The State party's observations 4.1 The State party contends that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author failed to bring his case before any court competent to hear complaints concerning the application of the AAW. It reiterates that any person who considers to have been unjustly denied assistance under the AAW may request a ruling by the competent industrial insurance board. From there, appeals to the courts competent in social security matters would be possible and, in the proceedings before these courts, applicants could directly invoice article 26 of the Covenant. The Court of First Instance would be the Board of Appeal, with the possibility of an appeal to the Central Board of Appeal. The fact that the author did appeal under the terms of the ABW to the municipal authorities and the Council of State does not, in the State party's opinion, change the situation, as his complaint to the Committee does not relate to the ABW. 4.2 The State party further explains the procedure which would have to be followed by the competent organs under the AAW and contends that these would indeed constitute effective remedies within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. Thus, the Board of Appeal would not be bound by the negative advice from the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs (as set out in the letter of 24 February 1983) or from the GMD (as set out in the letter of 7 February 1983). Any judgement of the Board of Appeal would be determined by the relevant statutory provisions and the relevant provisions of public international law; it would not be required to take into account any recommendation which it considered to be incompatible with these provisions. In this context, the State party recalls that the letter of 24 February 1983 is devoid of legal significance, as it does not emanate from a body with any competence to act in the framework of the AAW or the Financial Aid Scheme for the Accommodation of the Disabled. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee 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. 5.2 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. 5.3 Article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering any communication from an individual who has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. This is a general rule which applies unless the remedies are unreasonably prolonged, or the author of a communi-cation has convincingly demonstrated that domestic remedies are not effective, i.e. do not have any prospect of success. 5.4 On the basis of the information before the Committee, there are no circumstances which would absolve the author from attempting to pursue all domestic remedies, including those available pursuant to the AAW, namely an appeal to the competent authorities and courts. While the applicable rules and regulations resort to objective criteria in the determination of the beneficiaries of ADL assistance, the State party has shown that the competent courts would not only not be bound by negative recommendations from the administrative authorities in respect of ADL assistance to the author, but that they could set aside the terms of the applicable regulations if they considered them to be in conflict with relevant provisions of international law. The purpose of article 5, paragraph 2 (b) is, inter alia, to direct possible victims of violations of the provisions of the Covenant to seek, in the first place, satisfaction from the competent State party authorities and, at the same time, to enable States parties to examine, on the basis of individual complaints, the implementation, within their territory and by their organs, of the provisions of the Covenant and, if necessary, remedy the violations occurring, before the Committee is seized of the matter. In the light of the above considerations, and having regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol, the 86