membership, the Committee observed that domestic remedies that might indeed prove to be effective were still open to the complainants and were in fact being used by other bands. It observed that the complainants' concern about the length of the proceedings did not absolve them from the requirement of at least making a reasonable effort to exhaust domestic remedies (annex X, sect, I). 639. In case No, 287/1988 (O.H.C. v. Colombia), the complainant claimed to have been the victim of irregular actions by members of the Colombian army who had allegedly threatened him and tortured his brother. Judicial investigations into the events complained of, however, were still pending. The Committee considered that it could not conclude that the domestic remedies in Colombia would be a priori ineffective and that difficulties in the judicial process would absolve the complainant from exhausting domestic remedies (annex X, sect. B ) . 640. In case Ho. 463/1991 (D.B.-B. v. Zaire), the complainant claimed to be a victim of violations of the Covenant by Zaire; because of the alleged violations he had fled the country. He did not use any domestic remedies before bringing his case to the Committee. The Committee considered that the complainant had not shown the existence of circumstances that would prevent him from pursuing domestic remedies ia his case (annex X, sect. BB)„ 641. In case No. 340/1988 (R.W. v. Jamaica), the author, who had been sentenced to death, claimed to be a victim of an unfair trial. The appeal against his conviction had been dismissed in Hay 1985 and his petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been dismissed in February 1989. The State party, however, claimed that the author still had constitutional remedies that he might pursue. The Committee observed that! "the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Jamaica has, in recent cases, allowed applications for constitutional redress in respect of alleged breaches of fundamental rights, after the criminal appeals in these cases had been dismissed. The Committee further observes that the author appears to have means to secure legal assistance to file a constitutional motion. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee finds that the constitutional remedy referred to by the State party constitutes a remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, which the author has failed to exhaust." (annex X, sect. E, para. 6,2) 642. In case No. 233/1987 (M.F. v. Jamaica), the Committee, upon request of the State party, revised an earlier decision to declare the communication admissible. After the adoption of the Committee's admissibility decision, the State party had made available to the complainant a copy of the judgement of the Court of Appeal, enabling him effectively to lodge a petition for special leave to appeal against his conviction. That being the case, the Committee considered that domestic remedies could still be pursued (annex X, sect. A ) . -152-