domestic remedies, the State party refers to the Committee’s decisions in J. R. C. v. Costa Rica (communication No. 296/1988)4 and S. H. B. v. Canada (communication No. 192/1985)5 where, in similar circumstances, the communications were declared inadmissible. The State party’s observations and the authors’ comments 4.1 The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It notes that the authors contend that Bill C-31 threatens to deprive their descendants of Indian status, .and observes that the victims of such a claim would be children born after 1985, of one parent who is non-Indian and another parent who alone cannot pass on Indian status (i.e. a child out of a marriage between a status Indian and a non- status Indian, who marries a non-status Indian). In the State party’s opinion, the authors have not shown that there are in the Band individuals meeting these criteria and who therefore could claim to be victims. The State party further contends that the Committee itself has repeatedly acknowledged that it will not entertain claims of abstract or potential breaches of the Covenant; it adds that the communication does not identify anyone currently affected by Bill C- 31, and that the communication is inadmissible on that ground. 4.4 Moreover, the State party points out that judicial remedies remain available to the authors: thus, it remains open to them to apply to the Federal Court, Trial Division, for a declaration that “aboriginal rights” include control over the Band’s own membership. The State party notes that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Sparrow clarifies both meaning and scope of the “aboriginal rights” referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982; in this case, it was held that the Government must meet exacting standards before implementing actions that impinge upon the enjoyment of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The State party submits that this judgment underlines the importance of first allowing local courts to address national issues. 4.2 The State party submits that the authors have not complied with their obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. It emphasized that article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol reflects a fundamental principle of general international law that local remedies be exhausted before resorting to an international instance. This rule ensures that domestic courts are not superseded by an international organ, and that a State has an opportunity to correct any wrong which may be shown before its internal fora, before that State’s international responsibility is engaged. Domestic courts are generally better placed to determine the facts of and the law applicable to any given case, and where necessary, to enforce an appropriate remedy. In the present case, mere doubts about the success of remedies does not absolve the authors from resorting to them, a principle recognized by the Committee in its decisions in cases R. T. v. France (communication No. 262/1987)2 and S. S. v. Norway (communication No. 79/1980).3 4.5 Further, it is open to the authors to file an action in the same court, based on breach(es) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Among the rights guaranteed in the Charter are the right to freedom of association (s. 2(d)), the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (s. 7), and the right to equality “before and under the law and ... the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” (s. 15). These rights are guaranteed to individuals in relation to federal and provincial governments (s. 32). Anyone whose Charter rights have been infringed may apply to a competent court jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just within the circumstances (s. 24). 4.3 With regard to the alleged prohibitive cost of, and length of time for exhausting 4.6 The State party notes that the two avenues of recourse described above have been tried by a number of Indian Bands. In Twinn v. R. members of six Alberta Indian Bands applied to the Federal court Trial Division, for a 2 Declared inadmissible at the Committee’s thirty-fifth session. See Selected Decisions, vol. II. 3 Declared inadmissible at the Committee’s fifteenth session. See Selected Decisions, vol. I. 4 Declared inadmissible at the Committee’s thirty-fifth session. See Selected Decisions, vol. III. 5 See ibid., Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/40). 19