5.2 During its fortieth session, in October 1990, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee ascertained that the case submitted by the author to the Inter-American Commission on Human eights was no longer under examination by that body. 5.3 The Committee took note of the State party's contention that the communication -was inadmissible because of the author's failure to pursue constitutional remedies available to him under the Jamaican Constitution. It observed that section 20, paragraph 1, of the Jamaican Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, while section 25 provides for the implementation of the provisions guaranteeing the rights of the individual. Section 25, paragraph 2, stipulates that the Supreme (Constitutional) Court may "hear and determine" applications with regard to the alleged non-observance of constitutional guarantees, but limits its jurisdiction to such cases where the applicants have not already been afforded "adequate means of redress for the contraventions alleged" (sect. 25, para. 2, in fine). The Committee further noted that the State party had been requested to clarify, in several interlocutory decisions, whether the Supreme (Constitutional) Court had had an opportunity to determine the question whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council constitute "adequate means of redress" within the meaning of section 25, paragraph 2, of the Jamaican Constitution. The State party had replied that the Supreme Court had not had said opportunity. In the circumstances, the Committee found that recourse to the Constitutional Court under section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution was not a remedy available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 The Committee also noted that part of the author's allegations concerned claims of bias on the part of the judge, as well as the alleged inadequacy of the judge's instructions to the jury. The Committee reaffirmed that it is generally beyond its competence to evaluate the adequacy of the judge's instructions to the jury, unless it can be ascertained that these instructions were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or unless it can be demonstrated that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. In the case under consideration, the Committee considered that the circumstances which led to the author's conviction merited further examination in respect of his claims relating to article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b) and (e), of the Covenant. 5.5 The Committee finally noted the author's allegation concerning illtreatment by the police, and observed that the State party had remained silent on the issue whether this part of the communication should be deemed admissible. 5.6 On 17 October 1990, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 10 and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b) and (e), of the Covenant. State party's objections to the admissibility decision 6.1 The State party, in a submission dated 12 February 1991, challenges the Committee's findings on admissibility and objects to the reasoning described in paragraph 5.3 above. It argues, in particular, that the Committee's -304-