Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The Commission registered the case under No. 9260 ana held a hearing on 24 March 1988. The State party argued that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies because he had failed to avail himself of constitutional remedies in Jamaica. The Commission requested further information as to whether such remedies were effective within the meaning of article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights; the State party did not reply. On 14 September 1988, the Commission approved resolution No. 29/88, declaring "that since the conviction and sentence are undermined by the record in this case, and that the appeals process did not permit for a correction, that the Government of Jamaica has violated the petitioner's fundamental rights" under article 25 of the American Convention on Hum&n Eights. The State party challenged this resolution by submission of 4 November 1988. Complaint 3.1 Counsel contends that the State party violated several of the author's rights under the Covenant. First, he claims that the author was subjected to ill-treatment by the police, which allegedly included the squirting of a corrosive liquid (Ajax) into his eyes and that, as a result, he sustained injuries. 3.2 Counsel further claims that the author was not afforded a fair hearing within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. More specifically, the trial transcript reveals that the pathologist's uncontested evidence, which had been produced by the prosecution, was overlooked by the defence and either overlooked or deliberately glossed over by the trial judge. This meant that the jury was not afforded an opportunity to properly evaluate this evidence which, if properly put, should have resulted in the author's acquittal. In fact, according to the pathologist's report, death occurred on 30 August 1981 at around 2 p.m., whereas Mr. Wright had been in police custody since approximately 6 p.m. on 29 August. It is submitted that no trial in which the significance of such crucial evidence was overlooked or ignored can be deemed to be fair, and that the author has suffered a grave and substantial denial of justice. 3.3 It is further alleged that throughout the trial, the judge displayed a hostile and unfair attitude towards the author as well as his representatives. Thus, the judge's observations are said to have been partial and frequently veined with malice, his directions on identification and on recent possession of stolen property biased. In this context, it is pointed out that no identification parade was held in the case and that the judge, in his summing up, endorsed the prosecution's contention that it was inappropriate to conduct an identification parade in the circumstances of the case. The judge also allegedly made highly prejudicial comments on the author's previous character and emphatically criticized the way in which the defence conducted the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Counsel maintains that the judge's disparaging manner vis-a-vis the defence, coupled with the fact that he refused a brief adjournment of 10 minutes and thereby deprived the defence of the opportunity of calling a potentially important witness, points to a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant, in that the author was unable to obtain the examination of defence witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses against him. -302-