Department in its decision. At another point, the court wrote that it 'also takes into consideration the financial situation of ["Simo"]'. 2.13 Before proceeding with further appeals, on 20 August 2002, Mr. Mavlonov submitted another application for "Oina's" re-registration to the Press Department with "Simo" as founder, which was rejected on 20 September 2002. A letter from the Press Department stated that the grounds for refusal were the poor financial situation of the paper, as well as the fact that no changes had been made to the aims and objectives contained in the newspaper's statutes. However, these had not hitherto been the subject of adverse comments, either from the Press Department or the courts. Earlier, they had only alleged that "Oina's" aims and objectives were not consistent with its statutes. 2.14 Mr. Mavlonov then appealed for supervisory review to the President of the Samarkand Regional Court, and the Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeals on 5 November 2002 and 2 May 2003, respectively; further attempts to seek review in the Supreme Court were dismissed, most recently on 23 September 2004. Mr. Mavlonov concluded that further requests to the Supreme Court would be futile, and that, therefore, all domestic remedies had been exhausted. THE CASE OF MR. SA'DI 3.1 The other author, Mr. Sa'di, a member of the country's Tajik ethnic minority and a regular "Oina" reader, does not presently have, nor has he ever had, any practical possibility of challenging the denial of "Oina's" re-registration application in the courts. He could not have joined with "Oina" in the original suit, because the civil court system denied jurisdiction of the case and sent it to the economic courts, where he, as a reader, had no standing to sue. By the time the case was sent back to the civil court system, eight months had passed. There had been no coverage of the litigation by the media, and so Mr. Sa'di had no way of knowing that a civil case was being initiated. Consequently, he had no reasonable opportunity to participate in the civil litigation at that point. Once he had missed the opportunity to participate at the trial level, he was barred from participating in any of the appellate proceedings. Nor could Mr. Sa'di have litigated the issues thereafter on his own behalf, having been unable to join "Oina" in the original suit, because of the combination of articles 60 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, whose effect was to make the decision of the courts regarding the issue of "Oina's" re-registration final as to Mr. Sa'di. The only other hypothetical possibility for him would have been to seek a finding that the registration regime itself was unconstitutional. However, only the Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to decide regarding the constitutionality of laws; and Mr. Sa'di, as an ordinary citizen, has no standing before this court. 3.2 Mr. Sa'di submits that it would have been perfectly futile for him to have attempted to initiate proceedings in the local courts to vindicate his rights under articles 19 and 27 of the Covenant. As the Committee has explained, it is a 'well established principle of international law and of the Committee's jurisprudence' that one is not required to 'resort to appeals that objectively have no prospect of success'.[FN7] Moreover, it does not matter whether the unavailability of a remedy is de jure or de facto; in either case, a victim is excused from the futile exercise of pursuing it. [FN8] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN7] See, for example, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Communications Nos. 210/1986 and 225/1987, Views adopted on 6 April 1989, paragraph 12.3. [FN8] See, for example, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Communication No. 84/1981, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para.9.4. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------THE COMPLAINT 4.1 Mr. Mavlonov claims that the refusal of the Press Department of the Samarkand region to reregister the Oina newspaper (of which he was the editor) amounts to a violation by the State party of