D, Individual opinions 619. In its -work vmcler the Optional Protocol/ the Committee strives to reach its decisions by consensus, without resorting to voting. However, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure, members can add their individual concurring or dissenting opinions to the Committee's views. Pursuant to rule 92, paragraph 3, members can append their individual opinions to the Committee's decisions declaring communications inadmissible. 620, During the sessions covered by the present report, individual opinions were appended to the Committee's views in cases Nos. 240/1987 (Willard Collins v. Jamaica), 270/1988 and 271/1988 (Randolph Barrett and Clyde Sutcliffe v. Jamaica), 277/1988 (Juan Teran Jijon v. Ecuador), 349/1989 (Clifton Wright v. Jamaica), 395/1990 (M. Th. Sprenger v. the Netherlands), 410/1990 (Csaba Parkanyi v. Hungary) and 415/1990 (Dietmar Pauger v. Austria) and to the Committee's inadmissibility decisions in cases Nos. 347/1988 (S.G. v. France), 348/1989 (G.B. v. France) and 397/1990 (P.S. v. Denmark). An individual opinion was also appended to one decision declaring a communication admissible. E. Issues considered by the Committee 621. For a review of the Committee's work under the Optional Protocol from its second session in 1977 to its forty-second session in 1990, the reader is referred to the Committee's annual reports for 1984 to 1991, which, inter alia, contain a summary of the procedural and substantive issues considered by the Committee and of the decisions taken. The full texts of the views adopted by the Committee and of its decisions declaring communications inadmissible under the Optional Protocol have been reproduced regularly in annexes to the Committee's annual reports. 622. The following summary reflects further developments of issues considered during the period covered by the present report. 1. (a) Procedural issues Author's standing fart. 1 of the Optional Protocol^ 623. Under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, individuals who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant may submit a communication to the Committee. In case No. 397/1990 (P.S. v. Denmark), the Committee had to consider whether the author, the divorced father of an eight-year-old boy whose custody had been given to the mother, had standing to present a claim under the Optional Protocol not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his son. While declaring the communication inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee nevertheless observed that: "... standing under the Optional Protocol may be determined independently of national regulations and legislation governing an individual's standing before a domestic court of law. In the present case, it is clear that T.S. cannot himself submit a complaint to the Committee; the -148-