authorities have barred proceedings. The author explicitly requests that the State party indicate the avenues of recourse available to him in Algeria so that he can satisfy the alleged obligation to have exhausted them. Algerian authorities were obliged to find solutions. Moreover, the author has not submitted any document or evidence demonstrating that he has exercised the remedies made available in Algeria since 1962. According to rule 76 [now rule 78] of the rules of procedure of the Committee, the author must show that all domestic remedies have been exhausted in order for a communication to be considered. He cannot simply affirm that they are sure to be unsuccessful, ineffective and useless, a statement that demonstrates, moreover, an unjustified prejudice against the Algerian system of justice. The State party has never disputed the author’s right to bring his case before its courts. Algerian law allows for that possibility, and the Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary, which in a good many cases has ordered the Algerian State to pay compensation or to annul its acts when they have been judged to be contrary to international conventions or to domestic law. For the above reasons, the communication is inadmissible. 6.1 In its observations of 3 April 2006, the State party maintains that the communication constitutes a serious violation of international law in that it calls into question the principle of decolonization. The communication is motivated by the definitive loss of the author’s residence and property in Algeria, which were guaranteed and protected by the provisions of the Covenant. While the author maintains that domestic remedies have no prospect of success and are therefore unavailable, the Covenant did not enter into force until 23 March 1976 and was not ratified by the State party until 12 December 1989, which was 27 years after the French had voluntarily left Algeria. The Committee cannot therefore admit a retroactive application, since the events on which this communication is based took place in July 1962. The non-retroactivity principle is generally applicable to all international legal instruments, which can only be implemented with respect to events that took place after their entry into force. Moreover, article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codifies international practice as follows: “Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.” 7. In his letter of 15 June 2006, counsel for the author argues that the State party has not responded to his comments with relevant arguments. In its initial observations, the State party took the view that the author should apply to the authorities of his own country, whereas it now says that the author could have recourse to the Algerian courts, without indicating which tribunals, which rights and which jurisprudence would apply. As to the reference to the author’s “voluntary” departure from Algeria and the claim that French nationals who remained in Algeria continued to enjoy quiet possession of their property, counsel notes that the State party has adduced no evidence in support of its view of the facts. Lastly, counsel points out that the State party has not replied in detail to his arguments concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies or the continued violation of the Covenant. With regard to the continued violation, the distinction between a non-recurring illicit act with continuing effects and a continuing illicit act requires a subtle analysis of the facts and the law. The deciding body will have jurisdiction if the dispute between the parties (claims and responses) arises after entry into force, even if the disputed facts or the situation that led to the dispute are of an earlier date. If, however, the reason for the claim (or the source of the dispute) is a set of facts (subject matter) subsequent to the critical date, the deciding body will have jurisdiction even if the illicit nature of the acts lies in the modification of or failure to maintain a situation created earlier. The effect of temporal conditions therefore necessitates a close study of the facts and the law, and the question should be joined to the examination of the merits. 6.2 Subsidiarily, the State party argues that it is clear from the communication that the author, far from exhausting the remedies available to him, did not even try to use any of the mechanisms set up by the Evian agreements (Declaration of Principles concerning Economic and Financial Cooperation, articles 12 54 and 13) or the remedies available through Algerian administrative agencies and courts. The author left Algeria of his own free will, based on an assessment of the situation that, in the event, proved to be wrong. Many other French nationals made the choice to remain and found that no measures were taken against them by the Algerian authorities and that they were allowed to enjoy quiet possession of their property. Those that abandoned their property left it uncared for, creating a situation dangerous to public order. That being the case, the 54 “Algeria shall ensure without any discrimination the free and peaceful enjoyment of patrimonial rights acquired on its territory before self-determination. No one will be deprived of these rights without fair compensation previously determined.” (Title IV - Guarantee of acquired rights and previous commitments, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 507, No. 7395, p. 63.) Issues and proceedings before the Committee 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, 42