4.3 The State party claims that the author has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. It notes that on 10 May 1990, the Department of Private Law rendered its final decision in respect of the conditions imposed on the author's right of access; with this, only the available administrative procedures were exhausted. Pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitutional Act, the author should then have requested from the courts a judicial review of the terms and conditions imposed by the decision. 4.4 The State party also observes that the courts may directly rule on the alleged violations of Denmark's international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights. It concludes that, as the author failed to submit his complaint to the Danish courts, the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, 4.5 In his comments on the State party's submission/ the author states, intej: alia, that he does not want to seize the courts because of the unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers' money and for reasons of time and stress. He also expresses his doubts about the effectiveness of a trial in his case. 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. 5.2 The Committee has taken notice of the State party's contention that the author has no standing to act on behalf of his son, as Danish law limits this right to the custodial parent. The Committee observes that standing under the Optional Protocol may be determined independently of national regulations and legislation governing an individual's standing before a domestic court of law. In the present case, it is clear that T.S, cannot himself submit a complaint to the Committee; the relationship between father and son and the nature of the allegations must be deemed sufficient to justify representation of T.S. before the Committee by his father. 5.3 As regards the author's claims of a violation of articles 14, 21, 22 and 27, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted by the author do not raise issues under these articles. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.4 With regard to the author's allegations of violations of articles 17, 18, 23, 24 and 26, the Committee observes that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol precludes it from considering a communication unless it has been ascertained that domestic remedies have been exhausted. In this connection the Committee notes that the author has exhausted only administrative procedures; it reiterates that article 5, paragraph 2<b), of the Optional Protocol, by referring to "all available domestic remedies", clearly refers in the first place to judicial remedies, a/ The Committee recalls the State party's contention that judicial review of administrative regulations and decisions, pursuant to section 63 of the Danish Constitutional Act, would be an effective remedy available to the author. The Committee notes that the author has refused to avail himself of these remedies, because -399-