observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. The Working Group further requested the authors to clarify (a) whether the company they sought to register would have operated on a non-profit basis; (b) whether the persons who would have constituted this company have been in any way prevented from providing legal aid to the needy; and (c) whether there were other associations of lawyers in Trinidad and Tobago which provided similar services. 4.1 By letter dated 30 December 1988, counsel notes that the appeal was discontinued by the authors on 15 December 1988, because they considered it impossible to obtain a positive result in the case since the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago had, in October 1988, indicated to them that no written judgement was available. Without such a judgement however, the case could not be considered by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad. 4.2 By further letter dated 24 January 1989 counsel clarifies that the company as a whole would have operated on a profit basis to achieve its aims but that it would have provided free legal advice and free legal representation in appropriate cases. He further states that the authors have not been prevented from providing legal aid to the needy and that there are other associations in Trinidad and Tobago, such as the Anglican Church and the Caribbean Human Rights Committee, whose aims and objectives are similar to those of the company the author sought to have registered. Counsel provides a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company. 5. The State party's deadline for its submission concerning information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication expired on 27 June 1988. No comments were received from the State party. 6.1 Before considering any claims in a commu-nication, the Working Group must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has considered the authors' allegations of a violation of articles 2 (3) (a) and (b) and 5 of the Covenant and notes that these are general undertakings by States and cannot be invoked, in isolation, by individuals under the Optional Protocol. The Committee has ex officio examined whether the facts submitted raise potential issues under other articles of the Covenant. It has concluded that they do not. The Committee therefore finds that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant within the meaning of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and to the State party. _______________ 62