in relation thereto entitles an author to a fair and public hearing. It is in principle for States parties to regulate or approve the activities of professional bodies, which may encompass the provision for insurance schemes. In the instant case, the fact that the practise of law is governed by the Legal Profession Practice Act of 1958 and that the rules providing for a practising fee and a professional indemnity insurance will have no effect unless approved by the Chief Justice does not lead in itself to the conclusion that the court, as an institution, is not an independent and impartial tribunal. Furthermore, the entitlement of the court, under Australian law, to commit the author for contempt of court for failing to respect an injunction not to practise law without having paying practising fee and the insurance premium, is a matter of domestic law and beyond the Committee's competence to investigate. 4.4 Accordingly, the communication is inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, within the meaning of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the author and, for information, to the State party. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] -443-