The State party, in its observations, informed the Committee about the Ombudsman’s status and functions, but did not address the content of the Ombudsman’s decision nor its role in the process. It may well be that the State party deemed the Ombudsman to be a supervisory body who did not participate in the process. However, even if it were true that the Ombudsman’s decisions are supervisory decisions and that they are not legally binding as such, they have considerable de facto effects on an administrative process. Had the Ombudsman found that the limitations on the author’s exercise of his freedom of religion imposed by the administrative authorities were excessive, he would have informed the administrative authorities and requested them to reconsider their position accordingly. In principle they would have had to comply, as they complied with the decision of 1 November 1989. By endorsing the authorities’ standpoint, the Ombudsman de facto prevented them from reconsidering and modifying their standpoint. And the Ombudsman is not independent to such an extent that the State party would not be responsible for his actions. State party’s contention that judicial review of administrative regulations and decisions, pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitutional Act, would be an effective remedy available to the author. The Committee notes that the author has refused to avail himself of these remedies, because of considerations of principle and in view of the costs involved. The Committee finds, however, that financial considerations and doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve the author from exhausting them. Accordingly, the author has failed to meet the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2(b), in this respect. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol; The Optional Protocol allows “communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant”. The author claims that he is a victim of a violation committed by the Ombudsman. Given the effects the Ombudsman’s decision must be assumed to have had, I come to the conclusion that said claims may raise issues under the Covenant, first under article 18 but equally under article 19, as the conditions prescribed also limited the author’s freedom of expression. There are no remedies available against a decision of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The communication therefore is, in my opinion, admissible as far as it regards claims directed against the Ombudsman; otherwise I am in full agreement with the Committee’s decision. I do however want to add that, had the communication been declared admissible, further attention should have been given to the issue of standing of the author, in respect of his son. I consider that from some points of view the author might be said to have interests that conflict with those of the son, and which might disqualify him from representing his son. (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Bertil Wennergren, pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Committee’s decision on communication No. 397/1990, P.S. v. Denmark The author’s communication concerns the modalities of contacts with his son T., now eight years old, as well as the position of the Danish authorities on this matter since 1986. The Parliamentary Ombudsman became involved in this matter following a complaint by the author. In his decision of 1 November 1989, the Ombudsman accepted in principle the standpoint of the administrative authorities, namely that limitations on the author’s exercise of his religious freedom during his contacts with his son were necessary. Against this background he merely requested the authorities to define the conditions more precisely, particularly with regard to the terms “teach” and “or similar activities”. The author claims that the Ombudsman’s decision, in conjunction with the administrative decisions in his case, violated his rights under article 18 of the Covenant. XI, sect. D, communication No. 262/1987 (R. T. v. France), decision of 30 March 1989, para. 7.4. 26