is that the applicant's income does not exceed a certain limit, which is normally not the case for asylum-seekers even if they are receiving employment income in addition to the benefits granted by the State. If legal aid is granted, the aid covers counsel's fees in whole or in part. In addition, the aid covers court fees and other costs related to the proceedings, such as the cost of an interpreter. The State party also states that those granted free legal aid in court proceedings must themselves pay a part of the total costs, consisting of a moderate fixed fee amounting to approximately US$45, and an additional share of 25 per cent of the total financial cost beyond the basic fee. However, this amount shall not be paid if the person concerned has an income below a certain threshold. 6.3 The State party states that it is not aware of whether the author has applied for free legal aid in connection with contemplated court proceedings, but notes that the fact that free legal aid is not unconditional when an applicant appeals an administrative decision before the courts cannot exempt the author from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that all available and effective remedies have not been exhausted. It further notes that the legality of an administrative act may be challenged in Norwegian courts, and asylum-seekers who find their applications for political asylum turned down by the Directorate of Immigration and on appeal by the Ministry of Justice have the possibility of requesting judicial review before Norwegian courts. 7.3 The Committee notes that, according to information available to it, the author has not initiated any proceedings to seek judicial review of the decision rejecting his application for asylum. Noting also the author's claim about the financial implications of seeking such review, the Committee recalls that legal aid for court proceedings can be sought, but that there is no information indicating that this has been done in the case under consideration. 7.4 However, in the light of other similar cases brought to its attention and in view of the limited hours of free legal assistance available for asylum-seekers for administrative proceedings, the Committee recommends the State party undertake measures to ensure that asylum-seekers are duly informed about all domestic remedies available to them, in particular the possibility of judicial review before the courts and of being granted legal aid for such recourse. 7.5 The Committee notes the author's claim about the likely outcome were the case to be brought before a court. It considers, nevertheless, that the author has not presented enough substantive information to support the contention that such remedy would be unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the requirements under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication as it stands is inadmissible; 183