WPCy  `4G-) PP},sȭn KPF┃ѧ5Fw$P'HΧYO{Jc 0wA?<ޖڃ,&>{)1eȪJm  u:.SKgⷆu!exܸ؛oR9<xgN{#@'A9A2{rm8SKOz5ꅔiC.ŞE|EtHS5nU?z% nJ7=0Kdc`1 fMflޕ';sfCuyJM{|R6sD ⒢evQُ;x^؀cWswC KcXt47bUO+5` .9_;Fx3>[]8&);E 댝gњ$rMQGt{mxR'5" /Zm68 0 0 0v 0v 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0) 0< 0N. 0a| 0 0 0f! 0" 0" 0# 0p$ 0T% 0&U60& %&& 0z) 0T*  + 0=+ 0F[+ 0P+ 1+ 0, 12- 07.. 03E4 04 0H5 06 0&6 0&6 0& 7 0&07 0&V7 0&|7 0&7 0&7 0&7 0(8 0(<8 0d8 B9 D3:F: 0 ; 0C; A M1< B'~< 0<U}:1@ 1 ok@@ 0 wB 0YCF 0HH 0JJ 0LM^NTP 0ZnQ^S&U 0UYXZ^Z[ 0:\Y _b`M` 0IGb 0Ibbfco>Y}c@U0ټo>Y @Geb 0Cr]iR?3! 0UQ!y;#%>&f'a)*+V,M.oK0C234e5 6O#71r9:;{<7==a??AYB= DGE-1F^G>wHOJLLAMO/PvS`TUWV&XZt[(\1]0^`bwcBd JfjgSfh'ijqlFoY qdrFsEVtuz xPyUzG?|G}E~c<uOUe}{Y ،{u g&/Jؒ"lܕH@e-xT̟O`}2L:W\Cn?Ȯ.iX bWHݸ%YwSb?Z9']/\ mL_M0 <yyA34!4ytIH7|DJ6WN'SsmL]5'$"   p ?4&rZnD?U 0Q 1nZ 0s 1mwH 4L `  mb V1 P8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..`   V$8Document[4]Document Style.. .   V ]8Document[6]Document Style8..  V 8Document[5]Document Style0..  V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   V1 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..`   z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. lE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. ) `CG Times'   59909838e 2 0mt (F):.A/52/40 (Vol.II) (Suppl)(FINAL 360 pages  R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style( "   ( !($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( $ ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?t2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper &  '(USUS.,'F` X'    Xr[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^rXX?>('*dE*??>('*dE*?\\1\\2\\3\\4\\5\\6\\7\\8\\910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'   PM0HeadingChapter Heading@..    2I.3  Ԁ   Ԉ tZ 4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..   2I.3  Ԁ  0..LH6SubheadingSubheading   2A.3  ..    &$1&$2&$3&$4&$5&$6&$7&$8&$9(&10(&11j(.BorderPlaces border around the page X  X X  X G=8($Z L`".@@@G       Q=>>>>:*&Z Lp!(- @@Q       K Kd8888'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'   ($     :;<9A<< c d<0ukstyleFormat standard with headers and footers definitionUKUS.,  TRX3'3'3' Letter3'TX  +88@}q fX fXC A $#3C--B$882 X$<6X9`("Courier NewTT$57=EMS[ci121.(a)(i)a.(1)(a)i)a)  C)USUS.,'F` X'   @}q88r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r@VV2  1  ڄ(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'   (4landscapecodes for tables in landscape with headers/footers   TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'T  +EIL(  F*USUS.,'F` X'    X(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r=G>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'     H"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r/...(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'     J'USUS.,'F` X'    X(r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r=K>>>>QA=z|P.p p  @@EP.pP-Hz(2$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'     H"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r T '(   X(o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=M>>>>QA=z|P.$# p  @@EP.  -8   H"USUS.,'F` X'   r[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AF^r4landsuppllandscape with bottom centered pagination  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'TXH(XO T J'   X(Xo[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=P>>>>QA=z|\ p  @@E\z@ H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ(@J0landtoplandscape with header including top center pagination  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'T  +RT$ O C)   X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=S>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... T J'   X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=U>>>>QA=z| 0\ p  @@E 0\~^D/\@ H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo@H  1  ڄ@HHHh@2landbondlandscape with bond header  TRO'33''3 Letter Landscape3'TWY$ O C)   X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo=X>>>>L<8z \ X p  @@EX8z H"  o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo/... C J'   X$o[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo~=>>>>B2.Z|P. @@EP.P-HD~4 2Quick A..0..4 2Quick I..0.. <>N9909838E<><>A/52/40(Suppl)<><><>\WPC  9513 ,, XF}G"?!   ?  ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? >? ?0 0 0  ??? ?        ?  ? ?   ? ??      ?8 ? ~   ??? ? ??? ? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ?? ??? ?0? x??????~??<???????????? ? ???8x???? ??????x  ?x ?   ?@ #? # #??>???????????? ?????`?`?  ?~??????????????????B8<BpC???C???C??B?B?`B??B??B???B??B???C???B???C??C??C*?C?G?C?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? p?>? <~p??>>x??>?8??<>8??<~??8?8???? ??? ?? ?? > <?   |? ??  x? ?? p?? ??? ?? `?? ?????????????????        ?   ?   ?   ? ?   ?       ?   ? p?#@x?#/?#??>?>?~?????????@ ????? ????????????????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??   ? ?  ? ?? 8? >???   ? ?  ? `?  `?  p?  p? 0? p?? x? p? ? 0?.??? 0? 0?? 0x  x ? x ?8 ?8 ?<  <   '  -  -?  -?=  ?0?  ?0?? -?`x?? #p? #` ? ? -?-?!? !?? ?! ??? ??  ?    ?~? ?~????? 0? ?  ? ?? >?? <? 8? ? ? ?@ `   ?x   ~  8  ? ??????????????? ?? ? ???? p?? ??`?< >? ?0~ 0?  ? ? ??? ???????????????? ?  ?? ?????`??? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ???? ?   ??   ?   ?  ?  ? ?   ??  ? ?   ~        ? ??  >   ?   ??       8  `  ?? ???   ?  ?    ?p    ?   ?     ?  ?   ?   ??    ?   ?? ?   ?    8 ?  _   ?               ?  ? @  ? ?  8 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (G^UNLOGO1.WPG* `CG TimesWPC  9513 ,, XF}G"?!   ?  ? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? >? ?0 0 0  ??? ?        ?  ? ?   ? ??      ?8 ? ~   ??? ? ??? ? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ? ? ?? ??? ?0? x??????~??<???????????? ? ???8x???? ??????x  ?x ?   ?@ #? # #??>???????????? ?????`?`?  ?~??????????????????B8<BpC???C???C??B?B?`B??B??B???B??B???C???B???C??C??C*?C?G?C?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? p?>? <~p??>>x??>?8??<>8??<~??8?8???? ??? ?? ?? > <?   |? ??  x? ?? p?? ??? ?? `?? ?????????????????        ?   ?   ?   ? ?   ?       ?   ? p?#@x?#/?#??>?>?~?????????@ ????? ????????????????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??   ? ?  ? ?? 8? >???   ? ?  ? `?  `?  p?  p? 0? p?? x? p? ? 0?.??? 0? 0?? 0x  x ? x ?8 ?8 ?<  <   '  -  -?  -?=  ?0?  ?0?? -?`x?? #p? #` ? ? -?-?!? !?? ?! ??? ??  ?    ?~? ?~????? 0? ?  ? ?? >?? <? 8? ? ? ?@ `   ?x   ~  8  ? ??????????????? ?? ? ???? p?? ??`?< >? ?0~ 0?  ? ? ??? ???????????????? ?  ?? ?????`??? ?? ? ? ?? ?? ???? ?   ??   ?   ?  ?  ? ?   ??  ? ?   ~        ? ??  >   ?   ??       8  `  ?? ???   ?  ?    ?p    ?   ?     ?  ?   ?   ??    ?   ?? ?   ?    8 ?  _   ?               ?  ? @  ? ?  8 ~  ?  ?  ?    ?   ? ?  ??  ?   ?       ???? ?       ?? ? ?       ?? (GaUNLOGO1.WPG C)  @ 8  8 Rl@..$    ڄ- - C)  @ 8  8 )8 8 P")  @ .$    ڄ($     h 1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. S 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    Pursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberJulioPradoVallejodidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication.  1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    On12October1996,counselsubmittedamedicalreport,dated9June1990,whichhadbeentakendownbeforethejudgeoftheFirstCriminalCourtofPichincha(JuezPrimerodeloPenaldePichincha).  1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden. 5 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    ThetextoftwoindividualopinionsbyCommitteemembersNisukeAndoandEckartKleinisappendedtothepresentdocument. m$  882 H  ViewsinCommunicationNo.451/1991,Harwardv.Norway,adoptedon15July1994,paras.9.4and9.5.("2NO$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'   +@}q88Ҁ  0   o 1!  @ 8  8 882 H    2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$  882 H  CarltonRiedv.Jamaica,Viewsadoptedon20July1990. 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  + UK Ԁ    SeeCCPR/C/21/Rev.1,page7,paragraph7. \ 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  +򀀀    ڀ+ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. W m$  882 H  SeeViewsonCommunicationNo.373/1989(LennonStephensv.Jamaica),adoptedon18October1995,paragraph9.4.SeealsoViewsonCommunicationNo.270/1988andCommunicationNo.271/1988,BarretandSutcliffev.Jamaica,adoptedon30March1992,paragraph8.4. m$  882 H  CommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon22March1996,paras.8.2to8.5. m$  882 H  Duringtheperiodtheauthorremainedondeathrow(19841992)untiltheOffencesagainstPersons(Amendment)Act,wasenacted,theStatepartyobservedvariousmoratoriumsonexecutions. L 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  ++򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. C 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  ++Ӏ    TheStateparty,initssubmission,observesthattheauthorwassentencedon25March1994formanslaughter,andthattheotherchargesweredropped. e 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. 9 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  2 .2+    Twoindividualopinions(dissenting)byCommitteemembersNisukeAndoandDavidKretzmerareappendedtothepresentdocument. C)  @ 8  8 882 H  @ .$    ڄ  1!  @ 8  8 882 H  +򀀀    ڀThetextoffiveindividualopinions,signedbyeightCommitteemembers,isappendedtothepresentdocument. [ m$  882 H  Emphasismine(see9.1). m$  882 H  Seealsostatementsinparagraph4.2attributabletotheStateparty,includingthefollowing:"...furthermore,hewouldnotbebarredonceandforallfromreadmissiontoCanada". E 1!  @ 8  8 882 H  +  򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. ' 1!  @ 8  8  8,  +  򀀀    ڀPursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.ChristineChanetdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  1!  @ 8  8  8,  +  򀀀    ڀThetextsoftwoindividualopinionssignedbynineCommitteemembersareappendedtothepresentdocument. m$   8,  ReferenceismadetotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceinthisrespect,especiallytotheinadmissibilitydecisionincommunicationNo.187/1985(J.H.v.Canada),adopted12April1985. q m$   8,  Articles22517and22518oftheFrenchCriminalCode. u m$   8,  TheStatepartyprovidescopiesofthetextsoftheselaws.  m$   8,  "...lesbiens,lessitesetlesmonumentsnaturelsclasssetlesparcellesdeceuxcinepeuventtredtruitsetdplacsnitrel'objetd'untravailderestoration...sansl'autorisationduchefdeterritoiresuivantlesconditionsqu'ilaurafixes..."(thisprovisionissimilartoarticle12oftheLawof2May1930applyinginmetropolitanFrance). C)  @ 8  8  8,  @ .$    ڄ  1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀPursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,CommitteemembersChristineChanetandThomasBuergenthaldidnotparticipateintheconsiderationofthecase.AstatementmadebyMr.Buergenthalisappendedtothepresentdocument.  1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThetextoffiveindividualopinions,signedbysevenCommitteemembers,isappendedtothepresentdocument. O 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +2 .2    CommunicationNo.8348/78andCommunicationNo.8406/78(GlimmerveenandHagenbeekv.TheNetherlands),declaredinadmissibleon11October1979. 3 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +2 .2    CommunicationNo.104/1981(J.R.T.andtheW.G.Partyv.Canada),declaredinadmissibleon6April1983,para.8(b). 1!  @ 8  8 882H  2 .2    No.84181D.C.of10and11October1984,Rec.p.78. # 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +2 .2    CommunicationNo.9235/81(X.v.FederalRepublicofGermany),declaredinadmissibleon16July1982.  1!  @ 8  8 882H  +2 .2    Cf.SeventeenthCriminalChamber,TribunalCorrectionneldeParis,18April1991. 4 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. E 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteemembersElizabethEvattandCeciliaMedinaQuiroga,cosignedbyChristineChanet,isappendedtothepresentdocument. m$  882H  AccordingtotheStateparty,10,349oftheformerSecurityPoliceofficerswhoappliedforverificationwerepositivelyassessed,while3,595receivedanegativeassessment. m$  882H  E.andA.K.v.Hungary,declaredinadmissibleon7April1994. 7 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden.  1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThetextofthreeindividualopinionssignedbyfourCommitteemembersisappendedtothepresentdocument. % m$  882H  Inthiscontext,counselreferstotheCommittee'sdecisioninLovelacev.Canada,inwhichthefactthatthecomplainantwasnotrecognizedasanIndianunderCanadianlegislationdidnotpreventtheCommitteefromconsideringthecomplainanttobelongtotheminorityconcernedandtobenefitfromtheprotectionofarticle27oftheCovenant.CounselalsoreferstothejudgementoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsintheBeldjoudicase(55/1990/246,26March1992). l m$  882H  CounselreferstotheseparateopinionofJudgeDeMeyeroftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsintheBeldjoudicase,inwhichitwasstatedthattheremovaloftheapplicantfromhiscountryofresidenceandtheseveranceofthetieswithhiswifeandfamilywouldamounttoinhumantreatment. V m$  882H  See,interalia,theCommittee'sdecisionswithrespecttoCommunicationNo.61/1979(Hertzbergetal.v.Finland,Viewsadoptedon2April1982,para.9.3)andCommunicationNo.163/1984(C.etal.v.Italy,declaredinadmissibleon10April1984,para.6.2). m$  882H  CommunicationNo.538/19993(Stewartv.Canada),Viewsadoptedon1November1996,para.12.2to12.9. M 1!  @ 8  8 882H  +򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden.  1!  @ 8  8  882 H  +򀀀    ڀAnindividualopinion(concurring)byCommitteememberPrafullachandraN.Bhagwatiisappendedtothepresentdocument. 1!  @ 8  8  882 H  Ӏ    VanAlphenv.theNetherlands:Viewsadoptedon23July1990,para.5.8. j 1!  @ 8  8  882 H  +Ӏ    TangJiaXinv.MinisterforImmigrationandEthnicAffairsNo.1(1993),116ALR329;TangJiaXinv.MinisterforImmigrationandEthnicAffairsNo.2(1993),116ALR349.  1!  @ 8  8  882 H  +Ӏ    CommunicationNo.236/1987(V.M.R.B.v.Canada),inadmissibilitydecisionof18July1988,para.6.3. ' 1!  @ 8  8  882 H  +Ӏ    SeeViewsonCommunicationNo.305/1988(HugovanAlphenv.TheNetherlands),adoptedon23July1990,para.5.8. & 1!  @ 8  8  882 H  Ӏ    SeeX,Y,ZandWv.UnitedKingdom(CommunicationNo.3325/67);andAgeev.UnitedKingdom(CommunicationNo.7729/76).  1!  @ 8  8  882 H    2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. 1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2    (1967)2ALLER161. 1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2    (1982)2ALLER469.  1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2+    Itappears,however,fromthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeal,thatpriortotheidentificationparadetheauthorwasaskedwhetherhehadalawyerwhomhewouldhavewishedtobepresentattheparadeandthattheauthoransweredinthenegative.Ajusticeofthepeaceandtheauthor'sfatherwerepresentattheparade.  1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2+    However,itisclearthatthecrimehadoccurredintheearlymorninghoursof29May1985. 1!  @ 8  8 882   2 .2    SeetheCommittee'sGeneralComment13[21]of12April1984,para.8. I 1!  @ 8  8  882   +2 .2    Pursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication.  1!  @ 8  8  882   +2 .2    CommunicationNo.253/1987(Kellyv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon8April1991,para.5.10.  1!  @ 8  8  882   +2 .2    See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsinrespectofCommunicationNo.459/1991(OsbourneWrightandEricHarveyv.Jamaica),adoptedon27October1995,para.10.5,andCommunicationNo.461/1991(GeorgeGrahamandArthurMorrisonv.Jamaica),adoptedon25March1996,para.10.5. g 1!  @ 8  8  882   +2 .2    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden.  1!  @ 8  8  882   +2 .2    AnearliercommunicationbyMr.Reynolds,No.229/1987,allegedseveralirregularitiesduringthetrialagainsthim.TheCommitteeadopteditsViewswithregardtocommunicationNo.229/1987on8April1991,findingnoviolation(CCPR/C/41/D/229/1987). O 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    Mr.Johnson'scommunicationwasregisteredbeforetheCommitteeascommunicationNo.588/1994.ViewswereadoptedbytheCommitteeon22March1996. 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    Judgmentof12December1994.  1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    CommunicationNo.229/1987,ViewsadoptedbytheCommitteeon8April1991. ; 1!  @ 8  8 882^   2 .2    See,interalia,thejudgmentoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,dated2November1993(PrattandMorganv.Jamaica). { 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    SeetheCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.210/1986andCommunicationNo.225/1987(EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.Jamaica),adoptedon6April1989,para.12.6.Seealso,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.270/1988andCommunicationNo.271/1988(RandolphBarrettandClydeSutcliffev.Jamaica),adoptedon30March1992,andCommunicationNo.470/1991(Kindlerv.Canada),adoptedon30July1993. p 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    Intheirsubmissionsonthemerits,bothStatepartyandcounselrefertoanincidenton8July1988,whereastheallegationsmadebytheauthorrefertoanincidenton9July1988. F 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    Pursuanttorule85oftherulesofprocedure,CommitteememberLaurelFrancisdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecommunication. K 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    SeeCommittee'sViewsoncommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996,paras.8.2to8.5. = 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica;PCAppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993. = 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    SeeCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),adoptedon22March1996,paras.8.2to8.5. ; 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PraffullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Mrs.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mrs.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. Y 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    Inaccordancewithrule85oftherulesofprocedure,onememberoftheCommittee,Mrs.PilarGaitandePombo,didnottakepartintheadoptionoftheViews. 2 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    CommunicationNo.563/1993(NydiaBautistadeArellanav.Colombia),Viewsadoptedon27October1995,para.8.2. E 1!  @ 8  8 882   +2 .2    SeetheViewsadoptedinCommunicationNo.213/1986(H.C.M.A.v.theNetherlands),adopted30March1989,para.11.6;CommunicationNo.275/1988,(S.E.v.Argentina),adopted26March1990,para.5.5;CommunicationNos.343-345/1988(R.A.,V.N.etal.v.Argentina),adopted26March1990,para.5.5.-6X`(-Գ6X`( [ 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. 1!  @ 8  8  882H  +  Ӏ    InJune1995theauthors'deathsentencehadbeencommutedtolifeimprisonment.  m$   882H  Thereissomediscrepancyastowhentheidentificationparadetookplace.Theeyewitnessattrialandthedepositionoftheofficerwhoconductedtheparadebothstatedthattheparadetookplaceon2July1980(thedepositionwasallowedinasevidencebecausetheofficerwasoutofthecountryduringthetrial).Thearrestingofficers,ontheotherhand,testifiedthatittookplaceon22July1980. m$   882H  DelroyJohnsonisalsoreferredtoasDelroyJacksonandDelroyCampbellinvariouspartsoftheproceedings. m$   882H  EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica,P.C.AppealNo.10of1993,judgementdeliveredon2November1993. m$  882*# _  SeeCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica)adopted22March1996. q m$  882*# _  GeneralComment23[50],adoptedinApril1994. k m$  882*# _  GeneralCommentNo.23[50],paragraph7. m$  882*# _  ViewsoncaseNo.511/1992(I.Lnsmanetal.v.Finland),adopted26October1994. ] m$  882*# _  SeeNote3,paragraph9.8.  m$  882*# _  Cf.ViewsonCommunicationNo.197/1985(Kitokv.Sweden),Viewsadopted27July1988,para.9.2;onCommunicationNo.511/1992(I.Lnsmanetal.v.Finland),adopted26October1994,para.9.1. % 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  +2 .2    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. @ 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2+    Pursuanttorule85oftheCommitteesrulesofprocedure,Ms.ElizabethEvattdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase. 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    SeriesANo.161(1989). 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    FIDAN'scase[1987],RecueilDallozSirey305310. b 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    SeeViewsoncommunicationsNos.469/1991(Ch.Ngv.Canada),adoptedon5November1993,paragraph6.2;and470/1991(J.Kindlerv.Canada),Viewsadopted30July1993.  1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    CommunicationNo.539/1993(KeithCoxv.Canada),Viewsadopted31October1994,paragraph16.1. 6 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    CommunicationNo.204/1986(A.P.v.Italy),declaredinadmissibleduringthethirtyfirstsession(2November1987),paragraph7.3.  1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    Thatis,theequivalentofarticle14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights. # 1!  @ 8  8 882*# _  2 .2    SeedecisiononcaseNo.204/1986(A.P.v.Italy),declaredinadmissible2November1987,paragraphs7.3and8.  m$  882*# _  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$  882^   ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberMartinScheininisappendedtothepresentdocument. m$  882^   NevilleLewis'communicationtotheHumanRightsCommitteehasbeenregisteredasCommunicationNo.708/1996. n m$  882^   NottobeconfusedwithInspectorW.Grant. y m$  882^   NottobeconfusedwithSuperintendentReginaldGrant.  m$  882^   ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$  882^   EarlPrattandIvanMorganv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaicaandAnother,judgmentof2November1993. m$  882^   CatholicCommissionforJusticeandPeaceinZimbabwev.AttorneyGeneralforZimbabweetal.,SupremeCourtofZimbabwe,judgmentof24June1993. m$  882^   Thelatterargumentwasfiledinasupplementarysubmissionof25September1996.  m$  882^   Thisclaimsubmittedbyauthor'scounseldoesnottallywithoneoftheauthor'shandwrittenletterstotheCommittee,inwhichheconcedesthathislawyer,aQueen'sCounsel,representedhimwellontrial. s m$  882^   GeneralComment8[16]of27July1982,para.2. m$  882^   SeeViewsonCommunicationNo.373/1989(LennonStephensv.Jamaica),adopted18October1995,para.9.6. B 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden.  1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteememberNisukeAndoisappendedtothepresentdocument. m$  882^   SteveShaw'sandDesmondTaylor'sCommunicationstotheHumanRightsCommitteehavebeenregisteredasCommunicationsNos.704/1996and705/1996,respectively. R m$  882^   Thejudge,whensentencingtheauthor,stated:"Mr.Taylor,youhavebeenconvictedofnoncapitalmurder,butbecauseofthefactthatseveralmurderswerecommittedonthesameoccasion,itmeansthatyouaresentencedtosufferdeathinthemannerauthorizedbylaw". m$  882^   CommunicationNo.445/1991(LyndenChampagnie,DelroyPalmerandOswaldChisholmv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon18July1994. m$  882^   SeeCommunicationNo.336/1988(Filastrev.Bolivia),Viewsadopted5November1991,paragraph6.4,andGeneralCommentNo.8.  m$  882^   Thisallegationisnotcorroboratedbythetrialtranscript.  m$  882^   CommunicationNo.458/1991(AlbertWomahMukongv.Cameroon),Viewsadoptedon21July1994,paragraph9.3.Whereitwasheldthat,astotheconditionsofdetentioningeneral,theCommitteeobservesthatcertainminimumstandardsregardingtheconditionsofdetentionmustbeobservedregardlessofaStateparty'slevelofdevelopment(i.e.,theStandardMinimumRulesfortheTreatmentofPrisoners).ItshouldbenotedthattheseareminimumrequirementswhichtheCommitteeconsideredshouldalwaysbeobserved,evenifeconomicorbudgetaryconditionsmaymakecompliancewiththeseobligationsdifficult. m$  882^   SeeCommunicationNo.558/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon22March1996. m$  882^   SeeViewsonCommunicationNo.606/1994(ClementFrancisv.Jamaica),adopted25July1995,paragraph7.4. m$  882^   SeeCommunicationNo.377/1989(Curriev.Jamaica),Viewsadoptedon29March1994,paragraph13.4. _ 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. N 1!  @ 8  8 882^   +2 .2    ThetextsoffourindividualopinionsbyCommitteemembersNisukeAndo,LordColville,RajsoomerLallahandMartinScheininareappendedtothepresentdocument. m$  882^   Itappearsfromthetrialtranscriptthatatthetimeofthetrialagainsttheauthorthetwoco-accusedwereindetentiononchargesofbeingaccessoryafterthefact. | m$  882^   ItappearsthatBlainewasarrestedonlyon12July1994. > m$  882^   Thisseemstocontradictthestatementthattheauthorsawhiscounselhalfanhourbeforethebeginningofthetrial.Thetrialtranscriptfurthershowsthattheauthorgaveevidenceintheafternoonof11October1994,withhiscounselleadinghim. ~ m$  882^   Nosupportforthisclaimisfoundinthetrialtranscript. m$  882^   CommunicationNo.4/1977,ViewsadoptedbytheCommitteeatitstenthsession,on23July1980. C)  @ 8  8 882^   @ .$    ڄ  1!  @ 8  8 882     +Ӏ    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Ms.LaureMoghaizel,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden. 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    Ecclesv.Ireland[1985]I.R.545.  1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  +  Ӏ    Ecclese.a.v.Ireland,ApplicationNo.12839/87,decisionof9December1988. I 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#    2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,LordColville,Mr.OmranElShafei,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.DaniloTrk.  1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    TheStatepartyreferstothedecisionsoftheCommitteeinCommunicationsNos.268/1987(M.G.B.andS.P.v.TrinidadandTobago)and343,344and345/1988(R.A.V.N.etal.v.Argentina). 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    GeneralCommentNo.18,para.6.  1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    Committee'sViewsinCommunicationNo.172/1984(Broeksv.TheNetherlands),para.12.4.  1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    TheStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sdecisionsconcerningCommunicationsNos.343,344and345/1988(R.A.V.N.etal.v.Argentina),117/1984(M.A.v.Italy)and174/1984(J.K.v.Canada). / 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    Committee'sdecisionsconcerningCommunicationsNos.196/1985(Gueyev.France)andR.6/24(Lovelacev.Canada). 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    Committee'sViewsinCommunicationNo.167/1984(Ominayakv.Canada). S 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    AccordingtotheStateparty NZ2,9430s2dand 53112s0dwasreceivedanddistributedamong114respectively110exprisonerofwarservicepersonnel. R 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    Ofthemorethan80applicants,only24wereinfactselectedtoreceivecompensationandamountsrangingfrom$5,000to$13,000wereawardedtoeachofthese.  1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2     15eachto214persons,nottakingintoaccountindividualcircumstances. c 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2    See,interalia,theCommittee'sViewsconcerningCommunicationsNos.172/1984(Broeksv.TheNetherlands),para.13;180/1984(Danningv.TheNetherlands),para.13;182/1984(ZwaandeVriesv.TheNetherlands),para.13;415/1990(Paugerv.Austria),para.7.3;and425/1990(Neefsv.TheNetherlands),para.7.2.SeealsotheCommittee'sGeneralCommentNo.18(Non-discrimination),para.13. B 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2+    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.DaniloTrk. C 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  2 .2+    Mr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheadoptionofthedecision,pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure.  m$  #882  H#  Duetoachangeinthelaw,theauthorsappealwasinfacttreatedasanapplicationforjudicialreviewbytheFederalCourtTrialDivisionanddenied.Seefurtherparagraphs4.4and4.5. & 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  ++Ӏ    Undersection114(2)oftheImmigrationActarefugeeclaimantmayrequestahumanitarianandcompassionatereviewtoseewhetherextraordinarycircumstanceswarrantlanding.Thereviewincludesariskassessmentandthetestisoneofdisproportionatehardship.JudicialreviewofanegativedecisionmaybesoughtbeforetheFederalCourtTrialDivision,withleave. m$  #882  H#  CommunicationNo.58/1979,Viewsadoptedon9April1981. o m$  #882  H#  Declaredinadmissibleon18July1988. o 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  ++Ӏ    MembersareappointedbytheGovernorinCouncilfortermsofuptosevenyearsanddrawnfromallsegmentsofCanadiansociety.Theymayonlyberemovedonlimitedgroundsbyaninquiryprocedurepresidedoverbyajudge,supernumeraryjudgeorformerjudgeoftheFederalCourtofCanada.TheImmigrationandRefugeeBoardoperatesautonomouslyandhasitsownbudget.DecisionsoftheRefugeeDivisioncanbeoverturnedinacourtoflaw. ) 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  +򀀀    ڀThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.DaniloTrk. * 1!  @ 8  8 #882  H#  +򀀀    ڀMr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheadoptionofthedecision,pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure.  m$  #882  H#  Duetoachangeinlaw,theauthor'sappealwasinfacttreatedasanapplicationforjudicialreviewbytheFederalCourtTrialDivisionanddenied.Seefurtherparagraphs4.4and4.5.  m$  #882  H#  Undersection114(2)oftheImmigrationActarefugeeclaimantmayrequestahumanitarianandcompassionatereview,toseewhetherextraordinarycircumstanceswarrantlanding.Thereviewincludesariskassessmentandthetestisoneofdisproportionatehardship.JudicialreviewofanegativedecisionmaybesoughtbeforetheFederalCourtTrialDivision,withleave. o m$  #882  H#  Declaredinadmissibleon18July1988.  m$  #882  H#  MembersareappointedbytheGovernorinCouncilfortermsofuptosevenyearsanddrawnfromallsegmentsofCanadiansociety.Theymayonlyberemovedonlimitedgroundsbyaninquiryprocedurepresidedoverbyajudge,supernumeraryjudgeorformerjudgeoftheFederalCourtofCanada.TheImmigrationandRefugeeBoardoperatesautonomouslyandhasitsownbudget.DecisionoftheRefugeeDivisioncanbeoverturnedinacourtoflaw.  m$  #882  H#  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden.-6X`(-  m$  882   FromtheStateparty'ssubmissionitappearsthattheauthorwasconvictedandsentencedasecondtime,on27November1992,to7yearsofimprisonmentforindecentassaultonminors;athirdtime,on28January1994,to2years'imprisonmentfordrugrelatedoffencesandafourthtime,on8February1994,to4months'imprisonmentforperjury. UK  ? 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. - 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ThetextofanindividualopinionbyCommitteemembersCeciliaMedinaQuirogaandEckartKleinisappendedtothepresentdocument. r 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    SeeCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.516/1992(Simuneketal.v.CzechRepublic),adopted19July1995,andCommunicationNo.586/1994(Adamv.CzechRepublic),adopted23July1996. 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    TheauthorprovidesthetextofthedecisioninSlovakandanEnglishtranslation.  m$  882   ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.DaniloTrk. , 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    Mr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheadoptionofthedecision,pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure. M 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    Intheimmigrationcontext,theCourt'sstatedtestforgrantingleaveisthatanapplicantshow"afairlyarguablecase"or"aseriousquestiontobedetermined".  1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    TheStatepartyexplainsthatthisisabroaddiscretionaryreviewbyanimmigrationofficertodeterminewhetheraperson'sadmissiontoCanadashouldbefacilitatedforhumanitarianandcompassionatereasons.Awiderangeofcircumstancesmaybetakenintoaccount,includingriskofundulyharshtreatment,conditionsinthecountryconcernedandanynewdevelopments. } m$  882   CommunicationNo.469/1991,Viewsadopted5November1993. | m$  882   CommunicationNo.58/1979,Viewsadoptedon9April1981. i m$  882   Declaredinadmissibleon18July1988. c 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    MembersareappointedbytheGovernorinCouncilfortermsofuptosevenyearsanddrawnfromallsegmentsofCanadiansociety.Theymayonlyberemovedonlimitedgroundsbyaninquiryprocedurepresidedoverbyajudge,supernumeraryjudgeorformerjudgeoftheFederalCourtofCanada.TheImmigrationandRefugeeBoardoperatesautonomouslyandhasitsownbudget.DecisionsoftheRefugeeDivisioncanbeoverturnedinacourtoflaw.  1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    Inparticular,theStatepartyquotesfromtheFederalCourt'sdecisioninBaduv.MinisterofEmploymentandImmigration,15February1995,wherethejudgestated:02 .2"ItisanaberrationtosuggestthatMr.Sordzi,whoarrivedinCanadain1968andbecameaCanadiancitizenin1976,cannot,byreasonofancestralwarfareandconflict,carryoutproperly,objectivelyandjudiciallythedutiesandresponsibilitieswhichParliamenthasimposeduponhim."TheCourtconcludedthattheaffidavitssubmittedinevidencewerehighlysubjectiveandprovidednoobjectivecorroborationorsupport. S 1!  @ 8  8 882   +  Ӏ    ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$  882   Interalia,theCommittee'sViewswithregardtoCommunicationNo.182/1984,ZwaandeVriesv.theNetherlands,adoptedbytheCommitteeon9April1987. C)  @ 8  8 882   @ .$    ڄ  m$  882^   ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.JulioPradoVallejo,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$   81  Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Ms.ChristineChanetdidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  1!  @ 8  8  81  +  Ӏ    See,forexample,thedecisiononCommunicationNo.243/1987(S.R.v.France),5November1987,para.3.2. m$   81  ReferenceismadetothecaselawoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsSaraivadeCarvalhojudgementof22April1994,seriesANo.286B,para.35,p.10. m$   81  ReferenceismadetothedecisionsinthecasesHauschildtv.Denmark,judgementof24May1989,andNortierv.theNetherlands,judgementof24August1993. C)  @ 8  8 882^   @ .$    ڄ  m$   882  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheinin,Mr.DaniloTrkandMr.MaxwellYalden.  m$   882  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden.  m$   882  JudgementsoftheThirdChamberoftheSupremeCourtof19September1983and28February1986,whichinterpretRoyalDecree909/1978inanextensivemanner,i.einfavouroftheprinciple"proaperture". m$   882  See,interalia,theCommittee'sdecisioninCommunicationNo.58/1979(AnnaMaroufidouv.Sweden,para.10.1;Viewsadoptedon9April1981). m$   882  TheStatuteoflimitationsfordebtsinVictoria,Australiaissixyears.  m$   882  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden. m$   882  Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.EckartKleindidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase.  m$   882  WhenaccedingtotheOptionalProtocol,theFederalRepublicofGermanyenteredareservationtotheeffectthat0 ."thecompetenceoftheCommitteeshallnotapplytocommunications[...]bymeansofwhichaviolationofrightsisreprimandedhavingitsoriginineventsoccurringpriortotheentryintoforceoftheOptionalProtocolfortheRepublicofGermany,[...]". * m$   882  AcopyofthejudgementoftheCriminalCourtisnotprovidedbytheauthor.TheMiesbachFamilyCourt,initsdecisionofJuly1994,referstotheCriminalCourt'sjudgementasagroundforrefusingtheauthorvisitingrights. h m$   882  Copyofjudgementisnotprovided.  m$   882  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthecommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden.  m$   882  ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresentcommunication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.ThomasBuergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitandePombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Mr.RajsoomerLallah,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.FaustoPocarandMr.MartinScheinin. m$   882  Pursuanttorule85oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,Mr.MaxwellYaldendidnotparticipateintheexaminationofthecase. : m$   882  TheletterfromtheDepartmentGraduateCommittee,togetherwiththeminutesofthemeetingbetweentheauthorandtheCommittee,arereprintedinabookentitledBreachofTrust,publishedbytheauthorandattachedtothecommunication.   тj`$("2Po$ 13!USUS.,'F` X'   +@}q88Ҁ  0    5u{13Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|c) `CG Timesc PE37P<6X9`("Courier NewTTd6X@`7@) `CG TimesTT PE37P* `CG TimesTTxx PE37xP* `CG TimesTT PE37P) `CG TimesTTO PE37P6X`(ier NewTT*6X@5@j`$ier NewTTXXj@(7X@(3$USUS.,'F` X'  # e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\^)esktopU 13!USUS.,'F` X'   UKUS.,]( $$$$Z%A/52/40=_QA=z (  ` @@EOOO߈   ` h    UnitedNations  `  i   #aPddx# y `x# y yx#Reportofthe i ЀHumanRightsCommittee`  y`x#  `#dPaPVolumeII  +GeneralAssembly `OfficialRecordsFiftysecondSession     SupplementNo.40(A/52/40)    E) `CG TimesE    M A/52/40    E) `CG TimesEReportoftheHumanRightsCommittee#dPE`* `CG TimesE VolumeII GeneralAssembly  OfficialRecordsE) `CG TimesEE`* `CG TimesEԀFiftysecondSessionSupplementNo.40(A/52/40) * b=bQA=z (  ` @@b - UnitedNationsE) `CG TimesEE`* `CG TimesEԀNewYork,1999  E) `CG TimesERl 4  4    @.. NOTE .. SymbolsofUnitedNationsdocumentsarecomposedofcapitalletterscombinedwithfigures.MentionofsuchasymbolindicatesareferencetoaUnitedNationsdocument. .. ThepresentdocumentcontainsannexesVIandVIIofthereportoftheHumanRightsCommittee.ChaptersItoVIIIandannexesItoVandVIIIarecontainedinvolumeI. #/ @..0255-2353#dd ? UK     \R3'\ X      + 8  8 O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO( A $(c882      d #..[Original:English/French/Spanish]#..[31May1999]@..\CONTENTS 88tChaptert..t   , )8 8 P") .I. .ORGANIZATIONALANDOTHERMATTERS . .A. .StatespartiestotheCovenant . .B. .Sessions . .C. .Elections,membershipandattendance . .D. .Solemndeclaration . .E. .Electionofofficers . .F. .Specialrapporteurs . .G. .Workinggroups .0 .H.0 .Othermatters0 .0 .I.0 .Staffresources0 .0 .J.0 .PublicityfortheworkoftheCommittee0 .0 .K.0 .Documentsandpublicationsrelatingtotheworkofthe . . .Committee0 .0 .L.0 .FuturemeetingsoftheCommittee0 .0 .M.0 .Adoptionofthereport .II.0 .METHODSOFWORKOFTHECOMMITTEEUNDERARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANT:OVERVIEWOFPRESENTWORKINGMETHODS . .A.0 .Informalmeetingonproceduresandlaterdevelopments . .B.0 .Recentdecisionsonprocedures . .C.0 .Otherissuesrelatingtomethodsofworkunderarticle40 .4III.0 .SUBMISSIONOFREPORTSBYSTATESPARTIESUNDERARTICLE40OFTHE . .COVENANT . .A.0 .ReportssubmittedbyStatespartiesunderarticle40ofthe . . .Covenant . .B.0 .ObservationsofStatespartiesontheCommittee'sconcluding . . .comments@ .CONTENTS(continued) 88tChaptert .t   , )8 8 P") .IV.0 .STATESTHATHAVENOTCOMPLIEDWITHTHEIROBLIGATIONSUNDER . .ARTICLE40 .V. .CONSIDERATIONOFREPORTSSUBMITTEDBYSTATESPARTIESUNDER . .ARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANT . .A. .Denmark . .B. .UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIreland . . .(HongKong) . .C. .Switzerland . .D. .Gabon . .E. .Peru . .F. .Germany . .G. .Bolivia . .H. .Georgia . .I. .Colombia . .J. .Portugal(Macau) . .K. .Lebanon . .L. .Slovakia . .M. .France . .N. .India .VI.0 .GENERALCOMMENTSOFTHECOMMITTEE .4VII. .CONSIDERATIONOFCOMMUNICATIONSUNDERTHEOPTIONAL . .PROTOCOL . .A. .Progressofwork . .B. .GrowthoftheCommittee'scaseloadundertheOptionalProtocol . .C.0 .ApproachestoexaminingcommunicationsundertheOptional . . .Protocol . .D. .Individualopinions . .E. .IssuesconsideredbytheCommittee . .F. .RemediescalledforundertheCommittee'sViews .VIII. .FOLLOWUPACTIVITIESUNDERTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOL@ .CONTENTS(continued)Chapter .# . Page󀀀   , )8 8 P")@ .Annexes .I. .STATESPARTIESTOTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVILAND . . .POLITICALRIGHTSANDTOTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLSANDSTATESWHICH . .HAVEMADETHEDECLARATIONUNDERARTICLE41OFTHECOVENANTASAT . .1AUGUST1997 . .A.0 .StatespartiestotheInternationalCovenantonCiviland . . .PoliticalRights . .B. .StatespartiestotheOptionalProtocol . .C. .StatusoftheSecondOptionalProtocolaimingattheabolition . . .ofthedeathpenalty . .D. .Stateswhichhavemadethedeclarationunderarticle41ofthe . . .Covenant .II. .MEMBERSHIPANDOFFICERSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE,19961997 . .A. .Membership . .B. .Officers .4III. .SUBMISSIONOFREPORTSANDADDITIONALINFORMATIONBYSTATESPARTIES . .UNDERARTICLE40OFTHECOVENANTDURINGTHEPERIODUNDERREVIEW .IV. .STATUSOFREPORTSCONSIDEREDDURINGTHEPERIODUNDERREVIEWANDOF . .REPORTSSTILLPENDINGBEFORETHECOMMITTEE .V.0 .LISTOFSTATESPARTIES'DELEGATIONSTHATPARTICIPATEDINTHE . .CONSIDERATIONOFTHEIRRESPECTIVEREPORTSBYTHEHUMANRIGHTS . .COMMITTEEATITSFIFTYEIGHTH,FIFTYNINTHANDSIXTIETHSESSIONS .VI.0 .VIEWSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEEUNDERARTICLE5,PARAGRAPH4, . .OFTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOLTOTHEINTERNATIONALCOVENANTONCIVIL . .ANDPOLITICALRIGHTS.............................................P" .!1 . .A.0 .CommunicationNo.481/1991;JorgeVillacnsOrtegav.Ecuador . . .(Viewsadoptedon8April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .!1 . .B. .CommunicationNo.526/1993;MichaelandBrianHillv.Spain . . .(Viewsadoptedon2April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .!5 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .!20 . .C. .CommunicationNo.528/1993;MichaelSteadmanv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon2April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .!22 . .D. .CommunicationNo.529/1993;HervinEdwardsv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .!28@ .CONTENTS(continued) 88tChaptert .tPage   , )8 8 P") . .E. .CommunicationNo.533/1993;HaroldElahiev.Trinidadand . . .Tobago(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtiethsession).....P" .!34 . .F.0 .CommunicationNo.535/1993;LloydellRichardsv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon31March1997,fiftyninthsession)........P" .!38 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .!45 . .G. .CommunicationNo.538/1993;CharlesE.Stewartv.Canada . . .(Viewsadoptedon1November1996,fiftyeighthsession).....P" .!47 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .!60 . .H. .CommunicationNo.549/1993;FrancisHopuandTepoaituBessert . . .v.France(Viewsadoptedon29July1997,sixtiethsession)..P" .!70 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .!81 . .I. .CommunicationNo.550/1993;RobertFaurissonv.France . . .(Viewsadoptedon8November1996,fiftyeighthsession).....P" .!84 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .!97 . .J. .CommunicationNo.552/1993;WieslawKallv.Poland . . .(Viewsadoptedon14July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!105 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!113 . .K. .CommunicationNo.558/1993;GiosueCanepav.Canada . . .(Viewsadoptedon3April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .$!115 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!123 . .L. .CommunicationNo.560/1993;Av.Australia . . .(Viewsadoptedon3April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .$!125 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!145 . .M. .CommunicationNo.561/1993;DesmondWilliamsv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon8April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .$!147 . .N. .CommunicationNo.572/1994;HezekiahPricev.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon6November1996,fiftyeighthsession).....P" .$!153 . .O. .CommunicationNo.587/1994;IrvineReynoldsv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon3April1997,fiftyninthsession).........P" .$!157 . .P. .CommunicationNo.607/1994;MichaelAdamsv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon30October1996,fiftyeighthsession).....P" .$!163 . .Q. .CommunicationNo.612/1995;Arhuacosv.Colombia . . .(Viewsadoptedon29July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!173@ .CONTENTS(continued) 88tChaptert .tPage   , )8 8 P") . .R.0 .CommunicationNo.639/1995;WalkerLawsonRichardsandTrevor . . .Walkerv.Jamaica(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtieth . . .session).....................................................P" .$!183 . .S. .CommunicationNo.671/1995;JouniE.Lnsmanetal.v.Finland . . .(Viewsadoptedon30October1996,fiftyeighthsession).....P" .$!191 . .T. .CommunicationNo.692/1996;A.R.J.v.Australia . . .(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!205 . .U. .CommunicationNo.696/1996;PeterBlainev.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon17July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!216 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!224 . .V. .CommunicationNo.702/1996;CliffordMcLawrencev.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon18July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!225 . .W. .CommunicationNo.707/1996;PatrickTaylorv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon14July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!234 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!243 . .X. .CommunicationNo.708/1996;NevilleLewisv.Jamaica . . .(Viewsadoptedon17July1997,sixtiethsession)............P" .$!244 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!253 .4VII. .DECISIONSOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEEDECLARINGCOMMUNICATIONS . .INADMISSIBLEUNDERTHEOPTIONALPROTOCOL.........................P" .$!256 . .A. .CommunicationNo.579/1994;KlausWerenbeckv.Australia . . .(Decisionof27March1997,fiftyninthsession).............P" .$!256 . .B. .CommunicationNo.593/1994;PatrickHollandv.Ireland . . .(Decisionof25October1996,fiftyeighthsession)..........P" .$!266 . .C. .CommunicationNo.601/1994;E.JulianandC.M.Drakev. . . .NewZealand(Decisionof3April1997,fiftyninthsession)..P" .$!273 . .D.0 .CommunicationNo.603/1994;AndresBaduv.Canada . . .(Decisionof18July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!282 . .E. .CommunicationNo.604/1994;JosephNarteyv.Canada . . .(Decisionof18July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!288 . .F. .CommunicationNo.632/1995;HerbertT.Potterv.NewZealand . . .(Decisionof28July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!294 . .G. .CommunicationNo.643/1994;PeterDrobekv.Slovakia . . .(Decisionof14July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!300 . . .Appendix.....................................................P" .$!303̇@ .CONTENTS(continued) 88tChaptert .tPage   , )8 8 P") . .H. .CommunicationNo.654/1995;KwameWilliamsAduv.Canada . . .(Decisionof18July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!304 . .I. .CommunicationNo.658/1995;vanOordv.theNetherlands . . .(Decisionof23July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!311 . .J. .CommunicationNo.659/1995;B.L.v.Australia . . .(Decisionof8November1996,fiftyeighthsession)..........P" .$!317 . .K. .CommunicationNo.661/1995;PaulTribouletv.France . . .(Decisionof29July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!319 . .L. .CommunicationNo.674/1995;LdvikE.Kaaberv.Iceland . . .(Decisionof5November1996,fiftyeighthsession)..........P" .$!328 . .M. .CommunicationNo.679/1996;Darwishv.Australia . . .(Decisionof28July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!332 . .N. .CommunicationNo.698/1996;GonzaloBoneloSnchezv.Spain . . .(Decisionof29July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!337 . .O. .CommunicationNo.700/1996;TrevorL.Jarmanv.Australia . . .(Decisionof8November1996,fiftyeighthsession)..........P" .$!340 . .P. .CommunicationNo.755/1997;ClarenceT.Maloneyv.Germany . . .(Decisionof29July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!342 . .Q. .CommunicationNo.758/1997;JosM.G;mezNavarrov.Spain . . .(Decisionof29July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!345 . .R. .CommunicationNo.761/1997;RanjitSinghv.Canada . . .(Decisionof29July1997,sixtiethsession).................P" .$!348 .VIII. .LISTOFDOCUMENTSISSUEDDURINGTHEREPORTINGPERIOD ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO( A $(e882       @ .\ANNEXVI󀀀ViewsoftheHumanRightsCommitteeunderarticle5,paragraph4,󀀀oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCoventiononCivil@ .andPoliticalRights̀A.CommunicationNo.481/1991;JorgeVillacnsOrtegav.Ecuador󀀀(Viewsadoptedon8April1997,fiftyninthsession) X * g   882 HSubmittedby: . H .HH .HJorgeVillacrsOrtega2 .2 . . H .HH .HH .H[representedbyHa.E.Monge]Victim: . . H .HH .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HEcuadorDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H4November1991(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H16March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon8April1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.481/1991submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.JorgeVillacrsOrtegaundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol h   ׈1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisJorgeVillacrsOrtega,anEcuadoriancitizen,residinginQuito,Ecuador.AtthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationhewasimprisonedattheCrceldeVaronesatQuito.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyEcuadorofarticles2,7,9and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbytheComisi;nEcumnicadeDerechosHumanos(CEDHU),anon-governmentalorganizationinQuito,Ecuador.Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthorisacarpenterbyprofession.Hewasdetainedon19October1989bypoliceofficers,whofoundlessthanonegramofcocaineinhispockets,andarrestedhimonsuspicionoftraffickingincocaine.HewastriedbytheTribunalCuartodePichincha,foundguiltyaschargedandsentenced,on3June1991,toeightyears'imprisonment.HeappealedtotheSupremeCourtofJustice,whichquashedtheconvictionandorderedhimsenttoarehabilitationprogrammefordrugaddicts.2.22 .2Withregardtohisarrest,theauthorstatesthathewastakentoInterpolbyagentsoftheSIC-P(securitypolice)andthatarepresentativeofCEDHUvisitedhimatthepolicestationandsawthetracesofbeatingsonhisback,armandstomach.2.32 .2Headmittedtopossessionofcocaine,whichheclaimedtohaveboughtforhisownconsumption.Theforensictestscarriedoutprovedthathewasanaddict.Althoughthereportfromtheofficeofthepublicprosecutorrecommendedthathebesenttoahospitalfordisintoxicationtreatment,thiswasignoredbythesentencingjudge.2.42 .2Counselstatesthattheauthorwastorturedbyprisonpersonnelfollowinganescapeattemptbytheauthor'scellmates,on1June1990.Themedicalreport  statedthat"...hehadareddishinflammationonbotheyelidsduetotheintroductionofaji(peppers)andgas;tearandpricklyconjunctivitis;multipleroundblacktracesonhisabdomenandthoraxresultingfromtheapplicationofelectricdischarges,bruisesonhisthighandskinstrippedoffhisleg...". i   2.52 .2Withrespecttotheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthor,whileinprison,filedarecursodeamparo.Thereisnofurtherinformationconcerningthestatusofthatrecourse.Complaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticle7becausehewassubjectedtotortureandill-treatmentfollowinghisarrest.ThiswasattestedtobyamemberofCEDHU.3.22 .2Althoughtheauthordoesnotspecificallyinvokearticle10oftheCovenant,thefactsbeforetheCommitteeconcerningallegedill-treatmentwhiletheauthorwasimprisonedappeartoraiseissuesunderthatarticle.3.32 .2Theauthoralsoclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticle9becausehewassubjectedtoarbitraryarrestanddetentionalthoughhewasnotadrugtraffickerbutonlyaconsumer.3.42 .2Itisfurthersubmittedbytheauthorthathistrialwasunfair,inviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.Inthisrespect,hecontendsthathewasconvicteddespitethereportssubmittedbythepublicprosecutor'sofficerecommendingthatheundergodrugrehabilitationtreatment,inaccordancewithEcuadorianlaw.&  Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility4.2 .2On26August1992,thecommunicationwastransmittedtotheStateparty,whichwasrequestedtosubmittotheCommitteeinformationandobservationsin'  respectofthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunication.Despitetworeminders,senton10May1993and9December1994,nosubmissionhadbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartypriortotheCommittee'sadmissibilitydecision.5.12 .2Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.5.22 .2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,subparagraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterhadnotbeenexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.5.32 .2TheCommitteenotedwithconcerntheabsenceofcooperationfromtheStateparty,despitetworemindersaddressedtoit.Onthebasisoftheinformationbeforeit,theCommitteefoundthatitwasnotprecludedfromconsideringthecommunicationunderarticle5,subparagraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.5.42 .2Withrespecttotheauthor'scomplaintthathehadbeensubjectedtotortureandill-treatmentinviolationofarticles7and10oftheCovenant,asattestedtobyamemberofCEDHU,theCommitteefoundthatthefactsassubmittedbytheauthorweresubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility.5.52 .2TheCommitteefoundthat,forpurposesofadmissibility,thearrestoftheauthoronpossessionofcocainewasnotarbitrary.Norhadtheauthorsubmittedsufficientevidencetosubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,aclaimofaviolationofarticle14oftheCovenant.6.2 .2On16March1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissible.Theauthorshouldberequestedtoprovidemedicalreportsinrespectoftheallegationsofill-treatmenthehadsuffered.ObservationsbytheStatepartyaboutthemeritsofthecaseandcommentsthereonbytheauthor7.12 .2Intwosubmissionsonthemeritsofthecommunication,dated18October1995and23May1996,theStatepartystatesthatJorgeOswaldoVillacrsOrtegahasbeenarrested22timesonavarietyofoffences,includingthe1989detentionforpossessionofcocaine.7.22 .2Withregardtotheallegationsoftortureandilltreatmentmadebytheauthor(seeparagraphs2.2and2.4above),theStatepartyforwardstheresultsofapoliceinvestigation,dated1April1996andsignedbytwopoliceofficialsofthePichinchadistrict,indicatingthatnomedicalreportorotherevidenceoftortureorill-treatmentofMr.Villacrshasbeenfound.ReferenceismadetoallegationsbythedefencecounselofMr.Villacrstotheeffectthatamedicalreportdidexist.ThepoliceinspectorsallegedlywereunabletoobtainacopyofthereportfromtheCEDHUofficeatQuito.8.12 .2Byasubmissionof31May1996,CEDHUconfirmsthatMr.Villacrswasdetainedon19October1989andreleasedon17January1992.Withrespecttotheallegedill-treatmentduringdetention,CEDHUstatesthatitdoesnothavethemedicalreportrequestedbytheCommitteeinsubparagraph6(c)oftheadmissibilitydecision.CEDHUcontendsthatthereportisprobablyfiledwiththerecordoftheVillacrscasebeforetheEcuadorianSupremeCourt.8.22 .2On12October1996,CEDHUsubmittedacopyofthemedicalreport,dated9June1990andcertifiedbeforeamagistrate(JuezPrimerodeloPenaldeProcuradura),statingthattheinjuriessufferedwereconsistentwiththoseproducedbyirritatingsubstancesandbytheapplicationofelectrodes.Examinationonthemerits9.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.22 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsofill-treatment(seeparagraphs2.2and2.4above),twoissuesarise:inrespectofthefirst,i.e.,theilltreatmenttheauthorsufferedatthehandsofthepolicefollowinghisarrest,theCommitteeconsidersthatthisclaimhasnotbeensubstantiated.Astothesecondissue,i.e.,theilltreatmenttheauthorsufferedafteranescapeattemptbyhiscellmates,theCommitteehasnotedtheStateparty'sclaimthatitwasunabletotracetheauthor'smedicalreports,althoughthecopyinthecasefilerevealsthatthisreportwascertifiedinthepresenceofamagistrate.Inthecircumstances,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,totheextentthattheyhavebeensubstantiatedbythemedicalreportssubmittedbycounsel,inparticularthatof9June1990,whereitisconfirmedthattheauthorshowedsignsofilltreatment.IntheCommittee'sview,thetreatmentsufferedbytheauthoraftertheescapeattemptofhiscellmatesamountstocruelandinhumantreatment,inviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.11.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensationfortheill-treatmentsuffered.TheCommitteereaffirmstheobligationtotreatindividualsdeprivedoftheirlibertywithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilareventsdonotoccurinthefuture.12.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationisestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttoitsViews.ǀB.CommunicationNo.526/1993;MichaelandBrianHillv.Spaiǹ(Viewsadoptedon2April1997,fiftyninthsession)* j   Submittedby: . H .HH .HMichaelandBrianHillVictims: . . H .HH .HTheauthorsStateparty: . H .HH .HSpainDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H1October1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H22March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon2April1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.526/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMessrs.MichaelandBrianHillundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorsofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol k   ׈1.2 .2TheauthorsofthecommunicationareMichaelHill,bornin1952,andBrianHill,bornin1963,bothBritishcitizens,residinginHerefordshire,UnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIreland.TheyclaimtobevictimsofviolationsbySpainofarticles9and10andarticle14,paragraphs1,2andsubparagraphs3(b)and(e),oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.MichaelHillalsoinvokesarticle14,subparagraph3(d),oftheCovenant.TheCovenantenteredintoforceforSpainon27August1977,andtheOptionalProtocolon25April1985.Factsassubmittedbytheauthors2.12 .2TheauthorsownedaconstructionfirminCheltenham,UnitedKingdom,whichdeclaredbankruptcyduringthedetentionoftheauthorsinSpain.InJuly1985,theywentonholidaytoSpain.TheGandapolicearrestedthemon16July1985,onsuspicionofhavingfirebombedabarinGanda,anaccusationwhichtheauthorshavedeniedsincethetimeoftheirarrest,claimingthattheywereinthebaruntil2.30a.m.butdidnotreturnat4a.m.tosetfiretothepremises.2.22 .2Atthepolicestation,theauthorsrequestedthepolicetoallowthemtocontacttheBritishConsulate,soastoobtaintheaidofaconsularrepresentativewhocouldassistasanindependentinterpreter.Therequestwasdenied,andayoung,unqualifiedstudentinterpreterwascalledtoassistintheinterrogation,whichtookplacewithoutthepresenceofdefencecounsel.Theauthorsstatethattheycouldnotexpressthemselvesproperly,astheydidnotspeakSpanish,andtheinterpreter'sEnglishwasverypoor.Asaresult,seriousmisunderstandingsallegedlyarose.Theydenyhavingbeeninformedoftheirrightsatthetimeoftheirarrestorduringtheinterrogationandallegethattheywerenotproperlyinformedofthereasonsfortheirdetentionuntilsevenandeighthours,respectively,afterthearrest.2.32 .2Theauthorsfurtherstatethattheywereconfrontedwithanallegedeyewitnesstothecrimeduringasocalledidentificationparademadeupoftheauthors,inhandcuffs,andtwouniformedpolicemen.Thewitness,whoinitiallycouldnotdescribetheauthorsofthecrime,eventuallypointedthemout.2.42 .2Theyalsocomplainthattheirnewcamper,valuedat2.5millionpesetas,aswellasalltheirmoneyandotherpersonaleffects,wereconfiscatedandnotreturnedbythepolice.2.52 .2On19July1985,theauthorswereformallychargedwitharsonandcausingdamagetoprivateproperty.Theindictmentstatedthattheauthors,on16July1985,hadleftthebarat3a.m.,drivenawayintheircamper,returnedat4a.m.andthrownabottlecontainingpetrolandpetrolsoakedpaperthroughawindowofthebar.2.62 .2On20July1985,theyappearedbeforetheexaminingmagistrate(GandaNo.1)inordertosubmitastatementdenyingtheirinvolvementinthecrime.2.72 .2Afterhavingbeenheldinpolicecustodyfor10days,forfiveofwhichtheywereallegedlyleftwithoutfoodandwithonlywarmwatertodrink,theyweretransferredtoaprisoninValencia.2.82 .2On29July1985,alawyerwasassignedtothemforthepreliminaryhearing;thislawyerallegedlytoldtheauthorsthat,iftheycouldpayacertainamountofmoney,theywouldbereleased.Itisnotclearfromtheauthors'submissionshowthepreliminaryhearingproceeded.Itwouldappear,however,thattheyclaimthatconfusionandmisunderstandingswerecommon,duetotheincompetenceoftheinterpreter.Inthiscontext,itissubmittedthatthepolicerecordsstatedthattheircamperoperatedon"petr;leo"(diesel).Whenaskedbytheexaminingmagistrate(whowasalsoundertheimpressionthatthecamperranondiesel)whatsubstancetheirsparecontainercontained,theyrepliedtohimthatitwasfilledwithpetrol,whichwastranslatedas"petr;leo"bytheinterpreter.Thejudgethensaidthattheywerelying.Theauthorsattemptedtoexplainthattheircamperranonpetrolandthatinthebackofthevehicletheyhadasparefourlitrecontainerfilledwithpetrol.Accordingtothem,thejudgemusthaveseenorsmelledfromasamplethatthecontainerwasindeedfilledwith"gasolina"(petrol),andsincehebelievedthatthecamperranondiesel,hemusthavethoughtthattherewasacontainerwithpetrolformanufacturingtheMolotovcocktail.2.92 .2Uponconclusionofthepreliminaryhearing,theauthorswereinformedthatthetrialwouldtakeplaceinNovember1985.However,thetrialwasdelayed,reportedlyonthegroundthatsomedocumentscouldnotbefound.On26November1985,theauthorsweresummonedtocourttosignsomepapers,whereuponthejudgetoldthemthathewouldcontacttheirlawyerinordertosetanewdateforthetrial.On10December1985,theauthorsinformedthelegalaidlawyerthathisserviceswerenolongerrequired,astheywerenotsatisfiedwithhisconductofthecase.2.10Theauthorssecuredprivatelegalrepresentationon4December1985.On17January1986,thelawyersubmittedanapplicationtothecourtfortheauthors'releaseonbail,mainlyonthegroundthattheirconstructionfirmwasinastateofbankruptcyowingtotheirdetention.Upontheadviceofthepublicprosecutor,bailwasdeniedon21February1986.Theauthorscomplainedthat,althoughtheyhadpaidlargesumsofmoneytothelawyer,noprogresswasbeingmadeintheircase,ashewasignoringtheirinstructions.On31July1986,theydismissedthelawyer.Astheauthorsdidnothearfromhimagain,theyassumedthatthelawyerhadnotifiedtherelevantauthoritiesoftheirdecisionandthatalegalaidlawyerwouldbeassignedtothem.However,itwasnotuntil22October1986thatthelawyernotifiedthecourtofhiswithdrawalfromthecase.2.11On1November1986,anewlegalaidlawyerwasassignedtotheauthors.Thetrialwasscheduledtostarton3November1986.Thefirstquestionfromthepublicprosecutorwaswhatfueltheircamperused.Theauthorsagainrepliedthatitranonpetrol,whichthistimewastranslatedas"gasolina".Afterhavinggiventhesamereplythreetimes,theauthorsrequestedanadjournmentofthetrial,sothattheprosecutioncouldverifytheirclaim.Theyalsoaskedforanadjournmentonthegroundthattheyhadhadonlya20-minuteinterviewwiththeirdefencelawyersincehehadbeenassignedtotheircase.Thetrialwaspostponedfortwoweeks.3.12 .2Theauthorscomplainthatthelegalaidlawyerdidnotmakemuchefforttopreparetheirdefence.Theystatethat,whenhevisitedthemon1November1986,hewasaccompaniedbyaninterpreterwhospokebarelyanyEnglish;thelawyerdidnotevenhavethecasefilewithhim.Afterthetrialwasadjourned,thelawyeronlyvisitedthemon14November1986,for40minutes,againwithoutthecasefile,andthistimewithouttheinterpreter.Theauthorsfurtherclaimthat,althoughthelawyerwasassignedandpaidbytheStateparty,hedemanded500,000pesetasfromtheirfatherforallegedexpensespriortothehearing.3.22 .2Withtheassistanceoftwobilingualinmates,theauthorspreparedtheirowndefence.TheydecidedthatMichaelwoulddefendhimselfincourtandthatBrianwouldleaveittothelawyer,towhomtheyprovidedalltherelevantmaterial.3.32 .2On17November1986,theauthorsweretriedintheProvincialHighCourtofValencia.Throughtheinterpreter,MichaelHillinformedthejudgeofhisintentiontodefendhimselfinperson,pursuanttoarticle6,subparagraph3(c),oftheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms.ThejudgeaskedhimwhetherhespokeSpanishandwhetherhewasalawyer;whenherepliedinthenegative,thejudgetoldhimtositdownandbequiet.3.42 .2Theprosecution'scasewasbasedsolelyonanallegedeyewitness,whohadtestifiedduringthepreliminaryinvestigationsthathehadmetwiththeauthorspriortotheincidentandthattheircamperwasparkedinfrontofhishouse.Atabout4a.m.,hehadseentwoyouthsresemblingtheauthorsthrowaflamingbottleintothebarandleaveinagreycamper.Hehadimmediatelycalledthepolice.Theauthorssubmitthatthestatementsmadebythewitnessduringthepreliminaryinvestigationsarecontradictoryinanumberofrespectsandthat,duringthetrial,thewitnesscouldnotidentifythem.Hewasaskedthreetimesbythejudgetotakealookattheaccusedandeachtimethewitnesssaidthat"hecouldnotremembertheyouths",that"hewasanoldman"andthat"ithadhappened16monthsago".Furthermore,undercrossexamination,hefailedtogiveacleardescriptionofthecamperandstatedthat"thevehicleusedbytheperpetratorscouldhavebeenBritish,AustrianorevenJapanese".3.52 .2Theauthorsexplainthat,asthelawyeronlyaskedthewitnessfourirrelevantquestionsaboutthecamperanddidnottakeupthelistofquestionswhichtheyhadpreparedspeciallyabouttheirregularitiesinthesocalledidentificationparade,MichaelHillagainrequestedtherighttodefendhimselfinperson.Heinformedthejudgethathewantedtocrossexaminetheprosecutionwitnessandcallawitnessforthedefencewhowaspresentincourt.Thejudgeallegedlyrepliedthathewouldhavetheopportunitytodoallthosethingsonappeal,demonstratingclearlythatatthatpointhehadalreadydecidedtoconvicttheminviolationoftheirrighttobepresumedinnocent.Afteratriallastingbarely40minutes,theauthorswereconvictedaschargedandsentencedtosixyearsandonedayofimprisonmentandtothepaymentof1,935,000pesetasindamagestotheownerofthebar.3.62 .2Theauthorsthenwrotenumerousletterstovariousoffices,suchastheBritishEmbassyinMadrid,theMinistryofJustice,theSupremeCourt,theKingofSpainandtheOmbudsman,andtotheirlawyer,complainingofanunfairtrialandrequestinginformationonhowtoproceedfurther.Thelawyerrepliedthathislegalaidservicesterminatedupontheconclusionofthetrialandthatiftheyrequiredfurtherassistancefromhimtheywouldhavetopay.TheMinistryofJusticereferredtheauthorstothecourtoffirstinstance.Byletterof15January1987,theyrequestedtheHighCourtofValenciaforaretrialonthegroundthattheirtrialhadbeenunconstitutionalandinviolationoftheEuropeanConvention.InOctober1987,theysubmittedforthesixthtimeapetitiontotheHighCourtofValencia,complainingofunfairtrialandthistimerequestingittoassignlegalcounseltothem.Bynoteof9December1987,theCourtrepliedthattheircomplaintwasgroundlessandthatitcouldnotdealwiththematter.3.72 .2Inthemeantime,andon29January1987,theysubmittednotificationoftheirintentiontoappeal.Subsequentlytheyappointedaprivatelawyertorepresentthem.On24March1987theSupremeCourtrejectedtheappointmentoftheprivatelawyerbecausehewasnotregisteredinMadrid.On24July1987theauthorsforwardedtheirgroundsofappealtotheSupremeCourt.Sincetheauthorswerenotallowedtodefendthemselvesinperson,theCourtappointedalegalaidlawyeron17December1987.On28March1988,thelawyersubmittedtotheCourtthathedidnotfindgroundsforappeal,afterwhichtheCourtappointedasecondlegalaidlawyer,on12April1988,whoalsostatedthathefoundnogroundsforappeal.On6June1988,theSupremeCourt,inconformitywitharticle876oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureofSpain,didnotheartheappeal,givingtheauthors15daystofindaprivatelawyer.TheauthorsthenwrotetotheBarAssociation(ColegiodeAbogados),inSeptember1987,requestingittoassignalawyerandasolicitorfortheirappeal;noreplywasreceived,however.3.82 .2InMarch1988,theMinistryofJusticeinformedtheauthorsthattheycouldinitiateanactionforamparobeforetheConstitutionalCourt,sincetherightswhichtheyclaimedhadbeenviolatedwereprotectedbytheSpanishConstitution.̇3.92 .2On6July1988,theauthors(formally)petitionedthecourtoffirstinstancefortheirrelease,pursuanttoarticle504oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,whichprovidesthataprisonermaybereleasedpendingtheoutcomeofhisorherappealwhenheorshehasservedonehalfofthesentenceimposed.On14July1988,theauthorswerereleasedandreturnedtotheUnitedKingdom,havinginformedtheSpanishauthoritiesoftheiraddressintheUnitedKingdomandoftheirintentiontopursuethecase.3.10Theauthorsappealed(remedyofamparo)totheConstitutionalCourton17August1988.UpontheirreturntotheUnitedKingdom,theauthorsmadeseveralattemptstocontactthelawyerandsolicitorinSpain,inordertoobtaininformationonthestatusoftheirappealandthecourtdocuments,tonoavail.Finally,inAprilorMay1990,theywereinformedthroughtheBritishEmbassyinMadridthattheConstitutionalCourthaddecidednottoallowtheappealtoproceed.Withthis,itissubmitted,allavailabledomesticremedieswereexhausted.Complaint4.12 .2Theauthors,whoproclaimtheirinnocence,expresstheirindignationatthejudicialandbureaucraticsysteminSpain.Accordingtothem,itwaslikelythattheywerethevictimsofaswindlebythebarowner,whocouldhavehadamotiveforsettingthefire.Theyprotestthattheidentificationparadewasnotconductedinaccordancewiththelaw.Theycomplainthatthejudgedidnotintervenewhenitbecameclearthatthelegalaidlawyerwasnotdefendingthemproperly.Moreover,byrefusingtoallowMichaelHilltoconducthisowndefenceandtocallawitnessontheirbehalf,thejudgeviolatedtheprincipleofequalityoftheparties.ItissubmittedthattheusebythepoliceinvestigatingunitandthejudgeofMichaelHill'spriorcriminalrecordwasunjustandprejudicialnotonlytoMichaelbutalsotoBrianHill.4.22 .2Astoarticle14,paragraph2,theauthorsclaimthatthisprinciplewasviolatedbefore,duringandafterthetrial:beforethetrial,becauseofthejudicialauthoritiesrepeatedrefusaltograntbail;duringthetrial,whenthejudgetoldMichaelHillthathewouldhavetheopportunityonappealtodefendhimselfandtocallawitnessforthedefence;andimmediatelyafterthetrial,beforetheverdicthadbeenpronounced,whenthelegalaidlawyerstartedtonegotiatewiththeirfatheraboutthehandlingoftheappeal.4.32 .2TheauthorsclaimthatthelackofcooperationbytheSpanishauthorities,asaresultofwhichtheythemselveshadtotranslateeverysingledocumentwiththehelpofother,bilingualprisoners,thelackofinformationinprisononSpanishlegislationandthelackofcompetentinterpretersduringtheinterrogationbythepoliceandduringthepreliminaryhearing,togetherwiththeinadequateconductofthedefencebytheStateappointedlawyer,amounttoaviolationofarticle14,subparagraph3(b),oftheCovenant.4.42 .2Article14,subparagraph3(d),issaidtohavebeenviolatedinMichaelHill'scasebecause,duringthetrial,hewastwicedeniedtherighttodefendhimselfinperson.Asaconsequence,article14,subparagraph3(e),wasalsoviolated,ashewasalsodeniedtheopportunitytoexamine,onthebrother'sbehalf,awitnesswhowaswaitingoutsidethecourtroom.Stateparty'sinformationandobservations5.12 .2Initsstatementof11April1993,theStatepartyarguesthattheauthorsabusedtherightofsubmissionandthatthecommunicationshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleinaccordancewitharticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.FromtheinformationprovidedbytheStateparty,includingthetextsofjudgmentsandotherdocuments,itappearsthatthelatterraisesnoobjectionwithrespecttotheexhaustionofdomesticremedies.5.22 .2TheStatepartysummarizesthesituationinthiscaseasfollows:Concerningthedetention:02 .2"1. .On16July1985,ataround4a.m.,twoindividuals,inametallicgreycamperwithhorizontaltrimonthesidesandrearandwitharegistrationbeginningwiththeletterA,arrivedattheJMclub,locatedinGraodeGanda,and,afterpreparingaMolotovcocktail,threwitintotheclub,breakingseveralpanesofglassabovethedoor,thenimmediatelyfledthescene,havingtherebystartedafireinthepremises.02 .2"2. .Aneyewitnesstotheincidentcalledthepolice.02 .2"3. .Thepolicearrivedatthescene,togetherwiththefirebrigade,and,afterlisteningtotheeyewitness,locatedthecamper,registrationA811JAB,insidewhichtheydiscoveredapartlyemptyplasticcontainerwithsomefourlitresofpetrol,andarrestedtheoccupantsofthecamper,Messrs.BrianandMichaelHill.02 .2"4. .Inthepresenceofaninterpreter,thedetaineeswereimmediatelyinformedoftheirrights.02 .2"5. .Inthepresenceoftheinterpreterandwiththeassistance,attheirrequest,ofthelegalaidlawyeronduty,thedetaineesmadeastatementtothepolice.Theysaidthattheyhadbeenintheclubintheearlyhoursofthedayonwhichtheyweremakingtheirstatementandhaddrunk5or6beerstherebeforeleavingataround2.30a.m.Theyadmittedthatthecamperandthepetrolcontainerbelongedtothem,butdeniedhavingstartedthefire,acknowledgingthat'theyhadinfactpassedcloseby(theclub)inthevehicle'afterleavingthepremises.02 .2"6. .Duringtheidentificationparade,thepoliceshowedseveralpersonstotheeyewitness,andthesaideyewitnessrecognizedMessrs.BrianandMichaelHillas'thepersonswhohadsetfiretotheJMclubthepreviousnightbythrowingaflamingbottleagainstitsdoor,andwhohadfledinalargecamperwithaforeignregistration'."5.32 .2Concerningtheappearancebeforetheexaminingmagistrate:02 .2"1. .On17July1985,thedayaftertheincidentoccurred,theHillbrotherstestifiedbeforetheexaminingmagistrateatGanda,assistedbythelegalaidlawyeronduty,reiteratingthestatementtheyhadmadetothepolicethedaybefore.02 .2"2. .MagistrateNo.1orderedthatvariousproceedingsbeconductedincludinganappraisalofthedamagecaused,whichamountedto1,935,000pesetas.Theotherpartieswhohadappearedbeforethepolice,includingtheeyewitness,reiteratedtheirstatements.02 .2"3. .On19July,MagistrateNo.1ofGandaissuedanordertoinstitutecriminalproceedingsagainsttheHillbrothersforthecrimeofarson,orderingthemtobeimprisonedandbailtobeset.̇02 .2"4. .Furtherstatementsbytheaccused,anadditionalpolicefilecontainingphotographsandinformationprovidedbyInterpolontherecordofMichaelJohnHill,convictedintheUnitedKingdomfortheft,breakingandentry,fraud,possessionofstolengoods,forgery,trafficviolationsandarson.02 .2"5. .Impoundmentofthecamperinconnectionwiththecivilliabilityimposedduringthepretrialproceedings.02 .2"6. .Orderterminatingthepretrialproceedings,issuedbythecourton24October1985,andreferraloftheaccusedtotheProvincialHighCourtofValencia.Summonsoftheaccused,whoappointedalawyeroftheirownchoosingtoconducttheirdefence.02 .2"7. .On4December1985,theaccusedsentastatementtoasubdivisionoftheProvincialHighCourtofValencia,appointingMr.GuntherRudigerJordaastheirlawyer."5.42 .2Concerningtheoralproceedings:02 .2"1. .Thedefencelawyerchosenfreelybytheaccusedcalledonlyonewitness,thesamewitnessashadbeenproducedbythePublicProsecutorsOffice,Mr.P.,theeyewitnesstotheallegedcrime.02 .2"2. .On22October1986,itwasannouncedthattheoralproceedingswouldtakeplaceon3Novemberandthepartiesweredulynotified.02 .2"3. .On28October1986,arepresentativeofthedefencelawyercommunicatedtotheChamberoftheHighCourthearingthecasethat,'asdifferenceshadarisenbetweentheaccusedandthedefencelawyer,hewaswithdrawingfromthecase'.02 .2"4. .Courtorderfortheaccusedtoappointalawyer.TheHillbrothersindicatedthattheywishedtobeassignedalegalaidlawyer.02 .2"5. .Havingbeenassignedalegalaidlawyer,theywereinformedon31October1986thatthedateofthetrialwouldbe3November1986.Legalrecordofthetrialonthatday,inwhichtheChamberhearingthecase,inviewofthelackoftimegiventopreparethedefence,agreedtoadjournthetrialandrescheduleitfor17November1986.02 .2"6. .On17November1986,oralproceedingstookplace.Theyopenedwiththedefencesubmittingastatementbytheaccusedonwhathadoccurred,whichwasadmittedbytheChamber;thedirectopinionoftheaccusedwasthusmadeknown.Thetrialwasheld,usingtheservicesofaninterpreter,andtheeyewitnesswasexaminedbyboththeprosecutionandthedefence.02 .2"7. .On20November1986,theProvincialHighCourtofValenciahandeddownitsjudgment,notingthattheaccuseddidnothaveacriminalrecord,andafterexaminingthefactssentencedtheHillbrotherstosixyearsandonedayinprisonforthecrimeofarsonandimposedcivilliabilityforthedamagecausedbythefire."5.52 .2ConcerningtheappealtoannulthejudgmentoftheHighCourtfiledbytheHillbrothers:02 .2"(a)OnlyMr.BrianAnthonyHillappearedattheappealproceedings.HeappointedMr.GuntherRudigerJordaashislawyer,thesamelawyerwhomheandhisbrotherhadpreviouslyappointedandthendismissedfivedaysbeforethetrial;02 .2"(b)ThetwobrotherssubmittedastatementtotheSupremeCourtwhichwasincludedintheircasefile;02 .2"(c)AsMr.RudigerJordacouldnotrepresentthebrothersintheSupremeCourt,herequestedthatalegalaidlawyerbeassignedtoBrianAnthonyHill;02 .2"(d)Alegalaidlawyerwasassigned,buthedidnotfindanygroundswhatsoevertojustifytheappeal;02 .2"(e)Asecondlegalaidlawyer,alsoappointedinaccordancewitharticle876oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,didnotfindgroundsforappealeither;02 .2"(f)Twolawyersinsuccessionfoundthattherewerenolegalgroundsforappeal.TheproceedingswerethenreferredtothePublicProsecutor'sOffice,toseewhetheritcouldfindgroundsforappeal.ThePublicProsecutor'sOfficedidnotfindgroundsforappealeitherandreferredthecaseback;02 .2"(g)Anorderwasissueddismissingtheappealasnotproperlymadeandgrantingtheappellanttherighttoappointalawyerofhischoosinginordertoputtheappealintoproperlegalform;02 .2"(h)Afterhehadfailedtodosowithintherequiredtimeperiod,thecasewasfiled;02 .2"(i)Duringthattime,theaccusedhadviolatedtheconditionsoftheirconditionalreleasebyabandoningtheaddressinSpainwhichtheyhadgivenandfleeingthecountry."5.62 .2Concerningtheconditionalrelease:02 .2 ."On14July1988,theProvincialHighCourtofValencia,withtheappealtoannulthejudgmentstillpending,grantedtheHillbrothersaconditionalreleasewithoutbailandorderedthemtoappearonthefirstandfifteenthdayofeachmonth.TheaccusedgavetheBritishEmbassyastheiraddress,whiletheylookedforanapartment."5.72 .2Concerningtheremedyofamparo:02 .2 ."On16August1988,theHillbrothersinitiatedanactionforamparobeforetheConstitutionalCourt,requestingthatalegalaidlawyerbeassignedtothem.Afteralawyerwasappointed,theapplicationforamparowassubmitted.On8May1989,theConstitutionalCourtissuedareasonedandsubstantiatedrulingthattheactionforamparowasinadmissible."5.82 .2Regardingcivilliability,theStatereportsthatthecamper,valuedat2.5millionpesetas,wasofferedatapublicauctionbutremainedunsold.Itwasthenhandedovertotheownerofthebarascompensationforthedamagecausedinthefire.5.92 .2TheStatepartynotes:02 .2 ."Thattheaccusedweregrantedaconditionalreleaseon14July1988and,followingthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtinwhichtheappealwasdismissed,inviolationoftheconditionsoftheirprovisionalrelease,theHillbrothersleftSpain,andthat,'accordingtothestatementbytheBritishViceConsul,thebrothers,oncetheygotoutofprisoninJulyorAugustlastyear,leftSpainandwerenotresidingwiththeirparents,andwerecurrentlybelievedtobeinPortugal'.On1March1989,theProvincialHighCourtofValenciathereforedeclaredMichaelJohnandBrianAnthonyHilltobeincontemptandorderedthattheybesoughtandtakenintocustody."Authors'comments6.12 .2Intheircommentsof6July1993,theauthorsmaintainthattheyareinnocentandattributetheirconvictiontoaseriesofmisunderstandingsduringthetrialcausedbythelackofproperinterpretation.6.22 .2Theauthorsreiteratethattheirrightswereviolated,inparticulartherighttoafairtrialwithguaranteesofadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofthedefence,andtherighttodefendoneselfinpersonandtoexaminewitnesses.TheauthorsrejecttheStateparty'saccusationthattheyfledSpainassoonastheywerereleased,explainingthattheyfulfilledtheconditionsoftheirprovisionalreleaseandthenreturnedtotheirfamilyintheUnitedKingdom,havinginformedtheauthoritiesoftheiraddressthereandoftheirintentiontopursuethecaseinordertoprovetheirinnocence.TheCommittee'sfileshowsthattheHillbrothersdidinfactwritetotheConstitutionalCourtinFebruary1990toenquireabouttheoutcomeoftheirappeal.6.32 .2TheauthorsrejectthepresumptionofguiltarrivedatbytheStatepartyonthebasisofanInterpolreportonMichaelHill.Firstly,thereportreferstoeventswhichtookplaceintheUnitedKingdommorethan14yearsagoandtoapreviouscriminalrecordwhichhadbeenexpungedandwasthereforenotadmissibleincourt.TheuseoftherecordbythePublicProsecutor'sOfficewasunfairandprejudicialandtheauthorshadnoopportunitytorefuteitattheoralproceedings,whichlastedbarely40minutes.TheyemphasizethatMichaelHillwasdeniedtherighttodefendhimselfinpersonagainstthepresumptionofguiltandthat,furthermore,hislegalaidlawyerfailedtofollowhisinstructions.Forthosereasons,nodefencewasputforwardonthematteroftheprejudicialpresumptionofguilt.Furthermore,theinformationwhichthelegalaidlawyerfailedtorefutealsohadaveryharmfuleffectonBrianHill,whohadnopreviouscriminalrecordintheUnitedKingdom.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility7.12 .2Beforeexaminingacomplaintcontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteedecides,pursuanttorule87oftheitsrulesofprocedure,whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.7.22 .2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,subparagraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthematterhadnotbeensubmittedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.Takingintoaccountalltheinformationsubmittedbytheparties,theCommitteeconcludedthatthedomesticremediesreferredtoinarticle5,subparagraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolhadbeenexhausted.̇7.32 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthestatementbytheStatepartyarguingthattheHillbrothershadabusedtherightofsubmission,butconcludedthatonlyanexaminationofthemeritsofthecasecouldclarifywhethertheHillbrothershadabusedthatrightandwhethertheStatepartyhadviolatedtheCovenant.7.42 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheallegationsmadeunderarticle14hadbeensufficientlysubstantiatedforpurposesofadmissibilityand,accordingly,shouldbeexaminedonthemerits.ThefactssubmittedtotheCommitteealsoappearedtoraisequestionsregardingarticles9and10(seeparas.2.3and2.7above).8.2 .2On22March1995,theHumanRightsCommitteefoundthecommunicationadmissible.ObservationsbytheStateparty9.12 .2Initsstatementdated9November1995,theStatepartyreferstoitspreviousobservationsandtothedocumentsalreadysubmitted,andreiteratesthatthecomplaintisunfounded.Initssubmissiondated30May1996,theStatepartycontendsthatthecommunicationshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleonaccountofabuseoftherightofsubmission.Itarguesthattheauthorswereplacedonprovisionallibertyon14July1988onconditionthattheywouldappearbeforetheAudienciaProvincialdeValenciaonthefirstofeverymonth.Insteadofdoingso,theHillbrothersleftSpainandreturnedtoEngland.BecauseoftheirbreachoftheconditionsofreleaseandviolationofSpanishlaw,theyareestoppedfromclaimingthatSpainhasviolateditscommitmentsunderinternationallaw.9.22 .2Astothemeritsofthecommunication,theStatepartyexplainsthattheinterpreterwasnotapersonselectedadhocbythelocalpolice,butapersondesignatedbytheInstitutoNacionaldeEmpleo(INEM)uponagreementwiththeMinistryofInterior.InterpretersmusthavesatisfiedprofessionalcriteriabeforebeingemployedbyINEM.TherecordsindicatethatIsabelPascualwasproperlydesignatedinterpreterfortheHillbrothersinGandaandincludeastatementfromINEMwithrespecttotheassignmentofMs.PascualandMs.Rieta.9.32 .2Astotheauthors'desiretocommunicatewiththeBritishConsulate,theStatepartycontendsthatthedocumentsrevealthattheConsulatewasdulyinformedoftheirdetention.9.42 .2Astotheidentificationparade,theStatepartyrejectstheauthors'descriptionofhavingbeenbroughtbeforethewitnessinhandcuffsandnexttouniformedpolicemen.TheStatepartyaffirmsthattheproceduralguaranteesprovidedforinarticles368and369oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureweredulyobserved.Moreover,theidentificationparadetookplaceinthepresenceoftheauthors'attorney,SalvadorVicenteMartnezFerrer,whomtheStatepartycontactedandwho,accordingtotheStateparty'ssubmission,rejectstheauthors'descriptionoftheevents.AdocumentsentbytheStateshowsthatthetwootherpersonsintheidentificationparadewere"inspectores"andformedpartoftheSuperiorPoliceCorps,wherenouniformisworn.9.52 .2TheStatepartyrejectstheallegationthattheHillbrothershadbeenkeptfor10dayswithoutfoodandenclosesastatementfromthechiefoftheGandaPoliceandreceiptsallegedlysignedbytheHillbrothers.9.62 .2Astothedurationofthecriminalproceedingsuptotheoralhearing:from16Julyto24October1985,investigations,includingintoMichaelHill'spriorcriminalrecord,werecarriedout.On26November,theauthorswerenotifiedandtheydesignatedtheirattorney.On4December1985,thefilewasreferredbytheGandaCourttotheAudienciaProvincialdeValencia.On28December,thecasewasreferredtotheStateattorney,whopresentedhisreportandconclusionson3March1986.On10September,theCourtfixedthedatefororalhearingon3November.On22October1986,defencecounselwithdrew.On28October,theHillbrothersaskedforalegalaidlawyer.On30October,Mr.CarbonellSerranowasappointedaslegalaidlawyer.On3and17November,oralhearingstookplace.TheStatepartyconcludesthatthischronologyindicatesthattherewasnounduedelayonthepartoftheSpanishauthorities.9.72 .2TheStatepartysubmitsthatthedurationof16monthsofpretrialdetentionwasnotunusual.Itwasjustifiedinviewofthecomplexitiesofthecase;bailwasnotgrantedbecauseofthedangerthattheauthorswouldleaveSpanishterritory,whichtheydidassoonasreleasewasgranted.9.82 .2TheStatepartycontendsthattheauthorshadsufficienttimeandfacilitiestopreparetheirdefence.Firsttheyhadcounseloftheirownchoosing,andwhentheydismissedhim,legalaidcounselwasappointedandthehearingpostponedtoallowthenewcounseltofamiliarizehimselfwiththecase.ItisnottruethatMr.Carbonell,thelegalaidattorney,demanded500,000pesetasfromtheauthorsbeforetrial.Hediddemand50,000pesetasforthecasethattheywouldwanttoappealtotheSupremeCourt,anamountthatisaltogetherreasonableforcounselofone'schoosing.Theauthors,however,didnotusehisservices,butavailedthemselvesoftheservicesoftwootherlegalaidlawyers.TheStatepartydeniestheauthors'claimthatthedocumentationwasnotmadeavailabletotheminEnglishtranslation.9.92 .2Astotheoralhearing,itisstatedthatMs.Rietawasawellqualifiedinterpreterandthattheauthors'onlywitness,Mr.Pellicer,affirmedhavingrecognizedthemandtheirpickuptruck.9.10AstoMichaelHill'srighttodefendhimself,therecordsdonotrevealthatMichaelHillhaddemandedtherighttodefendhimselfandthatthisrightwasdeniedbythecourt.Moreover,Spanishlawrecognizes,pursuanttotheCovenantandtheEuropeanConvention,therighttodefendoneself.Suchdefenceshouldtakeplacebycompetentcounsel,whichispaidbytheStatewhennecessary.Spain'sreservationtoarticles5and6oftheEuropeanConventionconcernonlyarestrictionofthisrightwithrespectofmembersoftheArmedForces.9.11Astothepresumptionofinnocence,theauthorsadmittheirpresenceintheclubandthenumberofbeersconsumed.Inviewoftheevidencegivenbyaneyewitness,thereisnobasistoclaimthattheyweredeemedguiltywithoutevidence.Authors'comments10.1Bylettersof8Januaryand5July1996theauthorscontesttheStateparty'sargumentsonadmissibilityandmerits.Astotheallegedabuseoftherightofsubmission,theauthorsclaimthattheStateparty,inviewofitsmanifoldviolationsoftheirrightsinthecourseoftheirdetentionandtrial,doesnotcometotheCommitteewithcleanhands.TheycontendthattheyactedproperlyinleavingtheterritoryofSpain,becausetheyfearedfurtherviolationsoftheirrights.Moreover,theydidnotimmediatelyleaveSpanishterritoryupontheirreleasefromprisonon14July1988butfiveweekslater,on17August,withnoobjectionfromtheBritishConsulateatAlicante.TheyrefertothetranscriptoftheirvisittotheConsulateon12August1988inordertoobtainatemporarypassport.Moreover,theStatepartyhadmadenoprovisionforthemtoremaininSpainafterreleaseandallthereleasedocumentationwasinSpanish.10.2Astotheinterpreter,theymaintaintheircontentionthatMs.IsabelPascualmadecrucialmistakesofinterpretation,whichultimatelyledtotheirconviction.Theyhavenocriticismoftheotherinterpreter,Ms.Rieta,otherthanthemistakeconcerningtothefuelusedbytheirtruck.10.3Astotheidentificationparade,theyreaffirmtheirallegationcontainedintheirsubmissionof6July1993.10.4Theyreaffirmthattheydidnotreceiveanyfoodordrinkforaperiodoffivedaysandverylittlethereafter,becausetheallocationoffundsspecificallyforthispurposeweremisappropriated.TheypointoutthattheStateparty'slistdoesnotrefertothefirstfivedays,whentheyallegetohavebeentotallydeprivedofsubsistence.ThelistspresentedbytheStatereferto11days,andonlytwoofthese,21and24July,showtheirsignature.10.5Astothenecessarytimeandfacilitiestopreparetheirdefence,theauthorsmaintainthattheyspentbuttwobriefperiodswiththeirlegalaidattorney,Mr.Carbonell.TheymaintaintheirallegationthatMr.Carbonelldemandedhalfamillionpesetasfromtheirparentson1November1986.10.6ConcerningtherightofMichaelHilltodefendhimself,itissaidthattheletterfromtheProConsulatAlicante,dated12March1987,substantiatestheirclaimthattherightundertheSpanishConstitutiontodefendoneselfincourtwasemphaticallydeniedbythejudiciaryontwooccasions.MichaelHillmadehisdesiretodefendhimselfclearwellinadvanceoftheCourtproceedingsviatheofficialinterpreter,Ms.Rieta.10.7Withrespecttothelengthofthehearings,theauthorsreiteratethatthefirsthearingof3Novemberlastedonly20minutes,inwhichperiodthequestionastowhatfuelwasusedbytheirvehiclewasraised.Therewasnoexaminationofthedefendantsorofthewitnessonthisoccasion.Thesecondhearingon17Novemberlasted35minutes,mainlydevotedtoformalities.Thus,theauthorschallengetheStateparty'sassertionthattheCourtcouldproperlyexaminebothdefendantsandonewitness,bearinginmindthateverywordhadtobetranslated.10.8Astothepresumptionofinnocence,theyclaimthat,notonlyattrial,butthroughouttheproceedings,theyweredeemedtobeguilty,althoughfromtheoutsettheyalwaysaffirmedtheirinnocence.Examinationofthemerits11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasexaminedthiscommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedforinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.12.1WithrespecttotheStateparty'sallegationthatthecaseshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleonaccountofabuseoftherightofsubmission,becausetheauthorshadbreachedtheirconditionsofreleaseinviolationoftheSpanishlaw,theCommitteeconsidersthatanauthordoesnotforfeithisrighttosubmitacomplaintundertheOptionalProtocolsimplybyleavingthejurisdictionoftheStatepartyagainstwhichthecomplaintismade,inbreachoftheconditionsofhisrelease.12.2Withregardtotheauthors'allegationsofviolationsofarticle9oftheCovenant,theCommitteeconsidersthattheauthors'arrestwasnotillegalorarbitrary.Article9,paragraph2,oftheCovenantrequiresthatanyonewhoisarrestedshallbeinformed,atthetimeofarrest,ofthereasonsforhisarrestandshallbepromptlyinformedofanychargesagainsthim.Theauthorsspecificallyallegethatsevenandeighthours,respectively,elapsedbeforetheywereinformedofthereasonfortheirarrest,andcomplainthattheydidnotunderstandthechargesbecauseofthelackofacompetentinterpreter.ThedocumentssubmittedbytheStatepartyshowthatpoliceformalitiesweresuspendedfrom6a.m.until9a.m.,whentheinterpreterarrived,sothattheaccusedcouldbedulyinformedinthepresenceoflegalcounsel.Furthermore,fromthedocumentssentbytheStateitappearsthattheinterpreterwasnotanadhocinterpreterbutanofficialinterpreterappointedaccordingtorulesthatshouldensurehercompetence.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotrevealaviolationofarticle9,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.12.3Asforarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenant,whichstipulatesthatitshallnotbethegeneralrulethatpersonsawaitingtrialshallbedetainedincustody,theauthorscomplainthattheywerenotgrantedbailandthat,becausetheycouldnotreturntotheUnitedKingdom,theirconstructionfirmwasdeclaredbankrupt.TheCommitteereaffirmsitspriorjurisprudencethatpre-trialdetentionshouldbetheexceptionandthatbailshouldbegranted,exceptinsituationswherethelikelihoodexiststhattheaccusedwouldabscondordestroyevidence,influencewitnessesorfleefromthejurisdictionoftheStateparty.Themerefactthattheaccusedisaforeignerdoesnotofitselfimplythathemaybeheldindetentionpendingtrial.TheStatepartyhasindeedarguedthattherewasawellfoundedconcernthattheauthorswouldleaveSpanishterritoryifreleasedonbail.However,ithasprovidednoinformationonwhatthisconcernwasbasedandwhyitcouldnotbeaddressedbysettinganappropriatesumofbailandotherconditionsofrelease.ThemereconjectureofaStatepartythataforeignermightleaveitsjurisdictionifreleasedonbaildoesnotjustifyanexceptiontotherulelaiddowninarticle9,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthisrightinrespectoftheauthorshasbeenviolated.12.4Theauthorswerearrestedon15July1985andformallychargedon19July1985.TheirtrialdidnotstartuntilNovember1986,andtheirappealwasnotdisposedofuntilJuly1988.Onlyaminorpartofthisdelaycanbeattributedtotheauthors'decisiontochangetheirlawyers.TheStatepartyhasarguedthatthedelaywasdue"tothecomplexitiesofthecase"buthasprovidednoinformationshowingthenatureoftheallegedcomplexities.Havingexaminedalltheinformationavailabletoit,theCommitteefailstoseeinwhichrespectthiscasecouldberegardedascomplex.ThesolewitnesswastheeyewitnesswhogaveevidenceatthehearinginJuly1985,andthereisnoindicationthatanyfurtherinvestigationwasrequiredafterthathearingwascompleted.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthattheStatepartyviolatedtheauthors'right,underarticle14,paragraph3(c),tobetriedwithoutunduedelay.13.2 .2Withrespecttotheauthors'allegationsregardingtheirtreatmentduringdetention,particularlyduringthefirst10dayswhentheywereinpolicecustody(para.2.7),theCommitteenotesthattheinformationanddocumentssubmittedbytheStatepartydonotrefutetheauthors'claimthattheywerenotgivenanyfoodduringthefirstfivedaysofpolicedetention.TheCommitteeconcludesthatsuchtreatmentamountstoaviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant.14.1Withregardtotherightofeveryonechargedwithacriminaloffencetohaveadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefence,theauthorshavestatedthattheyhadlittletimewiththeirlegalaidlawyerandthatwhenthelattervisitedthemforonly20minutestwodaysbeforethetrial,hedidnothavethecasefileoranypaperfortakingnotes.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyconteststhisallegationandpointsoutthattheauthorshadcounseloftheirownchoosing.Moreover,inordertoallowthelegalaidlawyertopreparethecase,thehearingwasadjourned.TheauthorshavealsoallegedthateventhoughtheydonotspeakSpanish,theStatepartyfailedtoprovidethemwithtranslationsofmanydocumentsthatwouldhavehelpedthemtobetterunderstandthechargesagainstthemandtoorganizetheirdefence.TheCommitteereferstoitspriorjurisprudence   l   ׀andrecallsthattherighttofairtrialdoesnotentailthatanaccusedwhodoesnotunderstandthelanguageusedinCourt,hastherighttobefurnishedwithtranslationsofallrelevantdocumentsinacriminalinvestigation,providedthattherelevantdocumentsaremadeavailabletohiscounsel.Basedontherecords,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsdonotrevealaviolationofarticle14,subparagraph3(b),oftheCovenant.14.2TheCommitteerecallsthatMichaelHillinsiststhathewantedtodefendhimself,throughaninterpreter,andthatcourtdeniedthisrequest.TheStatepartyhasansweredthattherecordsofthehearingdonotshowsucharequest,andthatSpainrecognizedtherightsof"autodefence"pursuanttotheCovenantandtheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights,butthat"suchdefenceshouldtakeplacebycompetentcounsel,whichispaidbytheStatewhennecessary",therebyconcedingthatitslegislationdoesnotallowanaccusedpersontodefendhimselfinperson,asprovidedforundertheCovenant.TheCommitteeaccordinglyconcludesthatMichaelHill'srighttodefendhimselfwasnotrespected,contrarytoarticle14,subparagraph3(d),oftheCovenant.14.3TheCommitteefurtherobservesthatinaccordancewitharticle876oftheSpanishCodeofCriminalProcedure,theauthors'appealwasnoteffectivelyconsideredbytheCourtofAppeal,sincenolawyerwasavailabletosubmitanygroundsofappeal.Consequently,theauthors'righttohavetheirconvictionandsentencereviewed,asrequiredbytheCovenant,wasdeniedtothem,contrarytoarticle14,paragraph5,oftheCovenant.14.4GiventheCommittee'sconclusionthattheauthors'righttoafairtrialunderarticle14wasviolated,itneednotdealwiththeirspecificallegationsrelatingtotheadequacyoftheirrepresentationbyalegalaidlawyer,theirregularitiesoftheidentificationparade,thecompetenceoftheinterpretersandtheviolationofthepresumptionofinnocence.15.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actinginaccordancewitharticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,findsthatthefactsbeforeitrevealaviolationofarticles9,paragraph3;10and14,subparagraph3(c)andparagraph5,oftheCovenant,inrespectofbothMichaelandBrianHillandofarticle14,subparagraph3(d),inrespectofMichaelHillonly.16.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorsareentitledtoaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensation.17.2 .2BearinginmindthatbybecomingapartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatehasrecognizedtheCommittee'scompetencetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoguaranteetoallindividualswithinitsterritoryorsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseswhereaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteerequeststheStatepartytoprovide,within90days,informationonthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.@ .\APPENDIX@ .` A.IndividualopinionbyCommitteememberNisukeAndo# .[Original:English]2 .2IconcurwiththeCommittee'sViewswithrespecttoarticle14.However,IamunabletoconcurwiththeCommittee'sfindingwithrespecttoarticle10.2 .2Accordingtotheauthors,theywereheldinpolicecustodyfor10days,forfiveofwhichtheywereallegedlyleftwithoutfoodandwithonlywarmwatertodrink(seepara.2.7).TheStatepartyrejectsthisallegationandenclosesastatementfromthechiefofGandaPoliceaswellasreceiptsallegedlysignedbytheauthors(seepara.9.5).TheauthorsassertthattheallocationoffundsspecificallyforfoodwasmisappropriatedandthattheStateparty'slistsdonotrefertothefirstfivedays,whentheyallegetohavebeentotallydeprivedofsubsistence(seepara.10.4).2 .2Nevertheless,astheCommitteeitselfrecognizes(seepara.10.4),thelistsreferto11daysfrom16to26July1985and,contrarytotheCommittee'sfindingthatthelistsshowtheauthors'signaturesonlyfor21and24July,theauthors'nameswithsignaturesappearonthelistsforall11days.Allthesignaturesdonotseemexactlyidenticalanditmaybethatthewardersinchargeoffoodsupplymayhavesignedontheauthors'behalf.2 .2Inanyevent,theauthorshavenotpresentedanyevidencetorefutetheexistenceandcontentofthelists:thattheywereleftwithoutfoodforthefirstfivedaysoftheirpolicedetentionremainsamereallegation.Underthecircumstances,IamunabletoconcurwiththeCommittee'sfindingthattheStatepartyhasnotprovidedsufficientelementstorefutetheauthors'allegationandthatitisinviolationofarticle10oftheCovenant(seepara.13).@ .. B.IndividualopinionbyCommitteememberEckartKlein# .[Original:English]2 .2Idonotsharetheopinionexpressedinparagraph14.4oftheViewsthattheCommitteeneednotdealwiththeauthors'specificallegationsrelatingtotheadequacyoftheirrepresentationbyalegalaidlawyer,theirregularitiesoftheidentificationparade,thecompetenceofthecourtappointedinterpretersandtheviolationofthepresumptionofinnocence.2 .2ThefactthattheCommitteefoundaviolationoftheauthors'righttoafairtrialunderarticle14regardingcertainaspects(article14,subparagraphs3(c)and(d)andparagraph5,oftheCovenant)doesnotreleasetheCommitteefromitsdutytoexaminewhetherotherallegedviolationsoftherightsenshrinedinarticle14oftheCovenanthaveoccurred.Accordingtotheauthors,violationsofarticle14,paragraphs1,2andsubparagraph3(f),shouldhavebeenconsidered.2 .2TheCommitteeisnotinapositionanalogoustothatofanationalcourtwhichmayandwill,forgroundsoftimeconstraints,restrictitselftothemostevidentreasonsthatbythemselvesjustifythenullificationofthemeasureattacked.TheauthorityoftheCommittee'sViewsrests,toagreatextent,onadiligentexaminationofallallegationsmadebytheauthorsandonaconvincingratiodecidendi.TheinfluenceoftheCommittee'sViewsonStatepartybehaviourwillbestrengthenedonlyifallaspectsofthematterhavebeenthoroughlyexaminedandallnecessaryconclusionshavebeenarguedclearly.2 .2Apartfromthisobjectionofageneralnature,Idonotthinkthatarticle14oftheCovenantshouldbeseenjustasanumbrellaprovisionoftherighttoafairtrial.Itistruethatallprovisionsofthearticleareconnectedwiththeissue,buttheexpressformulationofthedifferentaspectsoftherighttoafairtrialisfoundedonmanyvariedgoodreasons,basedonhistoricalexperience.TheCommitteeshouldnotencourageanyviewthatsomerightsenshrinedinarticle14oftheCovenantarelessimportantthanothers.2 .2IdonotthinkthatthefactspresentedbytheauthorsinthiscaserevealaviolationofCovenantrightsbeyondthefindingsoftheCommittee,butIfeelobligedtomakeclearmyownpointofviewonthismatterofprinciple.ǀC.CommunicationNo.528/1993;MichaelSteadmanv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon2April1997,fiftyninthsession)* n   882 882 HSubmittedby: . H .HMichaelSteadman2 .2 . . H .HH .HH .H[representedbyMr.T.Hart]Victim: . . H .HH .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H10November1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H15March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon2April1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.528/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.MichaelSteadmanundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisMichaelSteadman,aJamaicancitizen,atthetimeofsubmissionawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,SpanishTown.TheauthorclaimstobethevictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticles6,9,10and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyMr.T.Hart.&  Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2On12December1985,theauthorwasconvictedofthemurder,on26June1983,ofoneSylvesterMorganandsentencedtodeathbytheHomeCircuit'  CourtofKingston.Hisappealwasrefusedon19February1988bytheJamaicanCourtofAppeal.TheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilrefusedspecialleavetoappealon21March1990.Theauthor'sdeathsentencewascommutedinFebruary1993.2.22 .2Theprosecution'scaseagainsttheauthorwasthat,on26June1983,he,togetherwithhiscoaccusedCarltonCollinsandtwoothers,enteredayardbelongingtooneCharlieChaplin,whereCollinsshotSylvesterMorganinthehead,asaresultofwhichthelatterdied.Itwasallegedthatthekillingaroseoutofajointenterprisebetweentheauthorandhiscoaccused.Whenthemenwereenteringtheyard,theyallegedlysaid:"watchit,watchit,mekmeshoottheboy".Duringthetrialtheauthorwasidentifiedbytwowitnesses,13and14yearsold,asoneofthemenparticipatinginthekilling.Theytestified,however,thattheyhadnotseentheauthorfiringashothimself,althoughhehadbeencarryingagun.Oneofthewitnessesstatedthat,aftertheshotwasfired,theauthoraskedhiscoaccused:"Yousureyoushottheboy?".Fourotherwitnessestestifiedhavingseentheauthorandthreeothersrunningawayaftertheincidentwhilecarryingguns.2.32 .2Theauthorgaveaswornstatementtotheeffectthathehadbeenatworkatthetimeofthekilling.Nowitnesseswerecalledtosupporthisalibi,however,andduringcrossexaminationtheauthoradmittedthathehadarrivedhomeat7.20p.m.thatday,whilethemurderallegedlyhadbeencommittedaround7p.m.Theauthorfurtherallegedthat,afterhisarrest,thepoliceofficerhadthreatenedhimandfiredshotsoverhishead.&  Complaint3.12 .2Theauthorstatesthathewasarrestedon22July1983andchargedwithmurderon30July1983,afterhavingbeendetainedforeightdayswithout'  recoursetoeitheralegaladviser,amemberofhisfamilyorafriend.PreliminaryexaminationstookplaceinAugust1983andSeptember1984.TheauthorwaskeptinpretrialdetentionuntilthestartofthetrialinDecember1985,some28monthslater.AccordingtotheauthorthedelayinbringinghimtotrialwascausedbyinadequaciesintheJamaicanlegalsystem,amountingtoaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant.3.22 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsthathewasseverelyprejudicedbythisdelay,sincethewitnessesnolongerhadtheincidentfreshintheirmindsandhadbeenexposedtolocalgossipandpublicity,becauseofwhichtheyhadlosttheirimpartiality.Healsoclaimsthat,becauseofthelapseoftime,potentialdefencewitnessescouldnolongerbetraced.Inthisconnection,theauthorpointsoutthatafterthepreliminaryexaminationinAugust1983,hedidnotmeetwithhiscounseluntilthedayofthetrial.3.32 .2Theauthorfurtherallegesthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticle14,subparagraphs3(b)and(d),sincehewasdeniedadequatetimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefence.Inthiscontext,theauthorclaimsthathewasdeprivedofadequatelegalrepresentation,bothathistrialandathisappealtotheCourtofAppealofJamaica.Hesubmitsthatthelegalaidcounsel,whowasoriginallyassignedtorepresenthim,failedtoappearatthepreliminaryexamination,andthathewasthenrepresentedbyajuniorcounsel.Theauthorclaimsthathehadnoopportunitytoinstructhiscounselandthatthiscounselwasonlypresentatthefirstpreliminaryexamination.Followingthepreliminaryexamination,theauthorhadnocontactwithhislegalrepresentativeuntilthedayofthetrial.Hethereforeallegesthathewasdeniedtheopportunitytopreparehisdefence,whereastheProsecutionhadsome28monthstoprepareitscase.3.42 .2Asregardstheappealhearing,theauthorsubmitsthathewasrepresentedbyanothercounselwhohadnotpreviouslybeeninvolvedinthecase.Heallegesthatthiscounselnevercommunicatedwithhimbeforethehearingandthathe,therefore,wasnotabletogivehiminstructionsastothegroundsofappeal.Duringthehearing,counselsubmittedthattherewerenogroundstoappealtheconviction,accordingtotheauthortherebyeffectivelywithdrawinghisappealwithouthisconsent.CounselonlyaddressedtheCourtonthematterofsentence,claimingthatboththeauthorandthecoaccusedhadbeenunder18yearsofageatthetimeofthekillingandshouldthereforenotbesentencedtodeath.TheAppealCourt,however,foundthatresearchbytheRegistrarGeneralhadproventhattheauthorwasbornon31December1964andthathewasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeofthemurder.AstheProsecutionfailedtoprovethattheauthor'scoaccusedwasovertheageof18atthetimeoftheoffence,hissentencewasvariedtoimprisonmentduringHerMajesty'spleasure.3.52 .2Theauthorfurtherallegesthathewasdeniedafairhearinginviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,becausethejudgefailedtodirectthejuryproperlyastoidentificationandmanslaughter,whichwerecentralissuesduringthetrial.Inthisconnection,theauthorpointsoutthatthewitnessesgavecontradictoryevidencewithregardtotheexacthouroftheincident,someclaimingthatithappenedaround7p.m.,othersaround8p.m.Itisstatedthat,whileitwouldstillhavebeenlightat7p.m.,itwouldhavebeendarkat8p.m.Theauthorclaimsthatthedarknesswouldhaveaffectedproperidentificationoftheperpetratorsandthatthejudgeshouldhavealertedthejurytotheissueastowhetheritwasinfactdark,whichhefailedtodo.Hefurtherallegesthatthejudgefailedtobringtotheattentionofthejurycertainotherinconsistenciesintheevidenceandtowarnthejuryproperlywithregardtotheneedforcautioninrelyingonidentificationevidence.3.62 .2Theauthoralsoclaimsthatthejudgedidnotdirectthejuryproperlyasregardstheissueofjointenterpriseinthathedidnotadverttothepossibilitythattheauthor'scoaccused,whowasallegedtohavefiredtheonlyshot,mighthavegonebeyondwhatwastacitlyagreedaspartofthejointenterprise.Inthisconnection,theauthorpointsoutthatthewitnesses'evidenceshowedthatthefourmenwerelookingforaDerrickMorgan,notforthedeceased,andthatthejuryhadtodecidewhethertheauthorhadindeedtheintentiontokillordoseriousharmtothedeceased.Theauthorclaimsthatitwasopentothejurytofindhimguiltyofmanslaughterifhestartedoutonanenterprisewhichenvisagedsomedegreeofviolenceandhiscoaccusedwentbeyondthescopeoftheenterprise.Howeverthejudgeallegedlyinstructedthejurythattheauthorwastobeconvictedofmurderoracquitted.3.72 .2Theauthoralsoallegesthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticle6,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,sincehehasbeensentencedtodeathafteratrialduringwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenantwereviolated.Inthisconnection,theauthorreferstotheCommittee'sViewsinCommunicationNo.250/1987.   o   3.82 .2TheauthorfinallyallegesthatheisavictimofaviolationbyJamaicaofarticle10oftheCovenant,sincetheStatepartyfailstoprovidehimwithsufficientfood,medicalordentalcare,andbasicnecessitiesforpersonalhygiene.Tosupporthisclaims,theauthorenclosescopyofareportbyProfessorW.E.Hellerstein,basedonastudyoftheconditionsinJamaicanprisons,conductedinJanuary1990.&  Stateparty'sobservations4.2 .2Bysubmissionof19May1994,theStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.Inthiscontext,the'  StatepartyarguesthatitisopentotheauthortoseekredressfortheallegedviolationsofhisrightsbywayofaconstitutionalmotiontotheSupremeCourt.5.2 .2Inaletter,dated6February1995,counselfortheauthorreferstohisinitialcommunicationandstatesthathehasnofurthercommentstomake.&  Committee'sadmissibilitydecision6.12 .2Atitsfiftythirdsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.'  6.22 .2TheCommitteeascertained,asrequiredunderarticle5,subparagraph2(a),oftheOptionalProtocol,thatthesamematterwasnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.6.32 .2TheCommitteetooknoteoftheStateparty'sclaimthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteerecalleditspriorjurisprudenceandconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondidnot,inthecircumstancesofthecase,constituteanavailableremedywhichneededtobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,theCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,subparagraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.42 .2TheCommitteenotedthatpartoftheauthor'sallegationsrelatedtotheevaluationofevidenceandtotheinstructionsgivenbythejudgetothejury.TheCommitteereferredtoitspriorjurisprudenceandreiteratedthatitisgenerallyfortheappellatecourtsofStatespartiestotheCovenanttoevaluatefactsandevidenceinaparticularcase.Similarly,itwasnotfortheCommitteetoreviewspecificinstructionstothejurybythetrialjudge,unlessitcouldbeascertainedthattheinstructionstothejurywereclearlyarbitraryoramountedtoadenialofjustice.ThematerialbeforetheCommitteedidnotshowthatthetrialjudge'sinstructionsortheconductofthetrialsufferedfromsuchdefects.Accordingly,thispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,pursuanttoarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52 .2TheCommitteenotedthattheauthor,insupportofhisclaimunderarticle10oftheCovenant,onlyreferredtoageneralreportaboutconditionsinJamaicanprisons.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceofanyinformationconcerningthespecificsituationoftheauthor,thisclaimhadnotbeensubstantiatedforpurposesofadmissibility.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforeinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.62 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,thatthedelayinbringingtheauthortotrialandhiscontinueddetentionthroughoutthisperiodmightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant,whichneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.TheCommitteealsoconsideredthattheauthor'sclaimthathewasdeniedtimeandfacilitiestopreparehisdefenceandthathiscounseleffectivelyabandonedhisappealmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,subparagraphs3(b)and(d),whichneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.7.2 .2Accordingly,theHumanRightsCommitteedecidedthatthecommunicationwasadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraphs3(b),(c)and(d),junctoarticle6,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.&  Stateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsofthecommunication8.12 .2Bysubmissionof25September1996,theStatepartyarguesthatthedelayof28monthsbetweentheauthor'sarrestandthebeginningofthetrialagainst'  himdoesnotconstituteaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),becausetwopreliminaryhearingswereheldduringthattime.TheStatepartysubmitsthatthereisnobasisfortheassertionthatthisdelaywasundueorprejudicialtotheauthorandpointsoutthatwitnessescouldhaverefreshedtheirmemoryfromtheirownstatementsgivenshortlyaftertheincidentoccurred.8.22 .2TheStatepartyfurtherisoftheopinionthatitcannotbeheldaccountableforthemannerinwhichcounselconductsatrialorarguesanappeal.&  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee9.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedin'  article5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.12 .2Theauthorhasclaimedthatthedelayinbringinghimtotrial,aperiodofmorethan27months(fromhisarreston22July1983tothebeginningofthetrialon9December1985)duringwhichheremainedindetention,isinviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c).TheCommitteenotesthattheauthorhasstatedthatthepreliminaryenquiryagainsthimwasheldinAugust1983andthattheStatepartyhasnotprovidedanyinformationastowhyitwasadjournedorwhythetrialdidnotstartuntil26monthslater.IntheabsenceofanyspecificgroundsfromtheStatepartyastowhythetrialonlystarted26monthsaftertheadjournmentofthepreliminaryenquirytheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatthedelayintheinstantcasewascontrarytotheStateparty'sobligationtobringanaccusedtotrialwithoutunduedelay.10.22 .2Asregardstheauthor'sclaimthathedidnothaveadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefence,theCommitteenotesthattheinformationbeforeitshowsthattheauthorwasrepresentedattrialbythesamecounselwhohadrepresentedhimatthepreliminaryexamination.TheCommitteefurthernotesthatneithertheauthornorcounseleverrequestedtheCourtformoretimeinthepreparationofthedefence.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefindsthatthefactsbeforeitdonotshowaviolationofarticle14,subparagraph3(b),oftheCovenantinrespecttotheauthor'strial.10.32 .2Theauthorhasfurthercomplainedthatcounselwhowasassignedtorepresenthimonappealdidnotcontacthimbeforetheappealandthathedidnotadvanceanygroundsforappealagainstconviction.ItappearsfromthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealthattheauthor'scounselfortheappeal(whohadnotrepresentedhimatthetrial)concededatthehearingthattherewerenoargumentsthathecouldputforwardtoaffecttheconviction.TheCommitteerecallsthat,whilearticle14,subparagraph3(d),doesnotentitletheaccusedtochoosecounselprovidedtohimfreeofcharge,measuresmustbetakentoensurethatcounsel,onceassigned,provideseffectiverepresentationintheinterestsofjustice.Thisincludesconsultingwith,andinforming,theaccusedifheintendstowithdrawanappealortoarguebeforetheappellateinstancesthattheappealhasnomerit.WhileitisnotfortheCommitteetoquestioncounsel'sprofessionaljudgmentthattherewasnomeritintheappealagainstconviction,theCommitteeconsidersthatinacapitalcase,whencounselfortheaccusedconcedesthatthereisnomeritintheappeal,theCourtshouldascertainwhethercounselhasconsultedwiththeaccusedandinformedhimaccordingly.Ifnot,theCourtmustensurethattheaccusedissoinformed,sothathecanconsideranyotherremainingoptionsopentohim.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthattheauthorwasnoteffectivelyrepresentedonappeal,inviolationofarticle14,subparagraphs3(b)and(d).10.42 .2TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstthesentenceispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsGeneralComment6(16),theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat"theproceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefence,andtherighttoreviewofconvictionandsentencebyahighertribunal". p   ׀Inthepresentcase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithouteffectiverepresentationfortheauthoronappeal,therehasconsequentlyalsobeenaviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.11.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraphs3(b),(c)and(d),andconsequentlyofarticle6,paragraph2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.12.2 .2Underarticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,Mr.Steadmanisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthatinthecircumstancesofthecase,theauthorisentitledtoanappropriateremedy.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.ǀD.CommunicationNo.529/1993;HervinEdwardsv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtiethsession)* q   Submittedby:0 . 0H .HH .HHervinEdwards2 .2 . . H .HH .HH .H(representedbyMr.SaulLehrfreund)Victim:0 .0 . 0H .H0H .H0H .HTheauthorStateparty:0 . 0H .H0H .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:0H .H0H .H0H .H19January1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H31October19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe2 .2InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon28July1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.529/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.HervinEdwards,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisHervinEdwards,aJamaicancitizen,whoatthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunicationwasawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonandiscurrentlyservingalifesentenceattheGeneralPenitentiaryinKingston,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticle7andarticle14,subparagraph3(b),junctoarticle6,paragraph2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel,Mr.SaulLehrfreund,ofthelawfirmofSimonsMuirheadandBurtoninLondon.&  Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthorwasarrestedon31December1983andchargedwiththemurder,on29December1983,ofhiswife.On12June1984,hewasfoundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtodeathbytheManchesterCircuitCourt.TheCourtofAppealdismissedhisappealon22January1986.Themurderforwhichtheauthorstands'  convictedwasinitiallyclassifiedasacapitalmurderundertheOffencesAgainstthePerson(Amendment)Actof1992.Onreview,theCourtofAppealreclassifiedtheauthor'soffenceasnoncapitalon28March1995.2.22 .2Thefirstprosecutionwitness,atraineepoliceman,testifiedthaton29December1983,ataround1.15p.m.,hesawtheauthorwalkingwithhissonandwife,fromwhomhewasseparatedatthattime.Hesawtheauthorpushhiswifetotheground,takeoutamachete,andstrikeherfourorfivetimesintheregionofthechestandneck,asaresultofwhichshedied.Ontheissueofidentification,hetestifiedthathehadknowntheauthorforsevenyears,thatduringtheattackhehadshoutedattheauthorwhothenlookedup,andthat,afterhavingstruckhiswife,theauthorrantowardshimbeforedisappearingintoasideroad.Theauthor'ssonfollowedtheauthor,butwasstoppedbythepoliceman.2.32 .2Thesecondprosecutionwitness,apoliceofficerwhohadknowntheauthorfor15years,statedthatinthemorningof29December1983,hehadgonetotheauthor'shome,followingareportthattheauthorhadtakenhischildfromhiswife'scustody.Hesawtheauthor,hiswifeandtheirchildleavetogether,butlatersawthewifewithoutthechild.Hethentoldtheauthortoreturnthechildtohiswife.Anotherwitnessfortheprosecution,thearrestingofficer,testifiedthatafterbeingcautioned,theauthorsaid:"Sheatellmeahotwordandmegotvexandmechopher".2.42 .2Inanunswornstatementfromthedock,theauthorcontendedthaton29December1983,hehadbeenworkingalldayonhisallotment.Noevidencewasgiveninsupportofhisalibi.Hefurtherstatedthathewaswearingclothesdifferentfromthosewornbytheattacker,andthathehadinstructedthepolicetofindtheclotheshehadbeenwearingonthedayofthecrime.2.52 .2Theauthorwasrepresentedbyaprivatelyretainedlawyerduringthepreliminaryhearingandontrial,andbyanotherprivatelyretainedlawyeronappeal.Theapplicationforleavetoappealagainstconvictionandsentencewasbasedonthegroundsthattherewasinsufficientevidencetowarrantaconviction,butatthehearingoftheappeal,theauthor'slawyerconcededtotheCourtthathewasunabletofindanygroundsonwhichtoarguetheappeal.2.62 .2Astotherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,leadingcounselinLondonadvisedon7November1990thattherewerenoreasonableprospectsofsuccessforapetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.Leadingcounselreferredinparticulartothestrongidentificationevidenceofthefirstprosecutionwitness,tothefactthatthejudge'ssumminguptothejurywasinaccordancewiththerelevantrules,andthattheauthor'salibiwasseriouslyunderminedbytheevidenceofthesecondprosecutionwitness.ItissubmittedthatapetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwouldnotconstituteanavailableandeffectiveremedywithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.&  Complaint3.12 .2Theauthorsubmitsthathewasnotadequatelyrepresentedontrial.Hesubmitsthathesawhislawyeronlyfifteenminutespriortothepreliminary'  hearing,andthathedidnotseeheragainuntilthedayofthetrial.Hecomplainsthatshedidnotaskhimforinstructionsandthatsheshouldhaverequestedanadjournmentinordertoproperlypreparethedefence.Furthermore,shedidnotcontactanywitnessestotestifyonhisbehalfandfailedtocrossexaminetheprosecutionwitnessesonessentialissues,suchastheclotheswornbytheattackerandtheconfessionstatementheallegedlymadetothearrestingofficer.Theinadequateconductoftheauthor'sdefencecounselissaidtoamounttoaviolationofarticle14,subparagraph3(b),oftheCovenant.Itisfurthersubmittedthat,asaresult,article6,paragraph2,hasalsobeenviolated,sinceasentenceofdeathwaspassedupontheauthorafteratrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespected.3.22 .2Theauthorpointsouthewassentencedtodeathon12June1984andarguesthattheexecutionofasentenceofdeathaftersuchalongperiodwould,becauseoftheextremeanguishcausedbythedelay,amounttocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,withinthemeaningofarticle7oftheCovenant.3.32 .2TheauthorsubmitsthathehasbeensubjectedtothedeplorableconditionsofdetentionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison.Inthiscontext,hesubmitsthathehasspentthepast10yearsaloneinacellmeasuring6feetby14feet,beingletoutforthreeandahalfhoursaday.Hehasnorecreationalfacilitiesandreceivesnobooks.3.42 .2CounselconcedesthattheauthorhasnotappliedtotheSupreme(Constitutional)CourtofJamaicaforredress.HearguesthataconstitutionalmotionintheSupremeCourtwouldinevitablyfail,inlightoftheprecedentsetbytheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinthecasesofDPPv.NasrallaandRileyandothersv.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica,whereitwasheldthattheJamaicanconstitutionwasintendedtopreventtheenactmentofunjustlawsandnotunjusttreatmentunderthelaw.Sincetheauthorclaimsunjusttreatmentunderthelaw,andnotthatpostconstitutionallawsareunconstitutional,aconstitutionalmotionwouldnotbeaneffectiveremedyinhiscase.Counselfurtherarguesthat,ifitwereacceptedthataconstitutionalmotionisafinalremedytobeexhausted,itwouldnotbeavailabletotheauthorbecauseofhislackoffunds,theabsenceoflegalaidforthepurposeandbecauseoftheunwillingnessofJamaicanlawyerstorepresentapplicantsonaprobonobasis.Insupportofhiscontention,counselstatesthattheauthorinformedhimthat,althoughhehadaprivatelyretainedlawyerontrialandappeal,itwashisfamilywhopaidcounsel'sfeesandthatheisthusnotinapositiontoprivatelyretainalawyerforthepurposeoffilingaconstitutionalmotion.&  Stateparty'sobservations4.2 .2TheStatepartynotesthaton28March1995,theCourtofAppealreviewedtheauthor'scaseandreclassifiedtheoffenceasnoncapitalmurder.Hisdeath'  sentencewaschangedbylawtooneoflifeimprisonment.Theauthoristoservesevenmoreyearsofdetention,countedfromthedateofreclassification,beforehebecomeseligibleforparole.&  Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility5.12 .2Duringitsfiftyfifthsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.Itnotedthatinrespectoftheauthor'sconviction,'  leadingcounselinLondonhadadvisedthatapetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwouldhavenoprospectofsuccess.Givenleadingcounsel'suncontestedopinion,theCommitteeconsideredthatapetitionforspecialleavetoappealtotheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwasnotaneffectiveremedywhichtheauthorhadtoexhaustforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.5.22 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimaboutinadequatelegalrepresentation,theCommitteeobservedthattheauthor'slawyerhadbeenprivatelyretained.ItconsideredthattheStatepartycouldnotbeheldaccountableforallegederrorsmadebyaprivatelyretainedlawyer,unlessitshouldhavebeenmanifesttothejudgeorthejudicialauthoritiesthatthelawyer'sbehaviourwasincompatiblewiththeinterestsofjustice.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheinstantcase,therehadbeennoindicationthattheauthor'sdefencesufferedfromsuchdefect.ThispartofthecommunicationwasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantandwasdeclaredinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.5.32 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimthattheexecutionofasentenceofdeathaftermorethantenyearsondeathrowwouldamounttocruel,inhumananddegradingpunishment,theCommitteeobservedthatfollowingthereclassificationofhisoffenceasnoncapitaltheauthorwasnolongerunderthethreatofexecution.Withregardtothequestionwhetherhislengthystayondeathrowcouldamounttoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant,theCommitteereferredtoitsjurisprudence"thatprolongedjudicialproceedingsdonotperseconstitutecruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment,andthat,incapitalcases,evenprolongedperiodsofdetentionondeathrowcannotgenerallybeconsideredtoconstitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment".   r   ׀Intheinstantcase,theCommitteewishedtoexamineonthemeritswhetherthelengthofMr.Edward'sdetentionondeathrowwastheresultofdelaysimputabletotheStatepartyandwhethertherewereothercompellingcircumstancesparticulartotheauthor,includingtheconditionsofhisimprisonment,whichwouldamounttoaviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.5.42 .2Accordingly,on31October1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.&  Stateparty'ssubmissiononthemeritsandcounsel'scomments6.12 .2Bysubmissionof4November1996,theStatepartypointsoutthattheallegationsrelatingtoarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,relatetothe'  factthattheauthorspent10yearsondeathrowbeforehisoffencewasreclassifiedasnoncapitalandafurthertwoyearsuntilhewasactuallytakenoffdeathrowaftercommutationofsentence.6.22 .2TheStatepartystatesthattheauthorwasarrestedon31December1983andtriedandconvictedon12June1984,aperiodofsevenmonths.Theauthor'sappealwasdismissedon22January1986,18monthsafterconviction.Itwasnotuntilfouryearslater,7November1990,thatanopinionwasobtainedfromleadingcounselinLondonastowhethertherewereornotreasonableprospectsofsuccessforapetitiontothePrivyCouncil.Theauthor'scrimewasreclassifiedasnoncapitalbytheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Actof1992.TheStatepartycategoricallyrejectsthatthetimetheauthorhasspentondeathrowcanbeimputedtoit.7.12 .2Inhiscomments,counselcontendsthattheissuesarisingunderarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,involvetheresponsibilityoftheStateparty,sinceitwastheStatepartythatkepttheauthorondeathrowforover11yearsbetween12June1984and10July1995.CounselcontendsthatthisdelayincarryingoutthedeathsentenceisattributabletotheStateparty.Insupportofhisclaim,counselrefersthePrivyCounciljudgmentinPratt[1994]2AC1,wheretheirLordshipsheldthat:02 .2"aStatethatwishestoretaincapitalpunishmentmustaccepttheresponsibilityofensuringthatexecutionfollowsasswiftlyaspracticableaftersentence,allowingareasonabletimeforappealandconsiderationofreprieve";aswellastotheindividualopinionsappendedtotheCommittee'sViewsonCommunicationNo.588/1994(ErrolJohnsonv.Jamaica),whereitwasheldthat:02 .2"thephysicalandpsychologicaltreatmentoftheprisoner,hisageandhishealthmustbetakenintoconsiderationinordertoevaluatetheState'sbehaviourinrelationofarticles7and10,paragraph1".&  Examinationofthemerits8.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovided'  forinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.8.22 .2TheCommitteemustdeterminewhetherthelengthoftimetheauthorspentondeathrow11yearsand1monthamountstoaviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.CounselhasclaimedaviolationoftheseprovisionsbyreferencetothelengthoftimeMr.Edwardswasconfinedtodeathrow.ItremainstheCommittee'sjurisprudencethatdetentionondeathrowforaspecifictimedoesnotviolatearticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,intheabsenceofsomefurthercompellingcircumstances.TheCommitteerefersinthiscontext,toitsViewsonCommunicationNo.588/1994 s   ׀inwhichitexplainedandclarifieditsjurisprudenceonthisissue.IntheCommittee'sopinion,neithertheauthornorhiscounselhaveshowntheexistenceoffurthercompellingcircumstancesbeyondthelengthofdetentionondeathrow.Whileaperiodofdetentionondeathrow t   ׀ofoverelevenyearsisamatterofseriousconcern,theCommitteeconcludesthatlengthoftimedoesnotperseconstituteaviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1.8.32 .2WithregardtotheconditionsofdetentionatSt.Catherine'sDistrictPrison,theCommitteenotesthatinhisoriginalcommunicationtheauthormadespecificallegations,inrespectofthedeplorableconditionsofdetention.Heallegedthathewasheldfortheperiodof10yearsaloneinacellmeasuring6feetby14feet,letoutonlyforthreeandhalfhoursaday,wasprovidedwithnorecreationalfacilitiesandreceivednobooks.TheStatepartymadenoattempttorefutethesespecificallegations.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteetakestheallegationsasproven.Itfindsthatholdingaprisonerinsuchconditionsofdetentionconstitutesnotonlyaviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,but,becauseofthelengthoftimeinwhichtheauthorwaskeptintheseconditions,alsoaviolationofarticle7.9.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2Inaccordancewitharticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprovideMr.Edwardswithaneffectiveremedy,entailingcompensationfortheconditionsofdetentionssufferedwhileondeathrow.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.11.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakeninconnectionwiththeCommittee'sViews.ǀECommunicationNo.533/1993;HaroldElahiev.TrinidadandTobagò(Viewsadoptedon28July1997,sixtiethsession* u   882 HSubmittedby: . H .HHaroldElahieVictim:0 .0 . H .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HTrinidadandTobagoDateofcommunication:H .H20February1992(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H12October19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28ofthe2 .2InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon28July1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.533/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.HaroldElahie,undertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .4Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisHaroldElahie,aTrinidadiancitizen,currentlyservingfouryears'imprisonmentwithhardlabourattheStatePrison,TrinidadandTobago.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsofhishumanrightsbyTrinidadandTobago,butdoesnotinvokeanyprovisionoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthor'sreleasewasscheduledfor26November1996.Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2Theauthorwasarrestedon6July1986onchargesofmurderandseveralotheroffences(attemptedmurder,woundingwithintentandshootingwithintent).Hewasbroughtbeforeamagistrateandremandedincustody.On15October1986,thepreliminaryenquirybegan;shortlyafterwards,theauthorwastoldbyhisattorneythatthemagistratehadbeensuspendedfromhisdutiesforallegedcorruption.2.22 .2Theauthorwasnotbroughtbeforeanothermagistrateuntil22February1988.Thismagistratecontinuedtheenquirywhereithadbeenleftin1986.Theauthorwascommittedtostandtrialon25May1988;itisnotclearforwhichoffencehewasfinallyindicted.Itappearsfromhislettersthatoneoftheindictments,dated9July1990,wastobeheardon18November1990,butthatpriortothehearingthedefencefiledamotionagainstthisindictmentonthegroundthatitwasbasedonanillegalcommittalorder.Accordingtotheauthor,theprosecutionagreedand,on19March1991,thejudgequashedtheindictmentandorderedanewpreliminaryenquiry.Thedefenceappealedtheorder,butitwasapparentlydismissed,sincetheauthorstates:"[a]secondenquirywasconcludedagainstmebyanothermagistrate".2.32 .2Anewtrialwasscheduledandon25March1994,theauthorwassentencedtofouryears'imprisonmentwithhardlabour,afterpleadingguiltytoachargeofmanslaughter.   v   2.42 .2Theauthoraddsthathepleadedguiltyofmanslaughter,onhislawyer'sadvice,inordertoclarifyhissituationandexpeditetheproceedings.Hefurtherstatesthathislawyeradvisedhimnottoappealthesentence,asappealproceedingswouldtakelongerthanthetimehehadlefttoserve.Complaint3.12 .2AlthoughtheauthordoesnotinvokespecificprovisionsoftheCovenant,ittranspiresthatheclaimstobeavictimofviolationsofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,onaccountoftheconditionsofhisdetention,andofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),becauseofunduedelayintheproceedings,astherewasasevenyeardelaybetweenhisarrestanddetentionandhisconvictionin1994.Hecomplainsthathewasdetainedforsevenyearsandeightmonthsbeforegoingtotrial.3.22 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsthatheissubjectedtoinhumananddegradingtreatmentinprison.Inthiscontext,hesubmitsthatheisdetained,togetherwithfourinmates,inasmallcell.Theyhavenothingbuta"pieceofsponge"andoldnewspaperstosleepon,andfood,whichisnotfitforhumanconsumption,isthrownatthem"asiftheywerepigs".Furthermore,wheneverheisvisitedbyhisfamily,heishandcuffedtoanotherprisoner.Theauthorallegesthatwheneverinmatescomplaintothewardersabouttheprisonconditions,theyaresubjectedto"theworstkindofbrutality",andthattheyareneverpermittedtoseetheCommissionerofPrisons.Stateparty'sinformationandobservationsonadmissibilityandtheauthor'scommentsthereon4.2 .2Inasubmissiondated20March1995,theStatepartyconfirmsthattheauthorhasexhaustedallavailabledomesticremediesinregardtohiscomplaintabouttheprocedureadoptedatthepreliminaryenquiry.Itfurtherconcedesthattheauthorhasexhausteddomesticremedieswithrespecttohiscomplaintsaboutprisonconditions. US Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility5.2 .2Duringitsfiftyfifthsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.ItnotedthattheStatepartyconcededthattheauthorhadexhaustedavailabledomesticremediesandobservedthatwithrespecttotheauthor'scomplaintthathewasnottreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanpersonwhileindetention,hehadsubstantiatedthisclaimforittobeconsideredonitsmerits.̇6.12 .2TheCommitteefurtherconsideredthattheauthorhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,thatthedelayinbringinghimtotrialandhiscontinueddetentionthroughoutthisperiod,withoutthebenefitofbailandthetimealreadyservednothavingbeentakenintoaccount,mightraiseissuesunderarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant,whichneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.6.22 .2On12October1995,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle10,paragraph1;article9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant.FurtherinformationreceivedfromtheStateparty7.12 .2InafurthersubmissiononadmissibilityreceivedaftertheadoptionoftheadmissibilitydecisiontheStatepartystatedthat,on19March1991,theauthor'soriginalindictmenthasbeenquashedonthegroundthat: UK " US itwasfoundeduponacommittalwhichwasvoid,illegal,ofnoeffect,andultravirestheIndictableOffences(PreliminaryEnquires)Act UK ".Thejudgeorderedthattheindictmentbequashedandthatanewpreliminaryenquirybecommenced.7.22 .2Theresultofthenewpreliminaryenquirywasthattheauthorwascommittedtostandtrialformurder,attemptedmurder,woundingwithintentandshootingwithintent.AtthetrialintheAssize'scourt,theauthorpleadedguiltytomanslaughterand,on25March1994,wassentencedtofouryears'imprisonmentwithhardlabour.Examinationofthemerits8.12 .2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationprovidedbythepartiesasprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.Itnoteswithconcernthat,followingthetransmittaloftheCommittee'sdecisiononadmissibility,theStatepartyhasprovidednofurtherinformation.TheCommitteerecallsthatitisimplicitinarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolthataStatepartyexamineingoodfaithallallegationsbroughtagainstit,andthatitprovidetheCommitteewithalltheinformationatitsdisposal.InthelightofthefailureoftheStatepartytocooperatewiththeCommitteeonthematterbeforeit,despiteareminderbeingsenton11March1997,dueweightmustbegiventotheauthor'sallegations,toextentthattheyhavebeensubstantiated.8.22 .2TheCommitteenotesthattheinformationbeforeitshowsthattheauthorwasarrestedon6July1986,thatshortlyafterthepreliminaryenquirybegan,themagistratetowhomthecasewasassignedwassuspendedandthattheauthorwasnotbroughtbeforeanewmagistrateuntil22February1988.Hewascommittedtostandtrialon25May1988.Aconstitutionalmotionwasfiled,on1November1990,resultingintheauthor'sindictmentbeingquashedandanewpreliminaryenquirybeingorderedon19March1991.Theauthorwasconvictedofmanslaughteron25March1994.Thischronologyrevealsthattheauthorwasindetentionforsevenyearsandeightmonthsbeforebeingsentencedonapleaofguiltyofmanslaughter.Theauthorreceivedasentenceoffouryearsofimprisonmentwithhardlabourwhichwouldappeartohavetakenintoaccountthetimehehadalreadyserved.Nevertheless,theCommitteeconsidersthat,aperiodofsevenyearsandeightmonthsbetweentheauthor'sarrestandthestartofthetrialagainsthim,doesintheabsenceofanyadequateexplanationsfromtheStatepartywhichwouldexplainthedelay,amounttoaviolationofarticle9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant,sincethetrialagainstapersonkeptindetentionwasneitherinstitutednorcompletedwithinareasonabletimeandsincetherewereunduedelaysinthetrialitself.8.32 .2Withregardtotheauthor'sallegationsofconditionsofdetentionandill-treatment,theCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhasnotofferedanyinformationtorefutetheauthor'sallegations.Dueweightmustthereforebegiventotheauthor'sallegationthatheonlyhad"apieceofspongeandoldnewspapers"tosleepon,"foodnotfitforhumanconsumption"giventohim,andthathewastreatedwithbrutalitybythewarderswhenevercomplaintsweremade.IntheCommittee'sview,theauthor US wasnottreatedwithhumanityandrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson UK ,inviolationofarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.9.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticle10,paragraph1;article9,paragraph3,andarticle14,subparagraph3(c),oftheCovenant.10.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy,includingcompensationfortheill-treatmentsufferedandtheunduedelaysintheadjudicationofhiscase.TheCommitteereaffirmstheobligationtotreatindividualsdeprivedoftheirlibertywithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoensurethatsimilareventsdonotoccurinthefuture.11.2 .2Bearinginmind,thatbybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.ǀFCommunicationNo.535/1993;LloydellRichardsv.Jamaicà(Viewsadoptedon31March1997,fiftyninthsession)* w   882 HSubmittedby: . H .HH .HLloydellRichards2 .2 . . H .HH .HH .H[representedbyMr.SaulLehrfreund]Victim: . . H .HH .HH .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HH .HJamaicaDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H14January1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H17March19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon31March1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.535/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.LloydellRichardsundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol x   ׈1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisLloydellRichards,aJamaicancitizenwhoatthetimeofsubmissionofhiscommunicationwasawaitingexecutionatSt.CatherineDistrictPrison,Jamaica.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyJamaicaofarticle6,paragraph2;article7;article14,paragraphs1and2,subparagraphs3(c),(d)and(e),andparagraph5,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.HeisrepresentedbyMr.SaulLehrfreund.Theauthor'sdeathsentencehasbeencommuted.Factsaspresentedbytheauthor2.12 .2On15March1982,theauthorwaschargedwiththemurder,on8or9March1982,intheParishofWestmoreland,ofoneS.L.On26September1983,heappearedbeforetheHomeCircuitCourtofKingston;onarraignment.Hepleadedguiltytomanslaughter,apleaacceptedbytheprosecution.Counselforthedefencethenrequestedanadjournmentinordertocallcharacterwitnessesinmitigation.Thehearingwasadjournedto3October1983.However,theDirectorofPublicProsecutions,whohastheauthority,pursuanttosection94,paragraph3(c),oftheJamaicanConstitution,todiscontinueanycriminalproceedingsatanystagebeforejudgementisdelivered,consideredthatthepleaofguiltytomanslaughtershouldnothavebeenacceptedanddecidedtodiscontinuetheproceedingsinthecaseinordertochargetheauthorwiththemurderonafreshindictment.2.22 .2Accordingly,atthehearingof3October1983,anolleprosequiwasenteredbytheDirectorofPublicProsecutions;thenewindictmentwasreadouttotheauthor,whopleadednotguilty.On6December1983,theauthorwastriedintheHomeCircuitCourtofKingston,thenpresidedoverbyanotherjudge.On13December1983,hewasfoundguiltyofmurderandsentencedtodeath.Onappeal,counselfortheauthorarguedthatthetrialhadbeenunconstitutionalinthelightoftheearlieracceptancebytheprosecutionofapleaofmanslaughter.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicadismissedhisappealon10April1987.TheauthorsubsequentlypetitionedtheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilforspecialleavetoappeal;on20February1991,leavetoappealwasgranted.On29and30June1992,thePrivyCouncilheardtheauthor'sappealanddismissediton19October1992,recommendingthattheauthor'sdeathsentencebecommuted.FollowingtheenactmentoftheOffencesagainstthePerson(Amendment)Act1992,Jamaicacreatedtwocategoriesofmurder,capitalandnoncapital,consequentlyallpersonspreviouslyconvictedofmurderhadtheirconvictionreviewedandreclassifiedunderthenewsystem.InDecember1992,theauthor'soffencewasclassifiedas"capital".2.32 .2Thecasefortheprosecutionwasthat,on8March1982atabout8p.m.,theauthor,whoworkedasadriverofaminibus,pickedupS.L.,whowaslivinginMontegoBay.ShewasstrandedinSavannalamarand,althoughMontegoBaywasnotonthescheduledroute,theauthorsaidthathewouldbringherhomeashehadcompletedthelasttripoftheday.Hefirstdroppedtheconductorofthebusathishome.At9p.m.,theauthorstoppedandhaddrinksinabar.ThebarownersawS.L.comingoutofthebusandtryingtoobtainaliftfromcarsgoinginthedirectionofMontegoBay.Whenshedidnotsucceed,shereenteredthebusandleftwiththeauthor.At1a.m.,awitnesswhoknewtheauthorsawhimcomingoutofaguesthouseandpullingS.L.,whowascrying,intotheminibus.Severalhourslater,theauthor,coveredinmudandblood,appearedatthebusconductor'shouse.Hesaidthatthebushadbeenhijackedbythreearmedmenandthattheyhadorderedhimtodriveintothecountryside.Whenthebusbecamestuckinthemud,hemanagedtoescape;hefurthersaidthathefearedforS.L.'slife.Theauthorandafewotherpeople,followedbythepolice,soonfoundtheminibusandthebodyofS.L.wasdiscoveredinashallowgravenearby.Shehaddiedasaresultofaheadinjury;abloodstainedtoolwasfoundinthebus.Thedeceased'sbodyalsoshowedsignsofrape.2.42 .2Theauthorgaveanunswornstatementfromthedock.Hemaintainedthatthebushadbeenhijackedandsaidthattwooftheprosecutionwitnessesweremotivatedbymalice.Hefurtherstatedthathehadbeentorturedbythepolice.Complaint3.12 .2Theauthorclaimsthathistrialwasunfair.HeenclosestwoarticleswhichappearedinawellknownJamaicannewspaperandsubmitsthattheinformationgivenwasprejudicialtohiscase.Oneofthearticles,publishedon1October1983,stated"thattheauthorhadpleadedguiltytomanslaughterinthecaseofthedeathofS.L.,a17yearoldschoolgirl".Itfurtherstated"thatsomemembersofthejudiciaryfeltthatmanslaughterdidnotariseinacaseofthatnature",andsummarizedtheprosecution'scase.Theauthorpointsoutthatthisarticlewaspublishedtwodaysbeforeheappearedincourttobesentencedonthebasisofhismanslaughterpleaandbeforetheprosecutionenteredthenolleprosequi.Thesecondarticle,publishedon4October1983,reportedtheproceedingsofthepreviousday,and,accordingtotheauthor,inawayprejudicialtohisdefence.Theauthorsaidthathehadalreadypleadedguiltytomanslaughter,thusdeprivinghimselfoftherighttoafairtrialbeforeanindependentandimpartialtribunal,contrarytoarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.3.22 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsthatthepublicitygiventotheproceedingsviolatedhisrighttobepresumedinnocentuntilprovenguiltyaccordingtolaw.3.32 .2Theauthorpointsoutthathewasarrestedon9March1982,triedon6December1983andthattheCourtofAppealdismissedhisappealon10April1987.Hesubmitsthatadelayofoneyearandninemonthsbeforebeingtried,andofthreeyearsandfourmonthsbeforehearinghisappeal,isunreasonable,thusviolatinghisrightsunderarticle14,subparagraph3(c)andparagraph5,oftheCovenant.3.42 .2Withregardtoarticle14,subparagraph3(d),theauthornotesthat,on26September1983,whenhepleadedguiltytomanslaughter,hewasrepresentedbyleadingcounsel,Mr.C.M.,whorequestedanadjournment.Atthehearingon3October1983,hewasagainrepresentedbyC.M.,whohadbeennotifiedbytheprosecutionofitsintentiontoenteranolleprosequi.Priortothehearingon6December1983,C.M.appliedtowithdrawfromthecaseonprofessionalethicalgroundsandrequestedanadjournmentbecausejuniorcounsel,whowouldtakeoverthedefence,couldnotattendthehearing.Thejudgerefusedbothrequests,primarilyonthegroundthatthetrialhadalreadybeenpostponedseveraltimesandcriticizedC.M.fornothavingstartedhisinvestigationsinWestmorelanduntil27November1983andfornothavinginformedhisclientofhisposition.C.M.thenindicatedthathewouldremainforthedefencethatday.Inthecircumstances,theauthorsubmits,hewasnotadequatelyrepresentedbyC.M.3.52 .2Theauthorfurtherclaimsthatjuniorcounselwasnotinapositiontoeffectivelyrepresenthim,whichsheherselfadmitted.Inthiscontext,henotesthat,on7December1983,she,whileapologizingtotheCourtforhavingbeenabsentonthefirstdayofthetrial,said:"ButIwishtoindicatetotheCourtthatIhavenointentionoftakingoracceptinganymoneyfromtheGovernmentforthiscase,becauseIfeelthatIhavenotgivenitmybestand,inthecircumstances,Iamherethismorningto'fightthegoodfightwithallmymight';butIwillnot,becauseIdon'tfeelitisjustifiedandmyconsciencewouldnotallowme,acceptanymoneyinrelationtothislegalaidassignment,butIamheretoprotectmyclient."3.62 .2TheauthorpointsoutthatonFriday,9December1983,justbeforetheendofthehearing,counselindicatedthatanexpertwitness,amedicaldoctor,wouldbecalledtogiveevidenceonbehalfofthedefence.OnMonday,12December1983,shestated,however,thatthewitnesswasnotavailable.Nootherwitnesseswerecalledforthedefence.Accordingtotheauthor,thisamountstoaviolationofarticle14,subparagraph3(e),oftheCovenant.3.72 .2Inthelightoftheabove,article6,paragraph2,issaidtohavebeenviolated,sincetheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstthesentenceisavailable,aviolationofthisprovision.3.82 .2Theauthorsubmitsthat,duringtheinterrogationon9March1982,hewastorturedbythepolice.Heallegesthattheofficerwhoarrestedhimheldhimbytheshirtinachokingpositionsothathewasunabletoreplytoanyofthequestions.Laterthatday,hewastakentoanofficewhere,allegedly,hewas"mobbed"byfiveorsixpoliceofficers,whosprayedteargasinhiseyes,earsandnostrils,andhithimwithastick.Asaresult,hesubmits,hecouldnotseeorhearwellforanumberofdaysandwasunabletodrinkfor17days.Heclaimsthathewasdeniedmedicaltreatment.3.92 .2Itissubmittedthattheexecutionoftheauthoratthispointintimewouldamounttoaviolationofarticle7,becauseofthedelaysinadjudicatingthecaseandthetimespentondeathrow.Insupportofthiscontention,itissubmittedthatthePrivyCouncil,whendismissingtheauthor'sappeal,expresseditsconcernaboutthedelaysinthejudicialproceedingsinthecase,andrecommendedthatthedeathsentencebecommuted.Furthermore,theauthorissaidtohavebeensubjectedtocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentandpunishmentwhilebeingheldinthedeathrowsectionofSt.CatherineDistrictPrisonwherethelivingconditionsaresaidtobeappalling.Finally,thementalanguishandanxietyresultingfromprolongeddetentionondeathrow,exacerbatedbythechangingattitudesoftheJamaicanauthoritiesincarryingoutexecutions,aresaidtoconstituteaseparateviolationofarticle7.3.10Astotheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthorconcedesthathehasnotappliedtotheSupreme(Constitutional)CourtofJamaicaforredress.HearguesthataconstitutionalmotionintheSupremeCourtwouldinevitablyfail,inthelightoftheprecedentsetbytheJudicialCommittee'sdecisionsinDPPv.Nasralla[(1967)2ALLER161]andRileyetal.v.AttorneyGeneralofJamaica[(1982)2ALLER469],whereitwasheldthattheJamaicanConstitutionwasintendedtopreventtheenactmentofunjustlawsandnotmerelyunjusttreatmentunderthelaw.Sinceheclaimsunfairtreatmentunderthelaw,andnotthatpostconstitutionallawsareunconstitutional,aconstitutionalmotionwouldnotbeaneffectiveremedyinhiscase.Hefurtherarguesthatevenifitwereacceptedthataconstitutionalmotionisafinalremedytobeexhausted,itwouldnotbeavailabletohimbecauseofhislackoffunds,theabsenceoflegalaidforthispurposeandtheunwillingnessofJamaicanlawyerstorepresentapplicantsonaprobonobasisforthepurpose.Stateparty'sobservationsonadmissibilityandcounsel'scomments4.2 .2Bysubmissionof23June1993,theStatepartyarguedthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyarguedthatitisopentotheauthortoseekredressfortheallegedviolationsofhisrightsbywayofaconstitutionalmotiontotheSupremeCourt.5.2 .2Inhiscomments,counselreiteratedthattheconstitutionalmotionwasnotaneffectiveandavailabledomesticremedyintheauthor'scase.Inthiscontext,hereferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudencethat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotionisnotanavailableremedy.ItwasstatedthattheconstitutionalityoftheexecutionofthedeathsentencecannotbebroughtbeforetheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilwithoutfirstexhaustingdomesticremediesthroughtheSupreme(Constitutional)Court.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12 .2Atitsfiftythirdsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.ItnotedtheStateparty'sclaimthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies.TheCommitteerecalleditsconstantjurisprudencethatforpurposesofarticle5,subparagraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,domesticremediesmustbebotheffectiveandavailable.AsregardstheStateparty'sargumentthataconstitutionalremedywasstillopentotheauthor,theCommitteenotedthattheSupremeCourtofJamaicahad,insomecases,allowedapplicationsforconstitutionalredressinrespectofbreachesoffundamentalrights,afterthecriminalappealsinthesecaseshadbeendismissed.However,theCommitteealsorecalledthattheStatepartyhasindicatedonseveraloccasionsthatnolegalaidismadeavailableforconstitutionalmotions.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceoflegalaid,aconstitutionalmotiondoesnot,inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcase,constituteanavailableremedywhichneedstobeexhaustedforpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol.Inthisrespect,theCommitteethereforefoundthatitwasnotprecludedbyarticle5,subparagraph2(b),fromconsideringthecommunication.6.22 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorandhiscounselhadsufficientlysubstantiatedforpurposesofadmissibilitytheclaimthatthetrialagainsttheauthordidnotfulfiltherequirementslaiddowninarticle14oftheCovenant.TheCommitteefoundthattheenteringofnolleprosequibytheprosecutionaftertheauthorhadpleadedguiltytomanslaughterandthepublicityconnectedtheretomayhaveaffectedthepresumptionofinnocenceintheauthor'scase.TheCommitteealsofoundthatthejudge'srefusaltoadjournthetrialaftercounselhadindicatedthathewasnolongerwillingtorepresenthimmayhaveaffectedtheauthor'srighttopreparehisdefenceadequatelyandtoobtaintheattendanceofwitnessesonhisbehalf.Further,theCommitteefoundthatthedelayinthejudicialproceedingsmightraiseissuesunderarticle14,subparagraph3(c)andparagraph5,oftheCovenant.TheCommitteeconsideredthattheseissuesneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.6.32 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthat,intheabsenceofinformationprovidedbytheStateparty,theauthorhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimthathewassubjectedtoilltreatmentuponarrestandsubsequentlydeniedmedicaltreatment.Thisclaimmightraiseissuesunderarticles7and10oftheCovenant,whichneededtobeexaminedonthemerits.6.42 .2TheCommitteenextturnedtotheauthor'sclaimthathisprolongeddetentionondeathrowamountedtoaviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.WhiletheCommitteehadtakenduenoteofthejudgementofthePrivyCouncilinthecaseofEarlPrattandIvanMorgan(whichtheauthorhasapparentlynotinvokedinthedomesticcourtsofJamaica),itreiterateditspriorjurisprudencethatlengthydetentionondeathrowdoesnot,perse,constitutecruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentinviolationofarticle7oftheCovenant.TheCommitteeobservedthattheauthorhadnotsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,anyspecificcircumstancesofhiscasethatwouldraiseanissueunderarticle7oftheCovenant.Thispartofthecommunicationwasthereforedeemedinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.Examinationonthemerits7.12 .2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationprovidedbytheparties.Itnoteswithconcernthat,followingthetransmittaloftheCommittee'sdecisiononadmissibility,nofurtherinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyclarifyingthematterraisedbythepresentcommunication.ThedeadlineforsubmissionoftheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocolexpiredon1November1995.NoadditionalinformationhasbeenreceivedfromtheStatepartyinspiteofareminderaddressedtoiton2August1996.TheCommitteerecallsthatinaccordancewitharticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,aStatepartymustexamineingoodfaithalltheallegationsbroughtagainstit,andprovidetheCommitteewithalltheinformationatitsdisposal.InthelightofthefailureoftheStatepartytocooperatewiththeCommitteeonthematterbeforeit,dueweightmustbegiventotheallegationssubmittedbytheauthor,totheextentthattheyhavebeensubstantiated.7.22 .2Theauthorhasclaimedthathistrialwasunfairbecausetheprosecutionenteredanolleprosequipleaaftertheauthorhadpleadedguiltytoachargeofmanslaughter.Theauthorclaimsthattheextentofmediapublicitygiventohisguiltypleanegatedhisrighttopresumptionofinnocenceandthusdeniedhimtherighttoafairtrial.TheCourtofAppealofJamaicaacknowledgedthepossibilityofdisadvantagetotheauthoratpresentinghisdefenceatthetrial,butobservedthat"nothingshowsthattheconvictingjurywasawareofthis".TheentryofanolleprosequiwasfoundbytheJamaicancourtsandtheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCounciltobelegallypermissible,asunderJamaicanlawtheauthorhadnotbeenfinallyconvicteduntilsentencewaspassed.ThequestionfortheCommitteeisnot,however,whetheritwaslawful,butwhetheritsusewascompatiblewiththeguaranteesoffairtrialenshrinedintheCovenantintheparticularcircumstancesofthecase.NolleprosequiisaprocedurewhichallowstheDirectorofPublicProsecutionstodiscontinueacriminalprosecution.TheStatepartyhasarguedthatitmaybeusedintheinterestsofjusticeandthatitwasusedinthepresentcasetopreventamiscarriageofjustice.TheCommitteeobserves,however,thattheProsecutorintheinstantcasewasfullyawareofthecircumstancesofMr.Richards'caseandhadagreedtoaccepthismanslaughterplea.Thenolleprosequiwasused,nottodiscontinueproceedingsagainsttheauthor,buttoenableafreshprosecutionagainsttheauthortobeinitiatedimmediately,onexactlythesamechargeinrespectofwhichhehadalreadyenteredapleaofguiltytomanslaughter,apleawhichhadbeenaccepted.Thus,itspurposeandeffectweretocircumventtheconsequencesofthatplea,whichwasenteredinaccordancewiththelawandpracticeofJamaica.IntheCommittee'sopinion,theresorttoanolleprosequiinsuchcircumstancesandtheinitiationofafurtherchargeagainsttheauthorwasincompatiblewiththerequirementsofafairtrialwithinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.7.32 .2Withregardstothefurtherclaimsofviolationsofarticle14,subparagraphs3(b),(c)and(e)andparagraph5,inrespectoftheauthor'sinadequaterepresentation,andunduedelayintheproceedings,theCommitteeexpressesitsconcernwiththeallegationsmade.However,theCommitteeisoftheviewthatinthelightoftheoriginalflawintheauthor'strialasstatedabove,itneednotmakeafindingontheseissues.7.42 .2Withrespecttotheauthor'sallegationregardinghisilltreatmentuponarrestandthesubsequentdenialofmedicaltreatment,theCommitteenotesthatthiswasputbeforethejuryandthejuryrejectedit,andmoreoverthattheauthorchosetomakeanunswornstatementfromthedockwhichpreventedhiscrossexaminationonthesubject.Inthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,theCommitteeconsidersthattherehasbeennoviolationofarticle7andarticle10,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.7.52 .2TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheimpositionofasentenceofdeathuponconclusionofatrialinwhichtheprovisionsoftheCovenanthavenotbeenrespectedconstitutes,ifnofurtherappealagainstthesentenceispossible,aviolationofarticle6oftheCovenant.AstheCommitteenotedinitsGeneralComment6[16],theprovisionthatasentenceofdeathmaybeimposedonlyinaccordancewiththelawandnotcontrarytotheprovisionsoftheCovenantimpliesthat"theproceduralguaranteesthereinprescribedmustbeobserved,includingtherighttoafairhearingbyanindependenttribunal,thepresumptionofinnocence,theminimumguaranteesforthedefenceandtherighttoreviewoftheconvictionandsentencebyahighertribunal".Inthepresentcase,sincethefinalsentenceofdeathwaspassedwithouthavingobservedtherequirementsofarticle14concerningfairtrialandpresumptionofinnocenceitmustbeconcludedthattherightprotectedbyarticle6oftheCovenanthasbeenviolated.8.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,and,consequently,article6,oftheCovenant.9.2 .2Pursuanttoarticle2,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant,theauthorisentitledtoaneffectiveremedy.TheCommitteenotesthattheStatepartyhascommutedtheauthor'sdeathsentenceandconsidersthatthisconstitutessufficientremedyinthiscase.10.2 .2Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.@ .\APPENDIX@ .( A.IndividualopinionbyNisukeAndo(dissenting)# .[Original:English]2 .2IamunabletopersuademyselftosharetheCommittee'sViewsinthepresentcaseforthefollowingreasons:2 .2Inmyopinion,thepurposeofacriminaltrialistoascertainwhatactuallytookplaceinthecaseatissue,thatis,tofind"truefacts"ofthecase,onwhichconvictionandsentenceshouldbebased.Ofcourse,"truefacts"assubmittedbythedefendantmaydifferfrom"truefacts"assubmittedbytheprosecution,andsincedefendantsaregenerallyatadisadvantagecomparedtotheprosecution,variousproceduralguaranteesexisttosecurea"fairtrial".Therequirementofequalityofarms,rulesofevidence,controloftheproceedingsbyindependentandimpartialjudges,deliberationanddecisionbyneutraljuries,andthesystemofappealsareallpartoftheseguarantees.2 .2Inthepresentcase,theauthorinitiallypleadedguiltytomanslaughter,whichwasacceptedbytheprosecution.However,theDirectorofPublicProsecution,whohasauthoritytodiscontinueanycriminalproceedingsatanystagebeforejudgementisdelivered,consideredthatthepleaofguiltyofmanslaughtershouldnothavebeenacceptedanddecidedtodiscontinueproceedingsinthecase,inordertochargetheauthorwithmurderonafreshindictment(seeparagraph2.1).Consequently,anolleprosequiwasenteredbytheprosecutiontodiscontinuetheproceedingsandthenewindictmentofmurderwasentered.Inthesubsequenttrial,theauthorwasfoundguiltyofmurderandsentencedtodeath.HisappealtotheCourtofAppealofJamaicawasdismissed,andtheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,whichgrantedtheauthorspecialleavetoappeal,heardhisappealanddismissedit(seeparagraph2.2).2 .2IntheCommittee'sview,theresorttoanolleprosequiinthepresentcase,andtheinitiationofafurtherchargeagainsttheauthor,wereincompatiblewiththerequirementsofafairtrialwithinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant(seeparagraph7.2).However,inmyopinion,fairnessofthetrialinthepresentcasemustnotbedeterminedsolelyonthebasisoftheuseofnolleprosequibytheprosecution.Suchdeterminationrequirescarefulappreciationofalltherelevantcircumstances,includingthehandlingofanolleprosequibythejudgesconcerned,thoseatfirstinstance,attheCourtofAppeal,andintheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil.Itismyunderstandingthatjudgesneednotaccepttheprosecution'schargeenteredafteritsresorttoanolleprosequi.ItisalsomyunderstandingthattheindependenceandimpartialityofjudgesarewellestablishedinJamaicaaswellasintheUnitedKingdom.Consideringallthesecircumstancesandtheverypurposeofacriminaltrialasstatedabove,IamunabletopersuademyselftosharetheCommittee'sViewsthattheuseofanolleprosequibytheprosecutionattheinitialstagemadetheauthor'strialinitsentiretyanunfairone,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.&  @ . B.IndividualopinionbyDavidKretzmer(dissenting)# .[Original:English]2 .2LikemycolleagueNisukeAndo,IamunabletoagreewiththeCommittee'sviewthattheStatepartyviolatedtheauthor'srighttoafairtrialunder'  article14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.2 .2InDecember1993,theauthorwastriedformurderbyajudgeandjuryundertheregularproceedingsoftheJamaicanlegalsystem.Hewasfoundguiltybythejurywhichheardandassessedalltheevidenceagainsthim.TheCommitteedoesnotpointtoanydepartureduringthistrialfromtheminimumguaranteesspecifiedinarticle14,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.Itbasesitsfindingofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,solelyonthefactthatthetrialwasheldsubsequenttonolleprosequibeingenteredbytheDirectorofPublicProsecutions,aftertheauthorhadpleadedguiltytoachargeofmanslaughterintheinitialtrialonthesamecharges.2 .2Whilethelackofcoordinationbetweentheprosecutorinthefirsttrial,whoconsentedtothepleaofmanslaughter,andtheDirectorofPublicProsecutions,whoenteredthenolleprosequi,wasclearlyunfortunate,Icannotagreethatthislackofcoordinationinevitablymeantthattheauthorwasdenieda"fairandpublichearingbyacompetent,independentandimpartialtribunalestablishedbylaw"inthesecondtrial.Hadthedefenceinthesecondtrialbeenoftheopinionthatthejurycouldnotbeindependentandimpartialsinceitwouldbeinfluencedbypressreportsoftheauthor'sguiltypleainthefirsttrial,itcouldhaveraisedthispointatthebeginningofthetrial,ormadeanattempttochallengethejurors.Itdidneither.Furthermore,inhissumminguptothejury,thejudgemadeitquitecleartothejurorsthattheyweretobasetheirverdictsolelyontheevidencepresentedtothem.Therewasstrongevidenceagainsttheauthorandthereisnothingtosuggestthatthejurorsignoredthedirectionsofthejudge.Iamthereforeoftheopinionthatthereisnoadequatebasisforfindingaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,oftheCovenant,inthepresentcase. ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO f   ( A $(y882   ݀G.CommunicationNo.538/1993;CharlesE.Stewartv.Canadà(Viewsadoptedon1November1996,fiftyeighthsession)882 HSubmittedby: . H .HCharlesE.Stewart2 .2 . . H .H[representedbycounsel]Victim: . . H .HTheauthorStateparty: . H .HCanadaDateofcommunication:H .H18February1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H18March19942 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon1November1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.538/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMr.CharlesE.StewartundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication,hiscounselandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol* z   1.2 .2TheauthorofthecommunicationisCharlesEdwardStewart,aBritishcitizenbornin1960.HehasresidedinOntario,Canada,sincetheageofseven,andcurrentlyfacesdeportationfromCanada.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbyCanadaofarticles7,9,12,13,17and23oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Heisrepresentedbycounsel.Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.1TheauthorwasborninScotlandinDecember1960.Attheageofseven,heemigratedtoCanadawithhismother;hisfatherandolderbrotherwerealready,atthetime,livinginCanada.Theauthor'sparentshavesinceseparated,andtheauthorlivestogetherwithhismotherandwithhisyoungerbrother.Hismotherisinpoorhealth,andhisbrotherismentallydisabledandsuffersfromchronicepilepsy.HisolderbrotherwasdeportedtotheUnitedKingdomin1992,becauseofapreviouscriminalrecord.Thisbrotherapart,alloftheauthor'srelativesresideinCanada;theauthorhimselfhastwoyoungtwinchildren,wholivewiththeirmother,fromwhomtheauthordivorcedin1989.2.2Theauthorclaimsthatformostofhislife,heconsideredhimselftobeaCanadiancitizen.Heclaimsthatitwasonlywhenhewascontactedbyimmigrationofficialsbecauseofacriminalconvictionthatherealizedthat,legally,hewasonlyapermanentresident,ashisparentshadneverrequestedCanadiancitizenshipforhimduringhisyouth.ItisstatedthatbetweenSeptember1978andMay1991,theauthorwasconvictedon42occasions,mostlyforpettyoffencesandtrafficoffences.Twoconvictionswereforpossessionofmarijuanaseedsandofaprohibitedmartialartsweapon.Oneconvictionwasforassaultwithbodilyharm,committedinSeptember1984,ontheauthor'sformergirlfriend.Counselindicatesthatmostofherclient'sconvictionsareattributabletoherclient'ssubstanceabuseproblems,inparticularalcoholism.SincehisreleaseonmandatorysupervisioninSeptember1990,theauthorhasparticipatedinseveraldrugandalcoholrehabilitationprogrammes.Hehasfurtherreceivedmedicaladvicetocontrolhisalcoholabuseand,withtheexceptionofonerelapse,hasremainedalcoholfree.2.3Itisstatedthatalthoughtheauthorcannotcontributemuchfinanciallytothesubsistenceofhisfamily,hedoessowheneverheisabletoandhelpshisailingmotherandretardedbrotheraroundthehome.2.4In1990,animmigrationenquirywasinitiatedagainsttheauthorpursuanttosection27,paragraph1,oftheImmigrationAct.Underthisprovision,apermanentresidentinCanadamustbeordereddeportedfromCanadaifanadjudicatorinanimmigrationenquiryissatisfiedthatthedefendanthasbeenconvictedofcertainspecifiedoffencesundertheImmigrationAct.On20August1990,theauthorwasordereddeportedonaccountofhiscriminalconvictions.HeappealedtheordertotheImmigrationAppealDivision.TheBoardoftheAppealDivisionheardtheappealon15May1992,dismissingitbyjudgmentof21August1992,whichwascommunicatedtotheauthoron1September1992.2.5On30October1992,theauthorcomplainedtotheFederalCourtofAppealforanextensionofthetimelimitforapplyingforleavetoappeal.TheCourtfirstgrantedtherequestbutsubsequentlydismissedtheapplicationforleavetoappeal.ThereisnofurtherappealorapplicationforleavetoappealfromtheFederalCourtofAppealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada,ortoanyotherdomestictribunal.Thus,nofurthereffectivedomesticremedyissaidtobeavailable.2.6Iftheauthorisdeported,hewouldnotbeabletoreturntoCanadawithouttheexpressconsentoftheCanadianMinisterofEmploymentandImmigration,underthetermsofsections19(1)(i)and55oftheImmigrationAct.Are-applicationforemigrationtoCanadawouldnotonlyrequireministerialconsentbutalsothattheauthorfulfilalltheotherstatutoryadmissibilitycriteriaforimmigrants.Furthermore,becauseofhisconvictions,theauthorwouldbebarredfromreadmissiontoCanadaundersection19(2)(a)oftheAct.2.7Asthedeportationorderagainsttheauthorcouldnowbeenforcedatanypointintime,counselrequeststheCommitteetoseekfromtheStatepartyinterimmeasuresofprotection,pursuanttorule86oftherulesofprocedure.Complaint3.1Theauthorclaimsthattheabovefactsrevealviolationsofarticles7,9,12,13,17and23oftheCovenant.Heclaimsthatinrespectofarticle23,theStatepartyhasfailedtoprovideforclearlegislativerecognitionoftheprotectionofthefamily.Intheabsenceofsuchlegislationwhichensuresthatfamilyinterestswouldbegivendueweightinadministrativeproceedingssuchas,forexample,thosebeforetheImmigrationandRefugeeBoard,heclaims,thereisaprimafacieissueastowhetherCanadianlawiscompatiblewiththerequirementofprotectionofthefamily.3.2TheauthoralsoreferstotheCommittee'sGeneralCommentonarticle17,accordingtowhich"interference[withhomeandprivacy]canonlytakeplaceonthebasisoflaw,whichitselfmustbecompatiblewiththeprovisions,aimsandobjectivesoftheCovenant".HeassertsthatthereisnolawwhichensuresthathislegitimatefamilyinterestsorthoseofthemembersofhisfamilywouldbeaddressedindecidingonhisdeportationfromCanada;thereisonlythevagueandgeneraldiscretiongiventotheImmigrationAppealDivisiontoconsiderallthecircumstancesofthecase,whichissaidtobeinsufficienttoensureabalancingofhisfamilyinterestsandotherlegitimateStateaims.Initsdecision,theImmigrationAppealDivisionallegedlydidnotgiveanyweighttothedisabilitiesoftheauthor'smotherandbrother;instead,itruledthat"takingintoaccountthattheappellantdoesnothaveanyonedependingonhimandtherebeingnorealattachmenttoandnorealsupportfromanyone,theAppealDivisionseesinsufficientcircumstancestojustifytheappellant'spresenceinthiscountry".3.3Accordingtotheauthor,theterm"home"shouldbeinterpretedbroadly,encompassingthe(entire)communityofwhichanindividualisapart.Inthissense,his"home"issaidtobeCanada.Itisfurthersubmittedthattheauthor'sprivacymustincludethefactofbeingabletolivewithinthiscommunitywithoutarbitraryorunlawfulinterference.TotheextentthatCanadianlawdoesnotprotectaliensagainstsuchinterference,theauthorclaimsaviolationofarticle17.3.4Theauthorsubmitsthatarticle12,paragraph4,isapplicabletohissituationsince,forallpracticalpurposes,Canadaishisowncountry.HisdeportationfromCanadawouldresultinanabsolutestatutorybarfromre-enteringCanada.Itisnotedinthiscontextthatarticle12(4)doesnotindicatethateveryonehastherighttoenterhiscountryofnationalityorofbirthbutonly"hisowncountry".CounselarguesthattheUnitedKingdomisnolongertheauthor's"owncountry",sinceheleftitattheageofsevenandhisentirelifeisnowcentreduponhisfamilyinCanadathus,althoughnotCanadianinaformalsense,hemustbeconsidereddefactoaCanadiancitizen.3.5Theauthoraffirmsthathisallegationsunderarticles17and23shouldalsobeexaminedinthelightofotherprovisions,especiallyarticles9and12.Whilearticle9addressesdeprivationofliberty,thereisnoindicationthattheonlyconceptoflibertyisoneofphysicalfreedom.Article12recognizeslibertyinabroadersense:theauthorbelievesthathisdeportationfromCanadawouldviolate"hislibertyofmovementwithinCanadaandwithinhiscommunity",andthatitwouldnotbenecessaryforoneofthelegitimateobjectivesenumeratedinarticle12,paragraph3.3.6Theauthorcontendsthattheenforcementofthedeportationorderwouldamounttocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentwithinthemeaningofarticle7oftheCovenant.HeconcedesthattheCommitteehasnotyetdecidedwhetherthepermanentseparationofanindividualfromhis/herfamilyand/orcloserelativesandtheeffectivebanishmentofapersonfromtheonlycountryheeverknewandinwhichhegrewupmayamounttocruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment;hesubmitsthatthisisanissuetobedeterminedonitsmerits.3.7Inthisconnection,theauthorrecallsthat:(a)hehasresidedinCanadasincetheageofseven;(b)atthetimeofissueofthedeportationorderallmembersofhisimmediatefamilyresidedinCanada;(c)whilehiscriminalrecordisextensive,itdoesbynomeansrevealthatheisadangertopublicsafety;(d)hehastakenvoluntarystepstocontrolhissubstanceabuseproblems;(e)deportationfromCanadawouldeffectivelyandpermanentlyseverallhistiesinCanada;and(f)theprisontermsservedforvariousconvictionsalreadyconstituteadequatepunishmentandthereasoningoftheImmigrationAppealDivision,byemphasizinghiscriminalrecord,amountstotheimpositionofadditionalpunishment.SpecialRapporteur'srequestforinterimmeasuresofprotectionandStateparty'sreaction4.1On26April1993,theSpecialRapporteuronNewCommunicationstransmittedthecommunicationtotheStateparty,requestingit,underrule91oftherulesofprocedure,toprovideinformationandobservationsontheadmissibilityofthecommunication.Underrule86oftherulesofprocedure,theStatepartywasrequestednottodeporttheauthortotheUnitedKingdomwhilehiscommunicationwasunderconsiderationbytheCommittee.4.2Inasubmissiondated9July1993inreplytotherequestforinterimmeasuresofprotection,theStatepartyindicatesthatalthoughtheauthorwouldundoubtedlysufferpersonalinconvenienceshouldhebedeportedtotheUnitedKingdom,therearenospecialorcompellingcircumstancesinthecasethatwouldappeartocauseirreparableharm.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthattheauthorisnotbeingreturnedtoacountrywherehissafetyorlifewouldbeinjeopardy;furthermore,hewouldnotbebarredonceandforallfromreadmissiontoCanada.Secondly,theStatepartynotesthatalthoughtheauthor'ssocialtieswithhisfamilymaybeaffected,hiscomplaintmakesitclearthathisfamilyhasnofinancialorotherobjectivedependenceonhim:theauthordoesnotcontributefinanciallytohisbrother,hasnotmaintainedcontactwithhisfatherforsevenoreightyearsand,afterthedivorcefromhiswifein1989,apparentlyhasnotmaintainedanycontactwithhiswifeorchildren.4.3TheStatepartysubmitsthattheapplicationofrule86shouldnotimposeageneralruleonStatespartiestosuspendmeasuresordecisionsatadomesticlevelunlesstherearespecialcircumstanceswheresuchameasureordecisionmightconflictwiththeeffectiveexerciseoftheauthor'srightofpetition.ThefactthatacomplainthasbeenfiledwiththeCommitteeshouldnotautomaticallyimplythattheStatepartyisrestrictedinitspowertoimplementadeportationdecision.TheStatepartyarguesthatconsiderationsofStatesecurityandpublicpolicymustbeconsideredpriortoimposingrestraintsonaStatepartytoimplementadecisionlawfullytaken.ItthereforerequeststheCommitteetoclarifythecriteriaatthebasisoftheSpecialRapporteur'sdecisiontocallforinterimmeasuresofprotectionandtoconsiderwithdrawingtherequestforinterimprotectionunderrule86.4.4Inhercomments,dated15September1993,counselchallengestheStateparty'sargumentsrelatedtotheapplicationofrule86.Shecontendsthatdeportationwouldindeedbartheauthor'sreadmissiontoCanadaforever.Furthermore,thetestofwhatmayconstitute"irreparableharm"tothepetitionershouldnotbeconsideredbyreferencetothecriteriadevelopedbytheCanadiancourtswhere,itissubmitted,thetestforirreparableharminrelationtofamilyhasbecomeoneofalmostexclusivefinancialdependency,butbyreferencetotheCommittee'sowncriteria.4.5CounselsubmitsthatthecommunicationwasfiledpreciselybecauseCanadiancourts,includingtheImmigrationAppealDivision,donotrecognizefamilyinterestsbeyondfinancialdependencyoffamilymembers.SheaddsthatitistheverytestappliedbytheImmigrationAppealDivisionandtheFederalCourtwhichisatissuebeforetheHumanRightsCommittee:itwoulddefeattheeffectivenessofanyordertheCommitteemightmakeintheauthor'sfavourinthefutureiftherule86requestweretobecancellednow.Finally,counselcontendsthatitwouldbeunjustifiedtoapplya"balanceofconvenience"testindeterminingwhetherornottoinvokerule86,asthistestisinappropriatewherefundamentalhumanrightsareatissue.Stateparty'sadmissibilityobservationsandcounsel'scomments5.1Initssubmissionunderrule91,dated14December1993,theStatepartycontendsthattheauthorhasfailedtosubstantiatehisallegationsofviolationsofarticles7,9,12and13oftheCovenant.ItrecallsthatinternationalanddomestichumanrightslawclearlystatesthattherighttoremaininacountryandnottobeexpelledfromitisconfinedtonationalsofthatState.Theselawsrecognizethatanysuchrightspossessedbynon-nationalsareavailableonlyincertaincircumstancesandaremorelimitedthanthosepossessedbynationals.Article13oftheCovenant"delineatesthescopeofthatinstrument'sapplicationinregardtotherightofanalientoremainintheterritoryofaStateparty....Article13directlyregulatesonlytheprocedureandnotthesubstantivegroundsforexpulsion.Itspurposeisclearlytopreventarbitraryexpulsions.[Theprovision]aimstoensurethattheprocessofexpellingsuchapersoncomplieswithwhatislaiddownintheState'sdomesticlawandthatitisnottaintedbybadfaithortheabuseofpower".ReferenceismadetotheCommittee'sViewsinCommunicationNo.58/1979,Maroufidouv.Sweden.5.2TheStatepartysubmitsthattheapplicationoftheImmigrationActintheinstantcasesatisfiedtherequirementsofarticle13.Inparticular,theauthorwasrepresentedbycounselduringtheinquirybeforetheimmigrationadjudicatorandwasgiventheopportunitytopresentevidenceastowhetherheshouldbepermittedtoremaininCanadaandtocrossexaminewitnesses.Basedonevidenceadducedduringtheinquiry,theadjudicatorissuedadeportationorderagainsttheauthor.TheStatepartyexplainsthattheImmigrationAppealBoardtowhichtheauthorcomplainedisanindependentandimpartialtribunalwithjurisdictiontoconsideranygroundofappealthatinvolvedaquestionoflaworfact,ormixedlawandfact.ItalsohasjurisdictiontoconsideranappealonhumanitariangroundsthatanindividualshouldnotberemovedfromCanada.TheBoardissaidtohavecarefullyconsideredandweighedalltheevidencepresentedtoit,aswellasthecircumstancesoftheauthor'scase.5.3WhiletheStatepartyconcedesthattherighttoremaininacountrymightexceptionallyfallwithinthescopeofapplicationoftheCovenant,itissubmittedthattherearenosuchcircumstancesinthecase:thedecisiontodeportMr.Stewartissaidtobe"justifiedbythefactsofthecaseandbyCanada'sdutytoenforcepublicintereststatutesandprotectsociety.Canadiancourtshaveheldthatthemostimportantobjectiveforagovernmentistoprotectthesecurityofitsnationals.ThisisconsistentwiththeviewexpressedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadathattheexecutivearmofgovernmentispre-eminentinmattersconcerningthesecurityofitscitizens...andthatthemostfundamentalprincipleofimmigrationlawisthatnon-citizensdonothaveanunqualifiedrighttoenterorremaininthecountry".5.42 .2TheStatepartyarguesthatboththedecisiontodeportMr.StewartandtoupholdthedeportationordermetwiththerequirementsoftheImmigrationAct,andthatthesedecisionswereinaccordancewithinternationalstandards;therearenospecialcircumstanceswhichwould"triggertheapplicationoftheCovenanttojustifythecomplainant'sstayinCanada".Furthermore,thereisnoevidenceofabuseofpowerbyCanadianauthoritiesandintheabsenceofsuchanabuse,"itisinappropriatefortheCommitteetoevaluatetheinterpretationandapplicationbythoseauthoritiesofCanadianlaw".5.5Astotheallegedviolationofarticles17and23oftheCovenant,theStatepartyarguesthatitsimmigrationlaws,regulationsandpoliciesarecompatiblewiththerequirementsoftheseprovisions.Inparticular,section114(2)oftheImmigrationActallowsfortheexemptionofpersonsfromanyregulationsmadeundertheActortheadmissionintoCanadaofpersonswherethereexistcompassionateorhumanitarianconsiderations.SuchconsiderationsincludetheexistenceoffamilyinCanadaandthepotentialharmthatwouldresultifamemberofthefamilywereremovedfromCanada.5.6AgeneralprincipleofCanadianimmigrationprogramsandpoliciesisthatdependantsofimmigrantsintoCanadaareeligibletobegrantedpermanentresidenceatthesametimeastheprincipalapplicant.Furthermore,wherefamilymembersremainoutsideCanada,theImmigrationActandancillaryregulationsfacilitatereunificationthroughfamilyclassandassistedrelativesponsorships:"[r]eunificationinfactoccursasaresultofsuchsponsorshipsinalmostallcases".5.7Inviewoftheabove,theStatepartysubmitsthatanyeffectswhichadeportationmayhaveontheauthor'sfamilyinCanadawouldoccurfurthertotheapplicationoflegislationthatiscompatiblewiththeprovisions,aimsandobjectivesoftheCovenant:"Inthecaseathand,humanitarianandcompassionategrounds,whichincludedfamilyconsiderations,weretakenintoaccountduringtheproceedingsbeforetheimmigrationauthoritiesandwerebalancedagainstCanada'sdutyandresponsibilitytoprotectsocietyandtoproperlyenforcepublicintereststatutes".5.8Inconclusion,theStatepartyaffirmsthatMr.StewarthasfailedtosubstantiateviolationsofrightsprotectedundertheCovenantandisinfactclaimingarighttoremaininCanada.HeissaidtobeinfactseekingtoestablishanavenueundertheCovenanttoclaimtherightnottobedeportedfromCanada:thisclaimisincompatiblerationemateriaewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantandinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.6.1Inhercomments,counselnotesthattheStatepartywronglyconveystheimpressionthattheauthorhadtwofullhearingsbeforetheimmigrationauthorities,whichtookintoaccountallthespecificfactorsinhiscase.Sheobservesthattheimmigrationadjudicatorconductingtheinquiry"hasnoequitablejurisdiction".Onceheissatisfiedthatthepersonistheonedescribedintheinitialreport,thatthispersonisapermanentresidentofCanadaandthathehasbeenconvictedofacriminaloffence,aremovalorderismandatory.Counselcontendsthattheadjudicator"maynottakeintoaccountanyotherfactorsandhasnostatutorypowerofdiscretiontorelieveagainstanyhardshipcausedbytheissuanceoftheremovalorder".6.2Astothediscretionarypower,undersection114(2)oftheImmigrationAct,toexemptpersonsfromregulatoryrequirementsandtofacilitateadmissiononhumanitariangrounds,counselnotesthatthispowerisnotusedtorelievethehardshipofapersonandhis/herfamilycausedbytheremovalofapermanentresidentfromCanada:"[T]heImmigrationAppealDivisionexercisesaquasi-judicialstatutorypowerofdiscretionafterafullhearing,andithasbeenseenasinappropriatefortheMinisterorhisofficialstoinfact'overturn'anegativedecision...bythisbody".f&6.3CounselaffirmsthatthehumanitarianandcompassionatediscretiondelegatedtotheMinisterbytheImmigrationRegulationscaninanyeventhardlybesaidtoprovideaneffectivemechanismtoensurethatfamilyinterestsarebalancedagainstotherinterests.Inrecentyears,Canadaissaidtohaveroutinelyseparatedfamiliesorattemptedtoseparatefamilieswheretheinterestsofyoungchildrenwereatstake:thus,"thebestinterestsofchildrenarenottakenintoaccountinthisadministrativeprocess".6.4CounselsubmitsthatCanadaambiguouslyconveystheimpressionthatfamilyclassandassistedrelativesponsorshipsarealmostalwayssuccessful.This,accordingtoher,maybetrueoffamilyclasssponsorships,butitisclearlynotthecaseforassistedrelativesponsorships,sinceassistedrelativeapplicantsmustmeetalltheselectioncriteriaforindependentapplicants.Counselfurtherdismissesas"patentlywrong"theStateparty'sargumentthattheCourt,uponapplicationforjudicialreviewofadeportationorder,maybalancethehardshipcausedbyremovalagainstthepublicinterest.TheCourt,asithasarticulatedrepeatedly,cannotbalancetheseinterests,islimitedtostrictjudicialreviewandcannotsubstituteitsowndecisionforthatofthedecisionmaker(s),evenifitwouldhavereachedadifferentconclusiononthefacts:itislimitedtoquashingadecisionbecauseofjurisdictionalerror,abreachofnaturaljusticeorfairness,anerroroflaworanerroneousfindingoffactmadeinaperverseorinacapriciousmanner(sect.18(1)FederalCourtAct).6.5Astothecompatibilityoftheauthor'sclaimswiththeCovenant,counselnotesthatMr.StewartisnotclaiminganabsoluterighttoremaininCanada.SheconcedesthattheCovenantdoesnot,perse,recognizearightofnon-nationalstoenterorremaininaState.Nonetheless,itissubmittedthattheCovenant'sprovisionscannotbereadinisolationbutareinterrelated:accordingly,article13mustbereadinthelightofotherprovisions.6.6CounselacknowledgesthattheCommitteehasheldthatarticle13providesforproceduralandnotforsubstantiveprotection;however,proceduralprotectioncannotbeinterpretedinisolationfromtheprotectionprovidedunderotherprovisionsoftheCovenant.Thus,legislationgoverningexpulsioncannotdiscriminateonanyofthegroundslistedinarticle26;norcanitarbitrarilyorunlawfullyinterferewithfamily,privacyandhome(article17).6.7Astotheclaimunderarticle17,counselnotesthattheStatepartyhasonlysetouttheprovisionsoftheImmigrationActwhichprovideforfamilyreunificationprovisionswhichsheconsidersinapplicabletotheauthor'scase.Sheaddsthatarticle17imposespositivedutiesuponStatesparties,andthatthereisnolawinCanadawhichwouldrecognizefamily,privacy,orhomeinterestsinthecontextraisedintheauthor'scase.Furthermore,whilesherecognizesthatthereisaprocessprovidedbylawwhichgrantstotheImmigrationAppealDivisionageneraldiscretiontoconsiderthepersonalcircumstancesofapermanentresidentunderorderofdeportation,thisdiscretiondoesnotrecognizeorencompassconsiderationoffundamentalinterestssuchasintegrityofthefamily.CounselreferstothecaseofSutherlandasanotherexampleofthefailuretorecognizethatintegrityofthefamilyisanimportantandprotectedinterest.Forcounsel,there"canbenobalancingofinterestsif...family...interestsarenotrecognizedasfundamentalinterestsforthepurposeofbalancing.TheprimaryinterestinCanadianlawandjurisprudenceistheprotectionofthepublic...".6.8ConcerningtheStateparty'scontentionthata"righttoremain"mayonlycomewithinthescopeofapplicationoftheCovenantunderexceptionalcircumstances,counselclaimsthattheprocesswherebytheauthor'sdeportationwasdecidedandconfirmedproceededwithoutrecognitionorcognizanceoftheauthor'srightsunderarticles7,9,12,13,17or23.WhileitistruethatCanadahasadutytoensurethatsocietyisprotected,thislegitimateinterestmustbebalancedagainstotherprotectedindividualrights.6.9CounselconcedesthatMr.Stewartwasgivenanopportunity,beforetheImmigrationAppealDivision,topresentallthecircumstancesofhiscase.Sheconcludes,however,thatdomesticlegislationandjurisprudencedonotrecognizethatherclientwillbesubjectedtoabreachofhisfundamentalrightsifheweredeported.Thisisbecausesuchrightsarenotandneednotbeconsideredgiventhewayimmigrationlegislationisdrafted.Conceptssuchashome,privacy,familyorresidenceinone'sowncountry,whichareprotectedundertheCovenant,areforeigntoCanadianlawintheimmigrationcontext.Theoverridingconcerninviewofremovalofapermanentresident,withoutdistinguishinglongtermresidentsfromrecentlyarrivedimmigrants,isnationalsecurity.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility7.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.7.2TheCommitteenotedthatitwasuncontestedthattherewerenofurtherdomesticremediesfortheauthortoexhaust,andthattherequirementsofarticle5,subparagraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolhadbeenmet.7.3Inasmuchastheauthor'sclaimsunderarticles7and9oftheCovenantareconcerned,theCommitteeexaminedwhethertheconditionsofarticles2and3oftheOptionalProtocolweremet.Inrespectofarticles7and9,theCommitteedidnotfind,onthebasisofthematerialbeforeit,thattheauthorhadsubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hisclaimthatdeportationtotheUnitedKingdomandseparationfromhisfamilywouldamounttocruelorinhumantreatmentwithinthemeaningofarticle7,orthatitwouldviolatehisrighttolibertyandsecurityofpersonwithinthemeaningofarticle9,paragraph1.Inthisrespect,therefore,theCommitteedecidedthattheauthorhadnoclaimundertheCovenant,withinthemeaningofarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.7.4Astoarticle13,theCommitteenotedthattheauthor'sdeportationwasorderedpursuanttoadecisionadoptedinaccordancewiththelawandthattheStatepartyhadinvokedargumentsofprotectionofsocietyandnationalsecurity.Itwasnotapparentthatthisassessmentwasreachedarbitrarily.Inthisrespect,theCommitteefoundthattheauthorhadfailedtosubstantiatehisclaimforpurposesofadmissibilityandthatthispartofthecommunicationwasinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.7.5Concerningtheclaimunderarticle12,theCommitteenotedtheStateparty'scontentionthatnosubstantiationinsupportofthisclaimhadbeenadduced,aswellascounsel'scontentionthatarticle12,paragraph4,wasapplicabletoMr.Stewart'scase.TheCommitteenotedthatthedeterminationofwhetherarticle12,paragraph4,wasapplicabletotheauthor'ssituationrequiredacarefulanalysisofwhetherCanadacouldberegardedastheauthor's"country"withinthemeaningofarticle12,and,ifso,whethertheauthor'sdeportationtotheUnitedKingdomwouldbarhimfromreentering"hisowncountry",and,intheaffirmative,whetherthiswouldbedonearbitrarily.TheCommitteeconsideredthattherewasnoaprioriindicationthattheauthor'ssituationcouldnotbesubsumedunderarticle12,paragraph4,andthereforeconcludedthatthisissueshouldbeconsideredonitsmerits.7.6Astotheclaimsunderarticles17and23oftheCovenant,theCommitteeobservedthattheissuewhetheraStatewasprecluded,byreferencetoarticles17and23,fromexercisingarighttodeportanalienotherwise,consistentwitharticle13oftheCovenant,shouldbeexaminedonthemerits.7.7TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'srequestforclarificationofthecriteriathatformedthebasisoftheSpecialRapporteur'srequestforinterimprotectionunderrule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure,aswellastheStateparty'srequestthattheCommitteewithdrawitsrequestunderrule86.TheCommitteeobservedthatwhatmayconstitute"irreparabledamage"tothevictimwithinthemeaningofrule86cannotbedeterminedgenerally.Theessentialcriterionisindeedtheirreversibilityoftheconsequences,inthesenseoftheinabilityoftheauthortosecurehisrightsshouldtherelaterbeafindingofaviolationoftheCovenantonthemerits.TheCommitteemaydecide,inanygivencase,nottoissuearequestunderrule86whereitbelievesthatcompensationwouldbeanadequateremedy.Applyingthesecriteriatodeportationcases,theCommitteewouldrequiretoknowthatanauthorwouldbeabletoreturn,shouldtherebeafindinginhisfavouronthemerits.8.2 .2On18March1994theCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticle12,paragraph4,article17andarticle23oftheCovenant.Stateparty'sobservationsandauthor'scomments9.1Initssubmissionof24February1995,theStatepartyarguesthatMr.StewarthasneveracquiredanunconditionalrighttoremaininCanadaas"hiscountry".Moreover,hisdeportationwillnotoperateasanabsolutebartohisreentrytoCanada.AhumanitarianreviewinthecontextofafutureapplicationtoreenterCanadaasanimmigrantisaviableadministrativeprocedurethatdoesnotentailareconsiderationofthejudicialdecisionoftheImmigrationAppealBoard.9.2Articles17and23oftheCovenantcannotbeinterpretedasbeingincompatiblewithaStateparty'srighttodeportanalien,providedthattheconditionsofarticle13oftheCovenantareobserved.UnderCanadianlaw,everyoneisprotectedagainstarbitraryorunlawfulinterferencewithprivacy,familyandhomeasrequiredbyarticle17.TheStatepartysubmitsthatwhenadecisiontodeportanalienistakenafterafullandfairprocedureinaccordancewithlawandpolicy,whicharenotthemselvesinconsistentwiththeCovenant,andinwhichthedemonstrablyimportantandvalidinterestsoftheStatearebalancedwiththeCovenantrightsoftheindividual,suchadecisioncannotbefoundtobearbitrary.InthiscontexttheStatepartysubmitsthattheconditionsestablishedbylawonthecontinuedresidencyofnon-citizensinCanadaarereasonableandobjectiveandtheapplicationofthelawbyCanadianauthoritiesisconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,readasawhole.9.3TheStatepartypointsoutthattheproposeddeportationofMr.StewartisnottheresultofasummarydecisionbyCanadianauthorities,butratherofcarefuldeliberationofallfactorsconcerned,pursuanttofullandfairprocedurescompatiblewitharticle13oftheCovenant,inwhichMr.Stewartwasrepresentedbycounselandsubmittedextensiveargumentinsupportofhisclaimthatdeportationwouldundulyinterferewithhisprivacyandfamilylife.ThecompetentCanadiantribunalsconsideredMr.Stewart'sinterestsandweighedthemagainsttheState'sinterestinprotectingthepublic.Inthiscontext,theStatepartyreferstotheConventionrelatingtotheStatusofRefugees,whichgivesexplicitrecognitiontotheprotectionofthepublicagainstcriminalsandthosewhoaresecurityrisks;itissubmittedthattheseconsiderationsareequallyrelevantininterpretingtheCovenant.Moreover,CanadareferstotheCommittee'sGeneralCommentNo.15on"ThepositionofaliensundertheCovenant",whichprovidesthat"ItisforthecompetentauthoritiesoftheStateparty,ingoodfaithandintheexerciseoftheirpowers,toapplyandinterpretthedomesticlaw,observing,however,suchrequirementsundertheCovenantasequalitybeforethelaw".ItalsoreferstotheCommittee'sViewsinCommunicationNo.58/1979,Maroufidouv.Sweden,inwhichtheCommitteeheldthatthedeportationofMs.MaroufidoudidnotentailaviolationoftheCovenant,becauseshewasexpelledinaccordancewiththeprocedurelaiddownbytheState'sdomesticlawandtherehadbeennoevidenceofbadfaithorabuseofpower.TheCommitteeheldthatinsuchcircumstances,itwasnotwithinitscompetencetoreevaluatetheevidenceortoexaminewhetherthecompetentauthoritiesoftheStatehadcorrectlyinterpretedandapplieditslaw,unlessitwasmanifestthattheyhadactedinbadfaithorhadabusedtheirpower.Inthiscommunicationtherehasbeennosuggestionofbadfaithorabuseofpower.ItisthereforesubmittedthattheCommitteeshouldnotsubstituteitsownfindingswithoutsomeobjectivereasontothinkthatthefindingsoffactandcredibilitybyCanadiandecisionmakerswereflawedbybias,badfaithorotherfactorswhichmightjustifytheCommittee'sinterventioninmattersthatarewithinthepurviewofdomestictribunals.9.4AstoCanada'sobligationunderarticle23oftheCovenanttoprotectthefamily,referenceismadetorelevantlegislationandpractice,includingtheCanadianConstitutionandtheCanadianCharteronHumanRights.Canadianlawprovidesprotectionforthefamilywhichiscompatiblewiththerequirementsofarticle23.Theprotectionrequiredbyarticle23,paragraph1,however,isnotabsolute.Inconsideringhisremoval,thecompetentCanadiancourtsgaveappropriateweighttotheimpactofdeportationonhisfamilyinbalancingtheseagainstthelegitimateStateintereststoprotectsocietyandtoregulateimmigration.InthiscontexttheStatepartysubmitsthatthespecificfactsparticulartohiscase,includinghisageandlackofdependents,suggestthatthenatureandqualityofhisfamilyrelationshipscouldbeadequatelymaintainedthroughcorrespondence,telephonecallsandvisitstoCanada,whichhewouldbeatlibertytomakepursuanttoCanadianimmigrationlaws.9.5TheStatepartyconcludesthatdeportationwouldnotentailaviolationbyCanadaofanyofMr.Stewart'srightsundertheCovenant.10.1Inhersubmissiondated16June1995,counselforMr.StewartarguesthatbyvirtueofhislongresidenceinCanada,Mr.StewartisentitledtoconsiderCanadatobe"hisowncountry"forpurposesofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.ItisarguedthatthisprovisionshouldnotbesubjecttoanyrestrictionsandthatthedenialofentrytoapersoninMr.Stewart'scasewouldbetantamounttoexile.CounselreviewsandcriticizesrelevantCanadiancaselaw,includingthe1992judgementinChiarelliv.M.E.I.,inwhichthelossofpermanentresidencewaslikenedtoabreachofcontract;oncethecontractisbreached,removalcanbeeffected.Counselmaintainsthatpermanentresidenceinacountryandfamilytiesshouldnotbedealtwithasinthecontextofcommerciallaw.10.2AstoMr.Stewart'sabilitytoreturntoCanadafollowingdeportation,author'scounselpointsoutthatbecauseofhiscriminalrecord,hewouldfaceseriousobstaclesingainingreadmissiontoCanadaasapermanentresidentandwouldhavetomeettheselectionstandardsforadmissiontoqualifyasanindependentimmigrant,takingintoaccounthisoccupationalskills,educationandexperience.Astotheimmigrationregulations,hewouldrequireapardonfromhispriorcriminalconvictions,otherwisehewouldbebarredfromreadmissionasapermanentresident.10.3WithregardtopersonsseekingpermanentresidentstatusinCanada,counselreferstodecisionsoftheCanadianimmigrationauthoritiesthathaveallegedlynotgivensufficientweighttoextenuatingcircumstances.Counselfurthercomplainsthattheexerciseofdiscretionbyjudgesisnotsubjecttoreviewonappeal.10.4Astoaviolationofarticles17and23oftheCovenant,author'scounselpointsoutthatfamily,privacyandhomearenotconceptsincorporatedintotheprovisionsoftheImmigrationAct.Therefore,althoughtheimmigrationauthoritiescantakeintoaccountfamilyandotherfactors,theyarenotobligedbylawtodoso.Moreover,considerationsofdependencyhavebeenlimitedtotheaspectoffinancialdependency,asillustratedindecisionsintheLangnerv.M.E.I.,Tothv.M.E.I.andRobinsonv.M.E.I.cases.10.5ItisarguedthattheCanadianauthoritiesdidnotsufficientlytakeintoaccountMr.Stewart'sfamilysituationintheirdecisions.Inparticular,counselobjectstotheevaluationbyCanadiancourtsthatMr.Stewart'sfamilybondsweretenuous,andreferstotheunofficialtranscriptofthedeportationhearings,inwhichMr.Stewartstressedtheemotionallysupportiverelationshipthathehadwithhismotherandbrother.Mr.Stewart'smotherconfirmedthathehelpedherincaringforheryoungestson.CounselfurthercriticizesthereasoningoftheImmigrationAppealDivisionintheStewartdecision,whichallegedlyputtoomuchemphasisonfinancialdependency:"Theappellanthasagoodrelationshipwithhismotherwhohaswritteninsupportofhim.Buttheappellant'smotherhasalwayslivedindependentlyofhimandhasneverbeensupportedbyhim.Theappellant'syoungerbrotherisinaprogramforthedisabledandisthereforetakencareofbysocialservices.Asamatteroffact,thereisnoonedependingontheappellantforsustenanceandsupport...".CounselarguesthatemphasisonthefinancialaspectoftherelationshipdoesnottakeintoaccounttheemotionalfamilybondandsubmitsinsupportofherargumentthereportofDr.IrwinSilverman,apsychologist,summarizingthecomplexityofhumanrelationships.MoreovercounselcitesfromabookbyJonathanBloom-Fesbach,ThePsychologyofSeparationandLoss,outliningthelongtermeffectsofbreakingthefamilybond.10.6CounselrejectstheStateparty'sargumentthatproperbalancinghastakenplacebetweenStateinterestsandindividualhumanrights.IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee11.1Thiscommunicationwasdeclaredadmissibleinsofarasitmightraiseissuesunderarticle12,paragraph4,andarticles17and23oftheCovenant.11.2TheCommitteehasconsideredthecommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asprovidedinarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.12.1ThequestiontobedecidedinthiscaseiswhethertheexpulsionofMr.StewartviolatestheobligationsCanadahasassumedunderarticle12,paragraph4,andarticles17and23oftheCovenant.12.2Article12,paragraph4,oftheCovenantprovides:"Nooneshallbearbitrarilydeprivedoftherighttoenterhisowncountry."Thisarticledoesnotreferdirectlytoexpulsionordeportationofaperson.Itmay,ofcourse,bearguedthatthedutyofaStatepartytorefrainfromdeportingpersonsisadirectfunctionofthisprovisionandthataStatepartythatisunderanobligationtoallowentryofapersonisalsoprohibitedfromdeportingthatperson.Givenitsconclusionregardingarticle12,paragraph4,thatwillbeexplainedbelow,theCommitteedoesnothavetoruleonthatargumentinthepresentcase.Itwillmerelyassumethatifarticle12,paragraph4,weretoapplytotheauthor,theStatepartywouldbeprecludedfromdeportinghim.12.3ItmustnowbeaskedwhetherCanadaqualifiesasbeing"Mr.Stewart'scountry".Ininterpretingarticle12,paragraph4,itisimportanttonotethatthescopeofthephrase"hisowncountry"isbroaderthantheconcept"countryofhisnationality",whichitembracesandwhichsomeregionalhumanrightstreatiesuseinguaranteeingtherighttoenteracountry.Moreover,inseekingtounderstandthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4,accountmustalsobehadofthelanguageofarticle13oftheCovenant.Thatprovisionspeaksof"analienlawfullyintheterritoryofaStateparty"inlimitingtherightsofStatestoexpelanindividualcategorizedasan"alien".Itwouldthusappearthat"hisowncountry"asaconceptappliestoindividualswhoarenationalsandtocertaincategoriesofindividualswho,whilenotnationalsinaformalsense,arealsonot"aliens"withinthemeaningofarticle13,althoughtheymaybeconsideredasaliensforotherpurposes.12.4Whatislesscleariswho,inadditiontonationals,isprotectedbytheprovisionsofarticle12,paragraph4.Sincetheconcept"hisowncountry"isnotlimitedtonationalityinaformalsense,thatis,nationalityacquiredonbirthorbyconferral,itembraces,attheveryleast,anindividualwho,becauseofhisspecialtiestoorclaimsinrelationtoagivencountrycannottherebeconsideredtobeamerealien.Thiswouldbethecase,forexample,ofnationalsofacountrywhohavetherebeenstrippedoftheirnationalityinviolationofinternationallawandofindividualswhosecountryofnationalityhasbeenincorporatedintoortransferredtoanothernationalentitywhosenationalityisbeingdeniedthem.Inshort,whiletheseindividualsmaynotbenationalsintheformalsense,neitheraretheyalienswithinthemeaningofarticle13.Thelanguageofarticle12,paragraph4,permitsabroaderinterpretation,moreover,thatmightembraceothercategoriesoflongtermresidents,particularlystatelesspersonsarbitrarilydeprivedoftherighttoacquirethenationalityofthecountryofsuchresidence.12.5ThequestioninthepresentcaseiswhetherapersonwhoentersagivenStateunderthatState'simmigrationlawsandsubjecttotheconditionsofthoselawscanregardthatStateashisowncountrywhenhehasnotacquireditsnationalityandcontinuestoretainthenationalityofhiscountryoforigin.Theanswercouldpossiblybepositivewerethecountryofimmigrationtoplaceunreasonableimpedimentsontheacquiringofnationalitybynewimmigrants.Butwhen,asinthepresentcase,thecountryofimmigrationfacilitatesacquiringitsnationalityandtheimmigrantrefrainsfromdoingso,eitherbychoiceorbycommittingactsthatwilldisqualifyhimfromacquiringthatnationality,thecountryofimmigrationdoesnotbecome"hisowncountry"withinthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.Inthisregarditistobenotedthatwhileinthedraftingofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenanttheterm"countryofnationality"wasrejected,sowasthesuggestiontorefertothecountryofone'spermanenthome.12.6Mr.StewartisaBritishnationalbothbybirthandbyvirtueofthenationalityofhisparents.WhilehehaslivedinCanadaformostofhislife,heneverappliedforCanadiannationality.ItistruethathiscriminalrecordmighthavekepthimfromacquiringCanadiannationalitybythetimehewasoldenoughtodosoonhisown.Thefactis,however,thatheneverattemptedtoacquiresuchnationality.Furthermore,evenhadheappliedandbeendeniednationalitybecauseofhiscriminalrecord,thisdisabilitywasofhisownmaking.ItcannotbesaidthatCanada'simmigrationlegislationisarbitraryorunreasonableindenyingCanadiannationalitytoindividualswhohavecriminalrecords.12.7ThiscasewouldnotraisetheobvioushumanproblemsMr.Stewart'sdeportationfromCanadapresentswereitnotforthefactthathewasnotdeportedmuchearlier.WeretheCommitteetorelyonthisargumenttopreventCanadafromnowdeportinghim,itwouldestablishaprinciplethatmightadverselyaffectimmigrantsallovertheworldwhosefirstbrushwiththelawwouldtriggertheirdeportationlesttheircontinuedresidenceinthecountryconvertthemintoindividualsentitledtotheprotectionofarticle12,paragraph4.12.8CountrieslikeCanada,whichenableimmigrantstobecomenationalsafterareasonableperiodofresidence,havearighttoexpectthatsuchimmigrantswillinduecourseacquirealltherightsandassumealltheobligationsthatnationalityentails.IndividualswhodonottakeadvantageofthisopportunityandthusescapetheobligationsnationalityimposescanbedeemedtohaveoptedtoremainaliensinCanada.Theyhaveeveryrighttodoso,butmustalsobeartheconsequences.ThefactthatMr.Stewart'scriminalrecorddisqualifiedhimfrombecomingaCanadiannationalcannotconferonhimgreaterrightsthanwouldbeenjoyedbyanyotheralienwho,forwhateverreasons,optednottobecomeaCanadiannational.Individualsinthesesituationsmustbedistinguishedfromthecategoriesofpersonsdescribedinparagraph12.4above.12.9TheCommitteeconcludesthatasCanadacannotberegardedasMr.Stewart's"country",forthepurposesofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant,therecouldnothavebeenaviolationofthatarticlebytheStateparty.12.10ThedeportationofMr.StewartwillundoubtedlyinterferewithhisfamilyrelationsinCanada.Thequestionis,however,whetherthesaidinterferencecanbeconsideredeitherunlawfulorarbitrary.Canada'sImmigrationLawexpresslyprovidesthatthepermanentresidencystatusofanon-nationalmayberevokedandthatthatpersonmaythenbeexpelledfromCanadaifheorsheisconvictedofseriousoffences.IntheappealprocesstheImmigrationAppealDivisionisempoweredtorevokethedeportationorder"havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase".Inthedeportationproceedingsinthepresentcase,Mr.StewartwasgivenampleopportunitytopresentevidenceofhisfamilyconnectionstotheImmigrationAppealDivision.InitsreasoneddecisiontheImmigrationAppealDivisionconsideredtheevidencepresentedbutitcametotheconclusionthatMr.Stewart'sfamilyconnectionsinCanadadidnotjustifyrevokingthedeportationorder.TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheinterferencewithMr.Stewart'sfamilyrelationsthatwillbetheinevitableoutcomeofhisdeportationcannotberegardedaseitherunlawfulorarbitrarywhenthedeportationorderwasmadeunderlawinfurtheranceofalegitimatestateinterestanddueconsiderationwasgiveninthedeportationproceedingstothedeportee'sfamilyconnections.Thereisthereforenoviolationofarticles17and23oftheCovenant.13.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsbeforetheCommitteedonotdiscloseaviolationofanyoftheprovisionsoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.+@ .\APPENDIX@ . A.IndividualopinionbyEckartKlein(concurring)# .[Original:English]2 .2BeinginfullagreementwiththefindingoftheCommitteethatthefactsofthecasediscloseneitheraviolationofarticle12,paragraph4,norofarticles17and23oftheCovenant,forthereasonsgivenintheview,Icannotacceptthewayhowtherelationshipbetweenarticle12,paragraph4,andarticle13hasbeendetermined.Althoughthisissueisnotdecisivefortheoutcomeofthepresentcase,itcouldbecomerelevantfortheconsiderationofothercommunications,andIthereforefeelobligedtoclarifythispoint.2 .2Theviewsuggeststhatthereisacategoryofpersonswhoarenot"nationalsintheformalsense",butarealsonot"alienswithinthemeaningofarticle13"(para.12.4).WhileIclearlyacceptthatthescopeofarticle12,paragraph4,isnotentirelyrestrictedtonationalsbutmayembraceotherpersonsaspointedoutintheview,Ineverthelessthinkthatthiscategoryofpersonsnotbeingnationals,butstillcoveredbyarticle12,paragraph4maybedeemedtobe"aliens"inthesenseofarticle13.Idonotbelievethatarticle13dealsonlywithsomealiens.Thewordingofthearticleisclearandprovidesfornoexceptions,andaliensareallnon-nationals.Therelationshipbetweenarticle12,paragraph4,andarticle13isnotexclusive.Bothprovisionsmaycomeintoplaytogether.2 .2Ithereforeholdthatarticle13appliesinallcaseswhereanalienistobeexpelled.Article13dealswiththeprocedureofexpellingaliens,whilearticle12,paragraph4,and,undercertaincircumstances,alsootherprovisionsoftheCovenantmaybardeportationforsubstantivereasons.Thus,article12,paragraph4,mayapplyeventhoughitconcernsapersonwhoisan"alien".@ .B.IndividualopinionbyLaurelB.Francis(concurring)# .[Original:English]2 .2ThisopinionisgivenagainstthebackgroundofmyrecordedviewsduringtheCommittee'spreliminaryconsiderationofthiscasequiteearlyinthesessionwhenIstated,interalia,that:(a)Mr.Stewartwasan"owncountry"residentunderarticle12oftheCovenantand(b)hisexpulsionunderarticle13wasnotinviolationofarticle12,paragraph4.2 .2IwillasfaraspossibleavoidadiscursiveformatinrelationtotheCommittee'sdecisionadoptedon1NovemberwithrespecttothequestionwhethertheexpulsionofMr.StewartfromCanada(underarticle13oftheCovenant)violatestheStateparty'sobligationunderarticle12,paragraph4,andarticles17and23oftheCovenant.&  2 .2Ishouldliketosubmitthat:02 .21. .Firstly,IconcurwiththereasonsgivenbytheCommitteeinparagraph12.10andthedecisiontakenthattherewasnoviolationof'  articles17and23oftheCovenant.02 .22. .But,secondly,IdonotagreewiththeCommittee'srestrictedapplicationofhis"owncountry"conceptatthefourthsentenceofparagraph12.3oftheCommittee'sdecisionunderreference(Thatprovisionspeaksofan"alienlawfullyintheterritoryofaStateparty"inlimitingtherightsofStatestoexpelanindividualcategorizedasan"alien".)Doesitprecludetheexpulsionofunlawfulaliens?Ofcoursenotfallingastheydounderanotherlegalregime.Ihavemadethispointinordertosuggestthatthelegalsignificanceinrelationto"analienlawfullyintheterritoryofaStateparty"asappearsinthefirstlineofarticle13oftheCovenant,isrelatedtothefirstlineofarticle12:"everyonelawfullyintheterritoryofaState",whichincludesaliens,butitmaybeborneinmindthat,inrespectofacompatriotofMr.StewartlawfullyinCanadaonavisitor'svisa(notbeingapermanentresidentofCanada),hewouldnotnormallyhaveacquired"owncountry"statusasMr.Stewarthadandwouldbeindifferenttotheapplicationofarticle12,paragraph4.ButMr.Stewartwouldcertainlybeconcernedasindeedhehasbeen.02 .23. .Thirdly,wereitintendedtorestricttheapplicationofarticle13toexcludealienslawfullyintheterritoryofaStatepartywhohadacquired"owncountry"status,suchexclusionwouldhavebeenspecificallyprovidedinarticle13itselfandnotlefttotheinterpretationofthescopeofarticle12,paragraph4,whichincontestablyappliestonationalsandotherpersonscontemplatedintheCommittee'stext.02 .24. .Inregardto"owncountry"statusinitssubmissionof24February1995,theStatepartyarguesthat"Mr.Stewarthasneveracquiredanunconditional    {   ׀righttoremaininCanadaashis'owncountry'.Moreoverhisdeportationwillnotoperateasanabsolutebartohisre-entrytoCanada.Ahumanitarianreviewinthecontextofthefutureapplicationtore-enterCanadaasanimmigrantisaviableadministrativeprocedurethatdoesnotentailreconsiderationofthejudicialdecisionoftheImmigrationAppealBoard"(see9.1). |   2 .2ImplicitintheforegoingistheadmissionthattheStatepartyrecognizesMr.Stewart'sstatusasapermanentresidentinCanadaashis"owncountry".ItisthatqualifiedrightapplicabletosuchstatuswhichfacilitatedthedecisiontoexpelMr.Stewart.2 .2ButfortheforegoingstatementattributabletotheStateparty,wecouldhaveconcludedthatthedecisiontakentoexpelMr.Stewartterminatedhis"owncountry"statusinregardtoCanada,but,inthelightofsuchastatement,the"owncountry"statusremainsonlysuspendedatthepleasureoftheStateparty.2 .2Onthebasisoftheforegoinganalysis,IamunabletosupportthedecisionoftheCommitteethatMr.Stewarthadatnotimeacquired"owncountry"statusinCanada.&  ԀC.IndividualopinionbyElizabethEvattandCeciliaMedinaQuiroga,̀co-signedbyFranciscoJosAguilarUrbina(dissenting)# .[Original:English]1.2 .2WeareunabletoagreewiththeCommittee'sconclusionthattheauthorcannotclaimtheprotectionofarticle12,paragraph4.'  2.2 .2Apreliminaryissueiswhetherthearbitrarydeportationofapersonfromhis/herowncountryshouldbeequatedwitharbitrarydeprivationoftherighttoenterthatcountry,incircumstanceswheretherehasasyetbeennoattempttoenterorre-enterthecountry.TheCommitteedoesnotreachaconclusiononthisissue;itmerelyassumesthatifarticle12,paragraph4,weretoapplytotheauthor,theStatewouldbeprecludedfromdeportinghim(para.12.2).TheeffectofthevariousproceedingstakenbyCanada,andtheordersmade,isthattheauthor'srightofresidencehasbeentakenawayandhisdeportationordered.HecannolongerenterCanadaasofright,andtheprospectsofhiseverbeingabletosecurepermissiontoenterformorethanashortperiod,ifatall,seemremote.Inourview,therighttoenteracountryisasmuchaprospectiveasapresentright,andthedeprivationofthatrightcanoccur,asinthecircumstancesofthiscase,whetherornottherehasbeenanyactualrefusalofentry.IfaStatepartyisunderanobligationtoallowentryofapersonitisprohibitedfromdeportingthatperson.InouropiniontheauthorhasbeendeprivedoftherighttoenterCanada,whetherheremainsinCanadaawaitingdeportationorwhetherhehasalreadybeendeported.3.2 .2Theauthor'scommunicationunderarticle13wasfoundinadmissible,andnoissuearisesforconsiderationunderthatprovision.TheCommittee'sviewis,however,thatarticle12,paragraph4,appliesonlytopersonswhoarenationals,orwho,whilenotnationalsinaformalsensearealsonotalienswithinthemeaningofarticle13(para.12.3).Twoconsequencesappeartofollowfromthisview.ThefirstoneisthattherelationshipbetweenanindividualandaStatemaybenotonlythatofnationaloralien(includingstateless),butmayalsofallintoafurther,undefined,category.Wedonotthinkthisissupportedeitherbyarticle12oftheCovenantorbygeneralinternationallaw.AsaconsequenceoftheCommittee'sview,itwouldalsoappeartofollowthatapersoncouldnotclaimtheprotectionofbotharticles13and12,paragraph4.Wedonotagree.Inourviewarticle13providesaminimumlevelofprotectioninrespectofexpulsionforanyalien,thatisanynon-national,lawfullyinaState.Furthermore,thereisnothinginthelanguageofarticle13whichsuggeststhatitisintendedtobetheexclusivesourceofrightsforaliens,orthatanalienwhoislawfullywithintheterritoryofaStatemaynotalsoclaimtheprotectionofarticle12,paragraph4,ifheorshecanestablishthatitishis/herowncountry.Eachprovisionshouldbegivenitsfullmeaning.4.2 .2TheCommitteeattemptstoidentifythefurthercategoryofindividualswhocouldmakeuseofarticle12,paragraph4,bystatingthatapersoncannotclaimthataStateishisorherowncountry,withinthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4,unlessthatpersonisanationalofthatState,orhasbeenstrippedofhisorhernationality,ordeniednationalitybythatStateinthecircumstancesdescribed(para.12.4).TheCommitteeisalsooftheviewthatunlessunreasonableimpedimentshavebeenplacedinthewayofanimmigrantacquiringnationality,apersonwhoentersagivenStateunderitsimmigrationlaws,andwhohadtheopportunitytoacquireitsnationality,cannotregardthatStateashisowncountrywhenhehasfailedtoacquireitsnationality(para.12.5).̇5.2 .2Inouropinion,theCommitteehastakentoonarrowaviewofarticle12,paragraph4,andhasnotconsideredtheraisond'treofitsformulation.Individualscannotbedeprivedoftherighttoenter"theirowncountry"becauseitisdeemedunacceptabletodepriveanypersonofclosecontactwithhisfamilyorhisfriendsor,putingeneralterms,withthewebofrelationshipsthatformhisorhersocialenvironment.Thisisthereasonwhythisrightissetforthinarticle12,whichaddressesindividualslawfullywithintheterritoryofaState,notthosewhohaveformallinkstothatState.Fortherightssetforthinarticle12,theexistenceofaformallinktotheStateisirrelevant;theCovenantishereconcernedwiththestrongpersonalandemotionallinksanindividualmayhavewiththeterritorywherehelivesandwiththesocialcircumstancesobtaininginit.Thisiswhatarticle12,paragraph4,protects.6.2 .2Theobjectandpurposeoftherightsetforthinarticle12,paragraph4,arereaffirmedbyitswording.Nothinginitorinarticle12generallysuggeststhatitsapplicationshouldberestrictedinthemannersuggestedbytheCommittee.Whileaperson's"owncountry"wouldcertainlyincludethecountryofnationality,therearefactorsotherthannationalitywhichmayestablishcloseandenduringconnectionsbetweenapersonandacountry,connectionswhichmaybestrongerthanthoseofnationality.Afterall,apersonmayhaveseveralnationalities,andyethaveonlytheslightestornoactualconnectionsofhomeandfamilywithoneormoreoftheStatesinquestion.Thewords"hisowncountry"onthefaceofitinviteconsiderationofsuchmattersaslongstandingresidence,closepersonalandfamilytiesandintentionstoremain(aswellastotheabsenceofsuchtieselsewhere).Whereapersonisnotacitizenofthecountryinquestion,theconnectionswouldneedtobestrongtosupportafindingthatitishis"owncountry".NeverthelessourviewisthatitisopentoanalientoshowthattherearesuchwellestablishedlinkswithaStatethatheorsheisentitledtoclaimtheprotectionofarticle12,paragraph4.7.2 .2ThecircumstancesreliedonbytheauthortoestablishthatCanadaishisowncountryarethathehadlivedinCanadaforover30years,wasbroughtupinCanadafromtheageofseven,hadmarriedanddivorcedthere.Hischildren,mother,handicappedbrothercontinuetoresidethere.Hehadnotieswithanyothercountry,otherthanthathewasacitizenoftheUnitedKingdom;hiselderbrotherhadbeendeportedtotheUnitedKingdomsomeyearsbefore.Thecircumstancesofhisoffencesaresetoutinparagraph2.2;asaresultoftheseoffencesitisnotcleariftheauthorwaseverentitledtoapplyforcitizenship.UnderlyingtheconnectionsmentionedisthefactthattheauthorandhisfamilywereacceptedbyCanadaasimmigrantswhenhewasachildandthathebecameinpracticaltermsamemberoftheCanadiancommunity.Heknowsnoothercountry.Inallthecircumstances,ourviewisthattheauthorhasestablishedthatCanadaishisowncountry.8.2 .2Wasthedeprivationoftheauthor'srighttoenterCanadaarbitrary?Inanothercontext,theCommitteehastakentheviewthat"arbitrary"meansunreasonableintheparticularcircumstances,orcontrarytotheaimsandobjectivesoftheCovenant(GeneralCommentonarticle17).Thatapproachalsoappearstobeappropriateinthecontextofarticle12,paragraph4.Inthecaseofcitizens,therearelikelytobefewifanysituationswhendeportationwouldnotbeconsideredarbitraryinthesenseoutlined.Inthecaseofanaliensuchastheauthor,deportationcouldbeconsideredarbitraryifthegroundsreliedontodeprivehimofhisrighttoenterandremaininthecountrywere,inthecircumstances,unreasonable,whenweighedagainstthecircumstanceswhichmakethatcountryhis"owncountry".9.2 .2ThegroundsreliedonbytheStatepartytojustifytheexpulsionoftheauthorarehiscriminalactivities.Itmustbedoubtedwhetherthecommissionofcriminaloffencesalonecouldjustifytheexpulsionofapersonfromhisowncountry,unlesstheStatecouldshowthattherearecompellingreasonsofnationalsecurityorpublicorderwhichrequiresuchacourse.Thenatureoftheoffencescommittedbytheauthordonotleadreadilytothatconclusion.Inanyevent,Canadacanhardlyclaimthatthesegroundswerecompellinginthecaseoftheauthorwhenithasinanothercontextarguedthattheauthormightwellbegrantedanentryvisaforashortperiodtoenablehimtovisithisfamily.Furthermore,whilethedeportationproceedingswerenotunfairinproceduralterms,theissuewhicharosefordeterminationinthoseproceedingswaswhethertheauthorcouldshowreasonsagainsthisdeportation,notwhetherthereweregroundsfortakingawayhisrighttoenter"hisowncountry".TheonuswasputontheauthorratherthanontheState.Inthesecircumstances,weconcludethatthedecisiontodeporttheauthorwasarbitrary,andthusaviolationofhisrightsunderarticle12,paragraph4.10.2 .2WeagreewiththeCommitteethatthedeportationoftheauthorwillundoubtedlyinterferewithhisfamilyrelationsinCanada(para.12.10),butwecannotagreethatthisinterferenceisnotarbitrary,sincewehavecometotheconclusionthatthedecisiontodeporttheauthor-whichisthecauseoftheinterferencewiththefamily-wasarbitrary.Wehavetoconclude,therefore,thatCanadahasalsoviolatedtheauthor'srightsunderarticles17and23.̀D.IndividualopinionbyChristineChanet,co-signedbỳJulioPradoVallejo(dissenting)# .4[Original:French]2 .2IdonotsharetheCommittee'spositionwithregardtotheStewartcase,inparagraph12.9,inwhichitconcludesthat,"asCanadacannotberegardedasMr.Stewart's'owncountry'",therehasbeennoviolationbyCanadaofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.2 .2Mycriticismconcernstheapproachtakentothecaseonthispoint:2 .20 .Assumingthatwrongfulactsdisqualifiedtheauthorfromacquiringnationalityandthat,asaconsequence,Canadamayconsiderthatitisnothisowncountry,thatconclusionshouldhaveledtheCommitteetorejectthecommunicationattheadmissibilitystage,sinceitsawarenessofthatimpedimentshouldhaveprecludedanyapplicationofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.02 .20 .ThereisnothingeitherintheCovenantitselforinthetravauxprparatoiresaboutthe"owncountry"concept;theCommitteemust,therefore,eitherdecidethequestiononacasebycasebasisorestablishcriteriaandmakethemknowntoStatesandauthors,thusavoidinganycontradictionwithadmissibilitydecisions;ifapersonisunabletoacquirethenationalityofacountryowingtolegalimpediments,then,regardlessofanyothercriteriaorfactualcircumstances,thecommunicationshouldnotbedeclaredadmissibleunderarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.2 .2IagreewiththesubstanceoftheindividualopinionformulatedbyMs.EvattandMs.MedinaQuiroga.@ .E.IndividualopinionbyPrafullachandraBhagwati(dissenting)# .[Original:English]2 .2IentirelyagreewiththeseparateopinionpreparedbyMrs.ElizabethEvattandMrs.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,buthavingregardtotheimportanceoftheissuesinvolvedinthecase,Iamwritingaseparateopinion.ThisseparateopinionmaybereadassupplementarytotheopinionofMrs.EvattandMrs.MedinaQuirogawithwhichIfindmyselfwhollyinagreement.2 .2Thisisnotacaseofonesingleindividual.Itsdecisionwillhaveanimpactonthelivesoftensofthousandsofimmigrantsandrefugees.Thiscasehasthereforecausedmeimmenseanxiety.IftheviewtakenbythemajorityoftheCommitteeisright,peoplewhohaveforgedcloselinkswithacountrynotonlythroughlongresidencebuthavingregardtovariousotherfactors,whohaveadoptedacountryastheirown,whohavecometoregardacountryastheirhomecountry,wouldbeleftwithoutanyprotection.Thequestionis:arewegoingtoreadhumanrightsinagenerousandpurposivemannerorinanarrowandconstrictedmanner?Letusnotforgetthatbasically,humanrightsintheInternationalCovenantarerightsoftheindividualagainsttheState;theyareprotectionsagainsttheStateandtheymustthereforebeconstruedbroadlyandliberally.Thisbackdropmustbekeptinmindwhenweareinterpretingarticle12,paragraph4.2 .2Firstletmedisposeoftheargumentwithregardtoarticle13.TheCommitteehasdeclaredthecommunicationunderarticle13inadmissibleandthereforeitdoesnotcallforconsideration.Comingtoarticle12,paragraph4,itraisesthreeissues.Thefirstiswhetherarticle12,paragraph4,coversacaseofdeportationorwhetheritisconfinedonlytorightofentry;thesecondisastowhatisthemeaningandconnotationofthewords"hisowncountry"andwhetherCanadacouldbesaidtobetheauthor'sowncountry;andthethirdiswhatarethecriteriafordeterminingwhetheranactionallegedtobeviolativeofarticle12,paragraph4,isarbitraryandwhethertheactionofCanadaindeportingtheauthorwasarbitrary.ImaypointoutattheoutsetthatiftheactionofCanadawas,onthefacts,notarbitrary,therewouldbenoviolationofarticle12,paragraph4,eveniftheothertwoelementsweresatisfied,namely,thatarticle12,paragraph4,coversdeportationandCanadawastheauthor'sowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4,anditwould,inthatevent,notbenecessarytoconsiderwhetherornotthesetwoelementsweresatisfied.ButsincethemajorityofthemembersoftheCommitteehaverestedtheiropinionontheinterpretationofthewords"hisowncountry"andtakentheview,inmyopinionwrongly,thatCanadacouldnotbesaidtobetheauthor'sowncountry,Ithinkitnecessarytoconsiderallthethreeelementsofarticle12,paragraph4.2 .2Iamoftheviewthatonaproperinterpretation,article12,paragraph4,protectseveryoneagainstarbitrarydeportationfromhisowncountry.Therearetworeasonsinsupportofthisview.Inthefirstplace,unlessarticle12,paragraph4,isreadascoveringacaseofdeportation,anationalofaStatewouldhavenoprotectionagainstexpulsionordeportationundertheCovenant.SupposethedomesticlawofaStateempowerstheStatetoexpelordeportanationalforcertainspecificreasonswhichmaybetotallyirrelevant,fancifulorwhimsical.CanitbesuggestedforamomentthattheCovenantdoesnotprovideprotectiontoanationalagainstexpulsionordeportationundersuchdomesticlaw?TheonlyarticleoftheCovenantinwhichthisprotectioncanbefoundisarticle12,paragraph4.Itmaybethatunderinternationallaw,anationalcannotbeexpelledfromhiscountryofnationality.IamnotfamiliarwithallaspectsofinternationallawandIamthereforenotinapositiontoaffirmordisaffirmthisproposition.But,beasitmay,alawcanbemadebyaStateprovidingforexpulsionofanational.Itmayconflictwithaprincipleofinternationallaw,butthatwouldnotinvalidatethedomesticlaw.Theprincipleofinternationallawwouldnotaffordprotectiontothepersonconcernedagainstdomesticlaw.Theonlyprotectionsuchapersonwouldhaveisunderarticle12,paragraph4.Weshouldnotreadarticle12,paragraph4,inamannerwhichwouldleaveanationalunprotectedagainstexpulsionunderdomesticlaw.Infact,therearecountrieswherethereisdomesticlawprovidingforexpulsionevenofnationalsandarticle12,paragraph4,properlyread,providesprotectionagainstarbitraryexpulsionofanational.Thesamereasoningwouldapplyalsoinacasewhereanon-nationalisinvolved.Article12,paragraph4,mustthereforebereadascoveringexpulsionordeportation.2 .2Moreover,itisobviousthatifapersonhasarighttoenterhisowncountryandhe/shecannotbearbitrarilypreventedfromenteringhis/herowncountry,buthe/shecanbearbitrarilyexpelled,itwouldmakenonsenseofarticle12,paragraph4.Supposeapersonisexpelledfromhisowncountryarbitrarilybecausehe/shehasnoprotectionunderarticle12,paragraph4,andimmediatelyafterexpulsion,he/sheseekstoenterthecountry.Obviouslyhe/shecannotbepreventedbecausearticle12,paragraph4,protectshis/herentry.Thenwhatisthesenseofexpellinghim?Wemustthereforereadarticle12,paragraph4,asembodying,bynecessaryimplication,protectionagainstarbitraryexpulsionfromone'sowncountry.2 .2Thattakesmetothesecondissue.Whatisthescopeandambitof"hisowncountry"?Thereisageneralacceptancethat"hisowncountry"cannotbeequatedwith"countryofnationality"andIwillnotthereforespendanytimeonit.Itisobviousthattheexpression"hisowncountry"iswiderthan"countryofnationality"andthatisconcededbythemajorityview."Hisowncountry"includes"countryofnationalityandsomethingmore".Whatisthat"somethingmore"?Themajorityviewacceptsthattheconcept"hisowncountry"embraces,attheveryleast,"anindividualwho,becauseofhisspecialtiestoorclaimsinrelationtoagivencountrycannottherebeconsideredtobeamerealien".Iaminfullagreementwiththisview.Butthen,themajorityproceedstodelimitthisconceptbyconfiningittothefollowingthreeillustrativecases:02 .2(1) .Wherenationalsofacountryhavebeenstrippedoftheirnationalityinviolationofinternationallaw;02 .2(2) .Wherethecountryofnationalityofindividualshasbeenincorporatedintoortransferredtoanothernationalentitywhosenationalityisbeingdeniedtothem;and02 .2(3) .Statelesspersonsarbitrarilydeprivedoftheirrighttoacquirethenationalityofthecountryoftheirresidence.2 .2Itistheviewofthemajoritythat"whiletheseindividualsmaynotbenationalsintheformalsense,neitheraretheyalienswithinthemeaningofarticle13"andtheyfallwithinarticle12,paragraph4.2 .2TherearetwoobservationsIwouldliketomakeinconnectionwiththisviewofthemajority.Themajorityviewarguesthatarticle12,paragraph4,and13aremutuallyexclusive.ItisobservedbythemajorityintheviewoftheCommitteethat"'hisowncountry'asaconceptappliestoindividualswhoarenationalsandtocertaincategoriesofindividualswho,whilenotnationalsinaformalsense,arealsonot'aliens'withinthemeaningofarticle13,thoughtheymaybeconsideredasaliensforotherpurposes".Thus,accordingtothemajorityview,anindividualfallingwithinarticle12,paragraph4,wouldnotbean"alien"withinthemeaningofarticle13.Itoosubscribetothesameview.Buttheremyagreementwiththeviewofthemajorityends.Thequestionis:whoisprotectedbyarticle12,paragraph4?Whofallswithinitsprotectivewing?Imayagainrepeat,inagreementwiththemajorityview,thatarticle12,paragraph4,embraces,attheveryleast,anindividualwho,becauseofhisspecialtiestoorclaimsinrelationtoagivencountrycannottherebeconsideredtobeanalien.ThisisacorrecttestbutIfailtounderstandwhyitsapplicationshouldbelimitedtothethreekindsofcasesreferredtobythemajority.Thesethreekindsofcaseswouldcertainlybecoveredbythistestbuttheremaybemanymorewhichwouldalsoanswerthistest.Idonotseeanyvalidreasonwhytheyshouldbeexcludedexceptapredeterminationbythemajoritythattheyshouldnotberegardedasfulfillingthistest,becausethatwouldaffecttheimmigrationpoliciesofthedevelopedcountries.Takeforexample,alargenumberofAfricansorLatinAmericansorIndianswhoaresettledintheUnitedKingdom,butwhohavenotacquiredBritishcitizenship.Theirchildren,bornandbroughtupintheUnitedKingdom,wouldnothaveevenvisitedtheircountryofnationality.Ifyouaskthem:"whichisyourowncountry?",theywouldunhesitatinglysay:"theUnitedKingdom".CanyousaythatonlyIndiaorsomecountryinAfricaorLatinAmericawhichtheyhavenevervisitedandwithwhichtheyhavenolinksatallistheonlycountrywhichtheycancalltheirowncountry?Iagreethatmerelengthofresidencewouldnotbeadeterminativetest,butlengthofresidencemaybeafactorcoupledwithotherfactors.Thetotalityoffactorswouldhavetobetakenintoaccountforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetherthecountryinquestionisacountrywhichthepersonconcernedhasadoptedashisowncountryorisacountrywithwhichhehasspecialtiesorthemostintimateconnectionorlinkinordertoberegardedas"hisowncountry"withinthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4.2 .2BeforeIpartwiththediscussionofthispoint,Imustrefertooneotherillogicalityinwhichthemajorityappearstohavefallen.Themajorityseemstosuggestthatwherethecountryofimmigrationplacesunreasonableimpedimentsontheacquiringofnationalitybyanewimmigrant,itmightbepossibletosaythatforthenewimmigrantwhohasnotacquiredthenationalityofthecountryofimmigrationandcontinuestoretainthenationalityofhiscountryoforigin,thecountryofimmigrationmayberegardedas"hisowncountry".Thereareatleasttwoobjectionsagainstthevalidityofthisview.Inthefirstplace,itisthesovereignrightofaStatetodetermineunderwhatconditionsitwillgrantnationalitytoanon-national.ItisnotfortheCommitteetopassjudgementwhethertheconditionsarereasonableornotandwhethertheconditionsaresuchastoimposeunreasonableimpedimentsontheacquisitionofnationalitybyanewimmigrantnoristheCommitteecompetenttoenquirewhethertheactionoftheStateinrejectingtheapplicationofanewimmigrantfornationalityisreasonableornot.Secondly,Ifailtoseewhatisthedifferencebetweenthetwosituations:one,whereanapplicationfornationalityismadeandisunreasonablyrefusedandtheother,whereanapplicationfornationalityisnotmadeatall.Inbothcases,thenewimmigrantwouldcontinuetobeanon-nationalandif,inonecase,specialtiesorintimateconnectionorlinkwiththecountryofimmigrationwouldrendersuchcountry"hisowncountry",thereisnologicalorrelevantreasonwhyitshouldnothavethesameconsequenceoreffectintheothercase.2 .2IfailtounderstandwhatisthebasisonwhichthemajoritystatesthatcountrieslikeCanadahavearighttoexpectthatimmigrantswithinduecourseacquirealltherightsandassumealltheobligationsthatnationalityentails.Iagreethatindividualswhodonottakeadvantageoftheopportunitytoapplyfornationalitymustbeartheconsequencesofnotbeingnationals.Butthequestionis:whataretheseconsequences?Dotheyentailexclusionfromthebenefitofarticle12,paragraph4?Thatisthequestionwhichhastobeansweredanditcannotbeassumed,asthemajorityseemstohavedone,thattheconsequenceisexclusionfromthebenefitofarticle12,paragraph4.ThroughoutthedecisionoftheCommittee,Ifindthatthemajoritystartswiththepredeterminationthatinthecaseoftheauthor,Canadacannotberegardedas"hisowncountry",eventhoughhehasspecialtiesandmostintimateconnectionandlinkwithCanadaandhasalwaysregardedCanadaashisowncountry,andthentriestojustifythisconclusionbyholdingthattherewerenounreasonableimpedimentsinthewayoftheauthoracquiringCanadiannationalitybuttheauthordidnottakeadvantageoftheopportunitytoapplyforCanadiannationalityandmustthereforebeartheconsequenceofCanadanotbeingregardedashisowncountryandthereforeofbeingdeprivedofthebenefitofarticle12,paragraph4.IfImayrepeat,thefactthattheauthordidnotapplyforCanadiannationalityinasituationwheretherewerenounreasonableimpedimentsinsuchacquisitioncannothaveanybearingonthequestionwhetherCanadacouldorcouldnotberegardedas"hisowncountry".ItisbecausetheauthorisnotaCanadiannationalthatthequestionhasarisenanditisbeggingthequestiontosaythatCanadacouldnotberegardedas"hisowncountry"becausehedidnotorcouldnotacquireCanadiannationality.2 .2Itisundoubtedlytruethatonthisview,boththeUnitedKingdomandCanadawouldbe"hisowncountry"fortheauthor.Onewouldbethecountryofnationalitywhiletheotherwouldbe,whatImaycall,thecountryofadoption.Itisquiteconceivablethatanindividualmayhavetwocountrieswhichhecancallhisown:onemaybeacountryofhisnationalityandtheother,acountryadoptedbyhimashisowncountry.Iamthereforeinclinedtotaketheview,onthefactsassetoutinthecommunication,thatCanadawastheauthor'sowncountrywithinthemeaningofarticle12,paragraph4,andhecouldnotbearbitrarilyexpelledordeportedfromCanadabytheGovernmentofCanada.2 .2Thatleavesthequestionwhethertheexpulsionordeportationoftheauthorcouldbesaidtobearbitrary.Onthisquestion,IrecalltheCommittee'sjurisprudencethattheconceptofarbitrarinessmustnotbeconfinedtoproceduralarbitrarinessbutmustincludesubstantivearbitrarinessaswellanditmustnotbeequatedwith"againstthelaw"butmustbeinterpretedbroadlytoincludesuchelementsasinappropriatenessorexcessivenessordisproportionateness.WhereanactiontakenbytheStatepartyagainstapersonisexcessiveordisproportionatetotheharmsoughttobeprevented,itwouldbeunreasonableandarbitrary.Here,inthepresentcase,theauthorissoughttobeexpelledonaccountofhisrecidivisttendency.Hehascommittedaround40offences,includingtheftandrobbery,forwhichhehasbeenpunished.Thequestioniswhetheritisnecessary,inallthecircumstancesofthecase,toexpelordeporthiminordertoprotectthesocietyfromhiscriminalpropensityorwhetherthisobjectcanbeachievedbytakingalesseractionthanexpulsionordeportation.Theelementofproportionalitymustbetakenintoaccount.Ithinkthatifthistestisapplied,theactionofCanadainseekingtoexpelordeporttheauthorwouldappeartobearbitrary,particularlyinthelightofthefactthattheauthorhassucceededincontrollingalcoholabuseandnooffenceappearstohavebeencommittedbyhimsinceMay1991.Iftheauthorcommitsanymoreoffences,hecanbeadequatelypunishedandimprisonedandif,havingregardtohispastcriminalrecord,asufficientlyheavysentenceofimprisonmentispassedagainsthim,itwouldactasadeterrentagainstanyfurthercriminalactivityonhispartandinanyevent,hewouldbeputoutofactionduringthetimethatheisinprison.Thisisthekindofactionwhichwouldbetakenagainstanationalinordertoprotectthesocietyandquaanational,itwouldberegardedasadequate.IdonotseewhyitshouldnotberegardedasadequatequaapersonwhoisnotanationalbutwhohasadoptedCanadaashisowncountryorcometoregardCanadaashisowncountry.IamoftheviewthattheactionofexpulsionordeportationoftheauthorfromCanadaresultingincompletelyuprootinghimfromhishome,familyandmoorings,wouldbeexcessiveanddisproportionatetotheharmsoughttobepreventedandhencemustberegardedasarbitrary.2 .2Iwouldthereforeholdthatinthepresentcasethereisviolationofarticle12,paragraph4,oftheCovenant.Onthisview,itbecomesunnecessarytoconsiderwhetherthereisalsoviolationofarticles17and23oftheCovenant.ǀHCommunicationNo.549/1993;FrancisHopuandTepoaituBessert̀v.France(Viewsadoptedon29July1997,sixtiethsession)* }   8HSubmittedby:H .HH .HH .HFrancisHopuandTepoaituBessertH .HH .HH .HH .HH .HH .H[representedbyMr.Fran oisRoux,H .HH .HH .HH .HH .HH .HlawyerinFrance]Victims:H .HH .HH .HH .HTheauthorsStateparty:H .HH .HH .HFranceDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H4June1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H30June1994Dateofdecisiontoamenddecisiononadmissibility:H .H30October1995 8,, .,TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,, .,Meetingon29July1997,, .,HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.549/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteeonbehalfofMessrs.FrancisHopuandTepoaituBessertundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,, .,Havingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorsofthecommunication,theircounselandtheStateparty,, .,Adoptsthefollowing:@ .lViewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol ~       1., .,TheauthorsofthecommunicationareFrancisHopuandTepoaituBessert,bothethnicPolynesiansandinhabitantsofTahiti,FrenchPolynesia.TheyclaimtobevictimsofviolationsbyFranceofarticle2,paragraph1andsubparagraph3(a),articles14and17,paragraph1,article23,paragraph1,andarticle27oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheyarerepresentedbyMr.Fran oisRoux,whohasprovidedadulysignedpowerofattorney.&  Factsassubmittedbytheauthors2.1, .,Theauthorsarethedescendantsoftheownersofalandtract'  (approximately4.5hectares)calledTetaitapu,inNuuroa,ontheislandofTahiti.TheyarguethattheirancestorsweredispossessedoftheirpropertybyjugementdelicitationoftheTribunalcivild'instanceofPapeeteon6October1961.Underthetermsofthejudgement,ownershipofthelandwasawardedtotheSocith=telireduPacifiquesud(SHPS).Sincetheyear1988,theTerritoryofPolynesiahasbeenthesoleshareholderofthiscompany.2.2, .,In1990,theSHPSleasedthelandtotheSocitd'tudeetdepromotionh=telire,whichinturnsubleasedittotheSocith=telireRIVNAC.RIVNACseekstobeginconstructionworkonaluxuryhotelcomplexonthesite,whichbordersalagoon,assoonaspossible.Somepreliminaryworksuchasthefellingofsometrees,cleaningthesiteofshrubs,fencingoffofthegroundhasbeencarriedout.2.3, .,TheauthorsandotherdescendantsoftheownersofthelandpeacefullyoccupiedthesiteinJuly1992,inprotestagainsttheplannedconstructionofthehotelcomplex.Theycontendthatthelandandthelagoonborderingitrepresentanimportantplaceintheirhistory,theircultureandtheirlife.TheyaddthatthelandencompassesthesiteofapreEuropeanburialgroundandthatthelagoonremainsatraditionalfishinggroundandprovidesthemeansofsubsistenceforsome30familieslivingnexttothelagoon.2.4, .,On30July1992,RIVNACseizedtheTribunaldepremireinstanceofPapeetewitharequestforaninteriminjunction;thisrequestwasgrantedonthesameday,whentheauthorsandoccupantsofthesitewereorderedtoleavethegroundimmediatelyandtopay30,000FPC(FrancsPacifique)toRIVNAC.On29April1993,theCourtofAppealofPapeeteconfirmedtheinjunctionandreiteratedthattheoccupantshadtoleavethesiteimmediately.TheauthorswerenotifiedofthepossibilitytoappealtotheCourtofCassationwithinonemonthofthenotificationoftheorder.Apparently,theyhavenotdoneso.2.5, .,Theauthorscontendthatthepursuitoftheconstructionworkwoulddestroytheirtraditionalburialgroundandruinouslyaffecttheirfishingactivities.TheyaddthattheirexpulsionfromthelandisnowimminentandthattheHighCommissioneroftheRepublic,whorepresentsFranceinPolynesia,willsoonresorttopoliceforcetoevacuatethelandandtomakethestartoftheconstructionworkpossible.Inthiscontext,theauthorsnotethatthelocalpressreportedthatupto350policeofficers(includingCRSCorpsrpublicaindescurit)havebeenflownintoTahitiforthatpurpose.TheauthorsthereforeasktheCommitteetorequestinterimmeasuresofprotection,pursuanttorule86oftheCommittee'srulesofprocedure.Complaint3.1, .,Theauthorsallegeaviolationofarticle2,subparagraph3(a),juncto14,paragraph1,onthegroundthattheyhavenotbeenabletopetitionlawfullyestablishedcourtsforaneffectiveremedy.Inthisconnection,theynotethatlandclaimsanddisputesinTahitiweretraditionallysettledbyindigenoustribunals("tribunauxindignes"),andthatthejurisdictionofthesetribunalswasrecognizedbyFrancewhenTahiticameunderFrenchsovereigntyin1880.However,itissubmittedthat,since1936,whenthesocalledHighCourtofTahiticeasedtofunction,theStatepartyhasfailedtotakeappropriatemeasurestokeeptheseindigenoustribunalsinoperation;asaresult,theauthorssubmit,landclaimshavebeenhaphazardlyandunlawfullyadjudicatedbycivilandadministrativetribunals.3.2, .,Theauthorsfurtherclaimaviolationofarticle17,paragraph1,andarticle23,paragraph1,onthegroundthattheirforcefulremovalfromthedisputedsiteandtherealizationofthehotelcomplexwouldentailthedestructionoftheburialgroundwheremembersoftheirfamilyaresaidtobeburiedandbecausesuchremovalwouldinterferewiththeirprivateandtheirfamilylives.3.3, .,Theauthorsclaimtobevictimsofaviolationofarticle2,paragraph1.TheycontendthatPolynesiansarenotprotectedbylawsandregulations(suchasarticlesR361(1)and361(2)oftheCodedesCommunes,concerningcemeteries,aswellaslegislationconcerningnaturalsitesandarchaeologicalexcavations)whichhavebeenissuedfortheterritoiremtropolitainandwhicharesaidtogoverntheprotectionofburialgrounds.Theythusclaimtobevictimsofdiscrimination.3.4, .,Finally,theauthorsclaimaviolationofarticle27oftheCovenant,sincetheyaredeniedtherighttoenjoytheirownculture.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility4.1, .,Duringitsfiftyfirstsession,theCommitteeexaminedtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.ItnotedwithregretthattheStatepartyhadfailedtoputforthobservationsinrespectoftheadmissibilityofthecase,inspiteofthreeremindersaddressedtoitbetweenOctober1993andMay1994.4.2, .,TheCommitteebeganbynotingthattheauthorscouldhaveappealedtheinjunctionoftheCourtofAppealof29April1993totheCourtofCassation.However,hadthisappealbeenlodged,itwouldhaverelatedtotheobligationtovacatethelandtheauthorsheldoccupiedandthepossibilitytoopposeconstructionoftheplannedhotelcomplexbutnottotheissueofownershipoftheland.Inthelattercontext,theCommitteenotedthatsocalled"indigenoustribunals"wouldbecompetenttoadjudicatelanddisputesinTahiti,pursuanttothedecreesof29June1880ratifiedbytheFrenchParliamenton30December1880.TherewasnoindicationthatthejurisdictionofthesecourtshadbeenformallyrepudiatedbytheStateparty;rather,theiroperationappearedtohavefallenintodisuse,andtheauthors'claimtothiseffecthadnotbeencontradictedbytheStateparty.Norhadtheauthors'contentionthatlandclaimsinTahitiareadjudicated"haphazardly"byciviloradministrativetribunalsbeencontradicted.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteefoundthattherewerenoeffectivedomesticremediesfortheauthorstoexhaust.4.3, .,Inrespectoftheclaimunderarticle27oftheCovenant,theCommitteerecalledthatFrance,uponaccedingtotheCovenant,haddeclaredthat"inthelightofarticle2oftheConstitutionoftheFrenchRepublic,...article27isnotapplicableasfarastheRepublicisconcerned".ItconfirmeditspreviousjurisprudencethattheFrench"declaration"onarticle27operatedasareservationand,accordingly,concludedthatitwasnotcompetenttoconsidercomplaintsdirectedagainstFranceunderarticle27oftheCovenant.4.4, .,TheCommitteeconsideredtheclaimsmadeundertheotherprovisionsoftheCovenanttohavebeensubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,andon30June1994,declaredthecommunicationadmissibleinsofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle14,paragraph1,article17,paragraph1,andarticle23,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.̇Stateparty'srequestforreviewofadmissibilityandinformationonthemerits5.1, .,Intwosubmissionsunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocoldated7October1994and3April1995,theStatepartycontendsthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleandrequeststheCommitteetoreviewitsdecisiononadmissibility,pursuanttorule93,paragraph4,oftherulesofprocedure.5.2, .,TheStatepartycontendsthattheauthorsfailedtoexhaustdomesticremediesconsideredbytheStatepartytobeeffective.Thus,concerningtheauthors'argumentthattheywereillegallydispossessedofthelandsubleasedtoRIVNACandthatonlyindigenoustribunalsarecompetenttoheartheircomplaint,itnotesthatnoFrenchtribunalhasatanymomentbeenseizedofanyoftheclaimsformulatedbyMessrs.HopuandBessert.Thus,theycouldhave,atthetimeofthesaleofthecontestedgroundsandoftheproceedingsleadingtothejudgementoftheTribunalofPapeeteof6October1961,challengedthelegalityoftheprocedureinitiatedorelsethecompetenceofthetribunal.Anydecisionmadeonsuchachallengewouldhavebeensusceptibleofappeal.However,thejudgementof6October1961wasneverchallengedandthereforehasbecomefinal.5.3, .,Furthermore,atthetimeoftheoccupationofthegroundsfrom1992to1993,itwasfullyopentotheauthors,accordingtotheStateparty,tointerveneintheproceedingsbetweenRIVNACandtheAssociation"IAORAONU'UROA".Thisprocedure,knownas"tierceopposition",enableseveryindividualtoopposeajudgementwhichaffects/infringeshisorherrights,evenifhe/sheisnotapartytotheproceedings.Theprocedureof"tierceopposition"isgovernedbyarticles218etseq.oftheCodeofCivilProcedureofFrenchPolynesia.TheStatepartynotesthattheauthorscouldhaveintervened("...auraientpuformertierceopposition")bothagainstthedecisionoftheTribunalofFirstInstanceofPapeeteandthejudgementoftheCourtofAppealofPapeete,bychallengingthetitleofRIVNACtothecontestedgroundsandbyrefutingthecompetenceofthesecourts.5.4, .,TheStatepartyemphasizesthatthecompetenceofatribunalcanalwaysbechallengedbyacomplainant.Article65oftheCodeofCivilProcedureofFrenchPolynesiastipulatesthatacomplainantchallengingthejurisdictionofthecourtmustindicatethejurisdictionheconsiderstobecompetent("s'ilestprtenduquelajuridictionsaisieestincomptente...,lapartiequisoulvecetteexceptiondoitfaireconna3treenmmetempsetpeined'irrecevabilitdevantquellejuridictionelledemandequel'affairesoitporte").5.5, .,AccordingtotheStateparty,theauthorscouldequally,inthecontextof"tierceopposition",havearguedthattheexpulsionfromthegroundsclaimedbyRIVNACconstitutedaviolationoftheirrighttoprivacyandtheirrighttoafamilylife.TheStatepartyrecallsthattheprovisionsoftheCovenantaredirectlyapplicablebeforeFrenchtribunals;articles17and23couldwellhavebeeninvokedinthepresentcase.Inrespectoftheclaimsunderarticles17and23,paragraph1,therefore,theStatepartyalsoarguesthatdomesticremedieshavenotbeenexhausted.5.6, .,Finally,theStatepartyarguesthatjudicialdecisionsmadeinthecontextof"tierceopposition"proceedingscanbeappealedinthesamewayasjudgementsofthesamecourt("...lesjugementsrendussurtierceoppositionsontsusceptiblesdesmmesrecoursquelesdcisionsdelajuridictiondontilsmanent").IftheauthorshadchallengedthejudgementoftheCourtofAppealofPapeeteof29April1993onthebasisof"tierceopposition",anydecisionadoptedinrespectoftheirchallengecouldhavebeenappealedtotheCourtofCassation.Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthatpursuanttoarticle55oftheFrenchConstitutionof4June1958,theCovenantprovisionsareincorporatedintotheFrenchlegalorderandaregivenpriorityoversimplelaws.BeforetheCourtofCassation,theauthorscouldhaveraisedthesameissuestheyarguebeforetheHumanRightsCommittee.5.7, .,IntheStateparty'sopinion,theauthorsdonotqualifyas"victims"withinthemeaningofarticle1oftheProtocol.Thus,inrespectoftheirclaimunderarticle14,theyhavefailedtoadducetheslightestelementofproofoftitletothegroundsorofarighttooccupancyofthegrounds.Asaresult,theirexpulsionfromthegroundscannotbesaidtohaveviolatedanyoftheirrights.AccordingtotheStateparty,similarconsiderationsapplytotheclaimsunderarticle17andarticle23,paragraph1.Thus,theauthorsfailedtoshowthatthehumanremainsexcavatedonthedisputedgroundsinJanuary1993orbeforewereinanywaytheremainsofmembersoftheirfamilyoroftheirancestors.Rather,forensictestsundertakenbythePolynesianCentreforHumanScienceshaverevealedthattheskeletonsareveryoldandpredatethearrivalofEuropeansinPolynesia.5.8, .,Finally,theStatepartycontendsthatthecommunicationisinadmissiblerationemateriaeandrationetemporis.Itconsidersthattheauthors'complaintrelatesinrealitytoadisputeoverproperty.TherighttopropertynotbeingprotectedbytheCovenant,thecaseisconsideredinadmissibleunderarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.Furthermore,theStatepartyobservesthatthesaleofthegroundsoccupiedbytheauthorswasprocedurallycorrect,asdecidedbytheTribunalofFirstInstanceofPapeeteon6October1961.ThecasethusisbasedonfactswhichprecedetheentryintoforcebothoftheCovenantandoftheOptionalProtocolforFrance,andthereforeconsideredtobeinadmissiblerationetemporis.5.9, .,Subsidiarily,theStatepartyoffersthefollowingcommentsonthemeritsoftheauthors'allegations:ontheclaimunderarticle14,theStatepartyrecallsthatKingPomareV,who,on29June1880,hadissuedaproclamationconcerningthemaintenanceofindigenoustribunalsforlanddisputes,himselfcosigneddeclarationson29December1887relatingtotheabolitionofthesetribunals.Thedeclarationsof29December1887wereinturnratifiedbyarticle1oftheLawof10March1891.Sincethen,theStatepartyargues,theordinarytribunalsarecompetenttoadjudicatelanddisputes.Contrarytotheauthors'allegations,landdisputesaregivenspecializedattentionbytheTribunalofFirstInstanceofPapeete,wheretwojudgesspecializedintheadjudicationoflanddisputeseachpresideovertwocourtsessionsreservedforsuchdisputeseachmonth.Furthermore,itisarguedthattherightofaccesstoatribunaldoesnotimplyarighttounlimitedchoiceoftheappropriatejudicialforumforthecomplainantrather,therighttoaccesstoatribunalmustbeunderstoodasarighttoaccesstothetribunalcompetenttoadjudicateagivendispute.5.10Astotheclaimsunderarticle17andarticle23,paragraph1,theStatepartyrecallsthatnoteventheauthorsclaimthattheskeletonsdiscoveredonthedisputedgroundsbelongtotheirrespectivefamiliesortheirrelatives,butrathertotheir"ancestors"inthebroadestsenseoftheterm.Tosubsumetheremainsfromagrave,howeveroldandunidentifiabletheyare,underthenotionof"family",wouldbeanabusivelyextensiveandunpracticableinterpretationoftheterm.&  Authors'commentsontheStateparty'ssubmissionunderarticle4,paragraph26.1, .,Intheircomments,theauthorsrefutetheStateparty'sargumentthateffectivedomesticremediesremainavailabletothem.Theyrequestthatthe'  CommitteedismisstheStateparty'schallengetotheadmissibilityofthecommunicationasbelated.6.2, .,Theauthorsreiteratethattheyarenotinvokingarighttopropertybuttherighttoaccesstoatribunalandtheirrighttoaprivateandfamilylife.TheythereforerejecttheStateparty'sargumentrelatedtoinadmissibilityrationemateriaeandaddthattheirrightswereviolatedatthetimeofsubmissionoftheircommunication,i.e.inJune1993,andaftertheentryintoforceoftheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocolforFrance.6.3, .,Theauthorssubmitthattheymustberegardedas"victims"withinthemeaningofarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol,sincetheyconsiderthattheyhavetherighttobeheardbeforetheindigenoustribunalcompetentforlanddisputesinFrenchPolynesia,arightdeniedtothembytheStateparty.TheycontendthattheStatepartyisestoppedfromcriticizingthemfornothavinginvokedtheirrighttopropertyorarighttooccupancyofthedisputedgroundswhenpreciselytheiraccesstotheindigenoustribunalcompetentforadjudicationofsuchdisputeswasimpossible.Similarly,theyconsiderthemselvestobe"victims"inrespectofclaimsunderarticle17andarticle23,paragraph1,arguingthatitwouldhavebeenforthecourtsandnottheFrenchGovernmenttoprovetheexistenceorabsenceoffamilyorancestrallinksbetweenthehumanremainsdiscoveredonthedisputedsite,theauthorsandtheirfamilies.6.4, .,Ontherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theauthorsrecallthattheywerenotpartiestotheprocedurebetweentheSocith=telireRIVNACandtheAssociationIAORAONU'UROA;notbeingpartiestotheproceedings,theywerenotinthepositiontoraisethequestionofthetribunal'scompetence.Theyreiteratethattheyarefacedwithasituationinwhichtheirclaimsarenotjusticiable,giventhattheFrenchGovernmenthasabolishedtheindigenoustribunalswhichithadagreedtomaintainintheTreatyof1881.Thesameargumentissaidtoapplytothepossibilityofcassation:astheauthorswerenotpartiestotheprocedurebeforetheCourtofAppealofPapeeteof29April1993,theycouldnotapplyforcassationtotheCourtofCassation.EvenassumingthattheywouldhavehadthepossibilityofappealingtotheCourtofCassation,theyargue,thiswouldnothavebeenaneffectiveremedy,sincethatcourtcouldonlyhaveconcludedthatthetribunalsseizedofthelanddisputehadnocompetenceinthematter.6.5, .,TheauthorsreconfirmthatonlytheindigenoustribunalsremaincompetenttoadjudicatelanddisputesinFrenchPolynesia.Ratherthanrefutingthisconclusion,thedeclarationsof29September1887aresaidtoconfirmit,sincetheystipulatethattheindigenoustribunalsweretobeabolishedoncethedisputesforwhichtheyhadbeenestablishedhadbeensettled("LesTribunauxindignes,dontlemaintienavaittstipull'acted'annexiondeTahitilaFrance,serontsupprimsdsquelesoprationsrelativesladlimitationdelapropritauxquellesellesdonnentlieuauronttvides").Theauthorsquestionthevalidityofthedeclarationsof29December1887andaddthataslanddisputescontinuetoexistinTahiti,afactconcededbytheStatepartyitself(para.5.9above),itmustbeassumedthattheindigenoustribunalsremaincompetenttoadjudicatethem.OnlythuscanitbeexplainedthattheHauteCourdeTahiticontinuedtohanddownjudgementsinthesedisputesuntil1934.̇&  Postadmissibilityconsiderations7.1, .,Duringitsfiftyfifthsession,theCommitteefurtherexaminedthecommunication'  andtooknoteoftheStateparty'srequestthatthedecisiononadmissibilitybereviewedpursuanttorule93,paragraph4,oftherulesofprocedure.IttooknoteoftheStateparty'sargumentthattheGovernmenthadnotfileditsadmissibilityobservationsintimebecauseofthecomplexityofthecaseandtheshortdeadlinesimpartedtotheStateparty;itobserved,however,thattheGovernmenthadnotreactedtothreeremindersandthatithadtakentheStateparty16months,insteadoftwo,toreplytotheadmissibilityoftheauthors'claimsandthattheStateparty'sfirstsubmissionhadbeenmadethreemonthsaftertheadoptionofthedecisiononadmissibility.TheCommitteeconsideredthat,astherehadbeennosubmissionsfromtheStatepartybythetimeoftheadoptionofthedecisiononadmissibility,ithadtorelyontheauthors'information;furthermore,silenceonthepartoftheStatepartymilitatedinfavourofconcludingthattheStatepartyagreedthatalladmissibilityrequirementshadbeenfulfilled.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteewasnotprecludedfromconsideringtheauthors'claimsontheirmerits.7.2, .,OnthebasisoftheStateparty'sobservationstheCommitteetook,however,theopportunitytoreconsideritsadmissibilitydecision.Itnotedinparticulartheauthors'claimthattheyarediscriminatedagainstbecauseFrenchPolynesiansarenotprotectedbylawsandregulationswhichapplytotheterritoiremtropolitain,especiallyasfarasprotectionofburialgroundsisconcerned.Thisclaimcouldraiseissuesunderarticle26oftheCovenantbutwasnotcoveredbythetermsoftheadmissibilitydecisionof30June1994;theCommitteewasoftheopinion,however,thatitshouldbedeclaredadmissibleandconsideredonitsmerits.TheStatepartywasinvitedtosubmittotheCommitteeinformationinrespectoftheauthors'claimofdiscrimination.IftheStatepartyintendedtochallengetheadmissibilityoftheclaim,itwasinvitedtojoinitsobservationsinthisrespecttothoseonthesubstanceoftheclaim,andtheCommitteewouldaddressthemwhenexaminingthemeritsofthecomplaint.7.3, .,On30October1995,therefore,theCommitteedecidedtoamenditsdecisiononadmissibilityof30June1994.8.1, .,Bysubmissionof27February1996,counselinformstheCommitteethaton16January1996,theHighCommissioneroftheFrenchRepublicforFrenchPolynesiacalledintheforcesofordertoevacuatethe(archaeological)siteofNuuroa,soastoenabletheimmediatestartofconstructionofthehotelcomplex.At5.30a.m.,alargenumberofpolice,laterjoinedbyamilitarydetachment,occupiedthegroundsandputupafencearoundthesite.On19January,approximately100residentsoftheareaprotestedonthebeachofthesitetoexpresstheiroppositiontothehotelcomplex,aswellastheviolationofthesupposedlysacrednatureofthesite,onwhichhumanremainspointingtotheexistenceofanancientburialgroundhadbeenfoundin1993.Accordingtotheassociation"ParuruIaTetaitapuEoNuuroa",polesforthefencewereplaceddirectlyontotheoldgravesites.8.2, .,Theauthorsforwardacopyofanaffidavit,swornon22January1996,byalawyeractinguponinstructionsofMr.G.Bennett,thepresidentoftheassociation"ParuruIaTetaitapuEoNuuroa".Theaffidavitstates,interalia,thatalongpartsofthebeachofthegroundsonwhichthehotelistobebuilt,humanremainshavebeendiscovered.Todemonstratethepresenceofhumanbones,Mr.Bennettdugintothesandofalittlesandyelevationuponwhichextremitiesofseveralhumanbonesappeared.Mr.Bennettthencoveredthemagainwithsand.Nomorethanonemetrefromthissandyelevation,fencepoleshadbeenplanted.Mr.Bennettexpressedhisfearthatduringtheconstructionofthefence,humanremainsmightinadvertentlyhavebeenexposed.8.3, .,Theauthorsreaffirmthattheyarevictimsofdiscriminationwithinthemeaningofarticle26,sinceFrenchlegislationgoverningtheprotectionofburialsitesisnotapplicabletoFrenchPolynesia.9.1, .,Inasubmissiondated6June1996,theStatepartyonceagainchallengestheadmissibilityoftheauthors'claiminasmuchasitrelatestoarticle26onthegroundthattheycannotpretendtobe"victims"ofaviolationofthisprovision.       ׀ItsubmitsthattheauthorshavefailedtoshowthatthehumanremainsdiscoveredonthedisputedgroundsinJanuary1993areinfactthoseoftheirancestors,orthattheburialgroundwasthatinwhichtheirancestorshadbeenburied.TheStatepartyreiteratesthat,accordingtoforensictestscarriedoutbythePolynesianCentreofHumanSciences,theskeletonsdiscoveredpredatethearrivalofEuropeansinPolynesia.Accordingly,theauthorshavenopersonal,directandcurrentinterestininvokingtheapplicationoflegislationgoverningtheprotectionofburialgrounds,astheyfailtoestablishakinshiplinkbetweentheremainsdiscoveredandthemselves.9.2, .,Inthiscontext,theStatepartypointsoutthatrespectforthedeceaseddoesnotnecessarilyextendtoindividualsburiedlongagoandwhosememoryhasbeenlostforcenturies.Tothecontrary,itwouldbenecessarytoconcludethateachtimehumanremainsarefoundonasiteclearedforconstruction,thissitebecomesinconstructiblebecausetheremainsarehypotheticallythoseoftheancestorsofafamilywhichstillexists.Accordingly,theStatepartyconcludesthatFrenchlegislationgoverningtheexistenceofburialgroundsisnotapplicabletotheauthorsandthattheirclaimunderarticle26shouldbedeemedinadmissibleunderarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol.9.3, .,Subsidiarily,theStatepartycontendsthattherecanbenoquestionofaviolationofarticle26inthepresentcase.Ineffect,therelevantprovisionsoftheFrenchCriminalCode    ׀arealsoapplicabletoFrenchPolynesiasincetheadoptionofOrdinanceNo.96267of28March1996,relativetotheentryintoforceofthenewCriminalCodeintheFrenchoverseasterritoriesandinMayotte.Therefore,theauthorsareilladvisedtocomplainaboutdiscriminatoryapplicationofcriminallegislationgoverningprotectionofburialsites.TheStatepartyaddsthattheauthorshadnever,uptomid1996,filedanyactioncomplainingaboutaviolationofburialgrounds.9.4, .,Inadditionalobservations,theStatepartyarguesthattheexistenceofdifferentlegislativetextsinmetropolitanFranceandoverseasterritoriesdoesnotnecessarilyimplyaviolationofthenondiscriminationprincipleenshrinedinarticle26.Itexplainsthatpursuanttoarticle74oftheFrench+Constitutionandimplementinglegislation,legislativetextsadoptedformetropolitanFrancearenotautomaticallyandfullyapplicabletooverseasterritories,giventhegeographic,socialandeconomicparticularitiesoftheseterritories.Thus,legislativetextsapplicabletoFrenchPolynesiaareeitheradoptedbyStateorgansorbythecompetentauthoritiesofFrenchPolynesia.̇9.5, .,RecallingtheCommittee'sjurisprudence,theStatepartynotesthatarticle26doesnotprohibitalldifferenceintreatment,ifsuchdifferenceintreatmentisbasedonreasonableandobjectivecriteria.ItsubmitsthatthelegislativeandregulatorydifferencesbetweenmetropolitanFranceandoverseasterritoriesarebasedonsuchobjectiveandreasonablecriteria,asstipulatedinarticle74oftheConstitution,whichexplicitlyreferstothe"specificinterests"oftheoverseasterritories.Thenotionof"specificinterests"isdesignedtoprotecttheparticularitiesofoverseasterritoriesandjustifiestheattributionofparticularcompetenciestotheauthoritiesofFrenchPolynesia.Thissaid,theregulationsgoverningtheprotectionofburialsitesareverysimilarinmetropolitanFranceandinFrenchPolynesia.9.6, .,Inthelattercontext,theStatepartyobservesthatarticleL.131al.2oftheCodedesCommunesactuallyappliesbothinmetropolitanFranceandinPolynesia.TheimplementationregulationsbasedonthisprovisionmaynotbebasedonthesametextsinmetropolitanFranceandinFrenchPolynesia,butinpracticethedifferencesareinsignificant.Thus,theprohibitiontoexhumethebodyofadeceasedpersonwithoutpriorauthorizationiscontainedbothinarticle28ofDecision(Arrt)No.583Sof9April1953,whichisapplicableinFrenchPolynesia,andinarticleR.36115oftheCodedesCommunes.9.7, .,TheStatepartyfurtherobservesthat,in1989,FrenchPolynesiaadoptedlegislationgoverningtheurbanizationofitsterritory(Coded'amnagementduterritoire).Chapterfiveofthislegislationgovernstheprotectionofhistoricalsites,monuments,aswellasarchaeologicalactivities.Theprovisionsofthislegislationarelargelyinspiredbythelawsof2May1930andof27September1941(thelattergoverningarchaeologicalexcavations),andwhichapplyinmetropolitanFrance.    ׀ReferenceismadebytheStatepartytoarticleD.1512,paragraph1,oftheCodedel'amnagementdelaPolynsiefran aise,whichprovides,interalia,thatsitesandmonumentsthepreservationofwhichisofhistorical,artistic,scientificorotherinterestmaybeplacedunderpartialorcompleteprotection("...peuventfairel'objetd'unclassemententotalitouenpartie").Thisprovision,itisargued,wouldapplytotheprotectionofsitespresentingaparticularinterest.ArticleD.1518ofthesameCodestipulatesthattheobjectsandsitesormonumentswhichareplacedunderprotectioncannotbedestroyedordisplaced,orberestored,withoutpriorauthorizationofthechiefadministrativeofficerofFrenchPolynesia.    Finally,articleD.1548ofthesameCodespecificallycoverstheaccidentaldiscoveryofburialsites:underthisprovision,thediscoveryofburialsitesmustbenotifiedimmediatelytothecompetentadministrativeauthority.9.8, .,TheStatepartycontendsthattheaboveprovisionsfullyprotecttheauthors'interestsandmayprovidearemedytotheirconcerns.Contrarytotheauthors'affirmation,legislationdoesexistinFrenchPolynesiathatprovidesfortheprotectionofhistoricalsitesandburialgroundsandofarchaeologicalsitespresentingaparticularinterest.9.9, .,Bysubmissionof26August1996,counselinformstheCommitteeofthedeathofMr.Hopu,andindicatesthathisheirshavesignalledtheirwishtopursuetheexaminationofthecommunication.Examinationofthemerits10.1TheHumanRightsCommitteehasexaminedthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationpresentedtoitbytheparties,asrequiredunderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.10.2Theauthorsclaimthattheyweredeniedaccesstoanindependentandimpartialtribunal,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph1.Inthiscontext,theyclaimthattheonlytribunalsthatcouldhavehadcompetencetoadjudicatelanddisputesinFrenchPolynesiaareindigenoustribunalsandthatthesetribunalsoughttohavebeenmadeavailabletothem.TheCommitteeobservesthattheauthorscouldhavebroughttheircasebeforeaFrenchtribunal,butthattheydeliberatelychosenottodoso,claimingthatFrenchauthoritiesshouldhavekeptindigenoustribunalsinoperation.TheCommitteeobservesthatthedisputeoverownershipofthelandwasdisposedofbytheTribunalofPapeetein1961andthatthedecisionwasnotappealedbythepreviousowners.Nofurtherstepwasmadebytheauthorstochallengetheownershipoftheland,noritsuse,exceptbypeacefuloccupation.Inthesecircumstances,theCommitteeconcludesthatthefactsbeforeitdonotdiscloseaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1.10.3Theauthorsclaimthattheconstructionofthehotelcomplexonthecontestedsitewoulddestroytheirancestralburialgrounds,whichrepresentanimportantplaceintheirhistory,cultureandlife,andwouldarbitrarilyinterferewiththeirprivacyandtheirfamilylives,inviolationofarticles17and23.Theyalsoclaimthatmembersoftheirfamilyareburiedonthesite.TheCommitteeobservesthattheobjectivesoftheCovenantrequirethattheterm"family"begivenabroadinterpretationsoastoincludeallthosecomprisingthefamilyasunderstoodinthesocietyinquestion.Itfollowsthatculturaltraditionsshouldbetakenintoaccountwhendefiningtheterm"family"inaspecificsituation.Ittranspiresfromtheauthors'claimsthattheyconsidertherelationshiptotheirancestorstobeanessentialelementoftheiridentityandtoplayanimportantroleintheirfamilylife.ThishasnotbeenchallengedbytheStateparty;norhastheStatepartycontestedtheargumentthattheburialgroundsinquestionplayanimportantroleintheauthors'history,cultureandlife.TheStatepartyhasdisputedtheauthors'claimonlyonthebasisthattheyhavefailedtoestablishakinshiplinkbetweentheremainsdiscoveredintheburialgroundsandthemselves.TheCommitteeconsidersthattheauthors'failuretoestablishadirectkinshiplinkcannotbeheldagainsttheminthecircumstancesofthecommunication,wheretheburialgroundsinquestionpredatethearrivalofEuropeansettlersandarerecognizedasincludingtheforbearsofthepresentPolynesianinhabitantsofTahiti.TheCommitteethereforeconcludesthattheconstructionofahotelcomplexontheauthors'ancestralburialgroundsdidinterferewiththeirrighttofamilyandprivacy.TheStatepartyhasnotshownthatthisinterferencewasreasonableinthecircumstances,andnothingintheinformationbeforetheCommitteeshowsthattheStatepartydulytookintoaccounttheimportanceoftheburialgroundsfortheauthorswhenitdecidedtoleasethesiteforthebuildingofahotelcomplex.TheCommitteeconcludesthattherehasbeenanarbitraryinterferencewiththeauthors'righttofamilyandprivacy,inviolationofarticle17,paragraph1,andarticle23,paragraph1.10.4Assetoutinparagraph7.3ofthedecisionof30October1995,theCommitteehasfurtherconsideredtheauthors'claimofdiscrimination,inviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant,onaccountoftheallegedabsenceofspecificlegalprotectionofburialgroundsinFrenchPolynesia.TheCommitteehasnotedtheStateparty'schallengetotheadmissibilityofthisclaim,aswellasthesubsidiarydetailedargumentsrelatingtoitsmerits.10.5OnthebasisoftheinformationplacedbeforeitbytheStatepartyandtheauthors,theCommitteeisnotinapositiontodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenanindependentviolationofarticle26inthecircumstancesoftheinstantcommunication.11., .,TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsisoftheviewthatthefactsbeforeitdiscloseviolationsofarticle17,paragraph1,andarticle23,paragraph1,oftheCovenant.12., .,TheHumanRightsCommitteeisoftheviewthattheauthorsareentitled,underarticle2,paragraph3(a),oftheCovenant,toanappropriateremedy.TheStatepartyisunderanobligationtoprotecttheauthors'rightseffectivelyandtoensurethatsimilarviolationsdonotoccurinthefuture.13., .,Bearinginmindthat,bybecomingaStatepartytotheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyhasrecognizedthecompetenceoftheCommitteetodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationoftheCovenantornotandthat,pursuanttoarticle2oftheCovenant,theStatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedintheCovenantandtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished,theCommitteewishestoreceivefromtheStateparty,within90days,informationaboutthemeasurestakentogiveeffecttotheCommittee'sViews.@ .\APPENDIX̀A.IndividualopinionbyCommitteemembersElizabethEvatt,󀀀CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,FaustoPocar,MartinScheinin󀀀andMaxwellYalden(Partlydissenting)# .[Original:English], .,WedonotsharetheCommittee'sdecisionof30June1994todeclaretheauthors'complaintinadmissibleinrelationtoarticle27oftheCovenant.WhateverthelegalrelevanceofthedeclarationmadebyFranceinrelationtotheapplicabilityofarticle27maybeinrelationtotheterritoryofmetropolitanFrance,wedonotconsiderthejustificationgiveninsaiddeclarationtobeofrelevanceinrelationtooverseasterritoriesunderFrenchsovereignty.Thetextofsaiddeclarationmakesreferencetoarticle2oftheFrenchConstitutionof1958,understoodtoexcludedistinctionsbetweenFrenchcitizensbeforethelaw.Article74ofthesameConstitution,however,includesaspecialclauseforoverseasterritories,underwhichtheyshallhaveaspecialorganizationwhichtakesintoaccounttheirowninterestswithinthegeneralinterestsoftheRepublic.Thatspecialorganizationmayentail,asFrancehaspointedoutinitssubmissionsinthepresentcommunication,adifferentlegislationgiventhegeographic,socialandeconomicparticularitiesoftheseterritories.Thus,itisthedeclarationitself,asjustifiedbyFrance,whichmakesarticle27oftheCovenantapplicableinsofarasoverseasterritoriesareconcerned., .,Inouropinion,thecommunicationraisesimportantissuesunderarticle27oftheCovenantwhichshouldhavebeenaddressedontheirmerits,notwithstandingthedeclarationmadebyFranceunderarticle27., .,AftertheCommitteedecidednottoreopentheissueofadmissibilityoftheauthors'claimunderarticle27,weareabletoassociateourselveswiththeCommittee'sViewsontheremainingaspectsofthecommunication.̀B.IndividualopinionbyCommitteemembersDavidKretzmer̀andThomasBuergenthal,cosignedbyNisukeAndoand󀀀LordColville(Dissenting)# .[Original:English]1., .,UnfortunatelyweareunabletojointheCommittee'sviewthatviolationsofarticles17and23oftheCovenanthavebeensubstantiatedinthepresentcommunication.2., .,ThisCommitteehasheldinthepast(CommunicationNo.220/1987andCommunicationNo.222/1987,declaredinadmissibleon8November1989)thattheFrenchdeclarationuponratificationoftheCovenantregardingarticle27mustbereadasareservation,accordingtowhichFranceisnotboundbythisarticle.Relyingonthisdecision,theCommitteeheldinitsdecisiononadmissibilityof30June1994,thattheauthors'communicationwasnotadmissibleasregardsanallegedviolationofarticle27.Thisdecision,whichwasphrasedingeneralterms,precludesusfromexaminingwhethertheFrenchdeclarationappliesnotonlyinmetropolitanFrance,butalsoinoverseasterritories,inwhichtheStatepartyitselfconcedesthatspecialconditionsmayapply.3., .,Theauthors'claimisthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoprotectanancestralburialground,whichplaysanimportantroleintheirheritage.ItwouldseemthatthisclaimcouldraisetheissueofwhethersuchfailurebyaStatepartyinvolvesdenialoftherightofreligiousorethnicminorities,incommunitywithothermembersoftheirgroup,toenjoytheirowncultureortopractisetheirownreligion.However,forthereasonssetoutabove,theCommitteewasprecludedfromexaminingthisissue.InsteadtheCommitteeholdsthatallowingthebuildingontheburialgroundconstitutesarbitraryinterferencewiththeauthors'familyandprivacy.Wecannotacceptthesepropositions.4., .,Inreachingtheconclusionthatthefactsintheinstantcasedonotgiverisetoaninterferencewiththeauthors'familyandprivacy,wedonotrejecttheview,expressedintheCommittee'sGeneralComment16onarticle17oftheCovenant,thattheterm"family"should"begivenabroadinterpretationtoincludeallthosecomprisingthefamilyasunderstoodinthesocietyoftheStatepartyconcerned".Thus,theterm"family",whenappliedtothelocalpopulationinFrenchPolynesia,mightwellincluderelativeswhowouldnotbeincludedinafamily,asthistermisunderstoodinothersocieties,includingmetropolitanFrance.However,evenwhentheterm"family"isextended,itdoeshaveadiscretemeaning.Itdoesnotincludeallmembersofone'sethnicorculturalgroup.Nordoesitnecessarilyincludeallone'sancestors,goingbacktotimeimmemorial.Theclaimthatacertainsiteisanancestralburialgroundofanethnicorculturalgroup,doesnot,assuch,implythatitistheburialgroundofmembersoftheauthors'family.Theauthorshaveprovidednoevidencethattheburialgroundisonethatisconnectedtotheirfamily,ratherthantothewholeoftheindigenouspopulationofthearea.Thegeneralclaimthatmembersoftheirfamiliesareburiedthere,withoutspecifyinginanywaythenatureoftherelationshipbetweenthemselvesandthepersonsburiedthere,isinsufficienttosupporttheirclaim,evenontheassumptionthatthenotionoffamilyisdifferentfromnotionsthatprevailinothersocieties.WethereforecannotaccepttheCommittee'sviewthattheauthorshavesubstantiatedtheirclaimthatallowingbuildingontheburialgroundamountedtointerferencewiththeirfamily.5., .,TheCommitteementionstheauthors'claim"thattheyconsidertherelationshiptotheirancestorstobeanessentialelementoftheiridentityandtoplayanimportantroleintheirfamilylife".RelyingonthefactthattheStatepartyhaschallengedneitherthisclaimnortheauthors'argumentthattheburialgroundsplayanimportantpartintheirhistory,cultureandlife,theCommitteeconcludesthattheconstructionofthehotelcomplexontheburialgroundsinterfereswiththeauthors'righttofamilyandprivacy.ThereferencebytheCommitteetotheauthors'history,cultureandlife,isrevealing.Foritshowsthatthevaluesthatarebeingprotectedarenotthefamily,orprivacy,butculturalvalues.WesharetheconcernoftheCommitteeforthesevalues.Thesevalues,however,areprotectedunderarticle27oftheCovenantandnottheprovisionsreliedonbytheCommittee.WeregretthattheCommitteeispreventedfromapplyingarticle27intheinstantcase.6., .,ContrarytotheCommittee,wecannotacceptthattheauthors'claimofaninterferencewiththeirrighttoprivacyhasbeensubstantiated.TheonlyreasoningprovidedtosupporttheCommittee'sconclusioninthismatteristheauthors'claimthattheirconnectionwiththeirancestorsplaysanimportantroleintheiridentity.Thenotionofprivacyrevolvesaroundprotectionofthoseaspectsofaperson'slife,orrelationshipswithothers,whichonechoosestokeepfromthepubliceye,orfromoutsideintrusion.Itdoesnotincludeaccesstopublicproperty,whateverthenatureofthatproperty,orthepurposeoftheaccess.Furthermore,themerefactthatvisitstoacertainsiteplayanimportantroleinone'sidentity,doesnottransformsuchvisitsintopartofone'srighttoprivacy.Onecanthinkofmanyactivities,suchasparticipationinpublicworshiporinculturalactivities,thatplayimportantrolesinpersons'identitiesindifferentsocieties.Whileinterferencewithsuchactivitiesmayinvolveviolationsofarticles18or27,itdoesnotconstituteinterferencewithone'sprivacy.7., .,Wereachtheconclusionthattherehasbeennoviolationoftheauthors'rightsundertheCovenantinthepresentcommunicationwithsomereluctance.LiketheCommitteewetooareconcernedwiththefailureoftheStatepartytorespectasitethathasobviousimportanceintheculturalheritageoftheindigenouspopulationofFrenchPolynesia.Webelieve,however,thatthisconcerndoesnotjustifydistortingthemeaningofthetermsfamilyandprivacybeyondtheirordinaryandgenerallyacceptedmeaning. ? UK     \R3'\ X      +O@<6X9`("Courier NewTTO( A $(882   ݀I.CommunicationNo.550/1993;RobertFaurissonv.Francè(Viewsadoptedon8November1996,fiftyeighthsession)882HSubmittedby:H .HH .HH .HRobertFaurissonVictim: .H .HH .HH .HH .HTheauthorStateparty:H .HFranceDateofcommunication:H .HH .HH .H2January1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:H .H19July19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon8November1996,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.550/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.RobertFaurissonundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:@ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol*    ׀    1.2 .2Theauthorofthecommunication,dated2January1993,isRobertFaurisson,bornintheUnitedKingdomin1929andwithdualFrench/Britishcitizenship,currentlyresidinginVichy,France.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsofhishumanrightsbyFrance.TheauthordoesnotinvokespecificprovisionsoftheCovenant.  X Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2TheauthorwasaprofessorofliteratureattheSorbonneUniversityinParisuntil1973andattheUniversityofLyonuntil1991,whenhewasremovedfromhischair.AwareofthehistoricalsignificanceoftheHolocaust,hehassoughtproofofthemethodsofkillings,inparticularbygasasphyxiation.Whilehedoesnotcontesttheuseofgasforpurposesofdisinfection,hedoubtstheexistenceofgaschambersforexterminationpurposes("chambresgazhomicides")atAuschwitzandinotherNaziconcentrationcamps.2.22 .2Theauthorsubmitsthathisopinionshavebeenrejectedinnumerousacademicjournalsandridiculedinthedailypress,notablyinFrance;nonetheless,hecontinuestoquestiontheexistenceofexterminationgaschambers.Asaresultofpublicdiscussionofhisopinionsandthepolemicsaccompanyingthesedebates,hestatesthat,since1978,hehasbecomethetargetofdeaththreatsandthatoneightoccasionshehasbeenphysicallyassaulted.Ononeoccasionin1989,heclaimstohavesufferedseriousinjuries,includingabrokenjaw,forwhichhewashospitalized.Hecontendsthatalthoughtheseattackswerebroughttotheattentionofthecompetentjudicialauthorities,theywerenotseriouslyinvestigatedandnoneofthoseresponsiblefortheassaultshasbeenarrestedorprosecuted.On23November1992,theCourtofAppealofRiomfollowedtherequestoftheprosecutoroftheTribunaldeGrandeInstanceofCussetanddecreedtheclosureoftheproceedings(ordonnancedenonlieu)whichtheauthoritieshadinitiatedagainstX.2.32 .2On13July1990,theFrenchlegislaturepassedthesocalled"GayssotAct",whichamendsthelawontheFreedomofthePressof1881byaddinganarticle24bis;thelattermakesitanoffencetocontesttheexistenceofthecategoryofcrimesagainsthumanityasdefinedintheLondonCharterof8August1945,onthebasisofwhichNazileadersweretriedandconvictedbytheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNurembergfrom1945to1946.Theauthorsubmitsthat,inessence,the"GayssotAct"promotestheNurembergtrialandjudgementtothestatusofdogma,byimposingcriminalsanctionsonthosewhodaretochallengeitsfindingsandpremises.Mr.FaurissoncontendsthathehasamplereasontobelievethattherecordsoftheNurembergtrialcanindeedbechallengedandthattheevidenceusedagainstNazileadersisopentoquestion,asis,accordingtohim,theevidenceaboutthenumberofvictimsexterminatedatAuschwitz.2.42 .2InsubstantiationoftheclaimthattheNurembergrecordscannotbetakenasinfallible,hecites,bywayofexample,theindictmentwhichchargedtheGermanswiththeKatynmassacre,andreferstotheintroductionbytheSovietprosecutorofdocumentspurportingtoshowthattheGermanshadkilledthePolishprisonersofwaratKatyn(NurembergdocumentUSSR054).TheSovietauthorshipofthiscrime,hepointsout,isnowestablishedbeyonddoubt.Theauthorfurthernotesthat,amongthemembersoftheSovietKatyn(Lyssenko)Commission,whichhadadducedproofofthepurportedGermanresponsibilityfortheKatynmassacre,wereProfessorsBurdenkoandNicolas,whoalsotestifiedthattheGermanshadusedgaschambersatAuschwitzfortheexterminationoffourmillionpersons(documentUSSR006).Subsequently,heasserts,theestimatednumberofvictimsatAuschwitzhasbeenreviseddownwardtoapproximatelyonemillion.2.52 .2Shortlyaftertheenactmentofthe"GayssotAct",Mr.FaurissonwasinterviewedbytheFrenchmonthlymagazineLeChocduMois,whichpublishedtheinterviewinitsNumber32issueofSeptember1990.Besidesexpressinghisconcernthatthenewlawconstitutedathreattofreedomofresearchandfreedomofexpression,theauthorreiteratedhispersonalconvictionthattherewerenohomicidalgaschambersfortheexterminationofJewsinNaziconcentrationcamps.Followingthepublicationofthisinterview,11associationsofFrenchresistancefightersandofdeporteestoGermanconcentrationcampsfiledaprivatecriminalactionagainstMr.FaurissonandPatriceBoizeau,theeditorofthemagazineLeChocduMois.Byjudgementof18April1991,the17thChambreCorrectionnelleduTribunaldeGrandeInstancedeParisconvictedMessrs.FaurissonandBoizeauofhavingcommittedthecrimeof"contestationdecrimescontrel'humanit"andimposedonthemfinesandcostsamountingtoFF326,832.2.62 .2Theconvictionwasbased,interalia,onthefollowingFaurissonstatements:̇02 .2"...Noonewillhavemeadmitthattwoplustwomakefive,thattheearthisflat,orthattheNurembergTribunalwasinfallible.IhaveexcellentreasonsnottobelieveinthispolicyofexterminationofJewsorinthemagicgaschamber..."02 .2"Iwouldwishtoseethat100percentofallFrenchcitizensrealizethatthemythofthegaschambersisadishonestfabrication('estunegredinerie'),endorsedbythevictoriouspowersofNurembergin194546andofficializedon14July1990bythecurrentFrenchGovernment,withtheapprovalofthe'courthistorians'".2.72 .2TheauthorandMr.BoizeauappealedtheirconvictiontotheCourtofAppealofParis(EleventhChamber).On9December1992,theEleventhChamber,underthePresidencyofMrs.Fran oiseSimon,upheldtheconvictionandfinedMessrs.FaurissonandBoizeauatotalofFF374,045.50.Thissumincludedcompensationforimmaterialdamagetotheelevenplaintiffassociations.TheCourtofAppealdid,interalia,examinethefactsinthelightofarticles6and10oftheEuropeanConventionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsandconcludedthatthecourtoffirstinstancehadevaluatedthemcorrectly.Theauthoraddsthat,inadditiontothispenalty,heincurredconsiderableadditionalexpenses,includingattorney'sfeesforhisdefenceandhospitalizationcostsasaresultofinjuriessustainedwhenhewasassaultedbymembersofBtarandTagaronthefirstdayofthetrial.2.82 .2Theauthorobservesthatthe"GayssotAct"hascomeunderattackevenintheFrenchNationalAssembly.Thus,inJune1991,Mr.JacquesToubon,amemberofParliamentfortheRassemblementpourlaRpublique(RPR)andcurrentlytheFrenchMinisterofJustice,calledfortheabrogationoftheAct.Mr.FaurissonalsoreferstothecriticismoftheGayssotActbyMrs.SimoneVeil,herselfanAuschwitzsurvivor,andbyoneoftheleadinglegalrepresentativesofaJewishassociation.Inthiscontext,theauthorassociateshimselfwithasuggestionputforwardbyMr.PhilippeCosta,anotherFrenchcitizentriedunderarticle24bisandacquittedbytheCourtofAppealofParison18February1993,totheeffectthattheGayssotActbereplacedbylegislation&  specificallyprotectingallthosewhomightbecomevictimsofincitementtoracialhatredandinparticulartoantisemitism,withoutobstructing'  historicalresearchanddiscussion.2.92 .2Mr.FaurissonacknowledgesthatitwouldstillbeopentohimtoappealtotheCourtofCassation;heclaims,however,thathedoesnothavetheFF20,000oflawyers'feeswhichsuchanappealwouldrequire,andthatinanyevent,giventheclimateinwhichthetrialatfirstinstanceandtheappealtookplace,afurtherappealtotheCourtofCassationwouldbefutile.HeassumesthateveniftheCourtofCassationweretoquashthejudgementsofthelowerinstances,itwouldundoubtedlyorderaretrial,whichwouldproducethesameresultsastheinitialtrialin1991.Complaint3.12 .2Theauthorcontendsthatthe"GayssotAct"curtailshisrighttofreedomofexpressionandacademicfreedomingeneral,andconsidersthatthelawtargetshimpersonally("lexFaurissonia").Hecomplainsthattheincriminatedprovisionconstitutesunacceptablecensorship,obstructingandpenalizinghistoricalresearch.3.22 .2Inrespectofthejudicialproceedings,Mr.Faurissonquestions,inparticular,theimpartialityoftheCourtofAppeal(EleventhChamber).Thus,hecontendsthatthePresidentoftheChamberturnedherfaceawayfromhimthroughouthistestimonyanddidnotallowhimtoreadanydocumentincourt,notevenexcerptsfromtheNurembergverdict,whichhesubmitswasofimportanceforhisdefence.3.32 .2Theauthorstatesthat,onthebasisofseparateprivatecriminalactionsfiledbydifferentorganizations,bothheandMr.BoizeauarebeingprosecutedforthesameinterviewofSeptember1990intwootherjudicialinstanceswhich,atthetimeofsubmissionofthecommunication,werescheduledtobeheardinJune1993.Thisheconsiderstobeaclearviolationoftheprinciplenebisinidem.3.42 .2Finally,theauthorsubmitsthathecontinuestobesubjectedtothreatsandphysicalaggressionstosuchanextentthathislifeisindanger.Thus,heclaimstohavebeenassaultedbyFrenchcitizenson22May1993inStockholm,andagainon30May1993inParis.Stateparty'ssubmissiononthequestionofadmissibilityandauthor'scommentsthereon4.12 .2Initssubmissionunderrule91,theStatepartyprovidesachronologicaloverviewofthefactsofthecaseandexplainstheratiolegisofthelawof13July1990.Inthislattercontext,itobservesthatthelawinquestionfillsagapinthepanoplyofcriminalsanctionsbycriminalizingtheactsofthosewhoquestionthegenocideoftheJewsandtheexistenceofgaschambers.Inthelattercontext,itaddsthatthesocalled"revisionist"theseshadpreviouslyescapedanycriminalqualification,inthattheycouldnotbesubsumedundertheprohibitionof(racial)discrimination,ofincitementtoracialhatred,orglorificationofwarcrimesorcrimesagainsthumanity.4.22 .2TheStatepartyfurtherobservesthatinordertoavoidmakingitanoffencetomanifestanopinion("dlitd'opinion"),thelegislaturechosetodeterminepreciselythematerialelementoftheoffence,bycriminalizingonlythenegation("contestation"),byoneofthemeansenumeratedinarticle23ofthelawontheFreedomofthePressof1881,ofoneorseveralofthecrimesagainsthumanityinthesenseofarticle6oftheStatuteoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunal.Theroleofthejudgeseizedofallegationsoffactsthatmightbesubsumedunderthenewlawisnottointerveneinanacademicoranhistoricaldebate,buttoascertainwhetherthecontestedpublicationsofwordsnegatetheexistenceofcrimesagainsthumanityrecognizedbyinternationaljudicialinstances.TheStatepartypointsoutthatthelawof13July1990wasnotedwithappreciationbytheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationinMarch1994.4.32 .2TheStatepartysubmitsthatthecommunicationisinadmissibleonthebasisofnonexhaustionofdomesticremediesinsofarastheallegedviolationofMr.Faurisson'sfreedomofexpressionisconcerned,ashedidnotappealhiscasetotheCourtofCassation.ItrecallstheCommittee'sjurisprudencethatmeredoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofavailableremediesdonotabsolveanauthorfromavailinghimselfofthem.Furthermore,itcontendsthatthereisnobasisfortheauthor'sdoubtthatrecoursetotheCourtofCassationcouldnotprovidehimwithjudicialredress.4.42 .2Inthiscontext,theStatepartynotesthatwhiletheCourtofCassationindeeddoesnotexaminefactsandevidenceinacase,itdoesascertainwhetherthelawwasappliedcorrectlytothefacts,andcandeterminethattherewasaviolationofthelaw,ofwhichtheCovenantisanintegralpart(article55oftheFrenchConstitutionof4June1958).Article55stipulatesthatinternationaltreatiestakeprecedenceoverdomesticlawsand,accordingtoajudgementoftheCourtofCassationof24May1975,domesticlawscontrarytoaninternationaltreatyshallnotbeapplied,eveniftheinternallawwasadoptedaftertheconclusionofthetreaty.Thus,theauthorremainedfreetoinvoketheCovenantbeforetheCourtofCassation,astheCovenanttakesprecedenceoverthelawof13July1990.4.52 .2AstothecostsofanappealtotheCourtofCassation,theStatepartynotesthatpursuanttoarticles584and585oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,itisnotmandatoryforaconvictedpersontoberepresentedbycounselbeforetheCourtofCassation.Furthermore,itobservesthatlegalaidwouldbeavailabletotheauthor,uponsufficientlymotivatedrequest,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofLaw91647of10July1991(especiallypara.10thereof).Theauthordidnotfileanysuchrequest,andintheabsenceofinformationabouthisfinancialresources,theStatepartycontendsthatnothingwouldallowtheconclusionthatanapplicationforlegalaid,haditbeenfiled,wouldnothavebeengranted.4.62 .2Concerningtheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph7,theStatepartyunderlinesthattheprincipleof"nebisinidem"isfirmlyanchoredinFrenchlaw,whichhasbeenconfirmedbytheCourtofCassationinnumerousjudgements(seeinparticulararticle6oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure).&  4.72 .2Thus,ifnewcomplaintsandcriminalactionsagainsttheauthorwereentertainedbythecourtsforfactsalreadyjudgedbytheCourtofAppealofParison9December1992,then,theStatepartyaffirms,theprosecutorandthecourtwouldhavetoinvoke,exofficio,theprincipleof"nonbisinidem"'  andtherebyannulthenewproceedings.4.82 .2TheStatepartydismissestheauthor'sallegationthathewasatargetofothercriminalproceduresbasedonthesamefactsasmanifestlyabusive,inthesensethatthesoleexistenceofthejudgementof9December1992issufficienttoprecludefurtherprosecution.Inanyevent,theStatepartyarguesthatMr.Faurissonfailedtoproduceanyproofofsuchprosecution.5.12 .2InhiscommentsontheStateparty'ssubmission,theauthorarguesthattheeditorinchiefofthemagazineLeChoc,whichpublishedthedisputedinterviewinSeptember1990,didappealtotheCourtofCassation;on20December1994,theCriminalChamberoftheCourtofCassationdismissedtheappeal.Theauthorwasinformedofthisdecisionbyregisteredletterof21February1995fromtheRegistryoftheCourtofAppealofParis.5.22 .2Mr.FaurissonreiteratesthatassistanceoflegalcounselinproceedingsbeforetheCourtofCassationis,ifnotnecessarilyrequiredbylaw,indispensableinpractice:iftheCourtmayonlydeterminewhetherthelawwasappliedcorrectlytothefactsofacase,theaccusedmusthavespecializedlegalknowledgehimselfsoastofollowthehearing.Onthequestionoflegalaid,theauthorsimplynotesthatsuchaidisgenerallynotgrantedtoindividualswiththesalaryofauniversityprofessor,evenifthissalaryis,inhisownsituation,severelyreducedbyanavalancheoffines,punitivedamagesandotherlegalfees.5.32 .2Theauthorobservesthatheinvokeslessaviolationoftherighttofreedomofexpression,whichdoesadmitofsomerestrictions,butofhisrighttofreedomofopinionandtodoubt,aswellasfreedomofacademicresearch.Thelatter,hecontends,maynot,byitsverynature,besubjectedtolimitations.However,theLawof13July1990,unlikecomparablelegislationinGermany,Belgium,SwitzerlandorAustria,doeslimitthefreedomtodoubtandtocarryouthistoricalresearchinstrictterms.Thus,itelevatestotherankofinfallibledogmatheproceedingsandtheverdictoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalsittingatNuremberg.TheauthornotesthattheproceedingsoftheTribunal,itswayofcollectingandevaluatingevidence,andthepersonalitiesofthejudgesthemselveshavebeensubjectedtotrenchantcriticismovertheyears,tosuchanextentthatonecouldcalltheproceedingsa"mascarade"(..."lasinistreetdshonorantemascaradejudiciairedeNuremberg").5.42 .2TheauthordismissesasabsurdandillogicaltheratiolegisadducedbytheStateparty,inthatitevenprohibitshistoriansfromproving,ratherthannegating,theexistenceoftheShoahorthemassexterminationofJewsinthegaschambers.Hecontendsthatinthewayitwasdraftedandisapplied,thelawendorsestheorthodoxJewishversionofthehistoryoftheSecondWorldWaronceandforall.5.52 .2Astotheallegedviolationofarticle14,paragraph7,theauthorreaffirmsthatoneandthesameinterviewpublishedinoneandthesamepublicationresultedinthree(distinct)proceedingsbeforetheXVIIthCriminalChamberoftheTribunaldeGrandeInstanceofParis.Thesecaseswereregisteredunderthefollowingregistrycodes:(1)P.903020325/0;(2)P.903020324/1;and(3)P.902710780/1.On10April1992,theTribunaldecidedtosuspendtheproceedingsinasmuchastheauthorwasconcernedforthelasttwocases,pendingadecisionontheauthor'sappealagainstthejudgementinthefirstcase.TheproceedingsremainedsuspendedafterthejudgementoftheCourtofAppeal,untilthedismissaloftheappealfiledbythejournalLeChocduMoisbytheCourtofCassationon20December1994.Sincethen,theprocedureinthelasttwocaseshasresumed,andhearingstookplaceon27Januaryand19May1995.Anotherhearingwasscheduledfor17October1995.Committee'sdecisiononadmissibility6.12 .2Duringitsfiftyfourthsession,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthecommunication.Itnotedthat,atthetimeofthesubmissionofthecommunicationon2January1993,theauthorhadnotappealedthejudgementoftheCourtofAppealofParis(EleventhChamber)of9December1992totheCourtofCassation.Theauthorarguedthathedidnothavethemeanstosecurelegalrepresentationforthatpurposeandthatsuchanappealwould,atanyrate,befutile.Astothefirstargument,theCommitteenotedthatitwasopentotheauthortoseeklegalaid,whichhedidnot.AstothelatterargumenttheCommitteereferredtoitsconstantjurisprudencethatmeredoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofaremedydonotabsolveanauthorfromresortingtoit.Atthetimeofsubmission,therefore,thecommunicationdidnotmeettherequirementofexhaustionofdomesticremediessetoutinarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.Inthemeantime,however,theauthor'scoaccused,theeditorinchiefofthemagazineLeChoc,whichpublishedthedisputedinterviewinSeptember1990,hadappealedtotheCourtofCassation,which,on20December1994,dismissedtheappeal.ThejudgementdeliveredbytheCriminalChamberoftheCourtofCassationrevealsthatthecourtconcludedthatthelawwasappliedcorrectlytothefacts,thatthelawwasconstitutionalandthatitsapplicationwasnotinconsistentwiththeFrenchRepublic'sobligationsunderinternationalhumanrightstreaties,withspecificreferencetotheprovisionsofarticle10oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,whichprovisionsprotecttherighttofreedomofopinionandexpressionintermswhicharesimilartothetermsusedinarticle19oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsforthesamepurpose.Inthecircumstances,theCommitteeheldthatitwouldnotbereasonabletorequiretheauthortohaverecoursetotheCourtofCassationonthesamematter.Thatremedycouldnolongerbeseenasaneffectiveremedywithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol,i.e.,aremedythatwouldprovidetheauthorwithareasonableprospectofjudicialredress.Thecommunication,therefore,nolongersufferedfromtheinitialbarofnonexhaustionofdomesticremedies,insofarasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle19oftheCovenant.6.22 .2TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthorhadsufficientlysubstantiated,forpurposesofadmissibility,hiscomplaintaboutallegedviolationsofhisrighttofreedomofexpression,opinionandofacademicresearch.Theseallegationsshould,accordingly,beconsideredontheirmerits.6.32 .2Ontheotherhand,theCommitteefoundthattheauthorhadfailed,forpurposesofadmissibility,tosubstantiatehisclaimthathisrightnottobetriedtwiceforthesameoffencehadbeenviolated.Thefactsofthecasedidnotrevealthathehadinvokedthatrightintheproceedingsthatwerependingagainsthim.TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'ssubmissionthattheprosecutorandthecourtwouldbeobligedtoapplytheprincipleof"nonbisinidem"ifinvokedandtoannulthenewproceedingsiftheyrelatedtothesamefactsasthosejudgedbytheCourtofAppealofParison9December1992.Theauthor,therefore,hadnoclaiminthisrespectunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.42 .2Similarly,theCommitteefoundthattheauthorhadfailed,forpurposesofadmissibility,tosubstantiatehisclaimsrelatedtotheallegedpartialityofjudgesontheEleventhChamberoftheCourtofAppealofParisandtheallegedreluctanceofthejudicialauthoritiestoinvestigateaggressionstowhichheclaimstohavebeensubjected.Inthisrespect,also,theauthorhadnoclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.6.52 .2On19July1995,therefore,theHumanRightsCommitteedeclaredthecommunicationadmissibleinasmuchasitappearedtoraiseissuesunderarticle19oftheCovenant.Stateparty'sobservationsonthemeritsandauthor'scommentsthereon7.12 .2Initssubmissionunderarticle4,paragraph2,oftheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyconsidersthattheauthor'sclaimshouldbedismissedasincompatiblerationemateriaewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant,andsubsidiarilyasmanifestlyillfounded.7.22 .2TheStatepartyonceagainexplainsthelegislativehistoryofthe"GayssotAct".Itnotes,inthiscontext,thatantiracismlegislationadoptedbyFranceduringthe1980swasconsideredinsufficienttoprosecuteandpunish,interalia,thetrivializationofNazicrimescommittedduringtheSecondWorldWar.TheLawadoptedon13July1990respondedtothepreoccupationsoftheFrenchlegislatorvisvisthedevelopment,forseveralyears,of"revisionism",mostlythroughindividualswhojustifiedtheirwritingsbytheir(perceived)statusashistorians,andwhochallengedtheexistenceoftheShoah.TotheGovernment,theserevisionistthesesconstitute"asubtleformofcontemporaryantisemitism"("...constituentuneformesubtiledel'antismitismecontemporain")which,priorto13July1990,couldnotbeprosecutedunderanyoftheexistingprovisionsofFrenchcriminallegislation.  X 7.32 .2Thelegislatorthussoughttofillalegalvacuum,whileattemptingtodefinethenewprovisionsagainstrevisionisminaspreciseamanneraspossible.TheformerMinisterofJustice,Mr.Arpaillange,hadaptlysummarizedthepositionofthethenGovernmentbystatingthatitwasimpossiblenottodevoteoneselffullytothefightagainstracism,addingthatracismdidnotconstituteanopinionbutanaggressionandthateverytimeracismwasallowedtoexpressitselfpubliclythepublicorderwasimmediatelyandseverelythreatened.ItwasexactlybecauseMr.FaurissonexpressedhisantisemitismthroughthepublicationofhisrevisionistthesesinjournalsandmagazinesandtherebytarnishedthememoryofthevictimsofNazismthathewasconvictedinapplicationoftheLawof13July1990.7.42 .2TheStatepartyrecallsthatarticle5,paragraph1,oftheCovenantallowsaStatepartytodenyanygrouporindividualanyrighttoengageinactivitiesaimedatthedestructionofanyoftherightsandfreedomsrecognizedintheCovenant;similarwordingisfoundinarticle17oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms.TheStatepartyreferstoacaseexaminedbytheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRights,      ׀whichinitsopinionpresentsmanysimilaritieswiththepresentcaseandwhoseratiodecidendicouldbeusedforthedeterminationofMr.Faurisson'scase.Inthiscase,theEuropeanCommissionobservedthatarticle17oftheEuropeanConventionconcernedessentiallythoserightswhichwouldenablethoseinvokingthemtoexerciseactivitieswhicheffectivelyaimatthedestructionoftherightsrecognizedbytheConvention("...viseessentiellementlesdroitsquipermettraient,sionlesinvoquait,d'essayerd'entirerledroitdeselivrereffectivementdesactivitsvisantladestructiondesdroitsoulibertsreconnusdanslaConvention").Itheldthattheauthors,whowereprosecutedforpossessionofpamphletswhosecontentincitedtoracialhatredandwhohadinvokedtheirrighttofreedomofexpression,couldnotinvokearticle10oftheEuropeanConvention(theequivalentofarticle19oftheCovenant),astheywereclaimingthisrightinordertoexerciseactivitiescontrarytotheletterandthespiritoftheConvention.7.52 .2ApplyingtheseargumentstothecaseofMr.Faurisson,theStatepartynotesthatthetenoroftheinterviewwiththeauthorwhichwaspublishedinLeChoc(inSeptember1990)wascorrectlyqualifiedbytheCourtofAppealofParisasfallingunderthescopeofapplicationofarticle24bisoftheLawof29July1881,asmodifiedbytheLawof13July1990.BychallengingtherealityoftheexterminationofJewsduringtheSecondWorldWar,theauthorinciteshisreaderstoantisemiticbehaviour("...conduitseslecteurssurlavoiedecomportementsantismites")contrarytotheCovenantandotherinternationalconventionsratifiedbyFrance.7.62 .2TotheStateparty,theauthor'sjudgementontheratiolegisoftheLawof13July1990,ascontainedinhissubmissionof14June1995totheCommittee,i.e.thatthelawcastsinconcretetheorthodoxJewishversionofthehistoryoftheSecondWorldWar,clearlyrevealsthedmarcheadoptedbytheauthor:undertheguiseofhistoricalresearch,heseekstoaccusetheJewishpeopleofhavingfalsifiedanddistortedthefactsoftheSecondWorldWarandtherebyhavingcreatedthemythoftheexterminationoftheJews.ThatMr.FaurissondesignatedaformerChiefRabbi(Grandrabbin)astheauthorofthelawof13July1990,whereasthelawisofparliamentaryorigin,isanotherillustrationoftheauthor'smethodstofuelantisemiticpropaganda.7.72 .2Onthebasisoftheabove,theStatepartyconcludesthattheauthor's"activities",withinthemeaningofarticle5oftheCovenant,clearlycontainelementsofracialdiscrimination,whichisprohibitedundertheCovenantandotherinternationalhumanrightsinstruments.TheStatepartyinvokesarticle26and,inparticular,article20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,whichstipulatesthat"anyadvocacyofnational,racialorreligioushatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityorviolenceshallbeprohibitedbylaw".Furthermore,theStatepartyrecallsthatitisapartytotheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination;underarticle4ofthatConvention,Statesparties"shalldeclareanoffencepunishablebylawalldisseminationofideasbasedonracialsuperiorityorhatred"(para.4(a)).TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationspecificallywelcomedtheadoptionofthelawof13July1990duringtheexaminationoftheperiodicreportofFrancein1994.Inthelightoftheabove,theStatepartyconcludesthatitmerelycompliedwithitsinternationalobligationsbymakingthe(public)denialofcrimesagainsthumanityacriminaloffence.7.82 .2TheStatepartyfurtherrecallsthedecisionoftheHumanRightsCommitteeinCommunicationNo.104/1981,    ׀wheretheCommitteehadheldthat"theopinionswhichMr.T.seekstodisseminatethroughthetelephonesystemclearlyconstitutetheadvocacyofracialorreligioushatredwhichCanadahasanobligationunderarticle20(2)oftheCovenanttoprohibit",andthattheclaimoftheauthorbasedonarticle19wasinadmissibleasincompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.Thisreasoning,theStatepartysubmits,shouldbeappliedtothecaseofMr.Faurisson.7.92 .2Onasubsidiarybasis,theStatepartycontendsthattheauthor'sclaimunderarticle19ismanifestlywithoutmerits.Itnotesthattherighttofreedomofexpressionlaiddowninarticle19oftheCovenantisnotwithoutlimits(cf.article19,para.3),andthatFrenchlegislationregulatingtheexerciseofthisrightisperfectlyconsonantwiththeprincipleslaiddowninarticle19;thishasbeenconfirmedbyadecisionoftheFrenchConstitutionalCourtof10and11October1984.    ׀Intheinstantcase,thelimitationsonMr.Faurisson'srighttofreedomofexpressionflowfromthelawof13July1990.7.10TheStatepartyemphasizesthatthetextofthelawof13July1990revealsthattheoffenceofwhichtheauthorwasconvictedisdefinedinprecisetermsandisbasedonobjectivecriteria,soastoavoidthecreationofacategoryofoffenceslinkedmerelytoexpressionofopinions("dlitd'opinion").Thecommittaloftheoffencenecessitates(a)thedenialofcrimesagainsthumanity,asdefinedandrecognizedinternationally,and(b)thatthesecrimesagainsthumanityhavebeenadjudicatedbyjudicialinstances.Inotherwords,thelawof13July1990doesnotpunishtheexpressionofanopinion,butthedenialofahistoricalrealityuniversallyrecognized.TheadoptionoftheprovisionwasnecessaryintheStateparty'sopinion,notonlytoprotecttherightsandthereputationofothers,butalsotoprotectpublicorderandmorals.7.11Inthiscontext,theStatepartyrecallsoncemorethevirulenttermsinwhichtheauthor,inhissubmissionof14June1995totheCommittee,hadcriticizedthejudgementoftheInternationalTribunalofNuremberg,dismissingitasasinisteranddishonouringjudicialsham("...lasinistreetdshonorantemascaradejudiciairedeNuremberg").Insodoing,henotonlychallengedthevalidityofthejudgementoftheNurembergTribunal,butalsounlawfullyattackedthereputationandthememoryofthevictimsofNazism.7.12Insupportofitsarguments,theStatepartyreferstodecisionsoftheEuropeanCommissionofHumanRightsaddressingtheinterpretationofarticle10oftheEuropeanConvention(theequivalentofpara.19oftheCovenant).Inacasedecidedon16July1982,    ׀whichconcernedtheprohibition,byjudicialdecision,ofdisplayandsaleofbrochuresarguingthattheassassinationofmillionsofJewsduringtheSecondWorldWarwasaZionistfabrication,theCommissionheldthat"itwasneitherarbitrarynorunreasonabletoconsiderthepamphletsdisplayedbytheapplicantasadefamatoryattackagainsttheJewishcommunityandagainsteachindividualmemberofthiscommunity.BydescribingthehistoricalfactoftheassassinationofmillionsofJews,afactwhichwasevenadmittedbytheapplicanthimself,asalieandzionistswindle,thepamphletsinquestionnotonlygaveadistortedpictureoftherelevanthistoricalfactsbutalsocontainedanattackonthereputationofallthose...describedasliarsandswindlers...".TheCommissionfurtherjustifiedtherestrictionsontheapplicant'sfreedomofexpression,arguingthatthe"restrictionwas...notonlycoveredbyalegitimatepurposerecognizedbytheConvention(namelytheprotectionofthereputationofothers),butcouldalsobeconsideredasnecessaryinademocraticsociety.Suchasocietyrestsontheprinciplesoftoleranceandbroadmindednesswhichthepamphletsinquestionclearlyfailedtoobserve.Theprotectionoftheseprinciplesmaybeespeciallyindicatedvisvisgroupswhichhavehistoricallysufferedfromdiscrimination...".7.13TheStatepartynotesthatidenticalconsiderationstranspirefromthejudgementoftheCourtofAppealofParisof9December1992,whichconfirmedtheconvictionofMr.Faurisson,byreference,interalia,toarticle10oftheEuropeanConventionandtotheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination.Itconcludesthattheauthor'sconvictionwasfullyjustified,notonlybythenecessityofsecuringrespectforthejudgementoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNuremberg,andthroughitthememoryofthesurvivorsandthedescendantsofthevictimsofNazism,butalsobythenecessityofmaintainingsocialcohesionandpublicorder.8.12 .2Inhiscomments,theauthorassertsthattheStateparty'sobservationsarebasedonamisunderstanding:heconcedesthatthefreedomsofopinionandofexpressionindeedhavesomelimits,butheinvokeslessthesefreedomsthanthefreedomtodoubtandthefreedomofresearchwhich,tohismind,donotpermitanyrestrictions.Thelatterfreedomsareviolatedbythelawof13July1990,whichelevatestothelevelofonlyandunchallengeabletruthwhatagroupofindividuals,judgesofaninternationalmilitarytribunalhaddecreedinadvanceasbeingauthentic.Mr.FaurissonnotesthattheGovernmentsofSpainandtheUnitedKingdomhaverecentlyrecognizedthatantirevisionistlegislationoftheFrenchmodelisastepbackwardbothforthelawandforhistory.8.22 .2TheauthorreiteratesthatthedesiretofightantisemitismcannotjustifyanylimitationsonthefreedomofresearchonasubjectwhichisofobviousinteresttoJewishorganizations:theauthorqualifiesas"exorbitant"the"privilegeofcensorship"fromwhichtherepresentativesoftheJewishcommunityinFrancebenefit.Heobservesthatnoothersubjectheisawareofhaseverbecomeavirtualtabooforresearch,followingarequestbyanotherpoliticalorreligiouscommunity.Tohim,nolawshouldbeallowedtoprohibitthepublicationofstudiesonanysubject,underthepretextthatthereisnothingtoresearchonit.8.32 .2Mr.FaurissonassertsthattheStatepartyhasfailedtoprovidetheslightestelementofproofthathisownwritingsandthesesconstitutea"subtleformofcontemporaryantisemitism"(seepara.7.2above)orincitethepublictoantisemiticbehaviour(seepara.7.5above).HeaccusestheStatepartyofhubrisindismissinghisresearchandwritingsas"pseudoscientific"("prtendumentscientifique"),andaddsthathedoesnotdenyanythingbutmerelychallengeswhattheStatepartyreferstoasa"universallyrecognizedreality"("uneralituniversellementreconnue").Theauthorfurtherobservesthattherevisionistschoolhas,overthepasttwodecades,beenabletodismissasdoubtfulorwrongsomanyelementsofthe"universallyrecognizedreality"thattheimpugnedlawbecomesallthemoreunjustifiable.8.42 .2TheauthordeniesthatthereisanyvalidlegislationwhichwouldpreventhimfromchallengingtheverdictandthejudgementoftheInternationalTribunalatNuremberg.HechallengestheStateparty'sargumentthatthebasisforsuchprohibitionpreciselyisthelawof13July1990aspuretautologyandpetitioprincipis.HefurthernotesthatevenFrenchjurisdictionshaveadmittedthattheproceduresbeforeanddecisionsoftheInternationalTribunalcouldjustifiablybecriticized.    8.52 .2Theauthorobservesthat,ontheoccasionofarecentrevisionistaffair(caseofRogerGaraudy),thevastmajorityofFrenchintellectualsaswellasrepresentativesoftheFrenchLeagueforHumanRightshavepubliclyvoicedtheiroppositiontothemaintenanceofthelawof13July1990.8.62 .2Astotheviolationsofhisrighttofreedomofexpressionandopinion,theauthornotesthatthisfreedomremainsseverelylimited:thus,heisdeniedtherightofreplyinthemajormedia,andjudicialproceduresinhiscasearetendingtobecomeclosedproceedings("...mesprocstendentdevenirdesprocshuisclos").Preciselybecauseoftheapplicabilityofthelawof13July1990,ithasbecomeanoffencetoprovidecolumnspacetotheauthorortoreportthenatureofhisdefenceargumentsduringhistrials.Mr.FaurissonnotesthathesuedthenewspaperLibrationforhavingrefusedtogranthimarightofreply;hewasconvictedinfirstinstanceandonappealandorderedtopayafinetothenewspaper'sdirector.Mr.Faurissonconcludesthatheis,inhisowncountry,"buriedalive".8.72 .2Mr.Faurissonarguesthatitwouldbewrongtoexaminehiscaseandhissituationpurelyinthelightoflegalconcepts.Hesuggeststhathiscaseshouldbeexaminedinalargercontext:bywayofexample,heinvokesthecaseofGalileo,whosediscoveriesweretrue,andanylawwhichwouldhaveenabledhisconvictionwouldhavebeenbyitsverynaturewrongorabsurd.Mr.Faurissoncontendsthatthelawof13July1990washastilydraftedandputtogetherbythreeindividualsandthatthedraftlawdidnotpassmusterintheNationalAssemblywhenintroducedinearlyMay1990.HesubmitsthatitwasonlyaftertheprofanationoftheJewishcemeteryatCarpentras(Vaucluse)on10May1990andthealleged"shamelessexploitation"("exploitationnausabonde")ofthiseventbythethenMinisteroftheInterior,P.Joxe,andthePresidentoftheNationalAssembly,L.Fabius,thatthelawpassed.Ifadoptedundersuchcircumstances,theauthorconcludes,itcannotbutfollowthatitmustonedaydisappear,justasthe"myth"ofthegaschambersatAuschwitz.8.82 .2Inafurthersubmissiondated3July1996theStatepartyexplainsthepurposespursuedbytheactof13July1990.Itpointsoutthattheintroductionoftheactwasinfactintendedtoservethestruggleagainstanti-semitism.InthiscontexttheStatepartyreferstoastatementmadebythethenMinisterofJustice,Mr.Arpaillange,beforetheSenatecharacterizingthedenialoftheexistenceoftheHolocaustasthecontemporaryexpressionofracismandantisemitism.8.92 .2Inhiscommentsof11July1996madeontheStateparty'ssubmissiontheauthorreiterateshisearlierarguments,interalia,heagainchallengesthe"accepted"versionoftheexterminationoftheJewsbecauseofitslackofevidence.Inthiscontextherefersforexampletothefactthatadecreeorderingtheexterminationhasneverbeenfoundandithasneverbeenprovenhowitwastechnicallypossibletokillsomanypeoplebygasasphyxiation.HefurtherrecallsthatvisitorstoAuschwitzhavebeenmadetobelievethatthegaschambertheyseethereisauthentic,whereastheauthoritiesknowthatitisareconstruction,builtonadifferentspotthantheoriginalissaidtohavebeen.Heconcludesthatasahistorian,interestedinthefacts,heisnotwillingtoacceptthetraditionalversionofeventsandhasnochoicebuttocontestit.Examinationofthemerits9.12 .2TheHumanRightsCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcommunicationinthelightofalltheinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheparties,asitisrequiredtodounderarticle5,paragraph1,oftheOptionalProtocol.9.22 .2TheCommitteetakesnoteofpublicdebatesinFrance,includingnegativecommentsmadebyFrenchparliamentariansontheGayssotAct,aswellasofargumentsputforwardinother,mainlyEuropean,countrieswhichsupportandopposetheintroductionofsimilarlegislations.9.32 .2AlthoughitdoesnotcontestthattheapplicationofthetermsoftheGayssotAct,which,intheireffect,makeitacriminaloffencetochallengetheconclusionsandtheverdictoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNuremberg,maylead,underdifferentconditionsthanthefactsoftheinstantcase,todecisionsormeasuresincompatiblewiththeCovenant,theCommitteeisnotcalledupontocriticizeintheabstractlawsenactedbyStatesparties.ThetaskoftheCommitteeundertheOptionalProtocolistoascertainwhethertheconditionsoftherestrictionsimposedontherighttofreedomofexpressionaremetinthecommunicationswhicharebroughtbeforeit.9.42 .2Anyrestrictionontherighttofreedomofexpressionmustcumulativelymeetthefollowingconditions:itmustbeprovidedbylaw,itmustaddressoneoftheaimssetoutinsubparagraphs3(a)and(b)ofarticle19,andmustbenecessarytoachievealegitimatepurpose.&  9.52 .2Therestrictionontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionwasindeedprovidedbylaw,i.e.theactof13July1990.ItistheconstantjurisprudenceoftheCommitteethattherestrictivelawitselfmustbeincompliancewith'  theprovisionsoftheCovenant.Inthisregard,theCommitteeconcludes,onthebasisofthereadingofthejudgementofthe17thChambrecorrectionnelleduTribunaldegrandeinstancedeParis,thatthefindingoftheauthor'sguiltwasbasedonhisfollowingtwostatements:"...IhaveexcellentreasonsnottobelieveinthepolicyofexterminationofJewsorinthemagicgaschambers...Iwishtoseethat100percentoftheFrenchcitizensrealizethatthemythofthegaschambersisadishonestfabrication".Hisconvictionthereforedidnotencroachuponhisrighttoholdandexpressanopinioningeneral,ratherthecourtconvictedMr.Faurissonforhavingviolatedtherightsandreputationofothers.ForthesereasonstheCommitteeissatisfiedthattheGayssotAct,asread,interpretedandappliedtotheauthor'scasebytheFrenchcourts,isincompliancewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenant.9.62 .2Toassesswhethertherestrictionsplacedontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionbyhiscriminalconvictionwereappliedforthepurposesprovidedforbytheCovenant,theCommitteebeginsbynoting,asitdidinitsGeneralComment10,thattherightsfortheprotectionofwhichrestrictionsonthefreedomofexpressionarepermittedbyarticle19,paragraph3,mayrelatetotheinterestsofotherpersonsortothoseofthecommunityasawhole.Sincethestatementsmadebytheauthor,readintheirfullcontext,wereofanatureastoraiseorstrengthenantisemiticfeelings,therestrictionservedtherespectoftheJewishcommunitytolivefreefromfearofanatmosphereofantisemitism.TheCommitteethereforeconcludesthattherestrictionoftheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionwaspermissibleunderarticle19,subparagraph3(a),oftheCovenant.9.72 .2LastlytheCommitteeneedstoconsiderwhethertherestrictionoftheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionwasnecessary.TheCommitteenotedtheStateparty'sargumentcontendingthattheintroductionoftheGayssotActwasintendedtoservethestruggleagainstracismandantisemitism.ItalsonotedthestatementofamemberoftheFrenchGovernment,thethenMinisterofJustice,whichcharacterizedthedenialoftheexistenceoftheHolocaustastheprincipalvehicleforantisemitism.IntheabsenceinthematerialbeforeitofanyargumentunderminingthevalidityoftheStateparty'spositionastothenecessityoftherestriction,theCommitteeissatisfiedthattherestrictionofMr.Faurisson'sfreedomofexpressionwasnecessarywithinthemeaningofarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.10.2 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,actingunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,isoftheviewthatthefactsasfoundbytheCommitteedonotrevealaviolationbyFranceofarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.@ .\APPENDIX&  @ .N A.StatementbyMr.ThomasBuergenthal# .[Original:English]2 .2AsasurvivoroftheconcentrationcampsofAuschwitzandSachsenhausenwhosefather,maternalgrandparentsandmanyotherfamilymemberswerekilledintheNaziHolocaust,Ihavenochoicebuttorecusemyselffrom'  participatinginthedecisionofthiscase.&  @ .( B.IndividualopinionbyNisukeAndo(concurring)# .[Original:English]2 .2WhileIdonotopposetheadoptionoftheViewsbytheHumanRightsCommitteeinthepresentcase,Iwouldliketoexpressmyconcernaboutthe'  dangerthattheFrenchlegislationinquestion,theGayssotAct,mightentail.AsIunderstandit,theactcriminalizesthenegation("contestation"inFrench),byoneofthemeansenumeratedinarticle23oftheLawontheFreedomofthePressof1881,ofoneorseveralofthecrimesagainsthumanityinthesenseofarticle6oftheStatuteoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalofNuremberg(seepara.4.2).Inmyviewtheterm"negation"("contestation"),iflooselyinterpreted,couldcomprisevariousformsofexpressionofopinionsandthushasapossibilityofthreateningorencroachingtherighttofreedomofexpression,whichconstitutesanindispensableprerequisitefortheproperfunctioningofademocraticsociety.Inordertoeliminatethispossibility,itwouldprobablybebettertoreplacetheactwithaspecificlegislationprohibitingwelldefinedactsofantisemitismorwithaprovisionofthecriminalcodeprotectingtherightsorreputationsofothersingeneral.̀C.IndividualopinionbyElizabethEvattandDavidKretzmer,̀cosignedbyEckartKlein(concurring)# .[Original:English]1.2 .2WhileweconcurintheviewoftheCommitteethatintheparticularcircumstancesofthiscasetherighttofreedomofexpressionoftheauthorwasnotviolated,giventheimportanceoftheissuesinvolvedwehavedecidedtoappendourseparate,concurring,opinion.2.2 .2Anyrestrictionontherighttofreedomofexpressionmustcumulativelymeetthefollowingconditions:itmustbeprovidedbylaw,itmustaddressoneoftheaimssetoutinsubparagraphs3(a)and(b)ofarticle19,anditmustbenecessarytoachievethataim.Inthiscaseweareconcernedwiththerestrictionontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionarisingfromhisconvictionforhisstatementsintheinterviewpublishedinLeChocduMois.AsthisconvictionwasbasedontheprohibitionlaiddownintheGayssotAct,itwasindeedarestrictionprovidedbylaw.ThemainissueiswhethertherestrictionhasbeenshownbytheStatepartytobenecessary,intermsofarticle19,subparagraph3(a),forrespectoftherightsorreputationsofothers.3.2 .2TheStatepartyhasarguedthattheauthor'sconvictionwasjustified"bythenecessityofsecuringrespectforthejudgementoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNuremburg,andthroughitthememoryofthesurvivorsandthedescendantsofthevictimsofNazism".Whileweentertainnodoubtwhatsoeverthattheauthor'sstatementsarehighlyoffensivebothtoHolocaustsurvivorsandtodescendantsofHolocaustvictims(aswellastomanyothers),thequestionundertheCovenantiswhetherarestrictiononfreedomofexpressioninordertoachievethispurposemayberegardedasarestrictionnecessaryfortherespectoftherightsofothers.4.2 .2Everyindividualhastherighttobefreenotonlyfromdiscriminationongroundsofrace,religionandnationalorigins,butalsofromincitementtosuchdiscrimination.Thisisstatedexpresslyinarticle7oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights.ItisimplicitintheobligationplacedonStatespartiesunderarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenanttoprohibitbylawanyadvocacyofnational,racialorreligioushatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityorviolence.ThecrimeforwhichtheauthorwasconvictedundertheGayssotActdoesnotexpresslyincludetheelementofincitement,nordothestatementswhichservedasthebasisfortheconvictionfallclearlywithintheboundariesofincitement,whichtheStatepartywasboundtoprohibit,inaccordancewitharticle20,paragraph2.However,theremaybecircumstancesinwhichtherightofapersontobefreefromincitementtodiscriminationongroundsofrace,religionornationaloriginscannotbefullyprotectedbyanarrow,explicitlawonincitementthatfallspreciselywithintheboundariesofarticle20,paragraph2.Thisisthecasewhere,inaparticularsocialandhistoricalcontext,statementsthatdonotmeetthestrictlegalcriteriaofincitementcanbeshowntoconstitutepartofapatternofincitementagainstagivenracial,religiousornationalgroup,orwherethoseinterestedinspreadinghostilityandhatredadoptsophisticatedformsofspeechthatarenotpunishableunderthelawagainstracialincitement,eventhoughtheireffectmaybeasperniciousasexplicitincitement,ifnotmoreso.5.2 .2InthediscussionintheFrenchSenateontheGayssotActthethenMinisterofJustice,Mr.Arpaillange,explainedthatthesaidlaw,which,interalia,prohibitsdenialoftheHolocaust,wasneededsinceHolocaustdenialisacontemporaryexpressionofracismandantisemitism.Furthermore,theinfluenceoftheauthor'sstatementsonracialorreligioushatredwasconsideredbytheParisCourtofAppeal,whichheldthatbyvirtueofthefactthatsuchstatementspropagateideastendingtoreviveNazidoctrineandthepolicyofracialdiscrimination,theytendtodisrupttheharmoniouscoexistenceofdifferentgroupsinFrance.6.2 .2ThenotionthatintheconditionsofpresentdayFrance,Holocaustdenialmayconstituteaformofincitementtoantisemitismcannotbedismissed.Thisisaconsequencenotofthemerechallengetowelldocumentedhistoricalfacts,establishedbothbyhistoriansofdifferentpersuasionsandbackgroundsaswellasbyinternationalanddomestictribunals,butofthecontext,inwhichitisimplied,undertheguiseofimpartialacademicresearch,thatthevictimsofNazismwereguiltyofdishonestfabrication,thatthestoryoftheirvictimizationisamythandthatthegaschambersinwhichsomanypeopleweremurderedare"magic".7.2 .2TheCommitteecorrectlypointsout,asitdidinitsGeneralComment10,thattherightfortheprotectionofwhichrestrictionsonfreedomofexpressionarepermittedbyarticle19,paragraph3,mayrelatetotheinterestsofacommunityasawhole.Thisisespeciallythecaseinwhichtherightprotectedistherighttobefreefromracial,nationalorreligiousincitement.TheFrenchcourtsexaminedthestatementsmadebytheauthorandcametotheconclusionthathisstatementswereofanatureastoraiseorstrengthenanti-semitictendencies.Itappearsthereforethattherestrictionontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionservedtoprotecttherightoftheJewishcommunityinFrancetolivefreefromfearofincitementtoanti-semitism.ThisleadsustotheconclusionthattheStatepartyhasshownthattheaimoftherestrictionsontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionwasto&  respecttherightofothers,mentionedinarticle19,paragraph3.Themoredifficultquestioniswhetherimposingliabilityforsuchstatementswasnecessaryinordertoprotectthatright.'  8.2 .2ThepowergiventoStatespartiesunderarticle19,paragraph3,toplacerestrictionsonfreedomofexpressionmustnotbeinterpretedaslicensetoprohibitunpopularspeech,orspeechwhichsomesectionsofthepopulationfindoffensive.Muchoffensivespeechmayberegardedasspeechthatimpingesononeofthevaluesmentionedinarticle19,subparagraphs3(a)or(b)(therightsorreputationsofothers,nationalsecurity,publicorder,publichealthormorals).TheCovenantthereforestipulatesthatthepurposeofprotectingoneofthosevaluesisnot,ofitself,sufficientreasontorestrictexpression.Therestrictionmustbenecessarytoprotectthegivenvalue.Thisrequirementofnecessityimpliesanelementofproportionality.Thescopeoftherestrictionimposedonfreedomofexpressionmustbeproportionaltothevaluewhichtherestrictionservestoprotect.Itmustnotexceedthatneededtoprotectthatvalue.AstheCommitteestatedinitsGeneralComment10,therestrictionmustnotputtheveryrightitselfinjeopardy.9.2 .2TheGayssotActisphrasedinthewidestlanguageandwouldseemtoprohibitpublicationofbonafideresearchconnectedwithmattersdecidedbytheNuremburgTribunal.Evenifthepurposeofthisprohibitionistoprotecttherighttobefreefromincitementtoantisemitism,therestrictionsimposeddonotmeettheproportionalitytest.Theydonotlinkliabilitytotheintentoftheauthor,nortothetendencyofthepublicationtoincitetoantisemitism.Furthermore,thelegitimateobjectofthelawcouldcertainlyhavebeenachievedbyalessdrasticprovisionthatwouldnotimplythattheStatepartyhadattemptedtoturnhistoricaltruthsandexperiencesintolegislativedogmathatmaynotbechallenged,nomatterwhattheobjectbehindthatchallenge,noritslikelyconsequences.Inthepresentcase,wearenotconcerned,however,withtheGayssotAct,inabstracto,butonlywiththerestrictionplacedonthefreedomofexpressionoftheauthorbyhisconvictionforhisstatementsintheinterviewinLeChocduMois.Doesthisrestrictionmeettheproportionalitytest?10.2 .2TheFrenchcourtsexaminedtheauthor'sstatementsingreatdetail.Theirdecisions,andtheinterviewitself,refutetheauthor'sargumentthatheisonlydrivenbyhisinterestinhistoricalresearch.Intheinterviewtheauthordemandedthathistorians"particularlyJewishhistorians"("leshistoriens,enparticulierjuifs")whoagreethatsomeofthefindingsoftheNuremburgTribunalweremistakenbeprosecuted.Theauthorreferredtothe"magicgaschamber"("lamagiquechambregaz")andto"themythofthegaschambers"("lemythedeschambresgaz"),thatwasa"dirtytrick"("unegredinerie")endorsedbythevictorsinNuremburg.Theauthorhas,inthesestatements,singledoutJewishhistoriansoverothers,andhasclearlyimpliedthattheJews,thevictimsoftheNazis,concoctedthestoryofgaschambersfortheirownpurposes.Whilethereiseveryreasontomaintainprotectionofbonafidehistoricalresearchagainstrestriction,evenwhenitchallengesacceptedhistoricaltruthsandbysodoingoffendspeople,antisemiticallegationsofthesortmadebytheauthor,whichviolatetherightsofothersinthewaydescribed,donothavethesameclaimtoprotectionagainstrestriction.Therestrictionsplacedontheauthordidnotcurbthecoreofhisrighttofreedomofexpression,nordidtheyinanywayaffecthisfreedomofresearch;theywereintimatelylinkedtothevaluetheyweremeanttoprotecttherighttobefreefromincitementtoracismorantisemitism;protectingthatvaluecouldnothavebeenachievedinthecircumstancesbylessdrasticmeans.ItisforthesereasonsthatwejoinedtheCommitteeinconcludingthat,inthespecificcircumstancesofthecase,therestrictionsontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionmettheproportionalitytestandwerenecessaryinordertoprotecttherightsofothers.@ .D.IndividualopinionbyCeciliaMedinaQuiroga(concurring)# .[Original:Spanish]1.2 .2IconcurwiththeCommittee'sopinioninthiscaseandwishtoassociatemyselfwiththeindividualopinionformulatedbyMs.EvattandMr.Kretzmerasbeingtheonethatmostclearlyexpressesmyownthoughts.2.2 .2Iwouldliketoaddthatadeterminingfactorformypositionisthefactthat,althoughthewordingoftheGayssotActmight,inapplication,constituteaclearviolationofarticle19oftheCovenant,theFrenchcourtwhichtriedMr.FaurissoninterpretedandappliedthatactinthelightoftheprovisionsoftheCovenant,therebyadaptingtheacttoFrance'sinternationalobligationswithregardtofreedomofexpression.@ .. E.IndividualopinionbyRajsoomerLallah(concurring)# .[Original:English]1.2 .2IhavereservationsontheapproachadoptedbytheCommitteeinarrivingatitsconclusions.Ialsoreachthesameconclusionsfordifferentreasons.2.2 .2Itisperhapsnecessarytoidentify,inthefirstplace,whatrestrictionsorprohibitionsaStatepartymaylegitimatelyimpose,bylaw,ontherighttofreedomofexpressionoropinion,whetherunderarticle19,paragraph3,orarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant;and,secondly,wherethenon-observanceofsuchrestrictionsorprohibitionsiscriminalizedbylaw,whataretheelementsoftheoffencethatthelawmust,initsformulation,provideforsothatanindividualmayknowwhattheseelementsareandsothathemaybeabletodefendhimself,inrespectofthoseelements,byvirtueofthefundamentalrighttoafairtrialbyaCourtconferreduponhimunderarticle14oftheCovenant.3.2 .2TheCommittee,andindeedmycolleaguesEvattandKretzmer,whoseseparateopinionIhavehadtheadvantageofreading,haveproperlyanalysedthepurposesforwhichrestrictionsmaylegitimatelybeimposedunderarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant.Theyhavealsoproperlyunderlinedtherequirementthattherestrictionsmustbenecessarytoachievethosepurposes.Ineednotaddanythingfurtheronthisparticularaspectofthematter.4.2 .2Insofarasrestrictionsorprohibitionsinpursuanceofarticle20,paragraph2,areconcerned,theelementofnecessityismergedwiththeverynatureoftheexpressionwhichmaylegitimatelybeprohibitedbylaw,thatistosay,theexpressionmustamounttoadvocacyofnational,racialorreligioushatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityorviolence.f&5.2 .2Thesecondquestionastowhatthelawmustprovidefor,initsformulation,isamoredifficultone.Iwouldseenogreatdifficultyintheformulationofalawwhichprohibits,intheverytermsofarticle20,paragraph2,theadvocacyofnational,racialorreligioushatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityorviolence.Theformulationbecomesmoreproblematicforthepurposesofarticle19,paragraph3.Because,here,itisnot,asisthecaseunderarticle20,paragraph2,theparticularexpressionthatmayberestrictedbutrathertheadverseeffectthattheexpressionmustnecessarilyhaveonthespecifiedobjectsorinterestswhichsubparagraphs3(a)and(b)aredesignedtoprotect.Itistheprejudicetotheseobjectsorinterestswhichbecomesthematerialelementoftherestrictionorprohibitionand,consequently,oftheoffence.6.2 .2AsmycolleaguesEvattandKretzmerhavenoted,theGayssotActisformulatedinthewidesttermsandwouldseemtoprohibitpublicationofbonafideresearchconnectedwithprinciplesandmattersdecidedbytheNurembergTribunal.Itcreatesanabsoluteliabilityinrespectofwhichnodefenceappearstobepossible.Itdoesnotlinkliabilityeithertotheintentoftheauthornortotheprejudicethatitcausestorespectfortherightsorreputationsofothersasrequiredunderarticle19,subparagraph3(a),ortotheprotectionofnationalsecurityorofpublicorderorofpublichealthormoralsasrequiredunderarticle19,subparagraph3(b).7.2 .2WhatissignificantintheGayssotActisthatitappearstocriminalize,insubstance,anychallengetotheconclusionsandtheverdictoftheNurembergTribunal.Initseffects,theActcriminalizesthebaredenialofhistoricalfacts.Theassumption,intheprovisionsoftheAct,thatthedenialisnecessarilyantisemiticorincitesantisemitismisaParliamentaryorlegislativejudgementandisnotamatterlefttoadjudicationorjudgementbytheCourts.Forthisreason,theActwouldappear,inprinciple,toputinjeopardytherightofanypersonaccusedofabreachoftheActtobetriedbyanindependentCourt.8.2 .2Iamconscious,however,thattheActmustnotbereadinabstractobutinitsapplicationtotheauthor.Inthisregard,thenextquestiontobeexaminediswhetheranydeficienciesintheAct,initsapplicationtotheauthor,wereorwerenotremediedbytheCourts.9.2 .2Itwouldappear,asalsonotedbymycolleaguesEvattandKretzmer,thattheauthor'sstatementsonracialorreligioushatredwereconsideredbytheFrenchCourts.ThoseCourtscametotheconclusionthatthestatementspropagatedideastendingtoreviveNazidoctrineandthepolicyofracialdiscrimination.Thestatementswerealsofoundtohavebeenofsuchanatureastoraiseorstrengthenantisemitictendencies.Itisbeyonddoubtthat,onthebasisofthefindingsoftheFrenchCourts,thestatementsoftheauthoramountedtotheadvocacyofracialorreligioushatredconstitutingincitement,attheveryleast,tohostilityanddiscriminationtowardspeopleoftheJewishfaithwhichFrancewasentitledunderarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenanttoproscribe.Inthisregard,inconsideringthisaspectofthematterandreachingtheconclusionswhichtheydid,theFrenchCourtswouldappeartohave,quiteproperly,arrogatedbacktothemselvesthepowertodecideaquestionwhichtheLegislaturehadpurportedtodecidebyalegislativejudgement.10.2 .2Whateverdeficiencies,therefore,whichtheActcontainedwere,inthecaseoftheauthor,remediedbytheCourts.WhenconsideringacommunicationundertheOptionalProtocol,whatmustbeconsideredistheactionoftheStateassuch,irrespectiveofwhethertheStatehadactedthroughitslegislativearmoritsjudicialarmorthroughboth.11.2 .2Iconclude,therefore,thatthecreationoftheoffenceprovidedforintheGayssotAct,asithasbeenappliedbytheCourtstotheauthor'scase,fallsmoreappropriately,inmyview,withinthepowersofFranceunderarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.Theresultisthattherehas,forthisreason,beennoviolationbyFranceundertheCovenant.12.2 .2Iamawarethatthecommunicationoftheauthorwasdeclaredadmissibleonlywithregardtoarticle19.Inote,however,thatnoparticulararticlewasspecifiedbytheauthorwhensubmittinghiscommunication.And,inthecourseoftheexchangeofobservationsbyboththeauthorandtheStateparty,thesubstanceofmattersrelevanttoarticle20,paragraph2,werealsomootedorbroughtinissue.Iwouldseenosubstantiveorproceduraldifficultyininvokingarticle20,paragraph2.13.2 .2Recoursetorestrictionsthatare,inprinciple,permissibleunderarticle19,paragraph3,bristleswithdifficulties,tendingtodestroytheveryexistenceoftherightsoughttoberestricted.Therighttofreedomofopinionandexpressionisamostvaluablerightandmayturnouttobetoofragileforsurvivalinthefaceofthetoofrequentlyprofessednecessityforitsrestrictioninthewiderangeofareasenvisagedundersubparagraphs3(a)and(b)ofarticle19.@ .F.IndividualopinionbyPrafullachandraBhagwati(concurring)# .[Original:English]2 .2ThefactsgivingrisetothiscommunicationhavebeensetoutindetailinthemajorityopinionoftheCommitteeanditwouldbeanidleexerciseformetoreiteratethesameoveragain.Iwill,instead,proceedstraightawaytodealwiththequestionoflawraisedbytheauthorofthecommunication.ThequestioniswhethertheconvictionoftheauthorundertheGayssotActwasviolativeofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.2 .2Article19,paragraph2,declaresthateveryoneshallhavetherighttofreedomofexpressionwhichincludesfreedomtoimpartinformationandideasofallkindsthroughanymedia,butrestrictionscanbeimposedonthisfreedomunderarticle19,paragraph3,providedsuchrestrictionscumulativelymeetthefollowingconditions:(a)theymustbeprovidedforbylaw,(b)they&  mustaddressoneoftheaimsenumeratedinsubparagraphs3(a)and3(b)ofarticle19and(c)theymustbenecessarytoachievealegitimatepurpose,'  thislastrequirementintroducingtheprincipleofproportionality.2 .2TheGayssotActwaspassedbytheFrenchLegislatureon13July1990amendingthelawontheFreedomofthePressbyaddinganarticle24bis,whichmadeitanoffencetocontesttheexistenceofthecategoryofcrimesagainsthumanityasdefinedintheLondonCharterof8August1945onthebasisofwhichNazileadersweretriedandconvictedbytheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNurembergin1945and1946.TheGayssotActthusprovidedrestrictiononfreedomofexpressionbymakingitanoffencetospeakorwritedenyingtheexistenceoftheHolocaustorofgasasphyxiationofJewsingaschambersbyNazis.TheauthorwasconvictedforbreachoftheprovisionsoftheGayssotActanditwasthereforebreachofthisrestrictiononwhichthefindingofguiltrecordedagainsthimwasbased.Theoffendingstatementsmadebytheauthoronwhichhisconvictionwasbasedwerethefollowing:02 .2"...Noonewillhavemeadmitthattwoplustwomakefive,thattheearthisflatorthattheNurembergtrialwasinfallible.IhaveexcellentreasonsnottobelieveinthispolicyofexterminationofJewsorinthemagicgaschamber..."02 .2"Iwouldwishtoseethat100percentofallFrenchcitizensrealizethatthemythofthegaschambersisadishonestfabrication('estunegredinerie'),endorsedbythevictoriouspowersofNurembergin194546andofficializedon14July1990bythecurrentFrenchGovernmentwiththeapprovaloftheCourthistorians."ThesestatementswereclearlyinbreachoftherestrictionimposedbytheGayssotActandwerethereforeplainlycoveredbytheprohibitionundertheGayssotAct.ButthequestioniswhethertherestrictionimposedbytheGayssotAct,whichformedthebasisoftheconvictionoftheauthor,satisfiedtheothertwoelementsinarticle19,paragraph3,inordertopassthetestofpermissiblerestriction.2 .2Thesecondelementinarticle19,paragraph3,requiresthattherestrictionimposedbytheGayssotActmustaddressoneoftheaimsenumeratedinsubparagraphs3(a)and(b)ofarticle19.Itmustbenecessary(a)forrespectoftherightsorreputationsofothersor(b)fortheprotectionofnationalsecurityorofpublicorder(ordrepublic)orofpublichealthormorals.Itwouldbedifficulttobringtherestrictionundersubparagraph3(b)becauseitcannotbesaidtobenecessaryforanyofthepurposessetoutinsubparagraph3(b).Theonlyquestiontowhichitisnecessarytoaddressoneselfiswhethertherestrictioncanbesaidtobenecessaryforrespectoftherightsandreputationsofotherssoastobejustifiableundersubparagraph3(a).2 .2NowifalawweremerelytoprohibitanycriticismofthefunctioningoftheInternationalMilitaryTribunalatNurembergoranydenialofahistoricaleventsimpliciter,onpainofpenalty,suchlawwouldnotbejustifiableundersubparagraph3(a)ofarticle19anditwouldclearlybeinconsistentunderarticle19,paragraph2.ButitisclearfromthesubmissionsmadebytheStatepartyand,particularly,thesubmissionmadeon3July1996,thatthe&  objectandpurposeofimposingrestrictionundertheGayssotActonfreedomofexpressionwastoprohibitorpreventinsidiousexpressionofantisemitism.'  AccordingtotheStateparty:02 .2"thedenialoftheHolocaustbyauthorswhoqualifythemselvesasrevisionistscouldonlybequalifiedasanexpressionofracismandtheprincipalvehicleofantisemitism."02 .2"thedenialofthegenocideoftheJewsduringWorldWarTwofuelsdebatesofaprofoundlyantisemiticcharacter,sinceitaccusestheJewsofhavingthemselvesfabricatedthemythoftheirextermination."2 .2Thus,accordingtotheStateparty,thenecessaryconsequenceofdenialofexterminationofJewsbyasphyxiationinthegaschamberwasfuellingofanti-semiticsentimentbytheclearestsuggestionthatthemythofthegaschamberwasadishonestfabricationbytheJewsanditwasinfactsoarticulatedbytheauthorinhisoffendingstatement.2 .2ItisthereforeclearthattherestrictiononfreedomofexpressionimposedbytheGayssotActwasintendedtoprotecttheJewishcommunityagainsthostility,antagonismandillwillwhichwouldbegeneratedagainstthembystatementsimputingdishonestfabricationofthemythofgaschamberandexterminationofJewsbyasphyxiationinthegaschamber.Itmaybenoted,asobservedbytheCommitteeinitsGeneralComment10,thattherightsfortheprotectionofwhichrestrictionsonthefreedomofexpressionarepermittedbyarticle19,subparagraph3(a),mayrelatetotheinterestsofotherpersonsortothoseofthecommunityasawhole.Sincethestatementmadebytheauthor,readinthecontextofitsnecessaryconsequence,wascalculatedorwasatleastofsuchanatureastoraiseorstrengthenantisemiticfeelingsandcreateorpromotehatred,hostilityorcontemptagainsttheJewishcommunityasdishonestfabricatorsoflies,therestrictionimposedonsuchstatementbytheGayssotActwasintendedtoservethepurposeofrespectfortherightandinterestoftheJewishcommunitytolivefreefromfearofanatmosphereofantisemitism,hostilityorcontempt.Thesecondelementrequiredfortheapplicabilityofarticle19,paragraph3,wasthereforesatisfied.2 .2Thattakesmetoaconsiderationofthequestionwhetherthethirdelementcouldbesaidtohavebeensatisfiedinthepresentcase.Wastherestrictionontheauthor'sfreedomofexpressionimposedundertheGayssotActnecessaryforrespectoftherightsandinterestsoftheJewishcommunity?Theanswermustobviouslybeintheaffirmative.IftherestrictiononfreedomofexpressioninthemannerprovidedundertheGayssotActhadnotbeenimposedandstatementsdenyingtheHolocaustandtheexterminationofJewsbyasphyxiationinthegaschamberhadnotbeenmadepenal,theauthorandotherrevisionistslikehimcouldhavegoneonmakingstatementssimilartotheonewhichinvitedtheconvictionoftheauthorandthenecessaryconsequenceandfalloutofsuchstatementswouldhavebeen,inthecontextofthesituationprevailinginEurope,promotionandstrengtheningofantisemiticfeelings,asemphaticallypointedoutbytheStatepartyinitssubmissions.Therefore,theimpositionofrestrictionbytheGayssotActwas&  necessaryforsecuringrespectfortherightsandinterestsoftheJewishcommunitytoliveinsocietywithfullhumandignityandfreefroman'  atmosphereofantisemitism.2 .2ItisthereforeclearthattherestrictiononfreedomofexpressionimposedbytheGayssotActsatisfiedallthethreeelementsrequiredfortheapplicabilityofarticle19,paragraph3,andwasnotinconsistentwitharticle19,paragraph2,andconsequently,theconvictionoftheauthorundertheGayssotActwasnotviolativeofhisfreedomofexpressionguaranteedunderarticle19,paragraph2.IhavereachedthisconclusionunderthegreatestreluctancebecauseIfirmlybelievethatinafreedemocraticsociety,freedomofspeechandexpressionisoneofthemostprizedfreedomswhichmustbedefendedandupheldatanycostandthisshouldbeparticularlysointhelandofVoltaire.Itisindeedunfortunatethatintheworldoftoday,whenscienceandtechnologyhaveadvancedthefrontiersofknowledgeandmankindisbeginningtorealizethathumanhappinesscanberealizedonlythroughinterdependenceandcooperation,thethresholdoftoleranceshouldbegoingdown.Itishightimemanshouldrealizehisspiritualdimensionandreplacebitternessandhatredbyloveandcompassion,toleranceandforgiveness.2 .2Ihavewrittenthisseparateopinionbecause,thoughIagreewiththemajorityconclusionofnoviolation,theprocessofreasoningthroughwhichIhavereachedthisconclusionisalittledifferentfromtheonewhichhasfoundfavourwiththemajority.+ǀJ.CommunicationNo.552/1993;WieslawKallv.Poland+Ӏ(Viewsadoptedon14July1997,sixtiethsession)  *    Submittedby:H .HH .HH .HWieslawKallVictim: .H .HTheauthorStateparty:H .HPolandDateofcommunication:31March1993(initialsubmission)Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:5July19952 .2TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2Meetingon14July1997,2 .2HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofCommunicationNo.552/1993submittedtotheHumanRightsCommitteebyMr.WieslawKallundertheOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,2 .2HavingtakenintoaccountallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunicationandtheStateparty,2 .2Adoptsthefollowing:&  @ .Viewsunderarticle5,paragraph4,oftheOptionalProtocol    1.2 .2Theauthorofthecommunication,dated31March1993,isWieslawKall,aPolishcitizen,residinginHerby,Poland.Heclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofarticle2,paragraph1,andarticle25(c)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.TheCovenantenteredintoforceforPolandon18March1977.TheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforPolandon7February1992.'  &  Factsassubmittedbytheauthor2.12 .2TheauthorwasemployedinvariouspositionsintheCivicMilitiaoftheMinistryofInternalAffairsfor19years,andfrom1982to1990asacadre'  officerofthepoliticalandeducationalsection,attheseniorinspectorlevel.HestressesthattheCivicMilitiawasnotidenticalwiththeSecurityPolice,andthatheneverworetheuniformoftheSecurityPolicebutonlythatoftheCivicMilitia.On2July1990,hewasretroactivelyreclassifiedasasecuritypoliceofficerand,on31July1990,hewasdismissedfromhispost,pursuanttothe1990ProtectionofStateOfficeAct,whichdissolvedtheSecurityPoliceandreplaceditbyanewdepartment.2.22 .2UndertheAct,aspecialCommitteewasestablishedtodecideontheapplicationsofformermembersoftheSecurityPoliceforpositionswiththenewdepartment.Theauthorclaimsthatheshouldnothavebeensubjectedto"verification"proceedings,becausehehadneverbeenasecurityofficer.InviewofhisleftistopinionsandmembershipinthePolishUnitedWorkers'Party,hisapplicationwasdismissedbytheProvincialQualifyingCommitteeinCzestochowa.TheCommitteeconsideredthattheauthordidnotmeettherequirementsstipulatedforofficersoftheMinistryofInternalAffairs.TheauthorappealedtotheCentralQualifyingCommitteeinWarsaw,whichquashedthedecision,on21September1990,andheldthattheauthorcouldapplyforemploymentwithintheMinistryofInternalAffairs.2.32 .2However,theauthor'ssubsequentapplicationforreemploymentattheProvincialPoliceinCzestochowawasrejectedon24October1990.TheauthorthencomplainedtotheMinisterofInternalAffairsbyletterof11March1991.TheMinisterrepliedthattheauthorhadlawfullybeendismissedfromservice,inthecontextofthereorganizationofthedepartment.Inthisconnection,theMinisterreferredtoregulationNo.53of2July1990,accordingtowhichofficerswhoperformedserviceonthePoliticalandEducationalBoardwereconsideredtobemembersoftheSecurityPolice.2.42 .2On16December1991,theauthorappliedtotheAdministrativeCourtallegingunjustifieddismissalanderrorinsubjectinghimtoverificationproceedings.On6March1992,theCourtdismissedhisapplication,consideringthatitwasnotwithinitscompetencetohearappealsfromProvincialQualifyingCommittees.Complaint3.2 .2Theauthorclaimsthathewasdismissedwithoutjustification.HeclaimsthathisreclassificationasamemberoftheSecurityPolicewasonlyimplementedtofacilitatehisdismissal,asthelawdidnotstipulatetheterminationofcontractsofofficersworkingintheCivicMilitia.Moreover,heclaimsthathewassubsequentlydeniedaccesstopublicserviceonlybecauseof