(d) Inconsistencies in the testimony of O.B. were picked up by the author and notified to counsel, who failed to take any action; <e) Counsel initially intended to call the author to testify but then changed his mind; (f) At least one witness identified by the author as capable of providing relevant and credible evidence on his behalf was not called by A.S., who indicated that this was unnecessary, without however providing an explanation; <g) The author pointed out that the distance between the bar where he had been drinking and the locus in quo was such that he could not possibly have killed Mr. Dawes and made it in time for the beginning of his work shift at 7 a.m. The author's presence in the bar and on the bus to work could have been established, but counsel did not investigate the matter, in spite of requests to this effect formulated by the author. 3.3 The author acknowledges that the Court of Appeal assigned a lawyer, Mr. W.C., to him for the preparation of the appeal. He submits, however, that he was not consulted by this lawyer either before, during or after the appeal; he addressed several letters to W.C. before and after the hearing of the appeal, requesting an interview, but his letters went unanswered. It is submitted that this situation constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraphs 3 (b), (d) and 5, of the Covenant. 3.4 Counsel claims that the delays in the judicial proceedings in his client's case constitute violations of articles 7, 10 and 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5, of the Covenant. Thus, two years and six months passed between arrest and trial and sentence, one year and seven months between conviction and the dismissal of the appeal, and three years and four months between the appeal and the dismissal of Mr. Little's petition for special leave to appeal to th.e Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 3.5 In this context, it is submitted that the Court of Appeal of Jamaica never issued a properly reasoned judgment in the case. It was only on 31 January 1989 that counsel representing the author before the Judicial Committee received a note from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, signed by one of the judges on appeal. This note merely states that the Court of Appeal considered counsel's submissions to be devoid of merit, that there was no ground on which an application for leave to appeal could be based, and that the application was, accordingly, refused by oral judgement. Council submits that this note does not constitute proper grounds for the dismissal of the appeal, as it fails to address the central issue of corroboration, namely whether the statement allegedly given by Mr, Little to the police after his arrest was capable of corroborating the evidence of the prosecution's only witness, O.B. 3.6 The author further submits that the conditions of his detention are inhuman and degrading, amounting to a violation of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. He confirms the findings of a recent report on prison conditions in Jamaica, including the death row section of St. Catherine District Prison to which he is confined, prepared by a United States non-governmental organization. Specifically, he complains that prison conditions are extremely -270-