302. Three communications (Nos. 4/1990, 5/1990 and 6/1990) were placed before the Committee at its fifth session. It concluded consideration of one of these communications (Nos. 5/1990, W. J. v. Austria) by declaring it inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, which precludes the Committee from considering a communication if the same matter is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee had ascertained that the same matter had been submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights. For the text of the Committee's decision, see annex VIII to the present report. 303. At its sixth session, the Committee resumed consideration of communications Nos. 4/1990 and 6/1990 and commenced cons1deration of communication 7/1990. It declared communication No. 4/1990 (R. E. G. v. Turkey) inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, which precludes the Committee from considering a communication if all available domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless it is established that the application of the remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief. The facts, as placed before it, did not reveal that the author had made sufficient attempts to exhaust domestic remedies. Pursuant to rule 109, paragraph 2, of its rules of procedure, the Committee may review a decision declaring a communication inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, upon receipt of documentary evidence from the author to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply. For the text of the Committee's decision, see annex VIII of the present report. 304. The Committee will resume consideration of communications Nos. 6/1990 and 7/1990 at its next session. -56-