consequences for the judicial procedure before that body. Such a consequence, it is submitted, cannot have been the purpose of the rule laid down in article 5 of the Optional Protocol. 3.11 Counsel further asserts that a constitutional motion in the Supreme (Constitutional) Court does not provide the author with an effective domestic remedy. In this context, he advances three arguments: firstly, section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution, which provides for the "enforcement" of the individual rights guaranteed under Chapter Three of the Constitution, including the right to a fair trial, would not provide an appropriate remedy in the circumstances of the case, as "enforcement" within the meaning of section 25 -would involve ordering a second retrial which, more than 10 years after the murder of Mr. Johnson, is an impractical proposition. Secondly, it is submitted that the proviso to section 25, paragraph 2, namely that the Supreme Court shall not exercise its powers if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are, or have been, available to the applicant, applies to the author's case. Finally, a constitutional remedy is not "available" to the author, because the State party does not grant legal aid for the purpose of filing constitutional motions in the Supreme Court, and lawyers in Jamaica are generally unwilling to argue such motions on a pro bono basis. State party's observations 4. The State party, by submission of 20 July 1988, contends that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author retains the right, under section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. It adds that it issued the written judgement of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica on 17 March 1986 and that it was available to the author and to his counsel; legal aid would be available to the author to petition the Judicial Committee pursuant to section 3, paragraph 1, of the Poor Prisoners* Defence Act. Cpmmittee's admissibility considerations and decision 5.1 During its thirty-fourth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it found that, in the circumstances, a petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council did not constitute an available and effective remedy within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. Furthermore, it emphasized that unreasonably prolonged delays had been encountered in obtaining the written judgement of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, the submission of which to the Judicial Committee was a prerequisite for an application for leave to appeal to be entertained. In Mr. Collins* case, it was undisputed that he had not received the written judgement of the Court of Appeal approximately two years after the dismissal of his appeal. 5.2 On 2 November 1988, accordingly, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible. -224-