in France and is generally subject to French jurisdiction, he does not come within French jurisdiction in respect of his claims to retirement benefits from the Algerian SNCFA. Moreover, the Committee finds that the facts of this communication are materially different from those of communication No. 196/1985, in which the retired Senegalese Soldiers received payments from the French State pursuant to the French Code of Military Pensions, whereas in the instant case E. M. E. H. never received payments from France but rather from the Algerian SNCFA, which also discontinued them. Accordingly, the Committee cannot entertain E. M. E. H.’s communication against France under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. of France. It appears from the context of his submission that he did not submit his case to any French tribunal. He does not mention what steps, if any, he took before Algerian administrative or judicial instances. The complaint 3.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 3.2 With respect to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee reaffirms that it may only receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Covenant and Optional Protocol “who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of their rights set forth in the Covenant” (emphasis added). In this connection the Committee notes that although the author has addressed his complaint against France, his grievances actually relate to the laws and regulations in so far as they govern the retirement practices of the Algerian SNCFA. Although the author has, since his retirement, set up residence 4. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision hall be communicated to the author and, for information, to the State party. _______________ Communication No. 413/1990 Submitted by: A. B. et al. (names deleted) Date of communication: 30 April 1990 Alleged victims: The author and 14 other persons State party: Italy Declared inadmissible: 2 November 1990 (fortieth session) committee of the Union. All are Italian citizens. The author and two other signatories are delegates to the Provincial Council of the autonomous Province of Bozen-South-Tirol (Bolzano, Alto Adige). The authors claim that the rights of the people of South Tirol under article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated by Italy. Subject matter: Claim to self-determination as a collective right Procedural issues: Notion of victim—Standing of the authors—Inadmissibility ratione materiae Substantive issue: Right of self-determination Article of the Covenant:1(1) The facts as submitted by the authors Article of the Optional Protocol: 1 2.1 The authors allege that the right of selfdetermination of the people of South Tirol has been violated by numerous acts and decrees adopted by the Italian Parliament, which are said 1. The authors of the communication are A. B., President of the Union für Südtirol, and 14 other members of the executive 30