2.7 With regard to article 25 of the Covenant, the authors note that the archipelago's Governor is not elected by the islanders but is appointed in Bogotá by the President of Colombia. Only 11 of the 90 Governors appointed by the central government have been islanders. Elections to the local council are not by secret ballot. This has led to rampant favoritism and alleged blackmail with regard to jobs, housing, scholarships and other government benefits. In any event, by virtue of law One of 1972, the local council was stripped of much of its power, which was transferred to the Governor. This law also stripped San Andrés of its status of a municipality. 2.8 The authors object to the increasing militarization of their islands, more particularly, to the expansion of the Cove-Seaside naval base and other recent land acquisitions by the Colombian Armed Forces. They fear that this may involve them militarily in Central American conflicts of which they wish no part. 2.9 The authors claim to have exhausted domestic remedies, to the extent that they can be deemed available and effective for purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. A series of letters, telegrams and petitions sent in 1985-1987 to former President Betancur, the Governor and other ministers, went unanswered. President Virgilio Barco sent a telegram in reply to one of their letters but nothing that was promised was accomplished. On 4 January 1987, they unsuccessfully submitted a Proyecto de Acuerdo to the Governor seeking restraints on the alienation of land. Several meetings with the Governor produced verbal promises that were not fulfilled. Moreover, the Constitution and the National Bill of Laws of Colombia contain no provisions for the protection or recognition of minorities or their rights, in violation of article 2 of the Covenant. 3. By decision of 21 October 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee requested the authors to clarify whether they had been individually affected by the alleged activities of the Colombian authorities and to elaborate on their claim that they had complied with the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4. In their reply, dated 21 December 1988, to the Working Group's request for clarification and elaboration, the authors itemize the effects that the Government's policies are said to have had on them personally: 0. B. allegedly was denied a teaching position for which she was otherwise qualified because she did not speak Spanish. F. W., D. B., E. P. and L. G., were allegedly unable to qualify for teaching positions in English. Three of the authors have children who are allegedly unable to receive education in their native language. E. P. was allegedly denied the possibility of applying for a scholarship because he is not Catholic. None of the authors claims to have felt able to vote freely because the ballots are not secret. All of the authors allege that they are required to speak Spanish in court, before the police and before other officials. 5. By decision of 4 April 1989, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication to the State party and requested it, under rule 91 of the rules of procedure, to provide information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. 6.1 In its submission under rule 91, dated 9 August 1989, the State party contends that the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 89