Mr. Croes fails to submit any evidence in support of such allegations. Lastly, Mr. Croes cannot claim a right to invoke article 1 of the Covenant without submitting even a beginning of evidence to the effect that: (a) the people of Aruba claim to be the victim of a violation of article 1 of the Covenant by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, (b) this people has authorized Mr. Croes to submit on its behalf a complaint under article 1 of the Covenant, (c) the Kingdom of the Netherlands has violated article 1. In this respect, it is significant that Mr. Croes' lawyer, in paragraph 28 of his letter of 11 January 1984, does not as yet allege an actual violation of article 1, but "a threat" to the right of self-determination. This raises the question, whether a possible future violation of a right protected by the Covenant could be the object of a complaint under the Optional Protocol. The Government answers this question in the negative. For the reasons submitted in the foregoing paragraphs the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands submits that the communication of Mr. Gilberto François Croes is inadmissible under rule 90, paragraphs 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d) and 1 (f) of the Committee's Rules of Procedure. 6.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 Article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering a communication if the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. There was no indication that the case was under examination elsewhere. 6.3 Article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering a communication unless domestic remedies have been exhausted. In this connection, the Committee recalled that, in its decision under rule 91 of its provisional rules of procedure, it requested the State party, in the event that the latter were to contend that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, "to give details of the effective remedies available in the particular circumstances of this case". The Committee noted that in its submission of 28 May 1985 the State party contended that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It mentioned the steps taken by Mr. Croes, but did not specify what effective local remedies would have been available in the circumstances of this case, had Mr. Croes specifically invoked articles 6 and 14 of the Covenant in his submission of complaints to the national authorities. The Committee noted that the steps taken by the author to exhaust domestic remedies ended with the rejection of his appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands Antilles on 24 February 1984. In the absence of any clear indication from the State party concerning other effective domestic remedies which the author should have pursued, the Committee concluded that it was not precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol from considering this case, but indicated that this conclusion could be reviewed in the light of any further information submitted by the State party under article 4, paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee noted the State party's contention that the communication indicates an abuse of the right of submission. However, the Committee found that the grounds invoked by the State party in this connection did not appear to support such a conclusion. 7. On 25 October 1985, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication was 30