<a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol in so far as it concerns the right of self-determination and unaer article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol in. so far as it concerns the authors' other allegations; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party, to the authors and to their counsel. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] a/ Communication Ho. 24/1977; see Selected Decisions of the Human Bights Committee, vol. I, pp. 83 et seq. See also the statement by the Government of Canada concerning the implementation of the views in the case of Lovelace, in ibid.. Selected Decisions, vol. II, pp. 224 et seq. by Declared inadmissible at the Committee's thirty-fifth session. Selected Decisions, vol. II. £/ Declared inadmissible at the Committee's fifteenth session. Selected Decisions, vol. I. See See d/ Declared inadmissible at the Committee's thirty-fifth session. Selected Decisions, vol. II. See e/ See ibid.. Forty-second Session, Supplement Mo. 40 (A/42/40), annex IX, sect A, f/ Weinberger Weisz v. Uruguay (communication Ho. 28/1978, in Selected Decisions of the Human Sights Committee. United Nations publication (Sales No. E.89.XIV.1.), vol. I, pp. 57 et seq. g/ See Official Records of the General Assembly. Forty-fifth Session. Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, annex IX, sect. A, communication Ho. 167/1984, views adopted on 26 March 1990, para. 32.1; and ibid.. Forty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/46/40), annex XII, sect. 0, communication No. 413/1990, decision of 2 November 1990, para. 3.2. h/ See ibid., Fortv-third session. Supplement No. 40 (A/43/40), annex VIII, sect. C, communication No. 224/1987, decision adopted on 11 July 3.988, para. 6.2. -366-