relationship between father and son ... must be deemed sufficient to justify representation of T.R.S, before the Committee by his father." (annex X, sect. K, para. 5.2) (b) No claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol 624. Article 2 of the Optional Protocol provides that "individuals who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration". 625. Although at the admissibility stage an author does not need to prove the alleged violation, he must submit sufficient evidence in substantiation of his allegation to constitute a prima facie case. A "claim" is, therefore, not just any allegation, but an allegation supported by a certain amount of substantiating evidence. Thus, in cases where the Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate his claim for purposes of admissibility, the Committee has held the communication inadmissible/ according to rule 90 (b) of its rules of procedure, declaring that the author "has no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol"* 626. In case No. 363/1989 (R.L.M. v* France), a French citizen of Breton origin claimed that the French educational authorities had consistently discriminated against him by denying him the possibility to teach the Breton language on a full-time basis in high schools in Brittany. The Committee dismissed the author's allegation of a violation of the right to freedom of expression as unsubstantiated and observed that, in that respect, the author had failed to advance a "claim" within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol, It further noted that the author had not seized the French judicial authorities of his grievances under article 26 of the Covenant and added that any doubts on the author's part about the effectiveness of local remedies did not absolve him from exhausting them (annex X, sect. J ) . 627. In cases Nos. 347/1988 (S.G. v, France) and 348/1989 (G.B. v. France), the complainants had been convicted by a French court for defacing roadaigns as part of a campaign to defend the Breton language. They claimed, inter alia, that their right to freedom of expression (art. 19 of the Covenant) had been denied. The Committee considered that the authors had failed to substantiate their claims for purposes of admissibility, and observed further that the defacing of roadsigns did not raise issues under the right of freedom of expression (annex X, sects. F and G ) . 628. In cases Nos. 401/1991 (J.P.K. v. the Netherlands) and 403/1991 (T.W.M.B v. the Netherlands), the complainants claimed that the requirement to do military service in an army equipped with nuclear weapons amounted to forcing them to become accomplices to the crime of genocide and crimes against peace. They alleged a violation of the right to life (art. 6 of the Covenant) and the right not to be subjected to torture (art. 7 ) . The Committee observed that the Covenant did not preclude the institution of compulsory military service and that consequently the complainants had not substantiated any claim in respect of these articles by mere reference to the requirement to do military service (annex X, sects. T and U ) . -149-