CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016 the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve her from exhausting them. 8 The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b), of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee further notes that the last judicial remedy was used by the author in April 2008, when she made an application to the New States of Wales Guardianship Tribunal to be joined to the proceedings initiated by the Department of Community Services to seek a guardianship order in respect of her daughter. A lapse of almost seven years has therefore occurred between the most recent domestic remedy pursued by the author and the submission of her complaint to the Committee on 12 March 2015. While noting that, on 23 September 2013, the author’s counsel sent a letter to the National Children’s Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission requesting assistance, the Committee notes that the author does not demonstrate that it was submitted as a formal complaint and that it complied with the requirements to be admitted by the Human Rights Commission. 7.7 The Committee recalls that, according to rule 96 (c) of its rules of procedure: An abuse of the right of submission is not, in principle, a basis of a decision of inadmissibility ratione temporis on grounds of delay in submission. However, a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission, when it is submitted after five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication, or, where applicable, after three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay taking into account all the circumstances of the communication. In that connection, the Committee observes that the author has not provided any explanation for such a delay in the submission of her complaint to the Committee. The Committee regards the delay to be unreasonable and excessive, thus amounting to an abuse of the right of submission. Accordingly, it declares the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 Having reached the above conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine separately the remaining grounds for inadmissibility raised by the State party. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 3 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) 8 10 That the decision be transmitted to the State party and to the author. See, for example, communication No. 262/1987, R.T. v. France, Views adopted on 30 March 1989, para. 7.4.