self-determination as an essential. condition for the effective guarantee of observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights. However, the Committee reiterates that the authors cannot claim under the Optional. Protocol to be victims of a violation of the right of self-determination enshrined in article 1 of the Covenant.1 The Optional Protocol provides a procedure under which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated. These rights are set out in part III of the Covenant, articles 6 to 27, inclusive. The Committee further notes that no individual, or group of individuals, can in the abstract, by way of actio popularis, challenge a law or practice deemed to be contrary to the Covenant. An individual, or a group of individuals, can only claim to be a victim in the sense of article 1 of the Optional Protocol if he or she, or they, are actually affected. 8.3 With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee reiterates that pursuit of such remedies can only be required to the extent that they are both available and effective. It notes that the authors have not pursued the remedies which the State party has submitted were available to them, for the reason that they consider them ineffective and their pursuit would be "too prolonged and prohibitively expensive". The Committee further observes that the authors did not comply with the Working Group's request for clarifications about the steps they had taken to pursue remedies available to them in respect of their individual grievances (see paragraph 4 above). The Committee concludes that the authors have not shown the existence of circumstances which would have absolved them from exhausting the remedies which the State party indicates are available to them; it reaffirms2 that mere doubts about the effectiveness of remedies, as well as the prospect of protracted and costly legal proceedings, did not absolve the authors from exhausting them. Accordingly, the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), have not been met. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision be transmitted to the State party and the authors. _________ 1 See Committee's views in communication No. 167/1984 (B. Ominayak and the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada), decision of 26 March 1990, paragraph 32.1. 2 See Communication No. 224/1987 (A. and S.N. v. Borway), inadmissibility decision of 11 July 1988, paragraph 6.2. _______________ Communication No. 329/1988 91