Superior Court of the District of Montreal, this step would be inappropriate since (a) he cannot afford the legal fees involved and (b) the Superior Court allegedly does not deal with disputes concerning the Regie du Logement. Complaint 3, J.J.C. contends that he was denied equality before the law and a fair trial before the provincial court of Montreal, in violation of article 14. The judge allegedly displayed a hostile attitude towards him and "clearly favoured" the other party. In particular, he submits that the judge did not comply with the requirements of the "Code de deontolocrie des Juaes" and, accordingly, with his professional obligations, in that! (a) he refused the author's request to have the witnesses leave the courtroom; (b) he denied the author the possibility to cross-examine witnesses; and (c) he denied him the right to plead his case at the very end of the hearing. State party's information and observations 4. The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it has not been sufficiently substantiated and/or that it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The State party bases itself on the imprecise manner in which the author's submissions have been formulated &nd documented, the factual circumstances advanced in support of his claim, and the author's express acknowledgement that available domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Sights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has noted that the author generally complains that the Canadian judiciary is not subject to any supervision and, more particularly, that he charges bias and misconduct on the part of the judge of the provincial court of Montreal and the Committee of Enquiry of the Consei.1 de la Macristrature. These allegations are of a sweeping nature and have not been substantiated in such a way as to show how the author qualifies as a victim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol. This situation justifies doubts about the seriousness of the author's submission and leads the Committee to conclude that it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, 6. The Human Eights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 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.] -373-