from the Conseil d'Etat dated 22 November 1985, both stating that a complaint drafted in the Breton language should not be registered. Such decisions, according to the author, constitute discrimination on the ground of language, in contravention of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author further claims that the State party has violated article 2, paragraph 2, with regard to legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant : article 2, paragraph 3, with regard to effective remedies; article 16 with regard to the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law; article 19, paragraph 2, with regard to freedom of expression; article 26 with regard to equality before the law without discrimination on any ground; and article 27 with regard to the right to use one's own language. 2.2 Concerning the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that the complaint before the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes was not even registered and that the Minister of Justice has not responded to his written complaint. The author further states that he has not submitted the same matter to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 3. Without transmitting the communication to the State party, the Human Rights Committee requested the author, by decision of 9 April 1987 under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to clarify (a) whether he claimed, as an individual, to be personally affected by the alleged violations of the Covenant by the State party, or whether he claimed, in his capacity as President of an organization, that the organization was the victim of the alleged violations; and (b) whether he understood, read and wrote French. By letter dated 30 June 1987, the author replied that he had initially intended to submit the communication on behalf of the organization, although he maintained that he was also directly affected by the events described in his initial communication. He further stated that he understood, read and wrote French. 4. By further decision of 20 October 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication to the State party, requesting it, under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility. The author was requested, under rule 91, (a) to specify in which way he claimed to have been denied the right to recognition as a person before the law, (b) to which extent and in which context he claimed that his freedom of expression had been curtailed and (c) to substantiate his allegation that French citizens with French as their mother tongue and those with Breton as their mother tongue are not equal before the law. 5. In his reply, dated 13 January 1989, to the Working Group's questions, the author claims that French citizens with French as their mother tongue and those with Breton as their mother tongue are not equal before the law because the former can express themselves in their mother tongue before the tribunals whereas the latter cannot. While there exists a "Secrétariat à la francophonie", a similar institution has not been created in defence of regional languages other than French. Because the Government refuses to recognize the Breton language, those who use it daily are forced to abandon its use or to forgo their right to freely express themselves. The author adds that the violation of his freedom of expression is manifest in that the Administrative Tribunal refused to register a complaint submitted in Breton on the ground that its content was unintelligible, thereby refusing to recognize the validity of a complaint submitted in a local language and denying the citizens the use of their own language in court. Finally, the author affirms that he is barred, as a French citizen with Breton as his mother tongue, from access to courts, as the judicial authorities do not authorize him to submit complaints in his mother tongue. 6.1 In its submission under rule 91, dated 15 January 1989, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that some of the author's claims are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party recalls that the author did not contest, within the delays prescribed by law, the decision of the Administrative Tribunal not to register his complaint. His written complaint to the Minister of Justice that he had suffered a denial of justice cannot, in the State party's opinion, be considered to be a judicial remedy. Nor has he appealed to any other judicial instance. His communication thus fails to meet the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 42