CAT/C/23/D/127/1999 page 6 4.7 The State party notes that the author’s last argument in connection with the admissibility question concerns his financial situation. It is argued that he will not be able to afford to go to court. In that regard, the Government would point out that even if that were the case, it cannot serve to remove the requirement of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. The wording of the provision is clear and is not open for this defence. Secondly, the author is in fact represented before the Committee. 4.8 The Government further states that the national courts fill a crucial function in the protection of human rights. International supervision in its various forms is secondary. The international bodies are in cases like the present one less well placed than national courts to assess evidence. This is especially so when it concerns hearing of parties and witnesses on questions of reliability and truthfulness. In court oral testimony will be subject to examination by both parties, and possibly by the court itself. Such a procedure is not undertaken by the Committee. The facts of the case as they emerge from the documents are complex and detailed. Details have to be understood in the light of oral testimony presented in court. The requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is therefore even more compelling. The Committee ought not to shortcut the case by considering the merits of the communication. 4.9 In conclusion, the State party submits that the author has not brought his case before Norwegian courts, either as an application for annulment or in the form of an application for injunction. His case would have been tried by Norwegian courts had he brought the case, since the courts have the authority to try both questions of fact and questions of law (i.e. the application of the Convention). Counsel’s comments 5.1 With reference to the State party’s comments about the author’s financial situation and the fact that he is being represented before the Committee, counsel points out that she has no legal background and that she represents the author on a voluntary basis. 5.2 Counsel further states that according to information available to her, the provisions mentioned by the State party regarding legal aid and assistance to all asylum-seekers are limited to five hours for the administrative application and three hours in case of a request for reconsideration. In case of a final negative administrative decision, the appointed lawyer withdraws from the case and the asylum-seeker no longer has any right to free legal representation. In the case under consideration the lawyer finalized her work in August 1998, once the Minister of Justice adopted his decision. Hiring a lawyer would cost more than what the author, living in a centre for asylum-seekers and with no right to a work permit, receives from the State to cover his living expenses for 1-2 years. In some cases, non-governmental organizations manage to raise money for the purpose of hiring lawyers for asylum-seekers, but this was not possible in the author’s case. 5.3 It is further pointed out that although the State party states that asylum-seekers have successfully brought their cases before Norwegian courts, statistics show that the majority of the cases receive negative decisions. Counsel draws the attention of the Committee to, inter alia, a case where an asylum-seeker from Kenya was expelled in March 1998, before his case had been examined by the courts and while his request for injunction was still pending. On his return to