Communications Nos. 221/1987 and 323/1988 Submitted by: Yves Cadoret and Hervé le Bihan Dates of communications: 15 January 1987 and 25 July 1988 Alleged victims: The authors State party: France Date of adoption of Views: 11 April 1991 (forty-first session) Subject matter: Use of the Breton language in court proceedings Appeal of Rennes allegedly again denied them the possibility to address the Court in Breton. Procedural issues: Joinder of communication— Incompatibility ratione materiae—Nonexhaustion of domestic remedies—Effective remedy 2.2 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors allege that no remedies are available, because the French judicial system does not recognize the use of Breton. Substantive issues: Right to a fair hearing— Right to free assistance of an interpreter— Examination of witnesses—Right to freedom of expression—Discrimination on the ground of language—Right to use one’s own language The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that they were denied a fair trial, in violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e) and (f) because they were denied the right to express themselves in Breton before the French courts and therefore did not testify. In particular, they allege that the courts steadfastly refuse to provide the services of interpreters for accused persons of Breton mother tongue on the ground that they are deemed to be proficient in French. In this connection, they maintain that the Tribunal Correctionnel did not ascertain whether they were proficient in French. Mr. Cadoret similarly denies that he was interrogated in French before the Court of Appeal. In this context, he claims that he never pretended that he was not fluent in French, but merely insisted on being heard in Breton. This also applies to his interrogation before the Court of Appeal, where he only spoke one sentence, by which he manifested his desire to express himself in Breton. Articles of the Covenant: 2(1), 14(1), (3)(e) and (f), 19(2), 26 and 27 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 3 and 5(2)(b) Rules of procedure: Rule 88(2) 1. The authors of the communications (initial submissions dated 15 January 1987 and 25 July 1988, respectively) are Yves Cadoret and Hervé Le Bihan, two French citizens employed as a teacher and an education advisor, respectively, and residing at Bretagne, France. They claim to be the victims of a violation by France of articles 14, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The facts as submitted by the authors 3.2 Mr. Cadoret contends that no provision of the French Code of Penal Procedure obliges the accused or a party to a case to express himself or herself in French before criminal tribunals. More specifically, he refers to article 407 of the French Code of Penal Procedure and argues that this provision does not impose the use of the French language. This is said to have been confirmed by a letter from the Minister of Justice, dated 29 March 1988, which indicates that article 407 only appears to impose the use of the French language (“semble imposer l’usage de la seule langue francaise”), and that the use of languages other than French in 2.1 On 20 March 1985, the authors appeared before the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes on charges of having vandalized three road signs near Rennes in June 1984. They state that although Breton is their mother tongue, they were not allowed to express themselves in that language before the Tribunal, and that three witnesses they had called were unable to testify in the Breton language. No information about the actual sentences against the authors is provided, but they state that they appealed against the decision of the Tribunal Correctionnel. At its hearing of 23 September 1985, the Court of 43