6.4 As to the author’s claims under article 14, paragraph 1, the Committee notes that they relate to the author’s efforts to contest a negative decision on his request to be promoted to a higher rank. The author was neither dismissed nor did he apply for any specific vacant post of a higher rank. In these circumstances the Committee considers that the author’s case must be distinguished from the case of Casanovas v. France, communication 441/1990. Reiterating its view that the concept of "suit at law" under article 14, paragraph 1, is based on the nature of the right in question rather than on the status of one of the parties, the Committee considers that the procedures initiated by the author to contest a negative decision on his own request to be promoted within the Polish police did not constitute the determination of rights and obligations in a suit at law, within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Consequently, this part of the communication is incompatible with that provision and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol, and that the author has exhausted domestic remedies, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible insofar as it relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Poland on 7 February 1992. Under its established jurisprudence, the Committee cannot consider alleged violations of the Covenant which occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, unless the violations complained of continue after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes that the author first requested to be promoted in 1991, i.e. prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in respect of the State party. Although the author continued after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol with proceedings to contest a negative decision to his request, the Committee considers that these proceedings in themselves do not constitute any potential violation of the Covenant. However, the Committee notes that subsequent to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in respect of the State party the author initiated a second set of proceedings aiming at his promotion (see paragraph 2.5) and that any claims related to these proceedings are not inadmissible ratione temporis. 6.5 In relation to the alleged violations of article 26, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, any claim of a potential violation of article 26. Consequently, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author, and, for information, to the State party. Communication No. 901/1999 Submitted by: Deborah Joy Laing (represented by Gavan Griffith) Alleged victims: Deborah Joy Laing, Jessica Joy Surgeon and Samuel Colin John Surgeon State party: Australia Declared inadmissible: 9 July 2004 (eighty-first session) 1. The author of the communication dated 30 November 1999, is Ms. Deborah Joy Laing (Ms. Laing). She submits the communication on behalf of herself and her two children Jessica Joy Surgeon and Samuel Surgeon. She claims that she is victim of violations by Australia1 of articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 14, paragraph 1; 17; 23, paragraph 1; and 26, of the International Covenant on Civil and Subject matter: Family separation - Child custody Procedural Issues: Substantiation of claims Substantive Issues: Effective remedy - Cruel treatment - Liberty of movement and right to enter one’s country - Fair trial - Interference with family life - Protection the family Protection of minor Articles of the Covenant: 2, paragraph 3; 7; 12, paragraphs 1 and 4; 14, paragraph 1; 17; 23, paragraph 1; 24, paragraph 1; and 26 1 The Optional Protocol entered into force for Australia on 25 September 1991. Article of the Optional Protocol: 2 6