his application were under a duty to observe secrecy. The author's application underwent detailed scrutiny both in the Directorate of Immigration and on appeal by the Ministry of Justice. However, it was turned down by both instances and the author was asked to leave Norway. 4.4 The State party submits that as a general rule, in the absence of any contrary provision, the legality of an administrative act may be challenged in Norwegian courts. Thus, asylum-seekers who find their applications for political asylum turned down by the administration have the possibility of filing an application before Norwegian courts for judicial review and thereby having the legality of the rejection examined. Such an application is not subject to leave by the courts; neither is an application for an injunction. 4.5 A party concerned may apply to the courts for an injunction, asking the court to order the administration to defer the deportation of the asylum-seeker. According to the Enforcement of Judgements Act 1992, an order for an injunction may be given if the plaintiff (a) demonstrates that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court when the main case is adjudicated; and (b) shows sufficient reasons for requesting an injunction, i.e. that an injunction is necessary to avoid serious damage or harm if the expulsion were enforced without the court having had the opportunity to adjudicate the main case. Where the contested decision is a denial of asylum status the second requirement in practice merges with the first requirement, which means that in an asylum case an application for an injunction depends on whether or not the plaintiff can demonstrate that the challenged decision probably will be annulled by the court in the subsequent main case. 4.6 The author says in part 1 of his communication that a case concerning the legality of the decision denying him asylum in Norway may only "theoretically" be taken to Norwegian courts. This seems to indicate that he regards the domestic remedies as not in practice having been accessible to him. The Government contends that practice in Norway clearly shows otherwise: since 1987 more than 150 cases concerning the legality of decisions denying asylum have been brought before Norwegian courts. A majority of these cases included a request for an injunction. 4.7 The State party notes that the author's last argument in connection with the admissibility question concerns his financial situation. It is argued that he will not be able to afford to go to court. In that regard, the Government would point out that even if that were the case, it cannot serve to remove the requirement of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The wording of the provision is clear and is not open for this defence. Secondly, the author is in fact represented before the Committee. 4.8 The Government further states that the national courts fill a crucial function in the protection of human rights. International supervision in its various forms is secondary. The international bodies are in cases like the present one less well placed than national courts to assess evidence. This is especially so when it concerns the hearing of parties and witnesses on questions of reliability and truthfulness. In court oral testimony will be subject to examination by both parties, and possibly by the court itself. Such a procedure is not undertaken by the Committee. The facts of the case as they emerge from the documents are complex and detailed. The details have to be understood in the light of oral testimony presented in court. The requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is therefore even more compelling. The Committee ought not to shortcut the case by considering the merits of the communication. 4.9 In conclusion, the State party submits that the author has not brought his case before Norwegian courts, either as an application for annulment or in the form of an application for an injunction. His case would have been tried by Norwegian courts had he brought the case, since the courts have the authority to try both questions of fact and questions of law (i.e. the application of the Convention). 187