Indian and a non-status Indian, who marries a non-status Indian). In the State party's opinion, the authors have not shown that there are in the Band individuals meeting these criteria and who therefore could claim to be victims. The State party further contends that the Committee itself has repeatedly acknowledged that it will not entertain claims of abstract or potential breaches of the Covenant; it adds that the communication does not identify anyone currently affected by Bill C-31, and that the communication is inadmissible on that ground. 4.2 The State party submits that the authors have not complied with their obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. It emphasized that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the.Optional Protocol reflects a fundamental principle of general international law that local remedies be exhausted before resorting to an international instance. This rule ensures that domestic courts are not superseded by an international organ, and that a State has an opportunity to correct any wrong which may be shown before its internal forums, before that State's international responsibility is engaged. Domestic courts are generally better placed to determine the facts of and the law applicable to any given case, and where necessary, to enforce an appropriate remedy. In the present case, mere doubts about the success of remedies does not absolve the authors from resorting to them, a principle recognized by the Committee in its decisions in cases S.T. v. France {communication No. 262/1987) b_/ ana S_JLJ_J£. Hprwag (communication No. 79/1980). £/ 4.3 With regard to the alleged prohibitive cost of, and length of time for exhausting domestic remedies, the State party refers to the Committee's decisions in q.R.C. v. qosta Rica (communication No. 296/1988) d/ and S.H.B. v. Canada (communication Ho. 192/1985) e_/ where, in similar circumstances, the communications were declared inadmissible. 4.4 Moreover, the State party points out that the judicial remedies remain available to the authors: thus, it remains open to them to apply to the Federal Court, Trial Division, for a declaration that "aboriginal rights" include control over the Band's own membership. The State party notes that the recent judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Rt v. Sparrow clarifies both meaning and scope of the "aboriginal rights" referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; in this case, it was held that the Government must meet exacting standards before implementating actions that impinge upon the enjoyment of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The State party submits that this judgement underlines the importance of first allowing local courts to address national issues. 4.5 Further, it is open to the authors to file an action in the same court, based on breach(es) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Among the rights guaranteed in the Charter are the right to freedom of association (sect. 2 (&)), the right ftot to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (sect. 7 ) , and the right to equality "before and under the law and ... the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" (sect. 15). These rights are guaranteed to individuals in relation to federal and provincial government (sect. 32). Anyone whose charter rights have been infringed may apply to a competent court jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just within the circumstances (sect. 24). -362-