Complaint 3.1 The authors sought, unsuccessfully, to be invited to attend the constitutional conferences as representatives of the Mikmaq people. The refusal of the State party to permit specific representation for the Mikmag at the constitutional conferences is the basis of the complaint. 3.2 Initially, the authors claimed that the refusal to grant a seat at the constitutional conferences to representatives of the Mikroaq tribal society denied them the right of self-determination, in violation of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, They subsequently revised that claim and argued that the refusal also infringed their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, in violation of article 25 (a) of the Covenant. State party's observations and authors' comments 4.1 The State party argues that the restrictions on participation in the constitutional conferences were not unreasonable and that the conferences were not conducted in a way that was contrary to the right to participate in "the conduct of public affairs". In particular, the State party argues that "the right of citizens to participate in 'the conduct of public affairs' does not ... require direct input into the duties and responsibilities of a Government properly elected. Rather, this right is fulfilled ... when 'freely chosen representatives' conduct and make decisions on the affairs with which they are entrusted by the Constitution." The State party submits that the circumstances of the instant case "do not fall within the scope of activities which individuals are entitled to undertake by virtue of article 25 of the Covenant. This article could not possibly require that all citizens of a country be invited to a constitutional conference." 4.2 The authors contend, inter alia, that the restrictions were unreasonable and that their interests were not properly represented at the constitutional conferences. First, they stress that they could not choose which of the "national associations" would represent them and, furthermore, that they aid not confer on the Assembly of First Hations (AFH) any right to represent them. Secondly, when the Mikmaqs were not allowed direct representation, they attempted, without success, to influence AFN. In particular, they refer to a 1987 hearing conducted jointly by AFN and several Canadian government departments, at which Mikmag leaders submitted a package of constitutional proposals and protested "in the strongest terms any discussion of Mikmaq treaties at the constitutional conferences in the absence of direct Mikmaq representation". AFN, however, did not submit any of the Mikmag position papers to the constitutional conferences nor incorporated them in its own positions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 The communication was declared admissible on 25 July 1990, in so far as it may raise issues under article 25 (a) of the Covenant. The Committee had earlier determined, in respect of another communication, that a claim of an alleged violation of article 1 of the Covenant cannot be brought under the Optional Protocol, a/ -207-