WPC3 l}ő\#W_!*[?X‘{\iεhpm/ҟ ,/Rʼk3'[9؏8̈́RrcɌe"@?ֽCZAUAj1.Ր/:i^i 0$I4̠rnB-1xP}?l<΅/Y?7aSͼ]g&\wm Oz p B%A jp=I x4>D 4{_cy(pn  hgm@\Ѫ&OU3ޗ?zt)B8>?ôJ+\iO\V,N#DUN %[ 0:a  0U 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0x 0 0 0 0V 0  0 0] 0 0 0. 0 0} 0K 0 0 0I 0 0 0 0 0M 0  0> 0 0 0 0 0! 0" 0i# 0#$ 02$ 0'% 0:#& 0Y]& 0_& 0 ' 0( 0) B*+ D/+ D+, 0+, D/1. 0`. 06./ 0d/ 0:l0 0^0 0<1 1e@1U61U>1U*2^ C2wO2 1uS2 722 0c2N]34_3s33 m3\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnV,,,,V0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX(\$CEUS., *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKA<6X9`(Courier NewKSB\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KA<6X9`(Courier NewKSB\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KA<6X9`(Courier NewKSB\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 76(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?C%2A`Arial?  SB\  `&Times New RomanS77(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d5)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For79(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?C%2A`Arial?  SB\  `&Times New RomanS77(X75+ ` hp x 5  5)2dxd0KS.SampleKA<6X9`(Courier NewKSB\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKA<6X9`(Courier NewKSB\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial}/ 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Fi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  u/:i+003|xU \!CEUS.,  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  P.L.v.Germany  CommunicationNo1003/2001 X 22October2003 , | _CCPR_/C/79/D/1003/2001*  P ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:P.L.(notrepresentedbycounsel) z  Allegedvictim:Theauthor H Stateparty:Germany f Dateofcommunication:10March1999(initialsubmission) 4   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil  andPoliticalRights,  Meetingon22October2003 X Adoptsthefollowing: *z v   Decisiononadmissibility   5   1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisP.L.,anIrishnational,whoalsopurportstosubmitthe #" communicationonbehalfofhisthreesons,R.J.L.,D.M.L.andT.P.L.,whohavedualnationality $# (IrishandGerman)andwerebornon23May1984_(R_.J.L.),24November1986(D.M.L.)andon u% $ 27June1990(T.P.L.).Theauthorclaimsthatheandhissonsarevictimsofviolationsby ^&!% Germany1ofarticles14,paragraph1,and23,paragraph4,andhissonsofaviolationofarticle24, G'"& paragraph1,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights("theCovenant").The 0(#' authorisnotrepresentedbycounsel. )i$( 1.2On7February2002,theCommittee,actingthroughitsSpecialRapporteuronnew *;&* communications,decidedtoseparateitsconsiderationoftheadmissibilityandthemeritsofthe +$'+ communication. , (,  -(- Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor  2.1On20November1994,theauthor'swifeleftthefamilyhometogetherwithherandtheauthor's  threesons.TheDistrictCourtofRatingen(_Amtsgericht_ԀRatingen),byinteriminjunctionof25 k November1994,grantedherthesolerighttodeterminethedomicileofthechildrenand,bydecision T of19March1996,preliminarysolecustodyofthechildrenduringthetimeofseparationofthe =  spouses.Onorabout21June1996,theHigherRegionalCourtofDsseldorf(_Oberlandesgericht_ & v Dsseldorf)rejectedtheauthor'sappealagainstthedecisionof19March1996.Hisconstitutional  _ complaintagainstthedecisionsofthelowercourtswasdismissedbytheFederalConstitutional  H Court(_Bundesverfassungsgericht_)on2April1997.On28April1997,theauthorsubmittedan  1  applicationtotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights,whichwasdeclaredinadmissibleon19    January1998.   2.2Byjudgmentof27October1998,theDistrictCourtofRatingenpronouncedthedivorceofthe   spouses.Custodywasgrantedtothemother,sincetheCourtconsideredherbetterplacedtoensure n  thewelfareofthechildren.Itbaseditsfindingsonahearingofthethreesons,eachofwhomhad W  expressedhispreferencetostaywiththemother.TheCourtrejectedtheauthor'sargumentthatthe @ motherhadmanipulatedthechildrenpriortothehearing,findingthattheirbondswiththemother )y werestrongerthanthosewiththeauthor,whichwasconsideredunderstandable,giventhatthe b childrenhadstayedwiththemotherthroughoutthetimeofseparation.Thedecisiontograntsole K custodytothemotherwouldalsoenablethechildrentoretaincontinuityinschoolingandtoremain 4 infamiliarsurroundings.Astovisitingrights,theCourtgrantedtheauthorvisitingrightstwicea  monthonweekendsandforseveralweeksduringtheholidayperiod.  2.3Inhisappealdated18December1998,theauthorrequestedtheDsseldorfHigherRegional  CourttoquashthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtandgrantcustodytohim.Hearguedthatthe q motherneglectedthechildren,thatshewasfrequentlyabsent,rarelycookedforthem,failedto Z ensuretheirhealthcareandneglectedtheirbodilyhygiene.Allegedly,thechildrenevenshowed C signsofphysicalabuse.Theauthorreiteratedthatthemotherexercisedpressureonthechildrenand ,| manipulatedtheirstatementsbeforethecourts.Inthealternative,ifcustodywasnottobegranted e tohim,theauthorrequestedextendedvisitingrights. N 2.4Bydecisionof1March1999,theHigherRegionalCourtdismissedtheauthor'sappealwithout !   schedulinganotherhearingofthechildren.Itconsideredthathewasnotbetterplacedtoensurethe " ! children'swelfarethanthemother.Unlikethemother,theauthorhadpreviouslyfailedtocooperate #" withtheChildWelfareOfficeofRatingen.Moreover,allocationofsolecustodytothemotherwas $# requiredtoensurecontinuityforthechildrenandwasconsistentwiththeirexpresswishtostaywith t% $ themother.TheDistrictCourt'srulingonvisitingrightswasupheld,intheinterestofnotfurther ]&!% destabilizingthechildren. F'"& 2.5On4April1999,theauthorfaxedaconstitutionalcomplainttotheFederalConstitutionalCourt, )h$( withouthoweverenclosingcopiesoftheimpugneddecisionsofthelowercourts.Atthetopofthe *Q%) faxcover,itwasstated:"Advancefax[8](withoutenclosures)".Byletterof7April1999,the *:&* FederalConstitutionalCourtinformedtheauthorthatsoastocomplywiththeone-monthdeadline +#'+ forlodgingaconstitutionalcomplaint,acomplainantmustnotonlysubmitbutalsosubstantiatethe , (, complaintwithintheone-monthperiodafterthefinaldecisionofthelowercourt.Thisrequired -(- submissionofallrelevantdocuments,inparticularcourtdecisions,beforetheendofthatperiod,  evenincaseswhereacomplaintwassubmittedonapreliminarybasisforpurposesofcomplying  withthedeadline.Theauthorwasadvisedthathiscomplaintdidnotmeettheserequirements,since  thejudgmentsof1March1999andof27October1998hadnotbeenenclosedwiththefaxof4 k April1999.ItwasthereforeimpossiblefortheCourttoexaminewhetherthesedecisionsviolated T theauthor'sconstitutionallyguaranteedrighttoprotectionbythecourts.Insofarastheauthorhad =  submittedtheconstitutionalcomplaintonbehalfofhissons,theletterraiseddoubtsastowhether & v hewasauthorizedtorepresentthemasanon-custodialparent.Itconcludedthatitwastoolatefor  _ supplementingthecomplaint,sincetheone-monthperiodfollowingtheservice(5March1999)of  H thedecisionoftheDsseldorfHigherRegionalCourthadexpiredon6April1999.2  1  2.6On9April1999,theauthor'scomplaint,dated4April1999butcarryingthepostmarkof6April   1999,wasdeliveredtotheFederalConstitutionalCourtbypost,thistimeincludingcopiesofthe   relevantcourtdecisions.Byletterof14April1999,theauthorwasagainadvisedthattheone-month   periodforlodgingaconstitutionalcomplainthadexpiredon6April1999andthathehadfailedto n  substantiatehiscomplaintpriortothatdate. W  2.7On16March2000,theauthorappliedtotheDistrictCourtofRatingenfortransferofthe )y custodyofthechildrentohim.HeaskedtheCourttoissueaninterimordertothateffect,andargued b thatthemothercontinuallyfailedtotakepropercareofthechildren,whichwasreflectedintheir K poorschoolperformanceaswellastheirdeplorablestateofhealth.TheauthorrequestedtheCourt 4 toappointalegalguardian(_Verfahrensbetreuer_)torepresenttheinterestsofhischildrenduringthe  legalproceedingsandtoscheduleanotherhearingofthechildren,whoallegedlyhadstatedtheir  preferencetolivewithhim.  2.8On14June2000,theauthorchallengedthecompetentjudgeongroundsofallegedbias,alleging q thatshehaddescribedhisargumentsinfavourofanotherhearingofthechildrenas"purefantasies", Z attributabletohislivingin"anunrealworld".Hismotiontohaveherreplacedbyanotherjudgewas C declaredill-foundedbytheHigherRegionalCourtofDsseldorfon12July2000,onthebasisthat, ,| infamilylawmatters,judgeswereentitledtoexpresstheiropiniontotheparties,aslongasthey e remainedopentonewandbetterargumentsandarrangements. N 2.9Bydecisionof28September2000,theDistrictCourtofRatingenrejectedtheauthor'smotion !   totransfercustodytohim,consideringthattheongoingtensionsbetweentheex-spouseswerethe " ! maincausefortheproblemsthechildrenfacedinschool.Theauthorhimself,byhisrefusalto #" cooperatewiththeyouthauthorities,aswellashisconstantcriticismofthemother,hadhimself $# exacerbatedthesetensions.Sincethechildrenhadreiteratedtheirwishtostaywiththemother t% $ duringasecondhearingconductedbytheCourt,itfoundnoreasontoreviewitspreviousdecision ]&!% tograntsolecustodytothemother.Theauthor'simmediateappealagainstthatdecisionwas F'"& dismissedbytheHigherRegionalCourtofDsseldorfon7December2000.Noconstitutional /(#' complaintwaslodgedinrelationtotheseoranysubsequentproceedings. )h$( 2.10On24May2001,theauthor,seekingextra-judicialreliefinhismatter,submittedapetitionto *:&* thePetitionsCommitteeoftheGermanFederalParliamentand,on8September2001,tothe +#'+ MinisterofYouth,Family,WomenandHealthoftheStateof_Northrhine_-Westphalia,eachtime , (, withoutsuccess. -(- ЇThecomplaint  3.1Withregardtohisclaimunderarticle14,paragraph1,theauthorsubmitsthatthecourts  frequentlydeniedhisrequestsforthechildrentobeheardandignoredevidencepresentedbyhim k concerningthemother'sneglect,ifnotabuse,ofthechildren.Theexcessivelengthofthe T proceedingshadledtothefurtherdeteriorationoftheirphysicalandpsychologicalstate.Moreover, =  theapplicationoftheprincipleoffreejurisdiction(_Freie_Ԁ_Gerichtsbarkeit_)permittedthefamily & v courtsnottoapplytheproceduralruleswhichwouldbindallotherjurisdictions,thusleavingthe  _ judgeswidediscretioninevaluatingevidenceandindefiningthechild's"bestinterest".  H 3.2Theauthorsubmitsthattheawardofsolecustodytohisex-wifedisenfranchisedhimtosuchan    extentthathewasnotevenallowedtospeaktothechildren'sdoctorsorteachers.Intheabsenceof   adistinctionbetweencustodyandlegalguardianshipunderGermanfamilylaw,hewasunableto   participateinanyimportantdecisionregardinghissons.Thus,hiswifewasabletohavehersons   naturalizedinGermanywithouteveninforminghim.Theauthorconsidersthatthissituationisin n  breachofhisrighttoequalityofspousesunderarticle23,paragraph4,oftheCovenant. W  3.3TheauthorallegesthatthefailureoftheGermancourtsandauthoritiestoputanendtothe )y mother'sneglectofthechildren,rangingfromfailuretotakecareoftheirhealthandeducationto b instancesofabuse,constitutesadenialoftheirrighttothenecessaryprotectionbytheState,in K violationofarticles23,paragraph4,and24,paragraph1,oftheCovenant. 4 3.4Theauthorclaimsthatheandhissonshaveexhaustedalldomesticremedies,sincetheHigher  RegionalCourtofDsseldorf,asthehighestresponsiblecourt,rejectedbothhisappealson1March  1999and7December2000,respectively.HearguesthataconstitutionalcomplainttotheFederal  ConstitutionalCourtisnotaneffectiveremedyinfamilylawmatters,becausethisCourtregularly q dismissescomplaintsagainstcustodydecisionsoflowercourts,asitisnotcompetenttoadjudicate Z onfamilylawissuesassuch. C 3.5Theauthorobservesthatthesamematterisnotbeingandhasnotbeenexaminedunderanother e procedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement,sincehisapplicationtotheEuropean N CommissiononHumanRights,whichhadbeendeclaredinadmissibleon19January1998,dealt  7 withthedecisionoftheGermancourtstogranthisex-wifepreliminarysolecustodyofthechildren !   forthedurationoftheseparation,andthereforewithproceedingswhichwereentirelydifferentfrom " ! thefinalawardofcustodyandtherejectionofhisrequesttotransfercustodytohim,which #" constitutedthesubjectmatterofhiscommunicationtotheHumanRightsCommittee. $# TheStateparty'ssubmissionontheadmissibilityofthecommunication ]&!% 4.1Bynote_verbale_Ԁof4October2001,3theStatepartysubmitteditsobservationsonthe /(#' admissibilityofthecommunication.Itchallengesadmissibilityonthebasisthattheauthorhasnot )h$( exhaustedallavailabledomesticremedies. *Q%) 4.2TheStatepartyarguesthattheauthorfailedtolodgeaconstitutionalcomplaintwiththeFederal +#'+ ConstitutionalCourtagainstthedecisionsoftheDsseldorfHigherRegionalCourtof1March1999 , (, withintheone-monthperiodfollowingtheimpugneddecision,asrequiredbysection93(1)4ofthe -(- LawontheFederalConstitutionalCourt(_Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz_).Itwasnotsufficient  thattheauthorpostedhiscomplainton6April1999-thelastdayoftheone-monthperiod-,since  acomplaintmustreachtheCourtbytheendofthelegalperiod;theauthor'scomplaintreachedthe  Courtonlyon9April1999andwasthereforenotregistered. k 4.3Inordertomeetthedeadlinetheauthorwasnotdependentonthepostalservice,sincehewas =  inpossessionofafaxmachine.Therefore,hecouldsimplyhavefaxedhiscomplainton5or6April & v 1999totheFederalConstitutionalCourt.  _ 4.4Moreover,theregistraroftheCourt,inhisletterof14April1999,informedtheauthorthatif  1  hewishedajudgetodecideonthequestionofadmissibilityofthecomplaint,heshouldsoinform    theCourt.However,theauthorpreferrednottotakeupthisopportunity.   4.5Lastly,theStatepartysubmitsthat,contrarytotheauthor'sview,aconstitutionalcomplaint   wouldnothavebeenaprioriafutileremedy. n  Commentsbytheauthor @ 5.Byletterof28November2001,theauthorrespondedtotheStateparty'sobservationson b admissibilityand,byletterof18February2002,furnishedadditionalinformation.Hearguesthat K theStatepartyseekstoabsolveitselfofitsresponsibilitiesbymeansofapuretechnicality(his 4 failuretoenclosetherelevantcourtdecisionswiththecomplaintfaxedon4April1999),despitehis  repeatedeffortstoexhaustallremediesavailableunderGermanlaw.Apartfromhisconstitutional  complaintof4April1999,whichreachedtheFederalConstitutionalCourtthesamedaybyfax,he  hadlodgedtwosimilarcomplaints,whichweredismissedbytheConstitutionalCourton2April  1997(seepara.2.1)andon29December1997. q IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee C 6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee e must,inaccordancewitharticle87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissible N undertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  7 6.2TheCommitteehasascertainedthat,insofarastheimpugneddecisions5areconcerned,thesame " ! matterisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement #" forpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol.Itrecalls,inthiscontext,thatthe $# author'sapplicationtotheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightsdealtwithissuesotherthanthose t% $ beforetheCommittee,namelythejudgmentsof19March1996andof21June1996,awarding ]&!% temporarycustodytothemotherforthedurationoftheseparation(seepara.2.1). F'"& 6.3TheCommitteehasnotedtheparties'argumentsrelatingtothequestionofexhaustionof )h$( domesticremedies.Inparticular,itnotestheStateparty'sobservationthat,inorderfora *Q%) complainanttocomplywiththeone-monthdeadlinefollowingserviceofthefinaldecisionofthe *:&* lowercourts,aconstitutionalcomplaintmustreachtheFederalConstitutionalCourtbeforetheend +#'+ ofthatperiod,andthatallrelevantdocuments,inparticulartheimpugnedcourtdecisions,must , (, accompanythecomplaintinsubstantiationthereofinordertoenableanexaminationbythe -(- ConstitutionalCourtastowhetherthecomplainant'sconstitutionalrightshavebeenviolated.Ithas  notedtheauthor'sargumentthathemaderepeatedeffortstoexhaustdomesticremedies,bylodging  threeconstitutionalcomplaintsrelatingtothesamesubjectmatter,despitethealleged  ineffectivenessofthisremedyinfamilylawmatters. k 6.4TheissuebeforetheCommitteeiswhether,forpurposesofexhaustingallavailabledomestic =  remedies,inaccordancewitharticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,theauthorwas & v requiredtolodgeaconstitutionalcomplaintagainstthedecisionsoftheRatingenDistrictCourtof  _ 27October1997andof28October2000,aswellasthedecisionsoftheDsseldorfHigherRegional  H Courtof1March1999andof7December2000,and,ifso,whetherhepursuedthisremedyin  1  accordancewiththeproceduralrequirementsprescribedbylaw.    6.5TheCommitteeobservesthat,inadditiontoordinaryjudicialandadministrativeappeals,authors   mustalsoavailthemselvesofallotherjudicialremedies,includingconstitutionalcomplaints,in   ordertofulfilltherequirementofexhaustionofallavailabledomesticremedies,insofarassuch n  remediesappeartobeeffectiveinthegivencaseandaredefactoavailabletotheauthor.6The W  Committeenotesthattheauthor'sconstitutionalcomplaintsof29July1996andof15July1997, @ whichweredismissedbytheConstitutionalCourton2April1997and29December1997, )y respectively,relatedtolegalproceedingsdifferentfromthefinalawardofcustodytohisex-wife, b whichwasthesubjectmatterofthecomplaintfaxedtotheConstitutionalCourton4April1999. K Thedismissaloftheseconstitutionalcomplaintswasthereforewithoutprejudicetotheprospectof 4 successofthelattercomplaint.Moreover,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorhasfailedto  substantiatehiscontentionthataconstitutionalcomplaintisgenerallyineffectiveinfamilylaw  matters.TheCommitteeconcludesthat,toexhaustallavailabledomesticremedies,theauthor  shouldhaveavailedhimselfoftheopportunityoflodgingaconstitutionalcomplaintagainstthe  decisionsoftheGermancourtsgrantingfinalcustodytohisex-wifeandrejectingsubsequent q applicationsfortransferofcustody.Suchacomplaintcouldnotipsofactobeconsideredan Z ineffectiveremedy,inthespecificcircumstancesofthecase. C 6.6Astowhethertheauthorpursuedthisremedyinaccordancewiththeproceduralrequirements e prescribedbylaw,theCommitteenotesthathefailedtofurnishcopiesofthedecisionsofthe N RatingenDistrictCourtof27October1998andoftheDsseldorfHigherRegionalCourtof1March  7 1999(awardofpost-divorcecustodytothemother),whenhefaxedhiscomplainttotheFederal !   ConstitutionalCourton4April1999.ThesedocumentsreachedtheCourtonlyon9April1999, " ! aftertheexpiryofthelegalone-monthdeadlineon6April1999.Thattheauthorwasnot,atthat #" point,representedbycounselandthathewaspossiblyunawareofthisrequirementcannotjustify $# hisfailuretocomplywiththeproceduralprerequisitesofsection93(1)oftheLawontheFederal t% $ ConstitutionalCourt.7 ]&!% 6.7Insofarastheauthorclaimsthattherejectionofhisapplicationfortransferofcustody,on28 /(#' September2000,bytheRatingenDistrictCourtand,on7December2000,bytheDsseldorfHigher )h$( RegionalCourtviolatedhisandhissons'rightsunderarticles14,paragraph1,23,paragraph4,and *Q%) 24,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,theCommitteenotesthattheauthordidnotlodgeaconstitutional *:&* complaintagainstthesedecisions. +#'+ 6.8Inthelightoftheforegoing,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthorfailedtoexhaustall -(- availabledomesticremedies.  7.TheCommitteethereforedecides:  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptional T Protocol; =  (b)Thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthor,and,forinformation,totheStateparty.  _ __________________  1  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently   tobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttothe   GeneralAssembly.]   *ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent W  communication:Mr._Abdelfattah_ԀAmor,Mr._Nisuke_ԀAndo,Mr._Prafullachandra_Ԁ_Natwarlal_Ԁ_Bhagwati_, @ Ms.Christine_Chanet_,Mr.Franco_Depasquale_,Mr.Maurice_Gll_Ԁ_Ahanhanzo_,Mr.Walter_Klin_, )y Mr.Ahmed_Tawfik_Ԁ_Khalil_,Mr.Rafael_Rivas_Ԁ_Posada_,SirNigel_Rodley_,Mr.Martin_Scheinin_,Mr. b IvanShearer,Mr._Hip;lito_Ԁ_Solari_Ԁ_Yrigoyen_,Mr.Roman_Wieruszewski_ԀandMr.Maxwell_Yalden_. K Notes  1.TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsandtheOptionalProtocolenteredinto  forcefortheStatepartyrespectivelyon23March1976and25November1993. q 2.Undisputedly,5April1999wasapublicholidayinGermany. C 3.Afternumerousadditionalsubmissionshadbeenreceivedfromtheauthor,thecommunication e wastransmittedtotheStatepartyon7August2001,underrule91oftheCommittee'sRulesof N Procedure.  7 4.Section93(1)oftheLawontheFederalConstitutionalCourtprovides,inpertinentpart,that " ! "[_t]he_Ԁconstitutionalcomplaintmustbelodgedandsubstantiatedwithinonemonth". #" 5.ThecommunicationonlyrelatestothedecisionsoftheRatingenDistrictCourtof27October t% $ 1997andof28October2000,aswellasthedecisionsoftheDsseldorfHigherRegionalCourtof ]&!% 1March1999andof7December2000.Seepara.3.6. F'"& 6.SeeCommunicationNo.433/1990,_A.P.A._Ԁv.Spain,Decisiononadmissibilityof25March1994, )h$( UNDoc._CCPR_/C/50/D/433/1990,28March1994,atpara.6.2. *Q%) 7.Seeibid. +#'+