"capacity of implementation" of States. In the circumstances, the State party argues that it is incorrect to infer from the author's indigence and the absence of legal aid in respect of the right to apply for constitutional redress that the remedy is necessarily non-existent or unavailable. Accordingly, the State party requests the Committee to review its decision on admissibility. 6.5 In June 1991, counsel informed the Committee that the Supreme (Constitutional) Court had rendered its judgement in the cases of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan, on whose behalf constitutional motions had been filed earlier in 1991. c_/ In the light of this judgement and in order better to appreciate whether recourse to the Supreme {Constitutional) Court was a remedy which the author had to exhaust for purposes of the Optional Protocol/ the Committee adopted an interlocutory decision during its forty-second session, on 24 July 1991. In this decision, the State party was requested to provide detailed information on the availability of legal aid or free legal representation for the purpose of constitutional motions, as well as examples of such cases in which legal aid might have been granted or free legal representation might have been procured by applicants. The State party did not forward this information within the deadline set by the Committee, that is, 26 September 1991. By submission of 10 October 1991 concerning another case, it replied that no provision for legal aid in respect of constitutional motions is made under Jamaican law and that the Covenant does not require States parties to provide legal aid for this purpose. 6.6 In the above interlocutory decision, as well as the decision on admissibility, the State party was requested to also provide information and observations in respect of the substance of the author's allegations. In the interlocutory decision of 24 July 1991, the Committee added that should no comments be forthcoming from the State party on the merits of the author's allegations, it might decide to give due consideration to those allegations. In spite of the Committee's requests, the State party did not provide any information and observations in respect of the substance of the author's allegations. Pps^-admissibility proceedings and examination of merits 7.1 In the light of the above, the Committee decides to proceed with its consideration of the communication. It has taken note of the State party's request that it review its decision on admissibility, in the light of the arguments outlined in paragraphs 6,1 to 6,4 above. 7.2 The State party argues that the proviso to section 25 (2) of the Jamaican Constitution cannot apply in the case, as the alleged breach of the right to a fair trial was not the subject-matter of the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee. Based on the material placed before the Committee by the author, this statement would appear to be incorrect. The author's notice of appeal, dated 11 March 1985, clearly refers to "unfair trial" as one of the grounds of appeal. If the Court of Appeal did not examine this ground - and there is no means of ascertaining whether it did, since it delivered only an oral judgement - the responsibility does not lie with the author, and it cannot be argued that he did not attempt to exhaust local remedies in respect of this issue. Furthermore, the issue of whether or not a particular claim was the subject of a criminal appeal should not necessarily -215-