__________ 1 Communications Nos. 172/1984 (Broeks), 180/1984 (Danning) and 182/1984 (Zwaan-de Vries), final views adopted on 9 April 1987 (twenty-ninth session). 2 P. P. C. v. the Netherlands, inadmissibility decision adopted on 24 March 1988 (thirty-second session), para. 6.2. acknowledge that the provisions of article 14 contain further guarantees intended to secure the conduct of a fair trial and add that they have no reason to complain about the conduct of the judicial proceedings as such. They reiterate, however, that the judicial review of general principles of justice in their case by the Central Appeals Board was contradictory, and that the Board treated them differently from others and, therefore, unequally. 5.3 The authors further reject the State party's contention that the communication should be declared inadmissible because it was directed against discriminatory application of legislation which in itself is neutral. They refer to the Committee's decision in communication No. 171/19843 which stipulated, inter alia, that "article 26 is concerned with the obligations imposed on States in regard to their legislation and the application thereof". With respect to the State party's argument that because it left the implementation of some aspects of social security legislation to industrial insurance boards and is therefore unable to exercise influence on concrete decisions adopted by such boards, they argue that the mere inability to supervise the implementation of social security legislation by industrial insurance boards cannot detract from the fact that the State party is responsible for seeing to it that these bodies charged with the implementation of the law perform their statutory assignments in conformity with legal standards. Where loopholes become apparent, it is for the legislator to eliminate them. Therefore, according to the authors, the State party should not be allowed to claim that it cannot influence the decisions of bodies such as BVG. Were this to be allowed, it would be easy for States parties to undermine the "basic rights" of their citizens. The authors conclude that in their case, the State party seeks to deny its responsibility for the concrete application of social security legislation by invoking a situation which it had created itself. 6.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, 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 has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee has taken note of the State party's argument that it is doubtful whether the authors have complied with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, given that they did not invoke __________ 3 See note 1; Committee's final views (twenty-ninth session), para. 12.3. any provisions of the Covenant in the course of domestic proceedings. The Committee observes that whereas authors must invoke the substantive rights contained in the Covenant, they are not required, for purposes of the Optional Protocol, necessarily to do so by reference to specific articles of the Covenant. 67