Complaint 3.1 The author claims that, by reason of his ethnic origins - he is from the Province of Kasai - and his participation in the opposition movement to President Mobutu Sese Seko, he is the victim of discriminatory measures and persecution on the part of the Zairian authorities. He further alleges that his private correspondence, as well as his personal contacts, have been systematically interfered with. Moreover, the author asserts that the Dean of Lubumbashi University requested, by letter of 6 June 1990 to the President, that he and his fellow students belonging to the opposition be expelled from the university. In this connection, he states that he and like-minded students had prepared reports on the events of 11 May 1990 intending to submit tbem to the United Nations Commission on Human Eights', Amnesty International and the European Commission of Human Eights. Allegedly, these reports were seized by the Zairian security forces, 3.2 The author claims that, after his arrival in Switzerland, he has been subjected to threats and intimidations twice, apparently at the hand of members of the Zairian secret police. He has therefore requested the Swiss authorities that measures be taken to protect him, 3.3 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that, on 7 March 1991, he wrote to the Ministry for Citizens' Rights and Freedoms - a governmental institution which has the responsibility to investigate alleged human rights violations in Zaire - to complain about the events which took place at Lubumbashi University campus on 11 May 1990, and the systematic violations of human rights perpetrated by the Zairian authorities. So far, no follow-up has been given to his complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 4.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.2 With regard to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee observes that the author, by letter of 7 March 1991, filed a complaint to the Zairian Ministry for Citizens' Sights and Freedoms, and that he has not as yet received any reply. It is, however, a well established principle that a complainant must display reasonable diligence in the pursuit of available domestic remedies. In the instant case, the author has not shown the existence of circumstances which would prevent him from futher pursuing the application of domestic remedies in the case. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met, 5, The Human Eights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision may be reviewed pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 2, of the Committee's rules of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or -433-