Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights 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 Article 5> paragraph 2 <a), of the Optional Protocol precludes the Committee from considering a communication if the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee has ascertained that the case is not under examination elsewhere. The consideration of the same matter in 1987 by the European Commission of Human Rights does not preclude the Committee's competence. 5.3 The Committee notes that the author's claim concerning the sale of the conjugal residence relates primarily to an alleged violation of her right to property. The right to property, however, is not protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, the author's allegations in respect of this issue are inadmissible ratione materiae, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 5.4 As to the author's claims to have been a victim of unfair proceedings and judicial bias, the Committee notes that they relate in essence to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the Ketherlands courts. The Committee recalls its established jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in any particular case. It is not, in principle, for the Committee to review the facts and the evidence presented to, and evaluated by, domestic courts, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings were manifestly artibrary, that there were procedural irregularities amount to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality. After careful consideration of the material placed before it, the Committee cannot find such defects. Accordingly, this part of the Communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 With regard to the claims of a violation of articles 17, 18, 19, 23 and 27, the Committee notes that the author has failed to substantiate her allegations, for purposes of admissibility. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] -377-