The author, a shopkeeper, states that on 10 March 1985 he was involved in a fight with one younger brother of the victim, E. §., who had allegedly insulted him | and tried to steal several bottles of liquor from his shop. On 19 March 1985, stones and a bottle were thrown at his shop, destroying several windows. The \ suthor claims that at the time of the crime he was at his shop repairing the damage perpetrated earlier that day, and that he was not the person who, in a fight, had eut four fingers off the victim's hand. R. B., an acquaintance of the victim and of the author, was entirely fabricated. ! He further claims that the judge misdirected the jury, both about the evaluation of ' Me. B.'s testimony, by stating that she was testifying on his behalf, and about the i conflicting evidence presented by the public prosecutor and by the author. | 2. The author alleges that the testimony of the prosecution's main witness, one : 2. On 16 December 1986, the author's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal : of Jamaica. The author states that he cannot afford to file a petition for special : leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because he lacks the financial means to do so. A request for legal aid to the Jamaica Council for Human : Rights spparently remains unanswered. It appears, however, that the author has not ‘ formally applied for legal aid under section 3, paragraph 1, of the Poor Prisoners’ Defence Act. Committee trangmitted 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. that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, because the author did not apply, pursuant to section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, for especial leuve to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Before considering any claims cont ed in a communication the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule ./ of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
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 perties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case. a/ 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.
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. Notes a/ = See communication No. 369/1989 (G. 8. v. Jamaica), inadmissibility decision adopted on 8 November 1989, para. 3.2. ~190-