7.2 The same issues concerning admissibility have already been examined by the Committee in its Views on communications Nos. 230/19871 and 283/19882. In the circumstances of those cases, the Committee concluded that a constitutional motion was not an available and effective remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, and that, accordingly, the Committee was not precluded from examining the merits. 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 (article 14, paragraph 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. 7.3 The Committee has taken due note of the fact that subsequent to its decision on admissibility the Supreme (Constitutional) Court of Jamaica has had an opportunity to determine the question whether an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council constitute “adequate means of redress” within the meaning of section 25, paragraph 2, of the Jamaican Constitution. The Supreme (Constitutional) Court has since replied to this question in the negative by accepting to consider the constitutional motion of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan (judgment entered on 14 June 1991). The Committee observes that whereas the issue is settled under Jamaican constitutional law, different considerations govern the application of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, such as the length of the judicial proceedings and the availability of legal aid. 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 also, inadmissible in this respect, as the author did not avail himself of the constitutional remedies available to him under sections 17(l) and 25(l) of the Jamaican Constitution: any person alleging torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or other punishment may apply to the Supreme Court for constitutional redress. 7.4 In the absence of legal aid for constitutional motions and bearing in mind that the author was arrested in August 1981, convicted in March 1983, and that his appeals were dismissed in July 1986 by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and in October 1987 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Committee finds that recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court is not required under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol in this case, and that there is no reason to reverse the Committee’s decision on admissibility of 17 October 1990. 6.5 In the light of the above, the State party requests the Committee to review its decision on admissibility. Post-admissibility considerations and examination of merits 7.5 As to the allegation concerning the author’s ill-treatment by the police, the Committee notes that this claim was reproduced in resolution 29/88 approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, a 7.1 The Committee has taken note of the State party’s request, dated 12 February 1991, to review its decision on admissibility, as well as its criticism of the reasoning leading to the decision of 17 October 1990. 1 Raphael Henry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 1 November 1991, forty-third session. 2 Aston Little v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 1 November 1991, forty-third session. 104