CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002 Page 7 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 4.1 On 12 November 2002, 26 May 2003 and 30 July 2003, the State party was requested to submit to the Committee information on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has still not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that States parties examine in good faith all the allegations brought against them, and that they make available to the Committee all information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. 3 4.2 The Committee has noted that several years passed between the occurrence of the events at the basis of the author’s communication, his attempts to avail himself of domestic remedies, and the time of submission of his case to the Committee. While such substantial delays might, in different circumstances, be characterized as an abuse of the right of submission within the meaning of article 3 of the Optional Protocol, unless a convincing explanation on justification of this delay has been adduced 4 , the Committee also is mindful of the State party’s failure to cooperate with it and to present to it its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. In the circumstances, the Committee does not consider it necessary further to address this issue. 4.3 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.4 Insofar as the author claims that his and his people’s right to self-determination has been violated by the State party’s failure to implement the 1961 plebiscite, Restoration Law 84/01, the 1992 judgment of the High Court of Bamenda, or by its “subjugation” of the Ambazonians, the Committee recalls that it does not have competence under the Optional Protocol to consider claims alleging a violation of the right to self determination protected in article 1 of the Covenant. 5 The Optional Protocol provides a procedure under which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated. These rights are set out in part III (articles 6 to 27) of the Covenant. 6 It follows that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 3 See Communication No. 912/2000, Deolall v. Guyana,, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, para. 4.1. 4 See Communication No. 788/ 1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3. 5 See Communication No. 932/2000, Gillot v. France, Views adopted on 15 July 2002, at para. 13.4. 6 See Communication No. 167/1984, Bernard Ominayak et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 26 March 1990, at para. 32.1.