Complaint 3. It is alleged that the facts described above constitute violations by France of articles 2, paragraphs 1-3, 19, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. State party's observations 4.1 The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible on a number of grounds. As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it notes that the author failed to appeal the judgement of 4 July 1988 of the Court of Appeal of Rennes to the Court of Cassation. The State party further specifies that the author did not, at any stage in the judicial proceedings, request to be heard in Breton, and that she expressed herself without problem in French. 4.2 As to the alleged violation of article 2 of the Covenant, the State party notes that this provision cannot be violated directly and in isolation. A violation of article 2 can be admitted only to the extent that other rights protected under the Covenant have been violated (para. 1) or if necessary steps to give effects to rights protected under the Covenant have not been taken. A violation of article 2 can only be the corollary of another violation of a Covenant right. The State party adds that the author did not precisely spell out her allegations and that, in any event, she did not avail herself of available domestic remedies. 4.3 The State party rejects the claim of a violation of the author's rights under article 19, paragraph 2, as an abuse of the right of submission. Apart from having failed properly to substantiate her allegation, the State party notes that G.B. was not prevented, at any stage of the proceedings, from freely expressing herself. Defacing road signs cannot, by any reckoning, be construed as a manifestation of the freedom of expression, within the meaning of article 19, paragraph 2. 4.4 As to the alleged violations of articles 25 and 26, the State party contends that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, how she considers her rights under these provisions to have been violated. While a criminal conviction may bar access to public office, G.B. at no time indicated that she intended to seek access to public office; nor did she file a request, pursuant to article 55, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code, for non-inscription of her criminal conviction in her files (easier judiciaire). 4.5 Finally, the State party recalls that upon ratification of the Covenant, the French Government entered the following declaration in respect of article 27: "In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned." Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. -352-