CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016 review, it is not in a position to provide observations on the merits of the author’s allegations until the admissibility of the communication is determined by the Committee. 4.2 The State party submits that the author lacks the authority to bring the communication on behalf of her daughter as required by rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. It explains that no documentation has been provided indicating that the author or her counsel have the authority to submit the complaint on behalf of the author’s daughter, who is now an adult in her own rights. In that connection, the State party notes that the author herself recognizes that she has had limited contact with her daughter since 1996. The State party also notes that the complainant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that she has had any legal guardianship over her daughter. 4.3 The State party submits that, considering the legal requirements with respect to the privacy of individuals and their health and other personal records, it would not adequately protect the author’s right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy by providing sensitive personal information “to persons who may not have a legal right to access such information”. On that basis, without being satisfied that relevant authorizations are in place in relation to the disclosure of information regarding the complainant’s daughter, the State party considers that it is not in a position to disclose personal and health information about the author’s daughter to the Committee. 4.4 The State party maintains that it is unable to respond in relation to the personal circumstances of the author’s daughter. It considers that, to the extent that the allegations of violations in the communication relate to the author’s daughter, they are inadmissible on the basis that neither the author nor her counsel have the authority to make such claims. 4.5 The State party also submits that the author has not demonstrated that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by rule 96 (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The State party notes that a lack of financial means does not absolve the author of the requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in P.S. v. Denmark, in which, noting that the author had refused to avail himself of domestic remedies “because of considerations of principle and in view of the costs involved”, the Committee found that “financial considerations and doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve the author from exhausting them”.5 4.6 In that connection, the State party indicates that a number of domestic remedies would appear to remain available to the author. It submits that the author could seek judicial redress from: (a) the Full Bench of the Family Court; (b) the Guardianship Division of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (if a guardianship order is in place); (c) the Supreme Court of New South Wales; (d) the Court of Appeal of New South Wales; and (e) the High Court of Australia. The State party explains that: (a) with respect to any care and protection orders made in relation to the author’s custody over her daughter, the author does not indicate that she has sought leave to appeal any adverse decisions or orders of the Family Court to the Full Bench of the Family Court or sought special leave to appeal from the Full Bench of the Family Court to the High Court of Australia; (b) with respect to any guardianship orders that may have been made by the former New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal or Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the author does not demonstrate that she has sought review of such orders before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or appealed such orders before the New South Wales Supreme Court, New South Wales Court of Appeal or the High Court; and (c) with respect to any decisions that may have been made by the Public Guardian under any applicable guardianship order, the author does not demonstrate that she has utilized available review processes before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal or appealed any such review to the New South Wales Supreme Court, New South Wales Court of Appeal or High Court. 4.7 The State party submits that the author could also make a complaint to the New South Wales Ombudsman, which has the authority to investigate decisions and conduct of the Family and Community Services (formerly the Department of Community Services) and Public Guardian. It clarifies that the Ombudsman can receive and investigate 5 6 See communication No. 397/1990, P.S. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 July 1992, para. 5.4.