3.4 Finally, the author alleges a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 <b), because he, or his representative, were denied adequate time for the preparation of the defence. In particular, it is submitted that the trial transcript reveals that the attorney assigned to the case was instructed on the very day on which the trial began, Accordingly, he had less than one day to prepare the case. This, according to counsel, is wholly insufficient to prepare adequately the defence in a capital case. Deficiencies in the author's defence are said to be attributable partly to lack of time for the preparation for the trial, and partly to the lack of experience of one of the author's two court-appointed lawyers. 3.5 With regard to the issue of domestic remedies, counsel rebuts the State party's contention that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on grounds of a presumed right to apply for constitutional redress to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court. He adds that this argument is advanced without detailed consideration of the Constitution. He points out that chapter III of the Jamaican Constitution deals with individual rights, and section 20(5) deals with the right to a fair trial. In particular, section 25 makes provision for enforcement; section 25(2) stipulates that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to "hear and determine applications", but adds the qualification that the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress have beejx available under any other law. The author's case is said to fall within the scope of the qualification of section 25(2) of the Jamaican Constitution: if it were not covered by this proviso, every convicted criminal in Jamaica alleging an unfair trial would have the right to pursue parallel or sequential remedies to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, both under criminal law and under the Constitution. 3.6 Counsel finally notes that the State party has failed to show that legal aid is available to the author for the purpose of constitutional motions. If the State party were correct in asserting that a constitutional remedy was indeed available, at least in theory, it would not be available to the author in practice because of his lack of financial means and the unavailability of legal aid. Counsel concludes that a remedy which cannot be pursued in practice is not an available remedy. State party' s information and observations, 4. The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. It argues that the author's rights under article 14 of the Covenant are coterminous with the fundamental rights guaranteed by section 20 of the Jamaican Constitution, Accordingly/ under the Constitution, anyone who alleges that a fundamental right has been, is being or is likely to be infringed in relation to him may apply to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court for redress. Since the author failed to take any action to pursue his constitutional remedies in the Supreme Court, the communication is deemed inadmissible. Committee's admissibility considerations and decision 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. -303-