5.1 In response to the State party's submission/ the authors assert that, since the complaint arises directly from the State party's efforts to implement a previous decision of the Committee involving the same State, the same category of persons and the same basic principles, it constitutes a case of "continuing jurisdiction". They invoke the principles of natural justice, that the author of a communication may return to the Committee for a clarification and reaffirmation of its views without first having to relitigate the matter before domestic tribunals. The authors believe that not only the author of a communication could seek further action following the transmittal of the Committee's views, but also other individuals, similarly placed and similarly affected, should be entitled to address the Committee for clarifications of the application of its views to them. 5.2 The authors argue that the Committee's views were not properly implemented, as Bill C-31 merely replaced gender restrictions by racial ones and that it would be unreasonably formalistic to require prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in these circumstances. 5.3 In respect of the availability of domestic remedies, the authors reiterate their view that litigation would not afford them an "effective and available" remedy and that the cost and time required for judicial resolution would not be reasonable under the circumstances. They also claim irreparable harm as pendente lite there would be no protection for children not registered as Indians or as members of the Sand, Finally, the authors reiterate that a constitutional challenge could take at least four and one half years, a period the Committee deemed unreasonably prolonged within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol on previous occasions. V 5.4 The authors further contend that they have been offered neither financial nor legal assistance. Funding remains entirely at the discretion of the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and none of the Government's comments suggest that legal assistance would be forthcoming if the current complaint were to be dismissed. 5.5 In respect of revising and resubmitting their Band bylaws to the competent Minister, the authors underline that bylaws cannot override the provisions of Bill C-31, including the racial standards they have challenged. The Minister cannot approve bylaws which conflict with statutory norms. 5.6 In another submission, dated 3 October 1990, the authors explain that they have not applied for financial assistance from the Department of Justice, since they were advised that there is little hope of success and that this assistance is ordinarily available only for appeals, rather than for the preparation for trial and initial complaints. In addition, the authors have ascertained that in other domestic litigation concerning rights of indigenous peoples, no judicial decisions have been handed down. In particular the Xwinn case is not expected to go to trial before 1991. 5.7 Authors' counsel indicates that there are presently six adults in the Whispering Pines Band with so-called "6(2)" status under Bill C-31 - i.e. adults who, if marrying a non-status Indian, cannot pass on Indian status to their children. Hone of these children can be registered under Bill C-31. The consequences for the others depend on whom they will marry; in view of the small size of the Band, counsel notes that it is unlikely that they will marry -364-