aggession. He contends that his lawyer did not properly represent him during the trial, since he did not cross-examine E.G. and was reluctant in calling witnesses on the author's behalf. He further indicates that on 10 October 1987 he appealed to the Court of Appeal; however, he claims that his lawyer, who was privately retained, did not attend the hearing. On 18 April 1988, he was informed that his application for leave to appeal had been dismissed. He submits that he later learned that the judge who tried his case at first instance also participated in the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Complaint 3. The author claims that his trial was unfair and his conviction unjust. Although he 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 of article 14 of the Covenant. State party's observations and authors comments thereon 4. By submission on 22 February 1990, the communication is inadmissible on the ground remedies, since the author may still appeal Privy Council, either by leave of the Court Judicial Committee itself. State party argues that the of non-exhaustion of domestic to the Judicial Committee of the of Appeal or by leave of the 5. In his comments on the State party's observations, the author states that he has not been able to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, because he does not have legal representation. He submits that he has requested assistance from various instances, including the Legal Aid Clinic, the Jamaica Council for Human Bights, the Ministry of Justice and the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, all to no avail. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights 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. 6.2 The Committee observes that the author's claims relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the courts. It recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant, and not for the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it is apparent that the courts' decisions are manifestly arbitrary. The Committee has no evidence that this was the case in the author's trial. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 As regards the author's claim concerning his legal representation, the Committee observes that the author's lawyer was privately retained and that his alleged failure to properly represent the author cannot be attributed to the State party. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible. -382-