11.2 The State party has contended that the author is claiming violations of rights of his company, and that a company has no standing under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes that the Covenant rights that are at issue in the present communication, and in particular the right of freedom of expression, are by their nature inalienably linked to the person. The author has the freedom to impart information concerning his business in the language of his choice. The Committee therefore considers that the author himself, and not only his company, has been personally affected by the contested provisions of Bills Nos. 101 and 178. French appears at least as prominently. Finally, sections 22 to 25 provide for situations in which public signs and commercial advertising may be exclusively in a language other than French. 9.3 Section 68 of the Charter of the French Language, as modified by section 22 of Bill No. 86, now reads: "68. A firm name may be accompanied with a version in a language other than French provided that, when it is used, the French version of the firm name appears at least as prominently. "However, in public signs and posters and commercial advertising, the use of a version of a firm name in a language other than French is permitted to the extent that the other language may be used in such signs and posters or in such advertising pursuant to section 58 and the regulations enacted under that section. 11.3 The Committee appreciates the State party's information on the measures taken in respect of the Committee's Views in communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989. It does not, however, share the State party's opinion that since the law in question has been amended and now provides for the possibility to use either French or both French and another language in outdoor advertising, Mr. Singer's claims have become moot. The Committee notes that the court proceedings referred to in the case were based on the Charter of the French Language in its version then in force (Bill No. 101). The Committee further notes that after the Supreme Court of Canada had, in 1988, found in Mr. Singer's favour, the contested provisions of Bill No. 101 were amended by those of Bill No. 178. Notwithstanding, the use of French in outdoor advertising remained compulsory. This situation was the basis of Mr. Singer's complaint to the Committee. That Bill No. 178 was amended by Bill No. 86 after the Committee adopted its Views on communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989 does not retroactively render his communication inadmissible. "In addition, in texts or documents drafted only in a language other than French, a firm name may appear in the other language only." 9.4 The Quebec authorities point out that under the current Act and the corresponding Regulations, public signs and posters and commercial advertising may be displayed either in French or either both in French and another language. They further submit that, contrary to the situation that prevailed under the previous legislation, sections 58 and 68 of the Charter of the French Language, as modified by Bill No. 86, are not protected by a derogation clause, and their constitutional validity may thus be challenged before the domestic courts. From the above, the authorities deduce that the issues raised by Mr. Singer have become moot, and that his case should therefore be dismissed. 10.1 In his reply dated 9 June 1994, the author submits that the question of whether he or his company have been the victim of violations of Covenant rights is irrelevant. He explains that for many years, he was the main shareholder, with over 90 per cent of the shares, and that two members of his family held the remaining shares. 11.4 In the light of the above, the Committee sees no reason to review its decision on admissibility of 8 April 1993. 12.1 As to the merits of the case, the Committee notes that its observations on communications Nos. 359/1989 (Ballantyne/Davidson v. Canada) and 385/1989 (McIntyre v. Canada) apply, mutatis mutandis, to the case of Mr. Singer. 10.2 With regard to Bill No. 178 and Bill No. 86, the author points out that they were both adopted after the Supreme Court of Canada had heard his case in December 1988 and had struck down several provisions of the Charter of the French Language; he argues that the Quebec legislature can repeal Bill No. 86 and reimpose Bill No. 178 at any time. 12.2 Concerning the question of whether section 58 of Bill No. 101, as amended by Bill No. 178, section 1, violated Mr. Singer's right, under article 19 of the Covenant, to freedom of expression, the Committee, having concluded that a State party to the Covenant may choose one or more official languages, but that it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice, finds that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2. In the light of this finding, the Committee need not address any issues that may arise under article 26. Review of admissibility and examination of the merits 11.1 The Committee has taken note of the parties' comments, made subsequent to the decision on admissibility, in respect of the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 82