5.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 26, the Committee observes that although the author has claimed that effective remedies are lacking, it is clear from his submissions that he has »ot pursued any judicial or administrative remedies in this respect. His submissions to the competent authorities and his correspondence with the Rectorate of the Academy of Nantes and Rennes cannot be deemed as exhaustion of available administrative and judicial remedies. The Committee reiterates that article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, by referring to "all available domestic remedies", clearly refers in the first place to judicial remedies, b/ The author has not shown that he could not have resorted to the administrative and judicial procedures which the State party has plausibly submitted were available to him, or that their pursuit could be deemed to be, a priori, futile. In fact, it appears from the author's submissions that he does not envisage availing himself of these remedies. The Committee finds that his doubts about the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve him from exhausting them, and concludes that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), have not been met. 5.5 The author has also invoked article 2 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that article 2 is a general undertaking by States parties and cannot be invoked, in isolation, by individuals under the Optional Frotocol. c/ As the author's claims relating to articles 19 and 26 are inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, it follows that R.L.M, cannot invoke a violation of article 2 of the Covenant. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the author of the communication. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] Notes Official Records of the General Assembly. Forty-fifth Session. Supplement Ho. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, annex X, sect. A, communication Ho. 220/1987 fT.K. v. France), decision of 8 November 1990, para. 8.6 and appendices I and II. b/ See ibid., Forty-fourth Session, Supplement Ho. 40 (A/44/40), annex XI, sect. D, communication No. 262/1987 (R.T. v. France), decision of 30 March 1989, para. 7.4. £/ See ibid.. Forty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40), vol. II, annex X, sect. I, communication Ho. 268/1987 (M.G.B. and S.P. v. Trinidad and Tobago), decision of 3 November 1989, para. 6.2. -371-