before the French courts raised no issues under article 19, paragraph 2. The Committee therefore found that this aspect of the communications was inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol as incompatible with the Covenant. the authors’ behaviour: they refused to express themselves in French before the courts under the pretext that they had not mastered the language sufficiently, whereas their submissions to the Committee were made in “irreproachable” French. 5.3 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 4.9 With respect to the alleged violation of article 27, the State party recalls that, upon ratification of the Covenant, the French Government made 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 as far as the Republic is concerned.” Thus, the State party argues that “the idea of membership of an ‘ethnic, religious or linguistic minority’ which the applicant invokes is irrelevant in the case in point, and is not opposable to the French 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 démocratique et sociale)”. 5.4 With respect to the alleged violations of articles 14 and 26, the Committee considered that the authors had made reasonable efforts sufficiently to substantiate their allegations for purposes of admissibility. 5.5 On 25 July and 9 November 1989, the Human Rights Committee, accordingly, declared the communications admissible in so far as they appeared to raise issues under articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant. On 9 November 1989, the Committee also decided to deal jointly with the two communications. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 In considering the admissibility of the communications, the Committee took account of the State party’s contention that the communications were inadmissible because the authors had not appealed against the decision of the judge of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Rennes not to make available to them and their witnesses the services of an interpreter. The Committee observed that what the authors sought was the recognition of Breton as a vehicle of expression in Court. It recalled that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if they objectively have 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. On the basis of these observations, and 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 authors should have pursued in this respect. De lege lata, the objective pursued by the authors cannot be achieved by resorting to domestic remedies. 5.6 The Committee has noted the authors’ claim that the notion of a “fair trial”, within the meaning of article 14 of the Covenant, implies that the accused be allowed, in criminal proceedings, to express himself or herself in the language in which he or she normally expresses himself or herself, and that the denial of an interpreter for himself or herself and his or her witnesses constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraphs 3(e) and (f). The Committee observes, as it has done on a previous occasion,3 that article 14 is concerned with procedural equality; it enshrines, inter alia, the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. The provision for the use of one official court language by States parties to the Covenant does not, in the Committee’s opinion, violate article 14. Nor does the requirement of a fair hearing obligate States parties to make available to a person: whose mother tongue differs from 2 Following the decision on admissibility in these cases, 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). 3 See communication No. 273/1988 (B. d. B. v. Netherlands), decision on inadmissibility of 30 March 1989, para. 6.4. 5.2 As to the authors’ claim that they had been denied their freedom of expression, the Committee observed that the fact of not having been able to speak the language of their choice 46