Ethical Union, an organization of non-believers, has raised strong objections against the Day Nurseries Act and its implementing regulations. 2.2 In the instant case, S. 's parents object that when she first attended the day nursery, grace was sung at all meals. On taking the matter up with the day nursery staff, they were told that their daughter did not have to sing with the other children, but the parents argue that it would have been difficult for a six-year old child not to do the same things as all the other children. 2.3 The parents claim that the Day Nurseries Act, in conjunction with its Regulations and Guidelines and the ensuing practice are inconsistent with article 18 (4) of the Covenant, which requires States parties to respect the liberty of parents to give their children a religious and moral upbringing in accordance with their own convictions. Moreover, they refer to article 26 of the Covenant, which provides that legislation shall prohibit all forms of discrimination and shall secure for everyone equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds of, among other things, religion. 2.4 With respect to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the authors rely on their understanding that this requirement "shall not be enforced in cases where employing such remedies would take an unreasonably long time". They state that they have not submitted their complaint to any Norwegian court and claim that there are no effective remedies available, since S. would only attend day nursery until August 1987. Moreover, they doubt whether "the United Nations Covenant would be applied to this national issue by a Norwegian court of law. Therefore it would be a waste of time and money, and also an extra strain on complainants, if the issue were first to be tried before Norwegian courts". 2.5 The Human Rights Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 3. By decision of 8 April 1987, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. On 23 October 1987, the Committee's Working Group adopted a second decision under rule 91, requesting the State party to provide more specific information concerning the remedies available to the authors. 4.1 In its initial submission under rule 91, dated 14 July 1987, the State party objects to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the authors have completely bypassed domestic administrative and judicial remedies and that the exception provided for in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not apply in the present case. 4.2 The State party points out that the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) is predicated both on practicality and on the principle of State sovereignty. The authors of the communication, however, have not submitted their case to any Norwegian court. It is open to them to challenge the application of the Day Nurseries Act and Regulations in the District and City Court in the first instance; the High Court (Appeals Division)in the second instance; and finally the Supreme Court in the third instance. Subject to permission being granted by the Supreme Court's Appeals Selection Committee, the case could be appealed directly from the District and City Court to the Supreme Court. Such permission may be granted if the issue is considered to be of general importance or if particular reasons suggest that a quick decision is desirable. 4.3 As to the authors' specific complaint, the State party notes that such a case would take approximately 4 months from the writ of summons to the main hearing by the Alesund District and City Court. To bring a suit through all court instances would normally take three to four years, although this period would be shortened 49