CCPR/C/95/D/1334/2004 Page 8 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’. 7 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. 8 The complaint 4.1 Mr. Mavlonov claims that the refusal of the Press Department of the Samarkand region to re-register the Oina newspaper (of which he was the editor) amounts to a violation by the State party of his right to freedom of expression (in particular his right to impart information in print), as protected by article 19 of the Covenant. He also claims that he was prevented from enjoying his own culture, in community with other members of the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan, in violation of his rights under article 27 of the Covenant. He finally claims to be a victim of violation of article 2, in conjunction with the articles 19 and 27 in that the State party failed to take measures to “respect and ensure” the rights recognised in the Covenant. 4.2 Mr. Sa’di claims that the refusal of the Press Department of the Samarkand region to reregister the Oina newspaper (that he was buying and reading on a regular basis) amounts to a violation by the State party of his right to freedom of expression (in particular his right to receive information and ideas in print), as protected by article 19 of the Covenant. He further claims to be a victim of a violation of his rights under article 27, as he was prevented from enjoying his own culture, in community with other members of the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan. He finally claims to be a victim of violation of article 2, in conjunction with the articles 19 and 27 in that the State party failed to take measures to “respect and ensure” the rights recognised in the Covenant. 4.3 Both authors also claim that the State party’s registration regime for print media is per se in violation of article 19, paragraph 3, and as such constitutes a restriction of the freedom of expression. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 10 December 2004, 27 March 2006, and 2 June 2006, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 30 August 2006, the State party recalled the facts of the case and added that article 13 of the Law “On Mass Media”, on the basis of which “Oina’s” license to publish was cancelled by the Press Department on 28 March 2001, stipulated that the application for mass media registration should indicate its (1) founder(s); (2) title and working language(s) and legal address; (3) aims and tasks; (4) targeted readership (audience); and (5) planned periodicity of publication or broadcast, number 7 See, for example, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Communications Nos. 210/1986 and 225/1987, Views adopted on 6 April 1989, paragraph 12.3. 8 See, for example, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Communication No. 84/1981, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para.9.4.