and obtained a stay of execution. According to the author, his new lawyer was shocked by the unprofessional manner in which the first lawyer had handled the case. Reportedly, the new lawyer attempted, without success, to secure a retrial. The Jamaica Council for Human Sights was also informed about the new situation. 2.4 According to the author, the Jamaica Council for Human Rights informed him in October 1988 that his case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Jamaica, but that no written judgement had been issued. It told him that a petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was being prepared, in cooperation with the author's first lawyer. The author, however, refused to sign the papers, as he did not want his first lawyer to represent him. Subsequently, the Governor-General signed a warrant for the author's execution on 15 November 1988. A priest who visited the author shortly before that date made him sign the papers necessary for a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council and, on 14 November 1988, the author obtained another stay of execution. On 14 December 1988, a petition for special leave to appeal was submitted to the Privy Council on behalf of the author by a London law firm. In February 1989, the author was informed that the petition had been dismissed. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that his human rights have been violated by the Jamaican Court of Appeal because it did not allow him to put forward new evidence and denied him the opportunity to submit grounds for appeal. He further claims that his defence was seriously harmed by the unprofessional attitude of his first lawyer, and by the negligence of the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, which allowed the first lawyer to prepare the petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 3.2 Although the author does not invoke any of the articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from his submission 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 thereon 4, By submission of 2 August 1989, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies as required by article 5, paragraph 2 <b), of the Optional Protocol. It submits that the author's appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was in respect of his criminal ease and that he still has constitutional remedies he may pursue. The State party further submits that the communication does not disclose a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. 5. In his reply to the State party's observations the author reiterates that his constitutional and human rights were seriously violated by the Jamaican Court of Appeal and the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, He claims that new evidence in his case should be examined by the Jamaican courts. He further states that he is not at present represented by a lawyer. -344-