<e) No medical expert was called during the trial to corroborate the prosecution's evidence; as to the rape, he complains that he was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence; (f) The judge ignored the news broadcasted by two radio stations (the EJR and the JBC) on 18 and 19 October 1980, respectively, stating that he was shot in a place different from that where the robber was shot; nor did the judge raise any questions as to why he was not taken to the Constant Spring Police Station in the morning of 18 October 1980; (g) His lawyer failed to represent him properly during the trial; (h) His appeal was heard without the presence of a lawyer. 3.3 The author claims that he is subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in prison. He explains that he suffers from the effects of laparotomies, and that he is refused medical treatment by the prison authorities. 3.4 Finally, he claims to be a victim of discrimination in connection with the denial of his application for parole. State- party's observations and author's comments 4.1 By submission of 3 October 1991, the State party argues that the author's communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since his case has not been adjudicated upon by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It points out that legal aid would be available to him under section 3 of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act. The State party adds that, in addition to his right to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of his criminal case, the author still has constitutional remedies he may pursue in respect of the alleged violations of his fundamental rights and freedoms. 4.2 In his reply to the State party's observations, the author claims that he was denied the right to seek redress under section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution. He requests the H-unvan Rights Committee to assist him in obtaining the court documents in his case, and to provide him with legal aid for the purpose of exhausting local remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Sights 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 has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party's contention that the author may still petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal and that legal aid would be available for this purpose. The Committee -418-