ter the situation is also covered by article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose wor­ ding corresponds fully with that of article 17." 5.7 The author concludes: My point is obvious: are complaints received from the "town crank" taken as seriously as those from respected citizens in Enebakk? ... It should obviously make no difference who reports criminal actions that are taking place in the town to the Enebakk Sheriff's Office. I have in no way remained passive and the means for complaint available to an old man have been exhausted without being heard by the authorities. The distance from the Sheriff's Office, the size of his district, the size of the population and his workload are ir­ relevant considerations here. The only determining factors are that the prosecuting authorities have not fully realized in this situation that their duty is to maintain law and order so that older people in par­ ticular are protected from hooliganism by children and youths. 5.3 He further claims that the right to self-defence has been acknowledged by the Norwegian courts in many cases similar to his own. 5.4 With regard to the specific incidents referred to in his communication and commented upon by the State party, the author states that he personally had informed automobile owners who parked illegally in front of his property "of that rather undesirable effect". He con­ tinues that: 6.1 The issue to be resolved by the Committee in the last resort relates to whether or not domestic remedies have been exhausted by the author of the communica­ tion. Those who eventually claimed otherwise were quite familiar with the situation from hearing others say that the best way to tease 'the smith' was to ignore him completely and simply continue parking there. The way those cars were parked meant that my only access to my property was completely blocked each day. In wintertime, with high snow drifts, the situation was so bad that I was forced to go out via highway 120 behind my smithy and wade in through 1-metre-high snow in order to get back to my house. When, after a year it was im­ possible to get the authorities (sheriff) and the offenders to under­ stand my hopeless situation and I was met with honking automobile horns and derisive laughter, an old 75-year-old man had no other possibility available than to take matters into his own hands on the basis of the right of retaliation under criminal law (see Criminal Code, paragraphs 228 and 250). 6.2 It is not clear whether there were any remedies such as an action for trespass which the author of the communication might have been able to pursue in a court of law. However, the Committee concludes, on the basis of the information available to it, that the author has failed to pursue remedies which the State party has submitted were available to him, namely, to pursue the matter before the appropriate higher police authorities, the Crown Prosecutor and, in the last in­ stance, the Attorney-General. The author appears to in­ timate that further efforts by him to exhaust available remedies might not have been taken "seriously" by the authorities. His doubts about the effectiveness of these remedies do not, however, absolve him from exhausting them, as required by article 5 (2) (6) of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The author further rejects as untrue the State party's assertion that, apart from the incidents men­ tioned in the communication, he has never informed the sheriff's office of alleged trouble on his property. 5.6 He also refers to his defence counsel's statement made in the latest criminal case against him that "the sheriff's employees had themselves said that they had heard that 'S. the smith' was a 'special person' as soon as they came to the town, that is to say a man who was not entirely normal". The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. The communication is inadmissible; 2. This decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party. SIXTEENTH SESSION Communication No. 121/1982 Submitted by: A. M. on 9 March 1982 Alleged victim: The author State party: Denmark Date of decision on inadmissibility: 23 July 1982 (sixteenth session) State party's reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of Optional Protocol—Case already considered under other pro­ cedure of international investigation—European Commission of Human Rights national at present serving a prison term in Denmark. He submits the communication on his own behalf. 2.1 The author states that he has been residing in Denmark since 1970, that in 1977 he married in Pakistan a citizen of that country, that his wife has since then lived with him in Denmark and that they have two children. He describes the facts of the case as follows: Decision on admissibility^ 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 9 March 1982 and further letters dated 20 April and 9, 29 and 30 June 1982) is a 39-year-old Pakistani 2.2 On 31 July 1980, he was involved in a violent fight in Odense, Denmark, with several other men from Pakistan, Morocco and Algeria. At least four people were severely injured and one of them died. The author ' The text of an individual opinion submitted by a Committee member is appended to the present decision. 32