which were supposed to be in the possession or the Court, could not be found for his trial in 1978. O. W. did not mention in his initial letter whether he had filed a petition for leave to appeal to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 3. By decision of 8 April 1987, the Human Rights Committee requested O. W., under rule 91 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, to furnish clarifications on a number of issues relating to his communication and transmitted the communication for information to the State party, requesting it, under rule 86 of the provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author before the Committee had had the opportunity to consider further the question of the admissibility of the communication. By letter dated 1 May 1987, the author provided a number of clarifications and stated that the Jamaica Council for Human Rights had filed a petition on his behalf for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, indicating that this appeal, to the best of his knowledge, was still pending. 4. By telegram dated 23 July 1987 addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee informed the State party that the consideration of the question of admissibility of the communication would be further delayed and reiterated the Committee's request that he death sentence against O. W. should not be carried out before the Committee had had an opportunity to consider further the question of the admissibility of the communication. By letter dated 11 October 1987, author's counsel informed the Committee that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had granted the author's petition for special leave to appeal on 8 October 1987 and would conduct a hearing on the merits of the case at a date to be determined. He requested the Committee to postpone consideration of the case pending the outcome of the author's appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has ascertained as it is required to do under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has noted the letter from the author's counsel, dated 11 October 1987, indicating that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council granted the author's petition for special leave to appeal and would conduct a hearing on the merits of the case at a date to be determined. It thus concludes that one available remedy has not been exhausted by the author. Article 5 (2) (b), however, precludes the Committee from con-sidering a communication prior to the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; 2. That, since this decision may be reviewed under rule 92 (2) of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or on behalf of the author containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply, the State party shall be requested, taking into account the spirit and purpose of rule 85 of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author, before he has had a reasonable time, after completing the effective domestic remedies available to him, to request the Committee to review the present decision; 13