CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016 6.2 The State party reiterates that the author has failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her with respect to any guardianship orders that may have been made. With regard to the author’s argument that the lack of credibility afforded to her evidence led her to choose not to exhaust domestic remedies, the State party submits that, if a party to a proceeding is not satisfied with the decision, the appropriate avenue of review is through the appeal process. It explains that the appeal process enables a person involved in legal proceedings to challenge the decision of a court. It also notes that it is a fundamental part of its legal system that all persons with standing are afforded the right to challenge decisions that affect their legal rights. 6.3 Regarding the reference made by the author to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the State party submits that, on 10 May 2017, it was advised by the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Commission that, owing to privacy reasons, it was unable to disclose any information on any dealings it may have had in relation to the complainant or her daughter. 6.4 Concerning the author’s argument that she did not appeal the decision in her proceeding before a single family court judge to the Full Bench of the Family Court of Australia but instead attempted to proceed on appeal directly to the High Court of Australia, the State party submits that the two decisions mentioned by the author (High Court decision of Duff v. Duff, 1977; and Family Court of Australia case Re, Z (No. 2), 1996) in support of her argument are not relevant to her case and do not give her the authority not to pursue the appropriate appeals process to the Full Bench of the Family Court before proceeding to apply for leave to appeal in the High Court. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the author’s allegations are inadmissible because the author has not demonstrated that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies; she lacks authority to bring the communication on behalf of her daughter; a number of the author’s claims are inadmissible ratione materiae; and her allegations under articles 2, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 23, 24 and 26 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that a number of domestic remedies would appear to remain available to the author, particularly: (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 Committee notes the author’s explanation that she could not exhaust all available domestic remedies owing to a lack of financial resources and to the fact that her requests for legal aid had been refused. In that connection, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author does not provide any evidence to support her claims that she lacks financial resources to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee further notes that the author does not provide any information as to the reasons why her requests for legal aid were rejected. 7.5 The Committee also notes the author’s concern about the effectiveness of the remedies available considering that, in all the court proceedings in which she was involved, she and her witnesses were not given credibility. In that regard, the Committee observes that the author does not make any reference to previous jurisprudence or otherwise substantiate her allegations that the domestic remedies available would be ineffective in her case. The Committee recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, the author’s doubts about 9