D'ci4IS, pursuant to rule 88, paragraph 2, of its provisional rul.s of procedure, to deal jointly with these communications;
rurtbl[ d.gidlE that this d.cision shall be communicated to the State party and the authors of the communications.
The authors of tho communications (two identical letters dated 28 JUly 1988) are J. B. and H. ~., two French citi,ens r6sident in PloufragaD, Brittany, FrAnce. They claim to be victims of a violation of artiCles 2,
26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Ci~i' and Political RightG by Franco.
The authors, two teachers, state that they had to appear, un 15 March 1985, before the Tribunal Correctionnel of Morlaix, Brittnny, on charges of having sprayed and rendered illegible a road sign. in the context of a campaign to obtain the installation of bilingual road signs in Brittany. The Tribunal refused to make available to them the services of an interpreter, allegedly on the grounds that two teachers should be deemed to understand French.
Before considerinq any claims contaiued in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 ol its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Tbe Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the .ame matter is not being examined under another procedure of L'lternational investigation or settlement.
With respect to the ~.quirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the author~ do not intend to appeal the jUdgement of the Tribunal Correctionnel of Morlaix, because they believe that an appeal would be futlle and fear that the Court of Appeal might increase the penal ianctioDs. The Committee finds, however, that, in the particular circumstances disclosed by the communication, the authors' contentions do not absolve them from the obligation to pursue remedies available to them. The Committee is of the view that the further pursuit of the available remedies cannot be deeme~ a priori futile and that mere doubts about the success of such remedies do not render them ineffective and cannot be admitted as a justification for non-compliance. Unable to find that the application of domestic remedies in this ca~e has been unreasonably prolonqed, the Committee concludes that the requirement of article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol has not been met.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decides, (a) That the communications are inadmissible, (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and, for information, to the State party.