since she had not been a citizen on 29 May 1992, and therefore was not an entitled person as defined by the law. 5.2 As regards the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded, counsel refers to the legal regime for restitution and compensation, which consists of different laws and lacks transparency. The author contests the version of the facts presented by the State party and maintains that her family’s property was taken unlawfully by the State under Benes’ Decrees Nos. 12/1945 and 108/1945, and that Law No. 143/1947 did not take property away from the family. If, however, which the author denies, the Law No. 143/1947 did deprive the author’s family of their property as suggested by the State party, then the author challenges 5.7 The author claims that the requirement of Czech citizenship constitutes a violation of her rights under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant. In this context, she refers to the Committee’s Views in the Simunek case. 5.8 Counsel further submits that, in a decision of 26 May 1998, the Constitutional Court, concerning the Salm palace in Prague, decided that the author’s restitution claim was inadmissible for being out of time and that it therefore need not decide whether or not the author had a title to the property. According to the author, in refusing to decide her title claim, the Court denied her justice in violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. “the State party’s statement that the property was taken before the qualifying date of 25 February 1948. In this context, the author refers to her earlier submissions and argues that the Courts have failed to recognize the arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional nature of the provision of the qualifying date of 25 February 1948.” Admissibility considerations 6.1 At its sixty-sixth session in July 1999, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. 5.3 The author notes that the State party has not addressed the complaint that the Constitutional Court denied her a hearing concerning the constitutionality of Law No. 143/1947 by declaring her complaint inadmissible. 6.2 It held that the author’s claims concerning Law No. 143/1947 were outside the Committee’s competence ratione temporis and thus inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 Concerning the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis, the author points out that she does not complain that law No. 143/1947 was in violation of the Covenant, but that the acts and omissions of the State party’s public authorities after the entry into force of the Covenant and Optional Protocol, denying her an effective remedy of restitution and compensation in a discriminatory manner, violate the Covenant. 6.3 With regard to the author’s claim that she was denied a fair hearing because of the manner in which the courts interpreted the laws to be applied to her case, the Committee recalled that the interpretation of domestic law is essentially a matter for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned and declared this part of the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 With regard to the State party’s argument that her communication is wider in scope than her appeal to the Constitutional Court, and that several constitutional complaints are still pending before the Constitutional Court, she states that this is due to the failure of the courts to deal with the substance of her case, and the lack of cooperation by the authorities to investigate and to assist the author to clarify the matters at issue. 6.4 The Committee also considered inadmissible the author’s claim that she is a victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, because the courts refused to determine whether she had a legal title to property. The Committee found that the author had not substantiated her claim, for purposes of admissibility, that the failure of the courts in this respect was arbitrary, or that the Government’s failure to examine the constitutionality of Law No. 143/1947 constituted a violation of article 14 (1). 5.6 In a further submission, dated 12 January 1999, the author informs the Committee about developments in her case. She refers to decisions taken by the Constitutional Court on 4 September 1998, in which the Court decided that her claims for restitution under Law No. 243/1992 were outside the time limit prescribed for claims under that Law. She explains that the time limit for filing complaints was 31 December 1992, and for entitled persons who as of 29 May 1992 were not residing in the Czech Republic, 15 July 1996. The author, having become a Czech citizen and resident in 1993, made her claim on 10 July 1996. The Court, however, rejected her claim 6.5 With regard to the State party’s objection that the communication was inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that all the issues raised in the present communication have been brought before the domestic courts of the State party in the several applications filed by the author, and have been considered by the State party’s highest judicial authority. The Committee considered therefore that it was not precluded from considering the 55