exhaust domestic remedies, with the result that the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. the narrow question framed by the corporation in the lower courts and on appeal. In such circumstances, the authors, through their corporation, have expressly withdrawn from the domestic courts in their case the factual elements and their assessment by the domestic courts which the Committee is now presented with, namely whether the situation currently prevailing in Québec is sufficient to justify the restrictions on article 19 rights imposed by section 58 of the Charter of the French Language. That wider question, which the authors’ seek to present to the Committee through the lens of the Covenant, is the subject of current litigation in the State party’s courts by the same counsel who withdrew the issue in the present case. It follows that the authors, through their corporation, have failed to 7.3 In the light of the Committee’s finding above, it need not address the remaining arguments of admissibility advanced by the State party. 8. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party. 50