State party's observations 4.1 The time-limit for the observations on the admissibility of the communication requested from the State party pursuant to rule 91 of the Committee's rules of procedure, expired on 17 January 1989. In spite of six reminders sent o» 23 June 1989, 6 July and 1 Septmeber 1990, 25 January, 26 March and 14 August 1991, no submission has been received from the State party. 4.2 The Government of Trinidad and Tobago is, like every State party to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, required to investigate in good faith all the allegations of violations of Covenant rights made against it, and to inform the Committee accordingly. The Committee deplores the complete absence of cooperation on the part of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Bights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 After a careful consideration of the material placed before it by the author concerning his claims of unfair, the Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that it is generally for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant and not for the Committee to evaluate the facts and the evidence placed before the domestic courts and to review the interpretation of domestic law by those courts. Similarly, it is for appellate courts and not for the Committee to review specific instructions to the jury by the trial judge, unless it is apparent from the author's submission that the instructions to the jury were clearly arbitrary or tantamount to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. The Committee considers that the author's allegations do not reveal that the judge's instructions or the conduct of the trial suffered from such defects. Accordingly, the communication is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, 6. The Human Sights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, to the author and to his counsel. 7. The Committee observes, however, that even, if the communication is inadmissible, humanitarian measures on behalf of the author, such as the commutation of his sentence, are not excluded. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] -339-