State party's observations 4. The State party, by submission of 26 October 1988, concedes that the Court of Appeal of Jamaica did not issue a written judgement in the case; the Court confined itself to an oral judgement when refusing Mr, Henry's application for leave to appeal. By further submission of 26 January 1989, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author failed to take action under the Jamaican Constitution to seek enforcement of his right, under section 20 of the Constitution, to a fair trial and legal representation. In this context, it submits that the fact that an appellant has not been afforded redress by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not mean that he has exhausted domestic remedies, since even after a hearing of a criminal appeal by the Privy Council, an appellant may still exercise his constitutional rights to seek redress in the Jamaican courts. Committee's admissibility considerations and decision 5.1 At its thirty-eighth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It took note of the State party's contention that the communication was inadmissible because of the author's failure to pursue constitutional remedies available to him under the Jamaican Constitution. In the circumstances of the case, the Commiteee found that recourse to the Constitutional Court under section 25 of the Constitution -was not a remedy available to the author within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 The Committee noted that part of the author's allegations related to claims of bias on the part of the trial judge, particularly in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of the judge's instructions to the jury. The Committee reiterated that the review by it of specific instructions by the judge to the jury is beyond the scope of application of article 14 of the Covenant, unless it can be ascertained that the instructions to the jury were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. In the circumstances, the Commiteee found that the judge's instructions did not suffer from such defects. 5.3 On 15 March 1990, accordingly, the Committee declared the communication admissible in respect of article 14, paragraphs 3 (b), (d), (e) and 5, of the Covenant, State party's objections to the admissibility decision and the Committee's request for further clarifications 6.1 The State party, in a submission of 6 February 1991, rejects the Committee's findings on admissibility and challenges the reasoning described in paragraph 5.1 above. It argues, in particular, that the Committee's reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the relevant Jamaican law, especially the operation of sections 25{1) and (2) of the Jamaican Constitution. The right to apply for redress under section 25(1), in the terms of the provision itself, "without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available." The only limitation is contained in section 25(2) which, in the State party's opinion, is not applicable in the case, since the alleged breach of the right to a fair trial was not at issue -213-