has suggested that the victim should first have sought redress for his grievances by way of a Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago. For the avoidance of doubt we submit that, since legal aid is not available for a constitutional Motion, this should not be regarded as an available remedy under domestic law for the purposes of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention or of Article 37(1) of the Regulations.2 17. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission and Court supports the view that a remedy needs to be effective and capable of producing the result for which it was designed, and that it is not sufficient for the remedy simply to be available. (Velásquez Rodríguez,Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 88). For an indigent prisoner, who has exhausted all judicial appeals including recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, to be expected to file a constitutional motion, the burden of proof lies with the State to show that this remedy is effective and capable of producing the result which would make it worthwhile for the prisoner to pursue. In the opinion of the Commission, the State did not meet the burden of proof in this case and consequently the Commission finds this case admissible. 2. Timely filing 18. 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. Mr. Hilaire's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago on November 7, 1996. His application for leave to appeal his conviction was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, on November 6, 1997. The petition was filed before the Commission on October 7, 1997. 3. No duplication of other international procedures 19. 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. IV. CONCLUSION 20. The Commission finds that the petition is admissible having satisfied the requirements of Article 46 of the American Convention. 21. Taking the foregoing considerations into account, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES 1. To declare the present case admissible. 2. To place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to seeking a friendly settlement of the matter based on the respect for human rights, as recognized in the American Convention. 3. To make public this report and to publish it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. Done and signed at the headquarters of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 25 day of the month of September in the year 1998. 2 In a Jamaican case, the U.N. Human Rights Committee held that "in the absence of legal aid, a constitutional motion did not constitute an available remedy in the case." Communication No. 445/1991, Champagnie, Palmer and Chisholm v. Jamaica (views adopted on 18 July 1994, fifty-first session), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/445/1191 (1994). 4