CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 page 7 4.4 The State party also considers the authors’ complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the events in question occurred prior to Burkina Faso’s accession to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol, namely, 15 years ago. Furthermore, the State party is of the view that the authors cannot claim a denial of justice in connection with these events, given that there has been no such denial. 4.5 In the State party’s opinion, the condition that domestic remedies must have been exhausted has not been met. 4.6 The State party explains that, following the Supreme Court’s inadmissibility decision of 19 June 2001 on the grounds of non-payment of the bond, the authors refrained from making use of non-contentious remedies, and consequently cannot claim that the system for the protection of human rights in Burkina Faso is inadequate or that their constitutional right of access to the courts has been violated. The State party asserts, in this regard, that no appeals have been made to: − The Médiateur (ombudsman) of Faso (as the allegations were linked to the operation of the machinery of the State, the complainant could, under articles 11 and 14 of Act No. 22/94/ADP of 17 May 1994 instituting the office of ombudsman, have brought the case before him for the purposes of State mediation); − The Collège des sages (panel of elders): the complainant could, like victims of the events of 15 October 1987, have brought the case before this Collège, which was established on 1 June 1999; − The National Reconciliation Commission (having taken over from the Collège des sages, the Commission had competence to identify economic crimes and crimes of violence committed in Burkina Faso since it became independent in 1960, with a view to proposing recommendations conducive to national reconciliation); − The Compensation Fund for Victims of Political Violence (despite the fact that the death of Thomas Sankara was attributed to a situation of political violence, the complainant did not approach the Fund, unlike victims of the events of 15 October 1987). 4.7 Similarly, in the State party’s view, not all contentious remedies have been exhausted. In respect of complaints of denial of justice, a remedy is available for anyone who considers that he or she is a victim of such a violation under article 4 of the Civil Code,7 article 166 of the Penal Code8 and article 281 of order No. 91-51 of 26 August 1991 relating to the organization and functioning of the Supreme Court. However, Ms. Sankara has not made use of these remedies. As to the complaint relating to the President of the Supreme Court, in conformity with articles 648-658 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and articles 291 and 292 of order No. 91-51, any party to proceedings who harbours legitimate suspicions about a judge who will be called upon to rule on his or her interests may apply for disqualification of the judge. The author has not in fact used this remedy. Similarly, she has not made use of articles 283 and 284 of order No. 91-51 providing for penalties in the event of denial of justice.