8.4 The Committee takes note of counsel's comment that a delay until 1996 is expected in the finalization of the plan of the Central Forestry Board for use and maintenance, and understands this as an indication that no further activities in the Hammastunturi Wilderness and the residual area will be undertaken by the State party while the authors may pursue further domestic remedies. Administrative Tribunal, which makes no reference to article 27, should be seen as a negative precedent for the adjudication of the authors' own grievances. In the light of the developments referred to in paragraph 8.2 above, the authors' doubts about the courts' readiness to entertain claims based on article 27 of the Covenant do not justify their failure to avail themselves of possibilities of domestic remedies which the State party has plausibly argued are available and effective. The Committee further observes that according to counsel, the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi in another comparable case, while not confirming the practical applicability of article 27 before the local courts, at least leaves this possibility open. Thus, the Committee concludes that an administrative action challenging road construction activities in the residual area would not be a priori futile, and that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the decision of 9 July 1991 is set aside; (b) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, to the authors and to their counsel. 11