructions to the jury are concerned, the Committee reiterates that it is generally for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate the facts and evidence in any particular case. It is not in principle for the Committee to make such an evaluation or to review specific instructions to the jury, unless it can be ascertained that said instructions were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. On the basis of the material placed before it, the Committee finds no evidence that the author's trial suffered from such defects, -274-