1997 which upheld the author’s claim and ordered the authorities to cease their continued inaction, the District Office in Jindříchův Hradec considered his case and issued a decision on 6 March 1998. The Ministry of Interior decided on his appeal on 17 June 1998. On 5 August 1998, the author appealed the decision of the Ministry to the Prague High Court. At the time of the State party’s submission, these proceedings remained pending, and thus domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The State party argues that the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, i.e. unreasonable prolongation of remedies does not apply in the present case, since, given the dates of the above-mentioned decisions, and considering the complexity of the case and the necessary research, the application of domestic remedies has not been unreasonably prolonged. In addition, with regard to the effectiveness of these remedies, the State party argues that the author cannot forecast the outcome of his action, and that in practice, if a court concludes that the legal opinion of an administrative authority is incorrect, the impugned decision of the Ministry of Interior will be quashed. It underlines that under Section 250j, paragraph 3, of the Czech Code of Civil Procedure, an administrative authority is bound by the legal opinion of the court. his application”. He argues that remaining remedies are futile, as the District Office decided against the spirit of the decision of the Constitutional Court, and that a judgement by the Supreme Court could only overturn a decision from the District Office, without making a final determination. Thus, available remedies would only cause the author repeatedly to appeal decisions to fulfil only formal requirements, without ever obtaining a decision on the merits of his case. 2.11 The author states that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlements. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges a violation of his right to equal protection of the law without discrimination and of his right to due process of law. 3.2 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant. He recalls that his parents and he himself were victims of a violation of their right to equal protection of the law without discrimination, through unequal application of the law and inequality inherent in the law itself, which does not allow him to bring an action for negligence against the authorities. Discrimination arises from the authorities’ failure to issue a decision on their case, although their application fulfilled the formal and substantial requirements of Decree No. 33/1945. The author further argues that domestic law does not afford him a remedy against the inaction of the authorities, and that he is being deprived of an opportunity to enforce his rights. He claims that those who had their case decided have a remedy available, whereas he has no such remedy; this is said to amount to discrimination contrary to article 26. 4.3 The State party contends that the claim under article 26 of the Covenant is manifestly ill-founded, as the author did not substantiate his claim nor has presented any specific evidence or facts illustrating discriminatory treatment covered by any of the grounds enumerated in article 26. It further argues that the author did not invoke the prohibition of discrimination and equality of rights in the domestic courts, and therefore did not exhaust domestic remedies in this respect. 4.4 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 1, the State party admits that the allegation of breach of the right to a fair trial was meritorious at the time of the initial submission of the author. However, it argues that after the decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 September 1997, an administrative decision was issued by the District Office on 6 March 1998, which was in conformity with the judgement of the Constitutional Court, and that the author’s right to a fair trial was fully protected through this decision. Referring to the dates of the above-mentioned decisions, the State party further asserts that there was no undue delay. The State party therefore considers that the claim under article 14, paragraph 1, of the communication is manifestly ill-founded. It lists a number of remedies available to the authors if undue delay is argued. The author could have filed a complaint with the Ministry of Interior, or with the President of the High Court. Another remedy available to him would have been a constitutional complaint. The State party 3.3 The author claims to be a victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, as the inaction of the authorities on his application for resumption of citizenship proceedings amounts to a failure to give him a “fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, and that he is a victim of undue delay in the administrative proceedings. State party’s admissibility and merits submission 4.1 On 3 February 1999, the State party commented on the admissibility of the communication and on 10 August 1999, it filed observations on the merits. It argues that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, and considers that their claims under articles 14, paragraph 1, and 26 are manifestly ill-founded. 4.2 The State party underlines that after the decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 September 81