anyone with status under Bill C-31. Thus, the children of P.E. and V.E. will be ineligible to become Band members since P.E. and V.E. married non-Indians; counsel adds that it is unlikely that any of the future children of other registered Band members will be eligible. This situation, it is submitted, does not involve hypothetical and future violations of the Covenant: some of the Band's children will grow up in the knowledge that they can protect their cultural heritage only if they marry an Indian registered under Bill C-31. The Bill is thus said to constitute an infringement on the right to marry even in circumstances -where no individualized child has as of yet been disenfranchised. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Eights 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, 6.2 With respect to the authors' claim of a violation of article 1 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, it may receive and consider communications only if they emanate from individuals who claim that their individual rights have been violated by a State party to the Optional Protocol. While all people have the right to self-determination and the right freely to determine their political status, pursue their economic, social and cultural development (and may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources) the Committee has already decided that no claim for selfdetermination may be brought under the Optional Protocol. 3/ Thus, this aspect of the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee has noted the authors' arguments that they have unsuccessfully endeavoured to challenge Bill C-31 by attempting to assume control of Band membership. It observes, however, that the authors themselves concede that the Supreme Court of Canada could rule Bill C-31 to have no effect where it conflicts with the authors' "aboriginal rights", i.e. the desired control of Band membership. 6.4 The Committee further observes that other Indian bands have instituted proceedings before the Federal Courts, the outcome of which is pending, notably in the case of Twinn v. B.. and that the alleged high cost of litigation can, undetf specific circumstances, be offset by funding provided pursuant to a number of programmes instituted by the State party. As to the authors' concern about the potential length of proceedings, the Committee reiterates its constant jurisprudence that fears about the length of proceedings do not absolve authors from the requirement of at least making a reasonable effort to exhaust domestic remedies (A. and S.H. v. Norway). h/ In this light, the Committee finds that available domestic remedies that may indeed prove to be effective remain to be exhausted. 7. The Human Eights Committee therefore decides: -365-