information and clarifications from the State party in respect of the authors’ allegations under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. In this context, it is argued that the execution of a sentence of death after a long period of time is widely recognized as cruel, inhuman and degrading, on account of the prolonged and extreme anguish caused to the condemned man by the delay.1 This anguish is said to have been compounded by the issue of death warrants to the authors in November 1987. Review of admissibility 6.1 By submissions of 23 and 30 January 1992, the State party challenges the decision on admissibility and reiterates that the complaints remain inadmissible on the ground of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies. In respect of the alleged violations of article 7 (ill-treatment on death row and anguish caused by prolonged detention on death row), it submits that the authors may file for constitutional redress under section 25 of the Jamaican Constitution, for violations of their rights protected by section 17. A decision of the Constitutional Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 3.6 As to the delays encountered in the judicial proceedings in the case, counsel notes that in spite of repeated requests for legal aid, it was only in 1988 that the authors succeeded in obtaining the pro bono services of a London law firm, for purposes of petitioning the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Several court documents deemed necessary for the preparation of the Petition for special leave to appeal could not be obtained until March 1991: accordingly, such delays as did occur cannot be attributed to the authors. 6.2 The State party affirms that such delays as occurred in the judicial proceedings are attributable to the authors, who failed to avail themselves of their right to appeal against conviction and sentence in an expeditious manner. As there is no indication that the State party was responsible for any of these delays by either act or omission, the State party cannot be deemed to be in breach of article 7. The State party’s observations on admissibility 4. The State party contended, in submissions dated 20 July 1988 and 10 January 1990, that the communications were inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the authors retained the right to Petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. It enclosed a copy of the written judgement of the Court of Appeal in the case, adding that it would have been available, upon request, to authors’ counsel after its delivery on 10 April 1981. 6.3 The State party adds that notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the claims under article 7, “it will, prompted by humanitarian considerations, take steps to have investigated the allegations concerning the conditions [of detention]on death row and brutal acts [in] the prison”. Committee’s admissibility decision and request for further information 7.1 The Committee has taken due note of the State party’s submissions, dated 23 and 30 January 1992, that the communications remain inadmissible on account of the authors’ failure to resort to constitutional remedies. 5.1 On 21 July 1989, the Committee declared the communications admissible, noting that the authors’ appeal had been dismissed in 1981 and that, in the circumstances, the pursuit of domestic remedies had been unreasonably prolonged. 7.2 The same issues concerning admissibility have already been examined by the Committee in its views on communications Nos. 230/1987 (Henry v. Jamaica) and 283/1988 (Little v. Jamaica).2 In the circumstances of those 5.2 During its forty-second session, the Committee further considered the communications; it decided to request additional 2 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyseventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/47/40), annex IX, sect. B, communication No. 230/1987, Views adopted on 1 November 1991, paras. 7.2–7.4; and sect. J, communication No. 283/1988, Views adopted on 1 November 1991, paras. 7.2–7.5. 1 Reference is made to the judgement of the United States Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 US 238, quoted in the dissenting opinion in Riley & others v. Att. General of Jamaica (1982) 2 All ER 469, at 479a. 73