| Guiding principle: |
The Committee has noted the State party's objections to the admissibility and the author's comments thereon. It considers that insofar as the author claims that the decree of 11 January 1951 was discriminatory, this claim is outside the Committee's competence ratione temporis and thus inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. The State party has argued that the communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author's appeal to the Constitutional Court was defective. The author has challenged this, but the Committee notes from the text of the Constitutional Court's decision of 24 September 1996, that the author was informed about the defects of his appeal and given an opportunity to remedy it, which he failed to do. On this basis, the Committee concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies |