(d) hbuse of the right of submission 636. Under article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 90 <c) of its rules of procedure, the Committee shall declare inadmissible any communication that it considers to be an abuse of the right to submit a communication under the Optional Protocol. 635. In case No. 367/1989 (J.J.C. v. Canada), the author complained that the Canadian judiciary was not subject to any supervision; more particularly, he charged bias and misconduct on the part of a certain judge of the provincial court of Montreal and the Committee of Enquiry of the Conseil de la Magistrature. The Committee observed! "These allegations are of a sweeping nature and have not been substantiated in such a way as to show how the author qualifies as a victim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. This situation justifies doubts about the seriousness of the author's submission and leads the Committee to conclude that it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol." (amvex X, sect. K, para. 5,2) 636. In case No. 448/1991 (H.J.H. v. the Netherlands), the author alleged a violation of the "presumption of innocence" (art. 14, para. 2, of the Covenant), because he was required to display a vignette on his car indicating its due registration. The Committee examined whether the facts as submitted would raise prima facie issues under any provision of the Covenant and concluded that they did not. The Committee observed: "that the conditions for declaring a communication admissible include, inter alia, that the claims submitted be sufficiently substantiated and do not constitute an abuse of the right of submission. The author's communication reveals- that these conditions have not been met." (annex X, sect. Z, para. 4.2) (e) The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies fOptional Protocol, art. 5, para. 2 (b)) 637. Pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. However, the Committee has already established that the rule of exhaustion applies only to the extent that these remedies are effective and available. The State party is required to give "details of the remedies which it submitted that had been available to the author in the circumstances of his case, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective" (case No. 4/1977, Torres Ramirez v. Uruguay). The rule also provides that the Committee is not precluded from examining a communication if it is established that the application of the remedies in question is unreasonably prolonged. 638. However, fears about the length or the effectiveness of domestic remedies as such do not absolve individuals from the requirement of at least making an effort to exhaust them. Thus, in case No. 358/1989 (R.L. v. Canada), involving the rights of an Indian band in Canada to control its band -151-