11. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago stated in its response dated October 16, 1998, that: In the interests of expediency (...) notwithstanding the failure of the Applicant to first seek redress for his grievances by way of a Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago, except as herein expressly provided, the State Party raises no challenge to the admissibility of this communication based on the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule (...). (Emphasis added) Accordingly, the Commission understands that the State expressly and irrevocably waives any challenge with respect to remedies invoked, or remedies that could potentially be invoked, by petitioner in domestic legal proceedings in connection with this case. 12. In this case, in regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission takes this opportunity to reiterate its doctrine of non consideration of constitutional motions as effective remedies which must be exhausted, since theyneither comply with the requirements set forth in article 8 of the American Convention, nor with the jurisprudence of the Inter American Court.1 b. Timely filing 13. The petition was presented within six months of the final ruling of the appeal on conviction and sentence pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London dismissed Mr. Reid’s application for Leave to Appeal his conviction on August 30, 1998. The petition was dated August 20, 1998 and received on August 21, 1998. c. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 14. The petition satisfies the requirements of Article 46(1)(c) in that it is not pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor does it duplicate a petition already examined and settled by the Commission or by another international governmental organization of which the State concerned is a member. d. Grounds for petition 15. The Commission considers that the presentation by the petitioner refers to facts, which if proved, tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Since the lack of grounds or the inappropriateness of the petition is not evident, the Commission considers the requisites of Article 47(b) and (c) of the Convention to be satisfied. V. CONCLUSIONS 16. The Commission considers that it has the competence to consider this case and that the petition is admissible, having satisfied the requirements of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. On the basis of the arguments on the facts and on the law set forth above, and without prejudicing the merits of the matter in question, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible. 1 See I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, at paras. 62, 64 and 88;see also I/A Court H.R., "Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Art. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and (2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights", Advisory Opinion, OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990 at para. 31; Report No. 90/98, Case No. 11.843, Kevin Mykoo (Jamaica) at para. 35; see also ("Accordingly, in prior cases . . . the Commission has found that the absence of legal aid to file a constitutional motion may render that recourse essentially unavailable to an indigent applicant.") Report No. 96/98, Case No. 11.827, Peter Blaine (Jamaica) at para. 60; and cf. ("With respect to the authors’ possibility of filing a constitutional motion, the Committee considered that in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not constitute an available remedy in the case.") Comm. No. 445/1991, Champagnie et al. v. Jamaica (views of 18 July 1994), Report of the UNHRC (1994), GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 40 (A/49/40), Vol. II at p. 136, 139 para. 5.2 3