of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation not only to respect but also to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction all the rights recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Where, as in the present case, the domestic law regulates political parties, such law must be applied without consideration. Furthermore, States parties are thus under an obligation to protect the practices of all religions or beliefs from infringement11 and to ensure that political parties, in their internal management, respect the applicable provisions of article 25 of the Covenant.12 Consequently, the Committee need not address the broader issue of what legislative and administrative measures a State party must take in order to secure that all citizens may meaningfully exercise their right of political participation under article 25 of the Covenant. The issue before the Committee is whether the State party violated the authors’ rights under the Covenant in that its courts gave priority to the principle of party autonomy, over their wish to be members in a political party that did not accept them due to their membership in another organization of ideological nature. The Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that it is not a fourth instance competent to reevaluate findings of fact or reevaluate the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee considers that the authors have failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the courts of the State party would have amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Therefore, the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes that although the authors have made some references to the hardship they have more generally experienced due to their membership in the Church of Scientology, and to the responsibility of the State party to ensure their rights under the Covenant, their actual claims before the Committee merely relate to their exclusion from the CDU, an issue in respect of which they also have exhausted domestic remedies in the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 11 a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; 12 b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State Party and to the authors. Cf. CCPR, 48th Sess. (1993), General Comment No. 22, at para. 9. See CCPR, 57th Sess. (1996), General Comment No. 25, at para. 26. Communication No. 1220/2003 Submitted by: Walter Hoffman and Gwen Simpson Alleged victim: The authors State party: Canada Declared inadmissible: 25 July 2005 February 1945, respectively. They claim to be victims of violations by Canada of article 2, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; article 14; article 19, paragraph 2; article 26 and article 27. They are represented by counsel. Subject matter: Compatibility with Covenant of a statutory requirement for signs or advertisements in a State party province. Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Discrimination on basis of language - Freedom of expression - Minority rights - Fair trial - Effective remedy 1.2 On 26 April 2004, the Committee's (then) Special Rapporteur on New Communications decided to separate the consideration of the admissibility and merits of the communication. Articles of the Covenant: 2, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; 14; 19, paragraph 2; 26 and 27 Factual background Articles of the Optional Protocol: 5, paragraph 2 (b) 2.1 The authors, English speakers, are the two shareholders and directors of a corporation registered as “Les Enterprises W.F.H. Ltée”, doing business in Ville de Lac Brome, Quebéc, under the firm names ‘The Lyon and the Walrus’ and ‘La Lionne et Le 1.1 The authors of the communication, initially dated 4 October 2003, are Walter Hoffman and Gwen Simpson, born 24 March 1935 and 2 45