CAT/C/23/D/121/1998 page 8 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim about the likely outcome were the case to be brought before a court. It considers, nevertheless, that the author has not presented enough substantive information to support the contention that such remedy would be unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the requirements under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communications as it stands is inadmissible; (b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee’s rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the author containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply; (c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the author. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English being the original version.] Notes 1 According to reports by Amnesty International, the AAPO was formed in 1992 as a registered political party which opposed the Government through solely peaceful means. 2 Article 4 of the Immigration Act stipulates that “the Act shall be applied in accordance with international rules by which Norway is bound when these are intended to strengthen the position of a foreign national”. -----