2.3 On 1 February 1985, the author was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The author's appeal was dismissed by the Jamaican Court of Appeal on 14 October 1985. On 6 May 1991, the State party commuted the author's death sentence to life imprisonment. 2.4 With regard to the circumstances of the appeal, the author claims that he was not properly informed of the date of the hearing of his appeal. On 14 October 1985, counsel visited him and told him that his appeal had been dismissed earlier that day. On the next day/ he received a letter from the registrar of the Court of Appeal informing him that his case was due to be heard in the week beginning 14 October 1985. According to the author, this meant that he was prevented from instructing his counsel and from attending the appeal personally. Although the author had appealed on the ground that he had not been given a fair trial, counsel had withdrawn that ground, allegedly without consulting with the author. Complaint 3. Although the author does not invoke any article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from his submission that he claims to be a victim of a violation by Jamaica of article 14 of the Covenant. State party's observations and author's comments 4. The State party, by submission, dated 20 July 1988, contends that the author's communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, claiming that he could still petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave of appeal. The State party adds that legal aid would be available for that purpose pursuant to section 3 of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act. 5. in a submission dated 30 January 1989, the author's counsel explains that a petition for special leave to appeal was in fact filed with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on behalf of the author early in 1987. The application had been for interlocutory relief, to the effect that the Court of Appeal of Jamaica be ordered to issue a written judgement in the case. Notwithstanding the interlocutory nature of the application, the Privy Council dealt with it as a petition for leave to appeal and dismissed it on 19 February 1987, although no submissions hact been made on behalf o£ the author on the merits of the case. Counsel therefore submits that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 6. In a further submission, dated 14 April 1989, the State party acknowledges that the author's petition for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed. It reiterates, however, that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author has not taken any action to pursue his constitutional remedies in the Jamaican Supreme (Constitutional) Court, pursuant to section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution. Committee's admissibility decision 7.1 At its thirty-sixth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted the State party's contention that the -254-