in the criminal law appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the Judicial Committee: "... If the contravention alleged was not the subject of the criminal law appeals, ex hypothesi, those appeals could hardly constitute an adequate remedy for that contravention. The decision of the Committee would render meaningless and nugatory the hard earned constitutional rights of Jamaicans and persons in Jamaica, by its failure to distinguish between the right to appeal against the verdict and sentence of the court in a criminal case, and the 'brand new right' to apply for constitutional redress granted in 1962." 6.2 The State party submits that the admissibility decision attaches undue significance to the fact that the Jamaican courts have not yet had occasion to rule on the application of the proviso to section 25 (2) of the Constitution in circumstances where the applicant has already exhausted his criminal law appellate remedies. It notes that in the case of Hoel Riley v. The Queen [A.G. (1982) 3 AER 469], Mr. Siley was able to apply, after the dismissal of his criminal appeal by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council/ to the Constitutional Court for redress ana thereafter to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council/ although unsuccessfully. In the State party's opinion, this precedent illustrates that recourse to criminal law appellate remedies does not render the proviso of section 25 (2) applicable in situations where, following criminal law appeals, an individual files for constitutional redress. 6.3 Furthermore, the State party challenges the Committee's interpretation of the relationship between section 25 (2) and a fundamental human right protected by chapter three of the Jamaican Constitution! even if chapter three of the Constitution grants a specific right, such as protection from arbitrary arrest or detention (sect. 15), the Committee would test the applicability of section 25 (2) in relation to the Supreme Court's powers regarding the right of an individual to seeK enforcement and protection of such a right; since that specific question had not been the subject of judicial determination by the domestic courts, the Committee would be able to conclude that the remedy does not exist and is not available. In the State party's opinion, this approach has the result that the Committee would conclude that many of the rights set forth in the Jamaican and Westminster Model Constitutions are not existent or not available, on the ground that the issue of the applicability of section 25 (2) had not been subject to judicial determination by the courts. 6.4 In respect of the absence of legal aid for the filing of constitutional motions, the State party submits that nothing in the Optional Protocol or in customary international law would support the contention that an individual is relieved of the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies on the grounds that there is no provision for legal aid and that his indigence has prevented him from resorting to an available remedy. In this connection, the State party observes that the Covenant only imposes a duty to provide legal aid in respect of criminal offences (art. 14, para. 3 (d)). Furthermore, international conventions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights do not impose an unqualified obligation on States to implement such rights: article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Eights, for instance, provides for the progressive realization of economic rights and relates to the -214-