| Guiding principle: |
The author complains that the confiscation of her father's property was a result of political persecution and that decree No. 108/1945 was unlawfully applied to him. The Committee recalls that the right to property is not protected by the Covenant See also the Committee's decision in communication No. 544/1993, K. J. L. v. Finland,declared inadmissible on 3 November 1993., and that it is thus incompetent ratione materiae to consider any alleged continuing violations of this right after the entry into force of the Covenant and Optional Protocol for the Czech Republic. In so far as the author's communication may raise issues under article 26 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has failed to bring the claims of discrimination before the Constitutional Court. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of dometic remedies under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. |