rights instruments. 5.3 The authors maintain that it would be possible to have their case dealt with by the Human Rights Committee without first testing it in the Norwegian courts. They claim that the Supreme Court decisions referred to by the State party in its submission of 24 February 1988 are irrelevant. 5.4 The authors conclude that no practical measures have been implemented by the Norwegian authorities so that children from non-Christian families are not exposed to Christian influences since, despite strong efforts on their part, they did not succeed in preventing such influences in their daughter's case. 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 The Committee observes, in this respect, that the authors have not pursued the domestic remedies which the State party has submitted were available to them. It notes the authors' doubts as to whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would be taken into account by Norwegian courts, and their belief that the matter could not be satisfactorily settled by a Norwegian court. The State party, however, has submitted that the Covenant would be a source of law of considerable weight in interpreting the scope of the Christian object clause and that the authors would have stood a reasonable chance of challenging the Christian object clause of the Day Nurseries Act and the prevailing practice as to their compatibility with the Covenant had they submitted the case to the Norwegian courts; the Committee notes further that there was a possibility for an expeditious handling of the authors' case before the local courts. The Committee finds, accordingly, that the pursuit of the authors' case before Norwegian courts could not be deemed a priori futile and that the authors' doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies did not absolve them from exhausting such remedies. Thus, the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have not been met. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. The communication is inadmissible; 2. This decision shall be communicated to the authors and to the State party. _______________ Communication No. 236/1987 51