’WPCi \ąF:mV½å®Ü¤B©%bĘNh©Ų?RWĶeȳ†dŠ‚¦ŪÆöĀg|­č/«fžŲæ¹óķ .n ,öĆ­#±qØĘ‘ķ¹ŗīŽoÜ׿ć77²YuHE¼„1žŪÜU)¶‹†Ź9Ģ%H”šĀŚŽ‘${Jq “óõ­=Ö²\6„«ōšI'ŠPQ×ād5ĝxĪ ²õuqˆ:‘×H:Ē ;Æ£Ż$ūB”ŌŻIQĖĻÕSExiŠ *æė7~u«÷Bś­ŖJ5M W§…éėŪčˆō¶ Ļ xŽ’(–Ą`õ.ÉņgŽ<Ć’• ?Ż$Ź*,6^ĻÖĶŽż’„Īd0»Nj‘¼3ś<Wƒ9ņHš7 ­@˜9–×%Ä4Kj#”¦īH+ į]2Ž i.1°ĻšK~ģćMyåĀbą¼’L„/Ė9ŚA ¾ ł.滈 l瓯‚¦mMĶ/ĶNH;MĘÜ/!ZƒN%”«,²“«]żĒĘ®{3ĶŽ:ķ»)!Ł0µ9!Ż d„ŹP“q…œf!‘˜®Õ>ā ~Ū@ĻøQč8kbØ}‘eķĮISW"—sÕznv‚²(ń³#rŌX€9źeön`œcY•' młäHŚ7fė‡\`#ĮÄUN… %Ó 0:Ł^ w4#7F mH__Ng˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$””ŌUSUS.,ŌFzų* Äpģ*4 k1`cŸ3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ Ż ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONŠ ° ŠĢņņŌ_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€v.€FranceóóŠ ą ŠĢCommunication€No.€2/1989Š pĄ ŠĢ22€August€1990Š P   ŠĢŌ_ŌCERDŌ_Ō/C/38/D/2/1989*Š 0 € Šó óĢĢņ ņADMISSIBILITYó óŠ P  ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€€Ō_ŌDembaŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌTalibeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€(represented€by€counsel)Š Š  ŠĢņņAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorŠ ° ŠĢņņState€partyóó:€€FranceŠ ą ŠĢņņDate€of€communicationóó:€€15€March€1989€(initial€submission)Š pĄ ŠĢņņDocumentation€referencesóó:€€Prior€decisions€„€(Ō_ŌCERDŌ_Ō/C/37/D/2/1989€(Rule€92€decision€to€StateŠ P  Šparty,€dated€23€August€1989)Š @ ŠĢņņDate€of€present€decisionóó:€€22€August€1990óóŠ  p ŠĢĢņņÓ  Óņ ņDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóŠ š@ ŠÓ'ÓĢĢÓ  ÓThe€ņņCommittee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€meeting€on€23€August€1989,€ņņdecidesóó:Š Ą! ŠĢ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€15€March€1989€and€subsequentŠ  #š! Šcorrespondence)€is€Ō_ŌDembaŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌTalibeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌDIOPŌ_Ō,€a€Senegalese€citizen€born€in€1950,€currently€residing€inŠ $ą" ŠMonaco.€€He€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€by€France€of€article€5€of€the€InternationalŠ €%Š # ŠConvention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.€€He€is€represented€by€counsel,Š p&Ą!$ Šwho€has€provided€a€copy€of€his€power€of€attorney.Š `'°"% ŠĢ2.1€€The€author,€who€is€married€to€a€French€citizen€and€has€one€child,€has€been€domiciled€in€MonacoŠ @)$' Šsince€December€1985.€€From€July€1982€to€December€1985,€he€had€practiced€law€in€Dakar.€€On€30Š 0*€%( ŠJanuary€1986,€the€author€formally€applied€for€membership€in€the€Bar€of€Nice,€submitting€all€theŠ  +p&) Šdocumentary€evidence€required.€€On€5€May€1986,€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€rejected€the€application.€Š ,`'* ŠOn€30€May€1986,€Mr.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€appealed€the€decision€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€Aix„en„Provence.€€ByŠ -P(+ Šjudgement€of€27€October€1986,€the€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed€the€appeal;€the€subsequent€appeal€toŠ š-@), ŠŌ_Ōthe€Court€of€Cassation€was€dismissed€on€4€October€1988.€€It€is€submitted€that€all€available€domesticŠ ° Šremedies€have€been€exhausted.Š  š ŠĢ2.2€€The€author€considers€that€France€has€denied€him€the€enjoyment€of€the€right€to€work€(article€5,Š €Š Šparagraph€(e)€(Ō_ŌiŌ_Ō),€of€the€Convention)€on€the€ground€of€national€origin.€€The€decision€of€the€BarŠ pĄ ŠCouncil€of€Nice€merely€stipulated€that€Mr.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€did€not€hold€the€Certificate€of€Aptitude€for€theŠ ` ° ŠExercise€of€the€Legal€Profession€(CAPA),€as€required€by€article€11€of€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31Š P   ŠDecember€1971;€the€Court€of€Appeal€endorsed€this€argument.€€The€Court€of€Cassation,€however,Š @  Šheld€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€had€erroneously€interpreted€the€text€on€waiver€of€the€CAPAŠ 0 € Šrequirement,€and€that€it€had€š šsubstituted€purely€juridical€considerations€for€those€that€were€justifiablyŠ  p  Šcriticized€in€the€first€of€the€grounds€of€appealšš.€€The€Court€of€Cassation€found€that€the€author€metŠ `  Šall€the€statutory€requirements€for€the€exercise€of€the€lawyersšš€profession€except€one:€€that€of€FrenchŠ P  Šnationality.€€The€author€points€out€that€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€had€not€referred€to€his€SenegaleseŠ š@  Šnationality€as€an€obstacle€to€his€exercising€the€legal€profession€in€France.Š ą0  ŠĢ2.3€€Article€11,€paragraph€1,€of€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€December€1971€stipulates€that€š šno€one€mayŠ Ą Šenter€the€legal€profession€if€he€is€not€French,€except€as€provided€for€in€international€Conventionsšš.€Š ° ŠThe€author€submits€that€his€case€falls€within€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Franco„SenegaleseŠ  š ŠConvention€on€Establishment€(Convention€Ō_ŌdšštablissementŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌfrancoŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌsngalaiseŌ_Ō)€of€29€March€1974,Š ą Šarticle€1€of€which€prohibits€discrimination€between€French€and€Senegalese€citizens€in€the€enjoymentŠ €Š Šof€civil€liberties€to€which€they€are€entitled€on€the€same€terms€(including€the€right€to€work,€set€forthŠ pĄ Šin€the€preamble€of€the€French€Constitution€of€4€October€1958).€€In€the€light€of€this€provision,€theŠ `° Šauthor€claims,€the€Court€of€Cassation€should€not€have€considered€Senegalese€Citizenship€as€aŠ P  Šstatutory€impediment€to€the€exercise€of€the€legal€profession€in€France.€€He€further€indicates€that€theŠ @ Šlegal€profession€does€not€fall€within€the€occupational€categories€to€which€the€restrictions€of€articleŠ 0€ Š5€of€the€Convention€apply,€and€no€other€Convention€provision€expressly€prohibits€the€free€exerciseŠ  p Šof€the€legal€profession.Š ` ŠĢ2.4€€The€author€further€invokes€article€9€of€the€Franco„Senegalese€Convention€on€Movement€ofŠ š@ ŠPersons€(Convention€Ō_ŌfrancoŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌsngalaiseŌ_Ō€relative€€la€circulation€des€Ō_ŌpersonnesŌ_Ō)€of€29€March€1974,Š ą0 Šwhich€stipulates€that€š šFrench€nationals€wishing€to€ņņestablish€themselves€in€Senegal€and€SenegaleseŠ Š  Šnationals€wishing€to€establish€themselves€in€France€for€the€purpose€of€engaging€in€self„employedŠ Ą! Šactivitiesóó,€or€without€engaging€€in€any€gainful€occupation,€must€....€produce€the€required€evidenceŠ °"  Šof€the€means€of€subsistence€available€to€themšš€(emphasis€added).€€He€claims€that€the€legal€professionŠ  #š! Šis€considered€in€France€to€be€the€epitome€of€self„employed€activity;€this€is€confirmed€by€article€7,Š $ą" Šparagraph€1,€of€Act€No.€71.1130.Š €%Š # ŠĢ2.5€€Finally,€the€author€invokes€article€23€of€the€Franco„Senegalese€Tax€Convention€(ConventionŠ `'°"% ŠŌ_ŌfiscaleŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌfrancoŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌSngalaiseŌ_Ō)€of€29€March€1974,€which€provides€that€š š[Ō_ŌT]heŌ_Ō€income€that€a€personŠ P( #& Šdomiciled€in€a€Contracting€State€draws€from€a€liberal€profession€or€similar€independent€activity€shallŠ @)$' Šbe€subject€to€tax€in€that€State€alone,€unless€that€person€is€regularly€possessed€of€a€fixed€base€for€theŠ 0*€%( Šexercise€of€his€profession€in€the€other€Contracting€State€.€.€.€.€.€.€For€the€purposes€of€the€presentŠ  +p&) Šarticle,€scientific,€artistic,€literary,€educational€and€pedagogical€activities,€ņņinter€aliaóó,€as€well€as€theŠ ,`'* Šactivities€of€doctors,€ņņadvocatesóó,€architects€and€engineers,€are€considered€legal€professionsšš€(emphasisŠ -P(+ Šadded).Š š-@), ŠŌ_Ō‡2.6€€The€author€further€alleges€that€the€French€judicial€authorities,€by€denying€him€to€practical€lawŠ ° Šin€France,€violated€the€principle€of€equality,€enshrined€in€article€5€of€the€International€ConventionŠ  š Šon€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.€€Allegedly,€his€right€to€equal€treatmentŠ ą Šbefore€the€tribunals€was€violated€in€two€respects:€€First,€six€lawyers€of€Senegalese€nationality€areŠ €Š Šmembers€of€the€Paris€Bar.€€According€to€the€author,€his€application€would€have€been€granted€had€heŠ pĄ Šsubmitted€it€in€Paris,€and€considers€it€unacceptable€that€the€State€party€should€accept€such€differencesŠ ` ° Šwithin€the€national€territory.€€Secondly,€it€is€submitted€that€the€principle€of€equality€at€theŠ P   Šinternational€level€has€also€been€affected€by€virtue€of€the€fact€that€on€the€basis€of€the€above„Š @  Šmentioned€bilateral€instruments,€all€French€lawyers€have€the€right€to€exercise€their€profession€inŠ 0 € ŠSenegal€and€vice€versa.€€Given€that€the€bilateral€instruments€provide€for€the€principle€of€reciprocity,Š  p  Šthe€position€of€French€lawyers€practicing€in€Senegal€or€wishing€to€practice€there€is€said€to€have€beenŠ `  Šcompromised€by€the€rejection€of€the€authorššs€application€by€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice.Š P  ŠĢ2.7€€Finally,€it€is€submitted€that€the€State€party€violated€the€authorššs€right€to€a€family€life€because,Š ą0  Šin€the€life€of€the€impossibility€to€practice€law€in€Nice,€the€author€was€forced€to€temporarily€leave€hisŠ Š  Šhome€and€take€up€residence€and€practice€law€in€Daker,€so€as€to€be€able€to€provide€for€his€family.Š Ą ŠĢ3.€€By€decision€of€23€August€1989,€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€DiscriminationŠ  š Štransmitted€the€communication€to€the€State€party,€requesting€it,€under€rule€92€of€the€CommitteeššsŠ ą Šrules€of€procedure,€to€provide€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€theŠ €Š Šadmissibility€of€the€communication.Š pĄ ŠĢ4.1€€In€its€submission€under€rule€92,€dated€1€December€1989,€the€State€party€observes€that€the€authorŠ P  Šfailed€to€raise€the€issue€of€discriminatory€treatment€of€which€he€claims€to€have€been€the€victim€beforeŠ @ Šthe€domestic€courts;€accordingly,€his€communication€is€said€to€be€inadmissible€because€of€non„Š 0€ Šexhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€under€article€14,€paragraph€7(a),€of€the€Convention.Š  p ŠĢ4.2€€The€State€party€further€observes€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€as€incompatible€withŠ P Šthe€provisions€of€the€Convention€in€accordance€with€article€1,€paragraph€2,€which€stipulates€that€theŠ š@ Šš šConvention€shall€not€apply€to€distinctions,€exclusions,€restrictions€or€preferences€made€by€a€StateŠ ą0 Šparty€to€this€Convention€between€citizens€and€non„citizensšš.€€In€the€case€under€consideration,€theŠ Š  Šrejection€of€Mr.€Diopššs€application€by€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€was€exclusively€based€on€theŠ Ą! Šapplicantššs€nationality,€not€because€he€was€Senegalese€but€because€he€was€ņņnotóó€French€within€theŠ °"  Šmeaning€of€article€1,€paragraph€2.€€The€State€party€adds€that€the€ņņratio€legisóó€of€article€11,€paragraphŠ  #š! Š1,€of€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€December€1971€is€to€protect€French€lawyers€from€foreign€competition.€Š $ą" ŠIn€so€doing,€France€is€said€to€exercise€her€sovereign€prerogatives€expressly€recognized€by€article€1,Š €%Š # Šparagraph€2,€of€the€Convention.Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ4.3€€With€respect€to€the€contention€that€the€author€meets€all€the€requirements€for€the€exercise€of€theŠ P( #& Šlegal€profession€in€France,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€erroneously€assumes€that€the€CourtŠ @)$' Šof€Cassation€dismissed€his€appeal€only€because€he€was€not€of€French€nationality.€€It€points€out€thatŠ 0*€%( Šfor€the€Court,€this€finding€was€in€itself€sufficient€to€dismiss€the€appeal,€thus€making€it€superfluousŠ  +p&) Što€consider€whether€other€conditions€for€the€exercise€of€the€legal€profession€in€France€had€or€had€notŠ ,`'* Šbeen€met.€€The€State€party€endorses€the€interpretation€of€article€1€of€the€Franco„SenegaleseŠ -P(+ ŠConvention€on€Establishment€by€the€Court€of€Cassation,€according€to€which€this€provision€merelyŠ š-@), Šconcerns€the€enjoyment€of€civil€liberties€and€cannot€be€construed€as€encompassing€a€right€to€exerciseŠ ° Šthe€legal€profession.€€For€the€State€party,€the€authorššs€argument€that€the€right€to€work€is€a€civil€libertyŠ  š Šand€that,€since€the€legal€profession€is€gainful€occupation,€it€is€a€civil€liberty,€is€a€mere€š šsophismšš€andŠ ą Šmust€be€rejected:€€the€exercise€of€the€legal€profession€is€not€a€civil€liberty€and€is€not€a€right€if€all€theŠ €Š Šconditions€for€its€exercise€are€not€met.Š pĄ ŠĢ4.4€€Concerning€the€authorššs€allegation€of€discriminatory€treatment€in€comparison€to€otherŠ P   ŠSenegalese€lawyers€able€to€exercise€their€profession€on€French€territory,€the€State€party€concedes€thatŠ @  Šseveral€Senegalese€lawyers€have€been€admitted€to€the€Bar€of€Paris€in€spite€of€their€nationality.€€TheseŠ 0 € Šlawyers€were,€however,€admitted€prior€to€the€judgement€of€the€Court€of€Cassation€in€the€authorššsŠ  p  Šcase;€if€this€jurisprudence€were€to€be€invoked€before€the€Bar€Council€or€the€ordinary€tribunals,€it€isŠ `  Šlikely,€according€to€the€State€party,€that€these€lawyers€would€have€to€be€stripped€of€the€membership.Š P  ŠĢ4.5€€With€respect€to€the€treatment€of€French€Lawyers€by€the€Senegalese€authorities,€the€State€partyŠ ą0  Šexplains€that€the€article€16€of€a€Senegalese€Law€on€the€Exercise€of€the€Legal€Profession€of€1984Š Š  Šstipulates€that€no€one€may€be€admitted€to€the€Bar€in€Senegal€if€his€is€not€Senegalese€or€the€citizenŠ Ą Šof€a€State€that€grants€reciprocity.€€In€application€of€this€provision,€the€Bar€Council€of€Dakar€rejected,Š ° Šon€14€March€1988,€the€application€of€a€French€lawyer€who€had€been€admitted€on€a€probationaryŠ  š Šbasis€in€1984.€€The€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€of€Dakar€was€based€on€the€fact€that€the€applicant€inŠ ą Šquestion€was€not€Senegalese€and€that€no€international€Convention€or€other€application€provisionŠ €Š Šprovided€for€reciprocity€in€the€matter.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€of€Dakar€confirmed€this€decision€byŠ pĄ Šjudgement€of€15€April€1989.€€During€the€appeal€proceedings,€it€was€submitted€on€behalf€of€the€BarŠ `° ŠCouncil€that€the€Franco„Senegalese€Convention€on€Establishment€of€1974€did€ņņnotóó€provide€forŠ P  Šreciprocity€with€respect€to€liberal€professions.€€In€his€pleadings,€the€Public€Prosecutor,€who€hadŠ @ Šhimself€participated€in€the€elaboration€of€the€1974€Convention,€contended€that€the€omission€of€liberalŠ 0€ Šprofessions€had€been€deliberate;€the€State€party€notes€that€one€of€the€Conventionššs€aims€purportedlyŠ  p Šwas€to€forestall€the€admission€of€French€lawyers€to€the€Bar€of€Senegal.€€The€State€party€concludesŠ ` Šthat€Mr.€Diopššs€situation€in€France€is€similar€to€that€of€French€lawyers€wishing€to€practice€in€SenegalŠ P Šand€that,€accordingly,€the€principle€of€equality€of€treatment€and€of€reciprocity€invoked€by€him€mayŠ š@ Šbe€applied€to€his€disadvantage.Š ą0 ŠĢ4.6€€Finally,€the€State€party€points€out€that€if€the€author,€who€is€married€to€a€French€citizen,€wishesŠ Ą! Što€live€with€his€family€in€France€while€practicing€his€profession,€it€would€be€open€to€him€to€applyŠ °"  Šfor€French€citizenship€under€article€371€of€the€Nationality€Code.€€If,€however,€he€wishes€to€retain€hisŠ  #š! ŠSenegalese€citizenship,€it€would€be€open€to€him€to€ask€for€his€name€to€be€added€to€the€list€of€legalŠ $ą" Šcounsel€(conseils€juridiques),€as€no€condition€of€nationality€is€required€in€France€for€the€exercise€ofŠ €%Š # Šthis€profession.Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ5.1€€In€his€comments,€dated€5€February€1990,€the€author€reaffirms€that€he€has€exhausted€domesticŠ P( #& Šremedies€and€points€out€that€the€State€party€has€failed€to€clarify€which€effective€remedies€would€stillŠ @)$' Šbe€available€to€him.€€With€respect€to€the€State€partyššs€objection€that€he€never€complained€ofŠ 0*€%( Šdiscriminatory€treatment€before€the€courts,€he€notes€that€he€only€was€subjected€to€discriminationŠ  +p&) Šbased€on€national€origin,€within€the€meaning€of€the€Convention,€upon€delivery€of€the€judgement€ofŠ ,`'* Šlast€instance,€namely€the€judgement€of€the€Court€of€Cassation€of€4€October€1988.Š -P(+ ŠŠ š-@), Š5.2€€The€author€further€contends€that€the€State€partyššs€argument€that€the€communication€should€beŠ ° Šdeclared€inadmissible€as€falling€outside€the€scope€of€the€Convention€is€unrelated€to€the€conditionsŠ  š Šfor€admissibility€set€out€in€the€Convention.€€It€is€the€task€of€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€ofŠ ą ŠRacial€Discrimination€to€determine,€once€a€communication€is€declared€admissible,€whether€or€notŠ €Š Šit€is€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Convention.Š pĄ ŠĢ5.3€€The€author€reiterates€that€the€French€legislator€has€determined€that€the€condition€for€the€exerciseŠ P   Šof€the€legal€profession€in€France€is€French€nationality,€š šexcept€as€provided€for€in€internationalŠ @  Šconventionšš;€he€maintains€that€the€texts€of€the€above„mentioned€conventions€concluded€betweenŠ 0 € ŠFrance€and€Senegal€speak€for€themselves,€since€they€make€clear€that€the€State€party€makes€noŠ  p  Šdifferentiation€between€its€own€and€Senegalese€citizens€in€matters€such€as€the€one€underŠ `  Šconsideration.€€Finally,€he€notes€that€the€competent€authorities€in€Nice,€well€aware€of€his€situationŠ P  Šand€of€his€desire€to€practice€the€legal€profession€in€France,€delivered€his€residentššs€permit€(visaŠ š@  Šdšštablissement)€on€8€May€1986.Š ą0  ŠĢ6.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Committee€on€the€EliminationŠ Ą Šof€Racial€Discrimination€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€91€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€determineŠ ° Šwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€FormsŠ  š Šof€Racial€Discrimination.Š ą ŠĢ6.2€€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€State€partyššs€observation€that€the€communication€shouldŠ pĄ Šbe€declared€inadmissible€because€of€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€since€the€author€did€notŠ `° Šinvoke€discriminatory€treatment€based€on€national€origin€before€the€domestic€courts.€€On€the€basisŠ P  Šof€the€information€before€the€Committee€it€appears,€however,€that€the€issue€of€the€authorššs€nationalŠ @ Šorigin€was€first€addressed€by€the€court€of€last€instance,€the€Court€of€Cassation,€in€its€decision€of€4Š 0€ ŠOctober€1988.€€Furthermore,€the€State€party€has€not€indicated€any€remedies€that€might€still€beŠ  p Šavailable€to€the€author.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€requirements€ofŠ ` Šarticle€14,€paragraph€7(a),€of€the€Convention€and€of€rule€91(e)€of€the€Committeeššs€rules€of€procedure,Š P Šhave€been€met.Š š@ ŠĢ6.3€€In€respect€of€the€State€partyššs€observation€š šthat€the€communication€should€be€declaredŠ Š  Šinadmissible€as€not€falling€within€the€scope€of€the€Convention€in€the€light€of€article€1,€paragraph€2",Š Ą! Šthe€Committee€observes€that€the€question€of€the€application€of€this€article€is€one€of€substance€whichŠ °"  Šshould€be€examined€at€a€later€stage,€in€conformity€with€rule€95€of€the€rules€of€procedure.€€TheŠ  #š! ŠCommittee€further€observes€that€rule€91(c)€of€its€rules€of€procedure€enjoins€it€to€ascertain€whetherŠ $ą" Šany€communication€is€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Convention.€€š šCompatibilityšš€withinŠ €%Š # Šthe€meaning€of€rule€91(c)€is€to€be€understood€in€procedural,€not€substantive,€terms.€€The€CommitteeŠ p&Ą!$ Šdoes€not€consider€that€the€authorššs€communication€suffers€from€a€procedural€incompatibility.Š `'°"% ŠĢ7.€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€therefore€decides:Š @)$' ŠĢą0  ą(a)€€That€the€communication€is€admissible;Š +p&)(#(# ŠĢą0  ą(b)€€That,€in€accordance€with€article€14,€paragraph€6(b),€of€the€Convention,€the€State€partyŠ -P(+ Šshall€be€requested€to€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€three€months€of€the€date€of€theŠ š-@), Štransmittal€to€it€of€the€present€decision,€written€observations€or€statements€clarifying€theŠ ° Šmatter€and€the€measures,€if€any,€that€may€have€been€taken€by€it;Š š(#(# ŠĢą0  ą(c)€€That€any€explanations€or€statements€received€from€the€State€party€shall€be€communicatedŠ €Š Šby€the€Secretary„General€under€rule€94,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Committeeššs€rules€of€procedureŠ pĄ Što€the€author€and€his€counsel,€with€the€request€that€any€comments€which€they€may€wish€toŠ ` ° Šsubmit€thereon€should€reach€the€Committee€in€care€of€the€Centre€for€Human€Rights,€UnitedŠ P   ŠNations€Office€at€Geneva,€within€six€weeks€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal;Š@ (#(# ŠĢą0  ą(d)€€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party,€to€the€author€and€to€hisŠ  p  Šcounsel.Š` (#(# ŠĢĢ___________Š ą0  Šą  ąņņ*óó/€€All€persons€handling€this€document€are€requested€to€respect€and€observe€its€confidentialŠ Š  Šnature.