4.2 In respect of the allegedly discriminatory measures directly concerning the author, the State party argues that R.L.M. has failed to exhaust available remedies. His two letters addressed to the Sector of the Academy of Rennes in February 1988 and to the Hector of the Academy of Nantes in April 1988 do not display any of the characteristics of an administrative remedy. In fact, the author merely sought, through these letters, an audience with a view to securing the establishment of a post for the teaching of Breton, and did not complain about his personal situation. 4.3 The State party contends that the following remedies would be open to the author, adding that none of them has been utilized* (a) Recourse to the representatives of his profession in the "administrative (parity) commission" (Commission administrative parita.ire^, which may be seized of all types of questions concerning personnel disputes (article 25 (4)) of Decree 82-451 of 28 May 1982 concerning the Commission administrative paritaire); (b) Filing of an ex gratia appeal to a higher administrative authority, including the Minister of Education. The advantage of such an appeal, while optional, is that it may be based not only on the legally relevant facts of the case but also on considerations of equity and expediency; (c) Finally, if the author considered that any of the contested decisions violated his rights, he could have sought a contentious remedy for abuse of power, requesting the administrative judge to annul the decision. Such an application could have been filed within two months of the date on which he was notified of any adverse decision affecting him. 4.4 The State party emphasizes that the inactivity or negligence of the author in respect of pursuit of domestic remedies cannot be attributed to State organs: "the right to submit a communication to the Human Rights Committee cannot be used as a substitute for the normal exercise of domestic remedies in cases where such remedies have not been pursued purely through the fault of the interested party." 4.5 Additionally, the State party submits that the author has failed to advance a claim in the sense of the Optional Protocol. As to the alleged violation of article 19, paragraph 2, the State party contends that the author has failed to show how his freedom of expression might have been interfered with and that, on the contrary, each of his submissions and his correspondence with the education authorities, parliamentarians and government officials show that he had ample opportunity to make his position known. It further affirms that "freedom of expression" within the meaning of article 19 cannot be construed as including a right to exercise a specific teaching activity, 4.6 With respect to the alleged violation of article 26, the State party affirms that nothing in the file substantiates the author's claim that the Rectorate of the Academy of Nantes systematically discriminates vis-a-vis the teaching of Breton and that it discriminated against the author by denying him regular career development. It notes that Law 51-46 of 11 January 1951 recognized Breton as a regional language and contained measures designed to encourage its teaching. This law was amended by circular No. 82-261 of 21 June 1982 concerning the teaching of regional languages and cultures in -369-