also inadmissible in this respect, as the author did not avail himself of the constitutional remedies available to him under sections 17(1) and 25(1) of the Jamaican Constitution: any person alleging torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or other punishment may apply to the Supreme Court for constitutional redress. 6.5 In the light of the above, the State party requests the Committee to review its decision on admissibility. Pftst-admissibilitv considerations and examination of merits 7.1 The Committee has taken note of the State party's request, dated 12 February 1991, to review its decision on admissibility, as well as its criticism of the reasoning leading to the decision of 17 October 1990. 7.2 The same issues concerning admissibility have already been examined by the Committee in its views on communications Nos. 230/1987 a./ and 283/1988. b/ In the circumstances of those cases, the Committee concluded that a constitutional motion was not an available and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, and that, accordingly, the Committee was not precluded from examining the merits. 7.3 The Committee has taken due note of the fact that subsequent to its decision on admissibility the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Jamaica has had an opportunity to determine the question whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica 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 Supreme (Constitutional) Court has since replied to this question in the negative by accepting to consider the constitutional motion of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan (judgement entered on 14 June 1991). The Committee observes that whereas the issue is settled under Jamaican constitutional law, different considerations govern the application of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, such as the length of the judicial proceedings and the availability of legal aid. 7.4 In the absence of legal ai$ for constitutional motions and bearing in mind that the author was arrested in August 1981, convicted in March 1983, and that his appeals were dismissed in July 1986 by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and in October 1987 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Committee finds that recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court is not required under article 5, paragraph 2 <b), of the Optional Protocol in this case, and that there is no reason to reverse the Committee's decision on admissibility of 17 October 1990. 7.5 As to the allegation concerning the author's ill-treatment by the police, the Committee notes th&t this claim was reproduced in resolution 29/88 approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a copy of which was transmitted by the Committee to the State party on 28 April 1989. Furthermore, while the allegation of a violation of article 10 does not expressly figure under the header "Alleged Breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (p. 8 of the author's initial communication), reference to ill-treatment by the police is made on pages 51 and 52 of this communication, which was integrally transmitted to the Government of Jamaica a year and a half before the Committee's decision on -306-