2.3 The author claims that in the course of his trial the judge misdirected the jury on the issue of identification and did not apply the principles set out in the leading case on the subject, Turnbull (1976) Cr. App. R.132. According to him the trial judge failed to give adequate instruction to the jury about the need for caution in an identification case or to point out to the jury that an identification witness might be subjectively convinced though objectively mistaken. It is also claimed that the author's legal aid lawyer did little pretrial preparation and failed to pursue adequately a number of points which arose during the trial. The failure of counsel to raise objections to these points at the time of the trial precluded their being considered on appeal. 2.4 The author's current counsel submits that Mr. Ellis' case Dears some resemblance to the case of Oliver Whylie, b_/ Junior Reid and Roy Dennis (all Jamaican citizens sentenced to death) in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council granted special leave to appeal on 8 October 1987, primarily on account of the large number of petitions reaching the Judicial Commitee from Jamaica that raise serious issues of inadequate directions to juries in capital cases where identification is in question. Complaint 3. The author claims to be a victim of a violation by Jamaica of articles 6, 7 and 14 of the Covenant. State party's observations and the author's comments thereon 4. The State party, by submission dated 26 October 1988, contends that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this connection, the State party notes that the author "has petitioned the Governor General for a stay of execution and that the Privy Council has recommended to the Governor General that a stay of execution should be granted pending the outcome of the representations made on his behalf". The State party does not explain what it understands by representations. 5.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, dated 22 December 1988, author's counsel argues that the State praty's contention with regard to the Privy Council's recommendation to the Governor General concerning the granting of stay of execution to Mr. Trevor Ellis fails to indicate whether the recommendation has been adopted by the Governor General, and, therefore, whether a stay of execution is in force. 5.2 It is further submitted that said recommendation has not been communicated to counsel and that counsel's petition to the Governor General/ dated 2 March 1988, requesting a stay of execution, pending the outcome of a number of similar cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, has remained as yet unanswered. 5.3 Moreover, author's counsel observes that the remaining remedies are ineffective and the procedures for securing such remedies are unduly prolonged and uncertain; therefore, the present communication should not be deemed inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, -258-