Government entered the following reservation: “In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned.” In the State party’s opinion, the idea of ethnic, religious or linguistic minority invoked by the author is irrelevant to his case, and is not opposable to the Government, which does not recognize the existence of “minorities” in the Republic, defined, in article 2 of the Constitution, as “indivisible, secular, democratic and social (indivisible, laïque, democratique et sociale . . .).” 4.4 In the light of these considerations, the President of the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes was justified in not applying section 407 of the French Code of Penal Procedure, as requested by the author. Pursuant to this provision, the President of the Court may, ex officio, order the services of an interpreter. In the application of article 407, the judge exercises a considerable margin of discretion, based on a detailed analysis of the individual case and all the relevant documents. This has been confirmed by the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation on several occasions.1 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 4.5 The State party recapitulates that the author and the witnesses called on his behalf were francophone, a fact confirmed by the author himself in a submission to the Human Rights Committee dated 21 January 1989. Accordingly, the State party submits, there can be no question of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3(f). 5.1 The Committee noted the State party’s contention that the communication was inadmissible because the author had failed to appeal against the decision of the judge of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes not to let him express himself in Breton. It observed that the author sought, in effect, the recognition of Breton as a vehicle of expression in court, and recalled that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if they objectively had no prospect of success: this-is the case where, under applicable domestic laws, the claim would inevitably be dismissed, or where established jurisprudence of the highest domestic tribunals precluded a positive result. Taking into account relevant French legislation as well as article 2 of the French Constitution, the Committee concluded that there were no effective remedies that the author might have pursued: de lege lata, the objective pursued by him could not be achieved by resorting to domestic remedies. 4.6 In the State party’s opinion, the author interprets the notion of “freedom of expression” in article 19, paragraph 2, in an excessively broad and abusive manner; it adds that Mr. Barzhig’s freedom of expression was in no way restricted during the proceedings against him, and that he could always present the defence arguments in French. 4.7 In respect of the alleged violation of article 26, the State party recalls that the prohibition of discrimination is enshrined in article 2 of the French Constitution. More particularly, article 407 of the Code of Penal Procedure, far from operating as language-based discrimination within the meaning of article 26, ensures the equality of treatment of the accused and of witnesses before the criminal jurisdictions, since all are required to express themselves in French. In addition, the State party charges that the principle of venire contra factum proprium is applicable to the author’s behaviour: he did not want to express himself in French before the courts under the pretext that he had not mastered the language sufficiently, whereas his submissions to the Committee were made in “irreproachable” French. 5.2 In respect of the authors’ claim of a violation of article’27 of the Covenant, the Committee noted the French “declaration” but did not address its scope, finding that the facts of the communications did not raise issues under this provision.2 Nor did the Committee consider that the communication raised issues under article 19 of the Covenant. 5.3 On 28 July 1989, therefore, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles-14 and 26 of the Covenant. 4.8 As to the alleged violation of article 27 of the Covenant, the State party recalls that upon accession to the Covenant, the French 2 Following the decision on admissibility in this case, the Committee decided at its thirty-seventh session that France’s declaration concerning article 27 had to be interpreted as a reservation (T. K. v. France, No. 220/1987, paras. 8.5 and 8.6; H. K. v. France, No. 222/1987, paras. 7.5 and 7.6; cf. also separate opinion by one Committee member). 1 See, for example, the judgement of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 30 June 1981 in the Fayomi case. 94