CCPR/C/95/D/1334/2004 Page 9 of copies, as well as sources of funding and material and technical supplies. A change in any of the above data requires a re-registration. 5.2 The State party also refers to paragraph 5 of the 4th Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan “On Certain Issues of Conformity in the Consideration of Civil Cases in Court” of 7 January 1994, according to which a registration of mass media or refusal to do so, as well as claims related to the discontinuation of their activities, are within the competency of the courts of general jurisdiction (see paragraph 2.10 above). The State party concludes that the decisions of the domestic courts are substantiated and in accordance with the law. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 15 November 2006, the authors added that the delay in the submission of the State party’s observations, in contravention of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, has unreasonably continued the harm to their right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant: respectively, Mr. Mavlonov’s ability to publish “Oina”, and Mr. Sa’di’s right to receive information and ideas in print. They further submit that this delay also continued the harm to their right under article 27 to enjoy their own culture, read together with article 2, which requires the State party to take proactive measures to ‘respect and ensure’ the rights recognised in the Covenant. They state that one of the authors, Mr. Mavlonov, has had to flee Uzbekistan since the communication was submitted to the Committee. 6.2 The authors further submit that the State party failed to address any of the specific claims made in their initial submission. While the State party claimed that ‘the decisions of the domestic courts are substantiated and according to the law’, the authors argue that the substance of their communication before the Committee is not the compliance of the actions taken against them by the State party’s authorities in accordance with domestic law but rather the non compliance of the latter with the law of the Covenant. The State party has confused the notions of its domestic law with the autonomous notion of ‘law’ in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The restriction was not ‘provided by law’ as understood under article 19, paragraph 3, and was not ‘necessary’ for the protection of a legitimate aim. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It also notes that the State party did not contest that domestic remedies in the present communication have been exhausted with regard to any of the authors. 7.3 The Committee considers that the authors’ claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and declares them admissible.