cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Committee finds however that UNESCO has at present no procedure of international investigation or settlement, as referred to in article 5 (2) (a) of the Protocol, relevant to this case. admissible by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights under the special procedure governed by articles 53 to 57 of its Regulations, (ii) That the Committee is precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering a communication if the same matter is being ex­ amined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. If the authors main­ tain that the matter which they have submitted to the Human Rights Committee in all or any of these cases is not the same matter which is under consideration by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, they should inform the Com­ mittee of their grounds for so maintaining and furnish the Committee with any other informa­ tion in their possession relating to the submission of the cases to and their examination by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. In the absence of any such further information pertinent to this question, the Committee may have to con­ clude that they concern the same matter; The State party further submits that in none of the ac­ cusations is there any mention of the fact that the in­ dividuals in question have ever had recourse to, let alone exhausted, domestic legal remedies or, if such a mention is made, it is made in a manner designed to mislead the members of the Committee. The State party has not however specified the remedies which it claims are or were available to the alleged victims and which they should have exhausted. The authors of the communica­ tion on their part deny the existence of effective remedies to which recourse should have been made. In the absence of more specific information concerning the domestic remedies said to be available to the alleged vic­ tims, B, С and D, and the effectiveness of those remedies as enforced by the competent authorities in S, the Committee is unable to accept that there are effec­ tive domestic remedies whichahe alleged victims have failed to exhaust. (c) The authors be informed that their reply should reach the Human Rights Committee in care of the Divi­ sion of,Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks of the date of the letter ad­ dressed to them; The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. That the authors of the communication have not established that they have the necessary standing to act on behalf of the alleged victims who are not signatories of the communication and consequently the com­ munication is inadmissible in so far as these alleged vic­ tims are concerned; 4. That the Secretary-General transmit any reply received from the authors to the State party as soon as possible to enable the State party to comment thereon if it so wishes; 5. That at the same time the State party be informed that, in the absence of more specific information con­ cerning the domestic remedies said to be available to the alleged victims, B, С and D, and the effectiveness of those remedies as enforced by the competent authorities in S, the Committee is unable to accept that these al­ leged victims have failed to exhaust such remedies. The communication will therefore not be considered inad­ missible in so far as exhaustion of domestic remedies is concerned, unless the State party gives details of the remedies which it submits have been available to each of the alleged victims in the circumstances of his case, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective; 2. That the claims presented in the communication in respect of ... eleven [of the] authors of the com­ munication relate to events prior to 23 March 1976, the date of the entry into force of the Covenant and the Op­ tional Protocol for S and consequently the communica­ tion is inadmissible in so far as these alleged victims are concerned; 3. That before deciding finally on the admissibility of the communication in respect of B, С and D, (a) The authors be requested: (i) To furnish further detailed information with regard to the claim in respect of B, including in­ formation as to when he ceased to be detained in prison in S, (ii) To furnish further detailed information with regard to the claims in respect of С and D; (b) The authors be informed: (i) That the Committee understands that [two] cases concerning D... (..., 8 February 1976, and Oc­ tober 1976) have been submitted to and declared 6. That the State party be informed that any such comments and information should reach the Human Rights Committee in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks of the date of the request; 7. That the text of this decision be communicated to the State party and the authors. 18