(paragraphs 3.1 and 5.2). Since article 26 of the Covenant must be respected by all State party authorities, legislative acts also have to meet its requirements; accordingly, a law which is discriminatory for any of the reasons set out in article 26 would violate the Covenant. The State party has not responded to the author’s allegations. A claim of discrimination that raises an issue of substance - not disputed at the admissibility stage by the State party - requires consideration on the merits. We therefore conclude that this communication should have been declared admissible. Communication No. 645/1995 Submitted by: Ms.Vaihere Bordes and Mr. John Temeharo [represented by counsel] Alleged victims: The authors State party: France Declared inadmissible*: 22 July 1996 (fifty-seventh session) Subject matter: Nuclear tests in the South Pacific as a potential threat to life of inhabitants of French Polynesia carried out between 5 September 1995 and the beginning of 1996. According to the State party, these underground tests would be the last to be carried out by France, as President Chirac has announced France's intention to accede to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which is scheduled to be adopted in Geneva in late 1996. Procedural issues: Status of “victim” within meaning of article of the Optional Protocol Reservation to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol 2.2 The authors recall the General Comments of the Human Rights Committee on the right to life, in particular General Comment 14 [23] on nuclear weapons, and add that numerous studies show the danger to life caused by nuclear tests, on account of the direct effects of the radiation on the health of individuals living in the test area, which manifests itself in an increased number of cancer and leukaemia cases, as well as genetical risks. Indirectly, human life is said to be threatened through the contamination of the food chain. Substantive issues: Nuclear weapons and right to life - Interference with privacy and family life Articles of the Covenant: 6 and 17 Articles of the Optional Protocol and Rules of Procedure: 1, 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (a), and rules 85 and 86 1. The authors of the communication are Vaihere Bordes, Noël Narii Tauira and John Temeharo, all French citizens residing in Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia. All claim to be victims of violations by France of articles 6 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The authors are represented by counsel. 2.3 According to the authors, the French authorities have failed to take sufficient measures to protect their life and security. They claim that the authorities have not been able to show that the underground nuclear tests do not constitute a danger to the health of the inhabitants of the South Pacific and to the environment. They therefore request the Committee to ask France, under rule 86 of the rules of procedure, not to carry out any nuclear tests until an independent international commission has found that the tests are indeed without risks and do not violate any of the rights protected under the Covenant. During its 54th and 55th sessions, the Committee decided not to grant interim protection under rule 86. The facts as presented by the authors and claim 2.1 On 13 June 1995, French President Jacques Chirac announced that France intended to conduct a series of underground nuclear tests on the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa in the South Pacific. The authors challenge the decision of President Chirac, which they claim is in clear violation of international law. They contend that the tests represent a threat to their right to life and their right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy and their family life. After the submission of the communication, six underground nuclear tests were 2.4 With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors contend that because of the urgent nature of their cases, they cannot be expected to await the outcome of judicial procedures before the French tribunals. It is further argued that domestic remedies are ineffective in practice, and would fail to offer the authors any protection or any remedy. * Pursuant to rule 85 of the rules of procedure, Committee member Christine Chanet did not participate in the examination of the present communication. 15