Bill C-31 by attempting to assume control of Band membership. It observes, however, that the authors themselves concede that the Supreme Court of Canada could rule Bill C-31 to have no effect where it conflicts with the authors’ “aboriginal rights”, i.e. the desired control of Band membership. effort to exhaust domestic remedies (A. and S. N. v. Norway)8. In this light, the Committee finds that available domestic remedies that may indeed prove to be effective remain to be exhausted. 6.4 The Committee further observes that other Indian Bands have instituted proceedings before the Federal Courts, the outcome of which is pending, notably in the case of Twinn v. R., and that the alleged high cost of litigation can, under specific circumstances, be offset by funding provided pursuant to a number of programmes instituted by the State party. As to the authors’ concern about the potential length of proceedings, the Committee reiterates its constant jurisprudence that fears about the length of proceedings do not absolve authors from the requirement of at least making a reasonable (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol in so far as it concerns the right of self-determination and under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol in so far as it concerns the authors’ other allegations; 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party, to the authors and to their counsel. ______________ 8 See ibid., Forty-third Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/43/40), annex VIII, sect. C, communication No. 224/1987, decision adopted on 11 July 1988, para. 6.2. ________________ Communication No. 397/1990 Submitted by: P. S. (name deleted) on his own behalf and on behalf of his son Date of communication: 15 February 1990 Alleged victims: The author and his son State party: Denmark Declared inadmissible: 22 July 1992 (forty-fifth session) Subject matter: The right to custody of a child following divorce procedures Individual Opinion: Mr. Bertil Wennergren 1. The author of the communication (initial submission dated 15 February 1990 and subsequent submissions) is P. S., a Danish citizen born in 1960. He submits the communication on his own behalf and that of his son, T. S., born in January 1984. The author claims that he and his son are victims of violations by Denmark of articles 14, paragraphs 2 and 3(c), 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Procedural issues: Notion of victim—Standing of non-custodial parent to represent son before the Committee—Admissibility ratione personae—Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies—Effective remedy Substantive issues: Interpretation of right to freedom of religion Articles of the Covenant: 14(2) and (3)(c), 17(2), 18(2), 23(4), 24(1) and 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 1, 2 and 5(2)(b) 22