State party: Trinidad and Tobago Declared inadmissible: 3 November 1989 (thirty-seventh session) Subject matter: Refusal to register a company labelled "T&T 'Human Rights and Legal Aid Company Limited" Procedural issues: Inadmissibility ratione materiae Substantive issues: Right to judicial remedy "Effective remedy" Articles of the Covenant: 2 (3), (a) and (b); 5 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 1 and 3 1. The authors of the communication (initial letter dated 4 December 1987 and subsequent letters dated 30 December 1988 and 24 January 1989) are M. G. B. and S. P., two Trinidadian citizens born on 27 November 1927 and 1 January 1960, respectively, residing in Trinidad. They claim to be the victims of a violation by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago of articles 2 (3) (a) and (b) and 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are represented by counsel. 2.1 The authors state that they applied to the Registrar General of Trinidad to register a company known as the TNT Human Rights and Legal Aid-Company Limited. This company was to promote the rule of law, human rights facilities and to assist in providing legal assistance and legal aid to the needy. The Registrar of Companies refused to recognize this company on the grounds that the establishment of a company with such objectives by nonprofessionals was against public policy. The authors filed an application for judicial review in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago but the Judge dismissed the application without issuing a written judgement. They then appealed to the Court of Appeal and asked that the appeal be deemed urgent. The Court of Appeal, on 5 November 1987, refused to consider the appeal urgent on the grounds that the authors' application did not show sufficient ground for urgency, because "the incorporation of the Appellants under the name sought is not a sine qua non to the lawful provision of financial assistance to indigent persons directly or otherwise with a view to their obtaining legal aid and/or legal advice." 2.2 The authors indicate that there is no right of appeal against that decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They claim that the statistics for hearings and the determination of matters in the Court of Appeal show that there is an "inordinate" delay in the hearings and the determination of appeals, usually three to four years. This, they argue, constitutes a judicial block for the determination of appeals and a denial of the right of access to the court. 3. By decision of 15 March 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication to the State party under rule 91 of the Committee's rules of procedure, requesting information and 61