2.3 The author appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Jamaican Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 21 May 1987. Subsequently, he sought to obtain the Court of Appeal's judgement, to no avail. 2.4 At the time of submission, the author had not petitioned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, because he lacked the means to do so. Subsequently, in 1988, he secured pro bono legal representation by a law firm in London for this purpose. In May 1990, following the Committee's decision of 15 March 19S0 declaring the case admissible, counsel informed the Committee that he had succeeded in obtaining the judgement of the Court of Appeal, pointing out that it took him over one year and a half to obtain that document and emphasizing that "availability" of relevant court documents should be deemed to refer to practical and reasonablyeffective methods whereby an appellant or his counsel might receive the appropriate documents. While criticizing the "apparent administrative inefficiency and uncooperativeness" of the State party which, for a considerable time, made the exhaustion of domestic remedies a practical impossibility, he none the less confirms that he is now proceeding with a petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee on the author's behalf. Complaint 3.1 The author complains that the conduct of his trial and of his appeal were beset with several irregularities, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. Thus, he claims that he had wholly inadequate opportunities to consult with his lawyer prior to and during the trial. There was no regular communication with this lawyer prior to the trial, and the lawyer visited him only once, briefly, before its beginning. In court, their contacts were confined to brief exchanges, each of no more than 10 to 15 minutes duration. The author adds that his lawyer was repeatedly absent in court and usually sent telephonic excuses that he had to attend trial dates elsewhere. 3.2 The author concedes that the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined, adding, however, that he had asked for a potential alibi witness, a girl in his company at the time of his arrest, to testify on his behalf, since she allegedly would have been able to cast doubts on the testimony of D.T. His counsel made no attempt to contact this witness. 3.3 As to his appeal, the author maintains that he was not assisted in its preparation and merely informed that a legal aid representative had been assigned to him for the purpose. He addressed two letters to the representative prior to the hearing of the appeal but did not receive a reply- Subsequently, he and his counsel repeatedly requested the written judgement of the Court of Appeal; it is submitted that the delay in obtention of this judgement constitutes a violation of the author's right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. State party's information and observations 4.1 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible on the ground that the author has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 <b), of the Optional Protocol. It points out that the author retains the right to petition the Judicial Committee of -331-