reasoning reflects a "grave misunderstanding" of the relevant Jamaican law, especially the operation of section 25, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Jamaican Constitution. The right to apply for redress under section 25(1) is, 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 to be found in section 25(2) which, in the State party's opinion, does not apply in the case, since the alleged breach of the right to a fair trial was not at issue in the criminal law appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee: "... If the contravention alleged was not the subject of criminal law appeals, ex hypothesi, those appeals could hardly constitute an adequate remedy for that contravention. The decision of the Committee would render meaningless and nugatory the hard-earned constitutional rights of Jamaicans ..., by its failure to distinguish between the right to appeal against the verdict and sentence of the Court in a criminal case, and the "brand new rights' to apply for constitutional redress granted in 1962". 6.2 The State party submits that the admissibility decision attaches undue significance to the fact that the Jamaican courts have not yet had occasion to rule on the application of the proviso to section 25(2) of the Constitution in circumstances where the appellant has already exhausted his criminal law appellate remedies. It notes that in the case of Hoel Riley and others v. the Queen [A.G. (1982) 3 AER 469], Mr. Riley was able to apply, after the dismissal of his criminal appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee, to the Supreme {Constitutional) Court and thereafter to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council, albeit unsuccessfully. In the State party's opinion, this precedent illustrates that recourse to criminal law appellate remedies does not render the proviso of section 25(2) applicable in situations where, following criminal law appeals, an individual files for constitutional redress. 6.3 As to the absence of legal aid for the filing of constitutional motions, the State party submits that nothing in the Optional Protocol or in customary international law supports the contention that an individual is relieved of the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies on the mere ground that there is no provision for legal aid and that his indigence has prevented him from resorting to an available remedy. It is submitted that the Covenant only imposes a duty to provide legal aid in respect of criminal offences (art. 14, para. 3 (d)). Moreover, international conventions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights do not impose an unqualified obligation on States to implement such rights: article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides for the progressive realization of economic rights and relates to the "capacity of implementation of States". In the circumstances, the State party argues that it is incorrect to infer from the author's indigence and the absence of legal aid in respect of the right to apply for constitutional redress that the remedy is necessarily non-existent or unavailable. • 6.4 As to the author's claim of ill-treatment by the police, the State party observes that this issue was not brought to its attention in the initial submission, and that the Committee should not have declared the communication admissible in respect of article 10 without previously having apprised the State party of this claim. It adds that, in any event, the communication is -305-