’WPCi vp_ŲßHų3*G„Ē“¼ŻdŖÜ]–ŚĶ…R×f—CzśÜ'‘Q&Ł¢Cß^_•Źņr!” Ņ•>!‡SżM}I³©øM Q‰fc€Wb¬­=ŌĮvж6s9ķ=•£cˆ¬>`ßø3c|«Ž$‘+_³KN‰ oȋ;N¾©Å}ŗ³C«äÅHߒ^ß³Ŗd˜Ł“Į01)öw&7W–°ŗp„„ślThóń¼ĪĖUÉ)ķ›(é~7÷én!×ęH'®£ÅƒĪżž6śWź3*·SļäPØžrnŻ)lŻŗ–Ļ#©¶aLé+®éöܹĄ;X§©9Ksk+^«ļ]R¬}2Y„BÓ?rOŒķ {k<¾²pš±¤ūŻ×ߊž_¹Øć‡Iõq專xI€²™Śó–FŽŅł Ė•€RQ†FÓ§Ļ.¾<Żœę1¦š¾GŲV,¶`Lāõ­_"t@uŽ įō‚I†źd‘Öų$ żL UśUĢi ”š‡lt ’‚ŃŻ Šżņ,Ŗ·ÆęĪOŽ!’ł(Å&äÄLŅŽ ›“ÕT²¢\ŁUqÓ­Ā|ėK‰*| ’ĀP”tĶ@lų}߈ qČEĆ[5‰–Ģm-ŸPé°é#ĮÄUN… %Ó 0:Ł^ w4#7F mH__Ng˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$””ŌUSUS.,Ō­zų* Äpģ*4 k1`cŸ3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄ Ż ƒüœ!ŻŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONŠ ° ŠĢņņŌ_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€v.€FranceóóŠ ą ŠĢCommunication€No.€2/1989Š pĄ ŠĢ18€March€1991Š P   ŠĢŌ_ŌCERDŌ_Ō/C/39/D/2/1989/Rev.€2ņņ*óó/Š 0 € ŠĢĢVIEWSŠ P  Šó óĢĢņņņņSubmitted€by:óó€€G.€A.€C.€Ō_ŌEnkelaarŌ_Ō€(counsel)Š Š  ŠĢņņOn€behalf€ofóó:€€Ō_ŌDembaŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌTalibeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€(petitioner)Š ° ŠĢņņState€party€concernedóó:€€FranceŠ ą ŠņņĢDate€of€communicationóó:€€15€March€1989€(date€of€initial€letter)Š pĄ ŠĢņņDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€€22€August€1990Š P  ŠóóĢņņĢÓ  ÓThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€of€theŠ  p ŠInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Š ` ŠĢņņMeetingóó€on€18€March€1991,Š š@ ŠĢņņHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€2/1989,€submitted€to€the€Committee€byŠ Š  ŠG.€A.€C.€Ō_ŌEnkelaarŌ_Ō€on€behalf€of€D.€T.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€under€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€on€theŠ Ą! ŠElimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Š °"  ŠĢņņHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_ŌŠ $ą" Šand€by€the€State€party,Š €%Š # ŠņņĢBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€it€rules€of€procedure€requiring€it€to€formulate€its€opinion€on€theŠ `'°"% Šcommunication€before€it,Š P( #& ŠĢņņAdoptsóó€the€following:Š 0*€%( ŠĢĢņņņ ņÓ  ÓOPINIONó óóóŠ -P(+ ŠÓŌÓŠ š-@), Ї1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€15€March€1989€and€subsequentŠ ° Šcorrespondence)€is€Ō_ŌDembaŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌTalibeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌDIOPŌ_Ō,€a€Senegalese€citizen€born€in€1950,€currently€residing€inŠ  š ŠMonaco.€€He€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€by€France€of€article€5€of€the€InternationalŠ ą ŠConvention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.€€He€is€represented€by€counsel,Š €Š Šwho€has€provided€a€copy€of€his€power€of€attorney.Š pĄ ŠĢņņThe€facts€as€submittedóó:Š P   ŠĢ2.1€€The€author,€who€is€married€to€a€French€citizen€and€has€one€child,€has€been€domiciled€in€MonacoŠ 0 € Šsince€December€1985.€€From€July€1982€to€December€1985,€he€practiced€law€in€Dakar.€€On€30Š  p  ŠJanuary€1986,€the€author€formally€applied€for€membership€in€the€Bar€of€Nice,€submitting€all€theŠ `  Šdocumentary€evidence€required.€€On€5€May€1986,€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€rejected€his€application;Š P  Šon€8€May€1986,€the€competent€authorities€in€Nice€delivered€his€residentššs€permit€(visaŠ š@  ŠŌ_ŌdšštablissementŌ_Ō).€€On€30€May€1986,€Mr.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€appealed€the€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€to€the€CourtŠ ą0  Šof€Appeal€of€Aix„en„Provence.€€By€judgement€of€27€October€1986,€the€Court€of€Appeal€dismissedŠ Š  Šthe€appeal;€a€subsequent€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Cassation€was€dismissed€on€4€October€1988.Š Ą ŠĢ2.2€€The€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€was€based€on€the€fact€that€Mr.€Ō_ŌDiopŌ_Ō€did€not€hold€theŠ  š ŠCertificate€of€Aptitude€for€the€Exercise€of€the€Legal€Profession€(CAPA),€as€required€by€article€11Š ą Šof€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€December€1971;€the€Court€of€Appeal€upheld€the€decision€on€the€sameŠ €Š Šgrounds.€€The€Court€of€Cassation,€however,€found€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€had€erroneouslyŠ pĄ Šinterpreted€the€text€on€waiver€of€the€CAPA€requirement,€and€that€it€had€š šsubstituted€purely€juridicalŠ `° Šconsiderations€for€those€that€were€justifiably€criticized€in€the€first€of€the€grounds€of€appealšš.€€TheŠ P  ŠCourt€of€Cassation€found€that€the€author€met€all€the€statutory€requirements€for€the€exercise€of€theŠ @ Šlawyersšš€profession€except€one:€€the€French€nationality.€€The€author€points€out€that€the€Bar€CouncilŠ 0€ Šof€Nice€had€not€referred€to€his€Senegalese€nationality€as€an€obstacle€to€his€exercising€the€legalŠ  p Šprofession€in€France.Š ` ŠĢ2.3€€Article€11,€paragraph€1,€of€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€December€1971€stipulates€that€š šno€one€mayŠ š@ Šenter€the€legal€profession€if€he€is€not€French,€except€as€provided€for€in€international€Conventionsšš.€Š ą0 ŠThe€author€argues€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 °"  Šof€civil€liberties€to€which€they€are€entitled€on€the€same€terms€(including€the€right€to€work,€set€forthŠ  #š! Šin€the€preamble€of€the€French€Constitution€of€4€October€1958).€€In€the€light€of€this€provision,Š $ą" Šaccording€to€the€author,€the€Court€of€Cassation€should€not€have€considered€Senegalese€citizenshipŠ €%Š # Šas€an€impediment€to€the€exercise€of€the€legal€profession€in€France.€€He€further€indicates€that€the€legalŠ p&Ą!$ Šprofession€does€not€fall€within€the€occupational€categories€to€which€the€restrictions€of€article€5€ofŠ `'°"% Šthe€Convention€apply,€and€no€other€Convention€provision€expressly€prohibits€the€free€exercise€of€theŠ P( #& Šlegal€profession.Š @)$' ŠĢ2.4€€Article€9€of€the€Franco„Senegalese€Convention€on€Movement€of€Persons€(Convention€Ō_ŌfrancoŌ_Ō„Š  +p&) ŠŌ_ŌsngalaiseŌ_Ō€relative€€la€circulation€des€Ō_ŌpersonnesŌ_Ō)€of€29€March€1974€stipulates€that€š šFrenchŠ ,`'* Šnationals€wishing€to€ņņestablish€themselves€in€Senegal€and€Senegalese€nationals€wishing€to€establishŠ -P(+ Šthemselves€in€France€for€the€purpose€of€engaging€in€self„employed€activitiesóó,€or€without€engagingŠ š-@), ŠŌ_Ōin€any€gainful€occupation,€must€....€produce€the€required€evidence€of€the€means€of€subsistenceŠ ° Šavailable€to€themšš€(emphasis€added).€€The€author€states€that€the€legal€profession€is€considered€inŠ  š ŠFrance€to€be€the€epitome€of€self„employed€activity;€this€is€confirmed€by€article€7,€paragraph€1,€of€ActŠ ą ŠNo.€71.1130.Š €Š ŠĢ2.5€€Article€23€of€the€Franco„Senegales€Tax€Convention€(Convention€fiscale€franco„sngalaise)€ofŠ ` ° Š29€March€1974€provides€that€š š[T]he€income€that€a€person€domiciled€in€a€Contracting€State€drawsŠ P   Šfrom€a€liberal€profession€or€similar€independent€activity€shall€be€subject€to€tax€in€that€State€alone,Š @  Šunless€that€person€is€regularly€possessed€of€a€fixed€base€for€the€exercise€of€his€profession€in€the€otherŠ 0 € ŠContracting€State€...€For€the€purposes€of€the€present€article,€scientific,€artistic,€literary,€educationalŠ  p  Šand€pedagogical€activities,€ņņinter€aliaóó,€as€well€as€the€activities€of€doctors,€ņņadvocatesóó,€architects€andŠ `  Šengineers,€are€considered€liberal€professionsšš€(emphasis€added).Š P  ŠĢ2.6€€The€author€further€notes€that,€on€12€February€1990,€he€requested€that€his€name€be€added€to€theŠ ą0  Šlist€of€legal€counsel€(conseils€juridiques),€as€French€nationality€is€no€prerequisite€for€the€practice€asŠ Š  Šlegal€counsel.€€By€letter€dated€24€April€1990,€he€was€informed€that€his€inscription€was€imminent.€Š Ą ŠOn€26€June€1990,€however,€he€was€told€that€his€request€could€not€be€complied€with,€as€he€had€notŠ ° Šdemonstrated€that€he€had€fulfilled€the€requirement€of€a€three„year€apprenticeship€(stage);€the€authorŠ  š Šaffirms€that€his€application€had€been€complete€and€included,€in€particular,€proof€of€such€anŠ ą Šapprenticeship.Š €Š ŠĢņņThe€complaintóó:Š `° ŠĢ3.1€€The€author€considers€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€work€on€the€ground€of€national€origin,€andŠ @ Šalleges€that€the€French€judicial€authorities€violated€the€principle€of€equality,€enshrined€in€article€5Š 0€ Šof€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.€Š  p ŠAllegedly,€his€right€to€equal€treatment€before€the€tribunals€was€violated€in€two€respects:€First,Š ` Šwhereas€he€was€denied€to€practice€law€in€Nice,€six€lawyers€of€Senegalese€nationality€are€membersŠ P Šof€the€Paris€Bar.€€According€to€the€author,€his€application€would€have€been€granted€had€he€submittedŠ š@ Šit€in€Paris;€he€considers€it€unacceptable€that€the€State€party€should€allow€such€differences€within€theŠ ą0 Šnational€territory.€€Secondly,€it€is€submitted€that€the€principle€of€equality€and€reciprocity€at€theŠ Š  Šinternational€level€is€also€affected€by€virtue€of€the€fact€that€on€the€basis€of€the€above„mentionedŠ Ą! Šbilateral€instruments,€all€French€lawyers€have€the€right€to€exercise€their€profession€in€Senegal€andŠ °"  Švice€versa.Š  #š! ŠĢ3.2€€Distinctions,€exclusions,€restrictions€or€preferences€established€in€the€application€of€theŠ €%Š # ŠInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination€must€be€spelledŠ p&Ą!$ Šout€in€legislative€provisions€which,€the€author€claims,€do€not€exist€in€his€case.€€Such€distinctionsŠ `'°"% Šwould€contravene€article€34€of€the€French€Constitution.€€Furthermore,€even€if€there€were€pertinentŠ P( #& Šdomestic€legislation,€the€bilateral€Franco„Senegalese€Conventions€of€29€March€1974€prevail€overŠ @)$' Šdomestic€legislation€and€authorize€French€and€Senegalese€citizens€to€exercise€a€liberal€profession,Š 0*€%( Šincluding€the€legal€one,€on€the€territory€of€the€State€of€which€they€do€not€have€the€citizenship.Š  +p&) ŠĢ3.3€€The€author€claims€that€existing€Senegales€legislation€(Law€on€the€Exercise€of€the€LegalŠ -P(+ ŠProfession€of€1984)€does€not€prohibit€legal€practice€by€French€citizens€in€Senegal.€€In€this€context,Š š-@), Šhe€notes€that€on€8€January€1985,€Ms.€Genevive€Lenoble,€a€French€citizen€and€member€of€the€ParisŠ ° ŠBar,€was€admitted€to€the€Bar€of€Senegal;€so€was,€on€7€January€1987,€another€French€citizen,€Ms.Š  š ŠDominique€Picard.€€On€the€other€had,€the€Governing€Body€of€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€required,€forŠ ą ŠMr.€Diopššs€inscription€on€the€roll,€the€Certificate€of€Aptitude€for€the€Exercise€of€the€Legal€ProfessionŠ €Š Š(CAPA),€although€article€44€of€the€decree€of€9€June€1972,€concerning€the€application€of€article€11,Š pĄ Šparagraph€3,€of€the€Law€of€31€December€1971€stipulates€that€this€Certificate€is€not€necessary€forŠ ` ° Šindividuals€who€already€are€qualified€to€practice€law€in€a€country€with€which€France€concluded€anŠ P   Šagreement€of€judicial€co„operation.Š @  ŠĢ3.4€€It€is€submitted€that€the€State€party€violated€the€authorššs€right€to€a€family€life€because,€in€the€lightŠ  p  Šof€the€impossibility€to€practice€law€in€Nice,€the€author€was€forced€to€temporarily€leave€his€home€andŠ `  Štake€up€residence€and€practice€law€in€Dakar,€so€as€to€be€able€to€provide€for€his€family.Š P  ŠĢ3.5€€The€author€claims€that€the€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€of€5€May€1986,€confirmed€by€theŠ ą0  ŠCourt€of€Appeal€on€27€October€1986,€is€irreconcilable€with€the€judgement€of€the€Court€of€CassationŠ Š  Šof€4€October€1988.€€The€Court€of€Cassation€did€not€annul€the€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€as€contraryŠ Ą Što€the€law€in€criticizing€its€motivation;€it€simply€substituted€its€own€motives€in€dismissing€the€appeal.€Š ° ŠIn€the€authorššs€opinion,€the€irreconcilability€of€the€judicial€decisions€in€the€case€is€equivalent,€in€law,Š  š Što€a€refusal€to€adjudicate€his€request€for€admission€to€the€bar€altogether,€thus€denying€him€anŠ ą Šeffective€remedy€before€domestic€courts.€€In€this€way,€it€is€submitted,€he€was€denied€the€exercise€ofŠ €Š Ša€fundamental€public€freedom,€that€is,€his€right€to€work€in€France.Š pĄ ŠĢņņThe€State€partyššs€observationsóó:Š P  ŠĢ4.1€€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author€has€failed€to€raise,€before€the€domestic€courts,€the€issueŠ 0€ Šof€discriminatory€treatment€of€which€he€claims€to€have€been€the€victim;€accordingly,€hisŠ  p Šcommunication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€because€of€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,Š ` Šunder€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 ą0 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 Ą! Šparty€to€this€Convention€between€citizens€and€non„citizensšš.€€In€Mr.€Diopššs€case,€the€rejection€of€hisŠ °"  Šapplication€by€the€Bar€Council€of€Nice€was€exclusively€based€on€his€nationality,€not€because€he€wasŠ  #š! ŠSenegalese€but€because€he€was€ņņnotóó€French€within€the€meaning€of€article€1,€paragraph€2.€€The€StateŠ $ą" Šparty€adds€that€the€ņņratio€legisóó€of€article€11€paragraph€1,€of€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€ššDecember€1971Š €%Š # Šis€to€protect€French€lawyers€from€foreign€competition.€€In€so€doing,€France€exercises€for€sovereignŠ p&Ą!$ Šprerogatives€expressly€recognized€by€article€1,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Convention.Š `'°"% ŠĢ4.3€€With€respect€to€the€contention€that€the€author€meets€all€the€requirements€for€the€exercise€of€theŠ @)$' Šlegal€profession€in€France,€the€State€party€claims€that,€for€the€Court€of€Cassation,€the€fact€that€theŠ 0*€%( Šauthor€was€not€of€French€nationality€was€in€itself€sufficient€to€dismiss€the€appeal,€thus€making€itŠ  +p&) Šsuperfluous€to€consider€whether€other€conditions€for€the€exercise€of€the€legal€profession€in€FranceŠ ,`'* Šhad€or€had€not€been€met.€€The€State€party€endorses€the€interpretation€of€article€1€of€the€Franco„Š -P(+ ŠSenegalese€Convention€on€Establishment€by€the€Court€of€Cassation,€according€to€which€thisŠ š-@), Šprovision€merely€concerns€the€enjoyment€of€civil€liberties€and€cannot€be€construed€as€encompassingŠ ° Ša€right€to€exercise€the€legal€profession.€€For€the€State€party,€the€authorššs€argument€that€the€right€toŠ  š Šwork€is€a€civil€liberty€and€that,€since€the€legal€profession€is€gainful€occupation,€it€is€a€civil€liberty,Š ą Šis€a€mere€š šsophismšš€and€must€be€rejected.Š €Š ŠĢ4.4€€The€State€party€further€explains€the€organization€and€the€functions€of€the€system€of€Bar€CouncilsŠ ` ° Šattached€to€each€regional€court€(Tribunal€de€Grande€Instance).€€These€Bar€Councils€are€administeredŠ P   Šby€a€Governing€Board€(Conseil€de€lššordre),€enjoy€legal€personality€and€operate€independently€of€oneŠ @  Šanother.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€Governing€Board€of€each€Bar€Council€to€decide€on€applications€forŠ 0 € Šadmission€to€the€bar;€decisions€on€such€matters€by€the€Board€may€only€be€appealed€by€the€applicantŠ  p  Šand€the€Public€Prosecutor€(Procureur€Gnral)€of€the€competent€Court€of€Appeal,€within€two€monthsŠ `  Šof€the€notification€of€the€decision.€€The€State€party€adds€that€each€Governing€Body€decidesŠ P  Šindependently€on€applications€for€admission€to€the€Bar€and€may,€in€the€process,€err€in€itsŠ š@  Šinterpretation€of€applicable€legal€provisions.Š ą0  ŠĢ4.5€In€as€much€as€the€admission€of€six€Senegalese€lawyers€to€the€Bar€of€Paris€is€concerned,€the€StateŠ Ą Šparty€submits€that€the€governing€Body€of€the€Bar€of€Paris€erroneously€interpreted€applicableŠ ° Šregulations€by€admitting€these€Senegalese€citizens.€€The€State€party€affirms€that€this€situation€doesŠ  š Šnot€create€any€rights€for€the€author,€nor€a€legal€basis€on€which€the€inscription€of€every€SenegalesŠ ą Šlawyer€on€the€Bar€Roll€could€be€justified,€as€any€such€act€would€violate€the€applicable€rules€andŠ €Š Šregulations.€€Furthermore,€these€lawyers€were€admitted€prior€to€the€Court€of€Cassationššs€judgementŠ pĄ Šin€the€authorššs€case;€if€this€jurisprudence€were€to€be€invoked€before€the€ordinary€tribunals,€it€is€likely,Š `° Šaccording€to€the€State€party,€that€these€lawyers€would€have€to€be€stripped€of€membership.Š P  ŠĢ4.6€€With€respect€to€the€treatment€of€French€lawyers€by€the€Senegalese€judicial€authorities,€the€StateŠ 0€ Šparty€explains€that€article€16€of€a€Senegalese€Law€on€the€Exercise€of€the€Legal€Profession€of€1984Š  p Šstipulates€that€no€one€may€be€admitted€to€the€Bar€in€Senegal€if€his€is€not€Senegalese€or€the€citizenŠ ` Šof€a€State€that€grants€reciprocity.€€In€application€of€this€provision,€the€Bar€Council€of€Dakar€rejected,Š P Šon€14€March€1988,€the€application€of€a€French€lawyer€admitted€to€the€Bar€of€Senegal€on€aŠ š@ Šprobationary€basis€in€1984.€€The€decision€of€the€Bar€Council€of€Dakar€was€based€on€the€fact€that€theŠ ą0 Šapplicant€was€not€Senegalese€and€that€no€international€Convention€or€other€applicable€provisionŠ Š  Šprovided€for€reciprocity€in€the€matter.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€of€Dakar€confirmed€this€decision€byŠ Ą! 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  #š! Šreciprocity€with€respect€to€liberal€professions.€€In€his€pleadings,€the€Public€Prosecutor,€who€hadŠ $ą" Šhimself€participated€in€the€elaboration€of€the€1974€Convention,€contended€that€the€omission€of€liberalŠ €%Š # Šprofessions€had€been€deliberate;€the€State€party€notes€that€one€of€the€Conventionššs€aims€purportedlyŠ p&Ą!$ 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 @)$' Šbe€applied€to€his€disadvantage.Š 0*€%( ŠĢņņIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó:Š ,`'* ŠĢ5.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Committee€on€the€EliminationŠ š-@), Šof€Racial€Discrimination€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€91€of€its€rules€of€procedures,€determineŠ ° Šwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€FormsŠ  š Šof€Racial€Discrimination.Š ą ŠĢ5.2€€The€Committee€took€note€of€the€State€partyššs€observation€that€the€communication€wasŠ pĄ Šinadmissible€on€the€ground€of€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€since€the€author€had€notŠ ` ° Šinvoked€discriminatory€treatment€based€on€national€origin€before€the€domestic€courts.€€TheŠ P   ŠCommittee€noted,€however,€that€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€the€issue€of€the€authorššsŠ @  Šnational€origin€was€first€addressed€by€the€Court€of€last€instance,€the€Court€of€Cassation,€in€itsŠ 0 € Šdecision€of€4€October€1988.€€Furthermore,€the€State€party€had€not€indicated€the€availability€of€anyŠ  p  Šother€remedies€to€the€author.€€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concluded€that€the€requirementsŠ `  Šof€article€14,€paragraph€7(a),€of€the€Convention€and€of€rule€91(e)€of€the€Committeeššs€rules€ofŠ P  Šprocedure,€had€been€met.Š š@  ŠĢ5.3€€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€observed€that€the€question€of€the€application€of€this€article€was€one€of€substanceŠ ° Šwhich€should€be€examined€at€a€later€stage,€in€conformity€with€rule€95€of€the€rules€of€procedure.€€TheŠ  š ŠCommittee€further€observed€that€rule€91(c)€of€the€rules€of€procedure€enjoined€it€to€ascertain€whetherŠ ą Šany€communication€is€compatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Convention,€and€that€š šcompatibilityššŠ €Š Šwithin€the€meaning€of€rule€91(c)€must€be€understood€in€procedural,€not€substantive,€terms.€€In€theŠ pĄ ŠCommitteeššs€opinion,€the€communication€did€not€suffer€from€procedural€incompatibility.Š `° ŠĢ5.4€€On€22€August€1990,€therefore,€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€DiscriminationŠ @ Šdeclared€the€communication€admissible.Š 0€ ŠĢ6.1€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€has€examined€the€presentŠ ` Šcommunication€in€the€light€of€all€the€information€made€available€by€the€parties,€as€provided€for€inŠ P Šrule€95,€paragraph€1,€of€its€rules€of€procedure.Š š@ ŠĢ6.2€€The€Committee€has€noted€the€authorššs€claims€(a)€that€he€was€discriminated€against€on€one€ofŠ Š  Šthe€grounds€defined€in€article€1,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€ofŠ Ą! ŠRacial€Discrimination,€(b)€that€the€rejection€of€his€application€for€admission€to€the€Bar€of€NiceŠ °"  Šconstituted€a€violation€of€his€right€to€work€(article€5€(e)€of€the€Convention)€and€his€right€to€a€familyŠ  #š! Šlife,€and€(c)€that€the€rejection€of€his€application€violated€the€Franco„Senegalese€Convention€onŠ $ą" ŠMovement€of€Persons.€€After€careful€examination€of€the€material€placed€before€it,€the€CommitteeŠ €%Š # Šbases€its€decision€on€the€following€considerations.Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ6.3€€In€respect€of€the€alleged€violations€of€the€Franco„Senegalese€Convention€on€Freedom€ofŠ P( #& ŠMovement€of€29€March€1974,€the€committee€observes€that€it€is€not€within€its€mandate€to€interpretŠ @)$' Šor€monitor€the€application€of€bilateral€conventions€concluded€between€States€parties€to€theŠ 0*€%( ŠConvention,€unless€it€can€be€ascertained€that€the€application€of€these€conventions€result€in€manifestlyŠ  +p&) Šdiscriminatory€or€arbitrary€treatment€of€individuals€under€the€jurisdiction€of€States€parties€to€theŠ ,`'* ŠInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€which€haveŠ -P(+ Šmade€the€declaration€under€article€14.€€The€Committee€has€no€evidence€that€the€application€or€non„Š š-@), Šapplication€of€the€Franco„Senegalese€Conventions€of€March€1974€has€resulted€in€manifestŠ ° Šdiscrimination.Š  š ŠĢ6.4€€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€5(e)€of€the€Convention€and€of€the€right€to€a€family€life,€theŠ €Š ŠCommittee€notes€that€the€rights€protected€by€article€5(e)€are€of€programmatic€character,€subject€toŠ pĄ Šprogressive€implementation.€€It€is€not€within€the€Committeeššs€mandate€to€see€to€it€that€these€rightsŠ ` ° Šare€established;€rather,€it€is€the€Committeeššs€task€to€monitor€the€implementation€of€these€rights,€onceŠ P   Šthey€have€been€granted€on€equal€terms.€€In€so€far€as€the€authorššs€complaint€is€based€on€article€5(e)Š @  Šof€the€Convention,€the€Committee€considers€it€to€be€ill„founded.Š 0 € ŠĢ6.5€€Finally,€in€as€much€as€the€allegation€of€racial€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€1,Š `  Šparagraph€1,€of€the€Convention€is€concerned,€the€Committee€notes€that€article€11,€paragraph€1,€ofŠ P  Šthe€French€Act€No.€71.1130€of€31€December€1971€stipulates€that€no€one€may€accede€to€the€legalŠ š@  Šprofession€if€he€is€not€French,€except€as€provided€for€in€international€conventions.Š ą0  ŠĢ6.6€€This€provision€operates€as€a€preference€or€distinction€between€citizens€and€non„citizens€withinŠ Ą Šthe€meaning€of€article€1,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Convention:€€the€refusal€to€admit€Mr.€Diop€to€the€BarŠ ° Šwas€based€on€the€fact€that€he€was€not€of€French€nationality,€not€on€any€of€the€grounds€enumeratedŠ  š Šin€article€1,€paragraph€1.€€The€authorššs€allegation€relates€to€a€situation€in€which€the€right€to€practiceŠ ą Šlaw€exists€only€for€French€nationals,€not€to€a€situation€in€which€this€right€has€been€granted€inŠ €Š Šprinciple€and€may€be€generally€invoked;€accordingly,€the€Committee€concludes€that€article€1,Š pĄ Šparagraph€1,€has€not€been€violated.Š `° ŠĢ7.€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination,€acting€under€article€14,€paragraphŠ @ Š7€(a),€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€isŠ 0€ Šof€the€opinion€that€the€facts€as€submitted€do€not€disclose€a€violation€of€any€of€the€provisions€of€theŠ  p ŠConvention.Š ` ŠĢ[Done€in€English,€French,€Russian€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]Š š@ ŠĢņņĢóó___________Š Ą! ŠÓ'°‚Xr™X°œX'Óą r ąņņ*óó/€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination.ņņóó