3. By decision of 24 October 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication to the State party and requested it, under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. It further requested the author to provide several clarifications about his efforts to apply for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In several subsequent submissions the author claims, in essence, that the judge misdirected the jury, in the light of the contradictory evidence that was put before the jury and which it was for the jury to accept or reject. 4. In its submission under rule 91, dated 20 January 1989, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, for the reason that the author did not apply, pursuant to section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 5.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has considered the material submitted by the author. From this information it appears that the author claims that the judge misdirected the jury, in the light of the contradictory evidence that was put before the jury and which it was for the jury to accept or reject. While article 14 of the Covenant guarantees the right to a fair trial, it is for the appellate courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case.1 It is not in principle for the Committee to review specific instructions to the jury by the judge in a trial by jury, unless it can be ascertained that the instructions to the jury were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee has no evidence that the trial judge's instructions suffered from such defects. Accordingly, the author has no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) The communication is inadmissible; (b) This decision shall be transmitted to the author and to the State party. __________ 1 See communication No. 369/1989 (G.S. v. Jamaica), inadmissibility decision adopted on 8 November 1989, para. 3.2. Communication No. 342/1988 Submitted by: R. L. (name deleted) on 1 June 1998 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada 93