the State party rejects as unfounded and unsubstantiated the authors' contention that the incidence of cases of cancer has risen in French Polynesia as a result of French nuclear tests in the area. State party's submission on the admissibility of the complaint and authors’ comments 3.1 In its submission under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, dated 22 January 1996, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication on several grounds. 3.5 The State party notes that it has granted access to the testing area to several independent commissions of inquiry in the past, including, in 1982, a mission led by the internationally recognized vulcanologist Haroun Tazieff, in 1983, a mission of experts from New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea, one by J. Y. Cousteau in 1987, etc. That the monitoring of the environmental effects of the tests carried out by the French authorities has been serious and of high quality has, inter alia, been confirmed by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (California) and the International Laboratory of Marine Radioactivity in Monaco. 3.2 The State party argues that, in the first instance, the authors do not qualify as "victims" within the meaning of articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. In this context, it refers to the arguments developed in its submission to the European Commission of Human Rights in a case (No. 28024/95) virtually identical to that before the Committee introduced before that body. The State party provides a detailed description of the geology of the atoll of Mururoa, where most of the underground tests are carried out, and of the techniques developed for the conduct of the tests. These techniques, the State party notes, are designed to provide a maximum of security and to minimize the risks of radioactive contamination of the environment and atmosphere. It dismisses the authors' argument that earlier underground tests in the 1970s and incidents said to have occurred during those tests have led to fissures in the atoll's geology and, thereby, increases the risk of radiation escaping from the underground shafts where the nuclear devices are tested, through a process known as "venting". 3.6 In the light of the above, the State party affirms that the authors have failed to discharge the burden of proof that they are "victims" within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It notes that the authors cannot argue that the risk to which they might be exposed through the nuclear tests would be such as to render imminent a violation of their rights under articles 6 and 17 of the Covenant. Purely theoretical and hypothetical violations, however, do not suffice to make them "victims" within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. 3.3 The State party further rejects the argument that the tests expose the population of the islands surrounding the testing area to an increased risk of radiation. It recalls that the level of radioactivity at Mururoa is identical to that measured over and at other islands and atolls in the South Pacific and is, for example, less than that measured in metropolitan France: thus, the level of Caesium 137 measured in French Polynesia in 1994 was one third of the level measured in France and in the northern hemisphere at the same date where, it is noted, the emissions resulting from the nuclear accident which occurred at Tchernobyl (Ukraine) in 1985 are still clearly measurable. 3.7 Subsidiarily, the State party contends that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, since two of the authors, Ms. Bordes and Mr. Tauira, are coauthors of the complaint which was placed before the European Commission of Human Rights and registered by that body in August 1995 (case No. 28204/95). The State party recalls its reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), pursuant to which the Committee "shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement". As the case which was examined by the European Commission and declared inadmissible on 4 December 1995 in fact concerned the alleged unlawfulness of the French nuclear tests and thus the "same matter", the Committee's competence in respect of the present case is said to be excluded. 3.4 Similar considerations apply to the alleged and expected contamination of the food chain through the nuclear tests. The State party refutes the authors' argument that they run a risk of contamination through consumption of agricultural products produced and fish caught in proximity of the testing area. It points out that all serious scientific studies on the environmental effects of underground nuclear tests have concluded that whatever radioactive elements reach the surface of the lagoon at Mururoa or Fangataufa, are subsequently diluted by the ocean to levels which are perfectly innocuous for the marine fauna and flora and, a fortiori, for human beings. In the same vein, 3.8 Equally subsidiarily, the State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It refers to its arguments developed before the European Commission of Human Rights on this point: thus, the authors could have filed a complaint before the Conseil d'État and argued that President Chirac's 16