2.4 The author's appeal was dismissed on 4 December 1987. According to him, his counsel did not consult him about the grounds for the appeal. Although the author had informed counsel about what the witnesses had told him, counsel failed to take statements from these witnesses. 2.5 According to the author, one of the main witnesses for the prosecution, A.K./ later gave a statement to the Director of Public Prosecution, expressing regret at having implicated the author. This statement was sent to the Governor-General, who would review the matter in order to reopen the case. 2.6 The author states that, on 27 January 1989, he authorized a lawyer to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No petition for special leave to appeal, however, appears to have been filed. Complaint 3. Although the author does not invoke any article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from his submissions that he claims to be a victim of a violation by Jamaica of article 14 of the Covenant. State party's observations and author's comments 4.1 By submission of 4 July 1989, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since the author can still petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal. 4.2 By further submission of 21 July 1989, the State party informs the Committee that an investigation was conducted into the author's allegation that one of the main witnesses had given a written confession to the Director of Public Prosecution, and that the Governor-General of Jamaica would be requested to review his case under section 29 (1) of the Judicature (Appellate Division) Act. The State party forwards the text of said section, from which it transpires that the Governor-General's power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal is discretionary. 5. In his reply to the State party's observations, the author states that he was informed that the Privy Council would consider his application early in 1990. He further reiterates that he is innocent of the murder for which he was convicted. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 Article 5, paragraph 2 (h), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering a communication if the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in spite of the author's statement that he believed that his case would be heard by the Judicial Committee in 1990, no petition for special leave to appeal to the -341-