adopted by the Human Rights Committee in November 1989.2 Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan, on whose behalf constitutional motions had been filed earlier in 1991.1 In the light of this judgement and in order better to appreciate whether recourse to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court was a remedy which the author had to exhaust for purposes of the Optional Protocol, the Committee adopted a second interlocutory decision during its fortysecond session, on 24 July 1991. In this decision, the State party was requested to provide detailed information on the availability of legal aid or free legal representation for the purpose of constitutional motions, as well as examples of such cases in which legal aid might have been granted or free legal representation might have been procured by applicants. The State party did not forward this information within the deadline set by the Committee, that is, 26 September 1991. By submission of 10 October 1991 concerning another case, the State party replied that no provision for legal aid in respect of constitutional motions exists under Jamaican law, and that the Covenant does not oblige the State party to provide legal aid for this purpose. Post-admissibility proceedings and examination of merits 7.1 In the light of the above, the Committee decides to proceed with its consideration of the communication. The Committee has taken note of the State party’s position, formulated after the decision on admissibility, and takes the opportunity to expand upon its admissibility findings. 7.2 The Committee has considered the State party’s argument that the fact that the power of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to grant leave to appeal, pursuant to section 110, paragraph 3, of the Jamaican Constitution, is limited, does not absolve an applicant from availing himself of this remedy. 7.3 The Committee appreciates that the discretionary element in the Judicial Committee’s power to grant special leave to appeal pursuant to section 110, paragraph 3, does not in itself relieve the author of a communication under the Optional Protocol of his obligation to pursue this remedy. However, for the reasons set out below, the Committee believes that the present case does not fall within the competence of the Judicial Committee, as also contended by leading counsel in the case. 6.6 In both of the above interlocutory decisions, as well as by note verbale dated 18 April 1990 addressed. to it by the Committee’s secretariat, the State party was requested to also provide information and observations in respect of the substance of the author’s allegations. In its interlocutory decision of 24 July 1991, the Committee added that should no comments be forthcoming from the State party on the merits of the author’s allegations, it might decide to give due consideration to these allegations. 7.4 In determining whether to grant leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee, the Court of Appeal of Jamaica must generally ascertain, under section 110, paragraphs 1(c) and 2(a) of the Jamaican Constitution, whether the proceedings involve a question as to the interpretation of the Jamaican Constitution or a question of great general or public importance or otherwise such that it should be submitted to the Privy Council. Pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by section 110, paragraph 3, the Judicial Committee applies similar considerations. In granting special leave to appeal, the Judicial Committee is concerned with matters of public interest arising out of the interpretation of legal issues in a case, such as the rules governing identification procedures. There is no precedent to support the conclusion that the Judicial Committee would consider issues of alleged 6.7 In spite of the Committee’s repeated requests and reminders, the State party did not provide detailed information and observations in respect of the substance of the author’s allegations. In this respect, it merely observed, by submission of 4 September 1990, that the facts as submitted by Mr. Collins seek to raise issues of facts and evidence in the case which the Committee has no Competence to evaluate, adducing in support of its contention a decision 1 On 6 April 1989, the Human Rights Committee had adopted its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol in respect of these cases: see Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), annex X, sect. F. 2 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyfifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, annex X, sect. S, communication No. 369/1989 (G.S. v. Jamaica), decision of 8 November 1989, para. 3.2. 57