compensation from France in 1977, 1980 and 1988,60 and that it is only after becoming aware of bill No. 1499 of 10 March 2004, 61 in France which did not include a reparation mechanism to ensure further compensation for property confiscated in Algeria, that the author decided to file against the State party, not before its domestic courts and administrative agencies, but directly before the Committee. The Committee is of the view that the author could have had recourse against the State party once the latter had acceded to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol, and that the proceedings in France did not prevent him from instituting proceedings against Algeria before the Committee. No convincing explanation has been provided by the author to justify the decision to wait until 2004 in order to submit his communication to the Committee. The Committee considers that submitting the communication after such a delay without a reasonable explanation amounts to an abuse of the right of submission and finds the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.62 seizure of property or in the provision of compensation may violate article 26 of the Covenant. 64 The Human Rights Committee has held, in a notable series of cases, that a State “responsible for the departure” of its citizens, cannot later rely upon the absence of national residency or citizenship as an adequate reason to exclude an affected claimant from a provision for restitution.65 On 25 September 1995, the State party in this case adopted a statute to provide restitution to persons “whose land has been nationalized”, so long as they are of Algerian nationality (see decision of the Committee, para. 8.3). The author in this case has stated that he was deprived of 12 apartments and 10 business premises after his flight from Algeria. It would appear that these apartments were built on his land. The author also states that he also owned “several lots” in the town of Oran (see decision of the Committee, paras. 2.1 and 2.2). The State party has not disputed these factual claims. Nor has the State party explained how declaring properties to be “vacant” (while rejecting requests for restitution) in order to facilitate their resale is any different in effect or intention from nationalization. Finally we want to point out that this communication can be seen as a pilot case as the Committee has received more than 600 similar communications. It is therefore of a special interest to decide on what ground the communication should be declared inadmissible. Thus, there would appear to be a possible claim of discrimination in regard to the State party’s statutory scheme for restitution, adopted after the State party joined the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. In addition, in at least one case, the Committee has deemed the inability to resume a protected residence by virtue of a Government act to have a continuing effect after the date of its adoption.66 Individual (dissenting) opinion of Committee member Ms. Ruth Wedgwood The author raises a number of claims concerning property that he argues was taken without compensation in the course of his departure from Algeria. In its prior case law, the Human Rights Committee has concluded that the right to property, and the right to prompt, adequate, and effective compensation for any expropriation of property, is not protected as such by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 63 Nonetheless, under the Committee’s case law, unwarranted discrimination in a It is certainly true that situations of historical transition can present real difficulties in addressing individual claims of right. The State party also has faced parlous circumstances in the intervening years. But we ought to address the issues forthrightly, rather than retreating to an admissibility finding based on ratione temporis that does not sit comfortably with the rest of our case law. 60 Act No. 87-549 of 16 July 1987, which aimed at a final settlement of all cases of lost or confiscated overseas property. 61 Act No. 2005-158, on national recognition of, and payment to, repatriated French nationals, was adopted on 23 February 2005. Its two main objectives relate to those repatriated and to harkis. As to those persons repatriated, the law aims to repay the amounts which had been deducted from compensation paid in the 1970s to them, and which related to resettlement loans. These loans had been granted to those who wished to start businesses in France. As to the harkis, the law provides for an allocation de reconnaissance (gratitude payments). 62 See communication No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, decision on admissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3, and communication No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, decision on admissibility adopted on 27 March 2006, para. 4.3. 63 See communications Nos. 520/1992, E. and A.K. v. Hungary, para. 6.6, and 275/1988, S.E. v. Argentina. 64 See communications Nos. 516/1992, Simunek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995; 586/1994, Adam v. Czech Republic; 857/1999 Blazek et al. v. Czech Republic; and 747/1997 Des Four Walderode v. Czech Republic. 65 See communication No. 516/1992, Simunek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995, para. 11.6. 66 See communication No. 24/1977, Lovelace v. Canada, Views adopted on 30 July 1981, para. 13.1. 44