and corroborate his evidence, reportedly did not testify on his behalf because of threats against her life. The author himself allegedly also received threats prior to his trial; during the trial he did not disclose the identity of the murderer for fear of his family's and his own life. 2.4 The author further alleges that other witnesses who would have been able to testify on his behalf during the trial did not do so because of fear for their lives; some of these potential witnesses are even said to have left their homes for this reason. It is not clear whether the witnesses against the author were cross-examined during the trial, and it appears that no witnesses were called to testify on his behalf. Complaint 3. Although the author does not invoke any article 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 articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant. Committee's admissibility considerations and decision 4. The time-limit for the State party's observations on admissibility expired on 12 September 1988, In spite of a reminder sent on 13 July 1989, no submission was received from the State party. 5.1 At its thirty-seventh session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication, noting that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had dismissed the author's petition for special leave to appeal. The Committee also noted that the subsequent petition for mercy to the GovernorGeneral did not appear to have produced any result. The Committee further observed that a petition for mercy to the highest executive officer of a State party to the Optional Protocol does not constitute a remedy that must be exhausted for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concluded that there were no further remedies that the author was required to exhaust for purposes of admissibility. 5.2 The Committee noted that the author had failed to provide detailed information about the circumstances of the trial, although he was explicitly requested to do so in the Working Group's decision of 15 March 1988. It considered that the author's allegations, in so far as they related to the guarantee of a fair hearing, laid down in article 14 of the Covenant/ pertained above all to paragraph 3 (e); it decided that tliese allegations, as well as the author's allegations of maltreatment, should be considered on the merits. 5.3 On 19 October 1989, the Committee declared the communication admissible in respect of articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant. Review of the admissibility decision 6.1 By submission dated 8 May 1990/ the State party challenges the adifiissibility decision and argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies, it submits -243-