2.1 On 5 October 1977, the author was convicted and sentenced to death in the Home Circuit Court, Kingston, for the murder, on 15 January 1976, of one P. N. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed his appeal on 23 February 1978. In January 1988, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor-General of Jamaica 2.2 As to the facts of the case, the author states that on 15 January 1976 at about 8 p. m., he went to the deceased's house to visit his girlfriend. Together with his girlfriend and her baby were Mr. M., the prosecution's main witness, P. N. and another indivi-dual. The author submits that an argument developed between the deceased and himself in the course of which the deceased produced a knife and tried to stab him. The ensuing fight was interrupted by a friend of the deceased. The author then left the premises. On the following day, he claims, he was informed about N's death. 2.3 The author argues that he was poorly assisted by his court-appointed lawyer; this lawyer, in his statement of defence before the Home Circuit court, allegedly failed to request that the charges against the author be reduced to manslaughter. Furthermore, it is submitted that the summing-up of the trial judge was unfair and unbalanced, in that the judge unduly stressed the weaknesses and discrepancies of the defence evidence in his summing-up, whereas he failed to put to the jury that the medical and expert evidence presented by the prosecution put the credibility of the testimony of the prosecution's sole eye-witness in question. 2.4 Referring to the conditions of his detention, the author indicates that he suffers from handicaps and ailments, without, however, specifying the nature of his disability and whether it developed during his detention. He explains that in the spring of 1987, welfare officers conducted interviews among inmates with permanent handicaps pursuant to a prison directive that a list with the names of disabled inmates be submitted to the prison authorities. The author states that his name was not included in that list and that, as a result, he has been discriminated against. 3. By decision of 5 November 1987, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication, for information, to the State party and requested it, under rule 86 of the rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author before it had had an opportunity to consider further the question of the admissibility of the communication. The author was requested, under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to furnish clarifications about the facts of his case and the circumstances of his trial and his appeal and to provide the Committee with the transcripts of the written judgements in the case. 4. Under cover letter dated 14 January 1988, and upon request by the author, the Secretariat of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights forwarded to the Committee the documents submitted by the author to the IACHR. The Secretariat of the IACHR indicated that the author had requested that his case be withdrawn from consideration by that body. No clarifications were received from the author in reply to the Committee's request. 5. By further decision of 22 March 1988, the Committee's Working Group transmitted the communication to the State party, requesting it, under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. More particularly, it requested the State party to clarify whether the author retained the right to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for leave to appeal and whether legal aid would be available to him in that respect. The State party was further asked to provide the Committee with the texts of the written judgements in the case. The Working Group further requested the State party, under rule 86 of the rules of procedure, not to carry out the death sentence against the author while his communication was under consideration by the Committee. 6. In its submission under rule 91, dated 25 October 1988, the State party argues that the author's communication is inadmissible on the ground that he has not exhausted domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, since his case has not been adjudicated upon by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Jamaica's highest appellate court. 15