Follow-up: Jurisprudence - CCPR

429. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as at 26 July 1996 provides the following picture:

Canada: Six views finding violations; four satisfactory follow-up replies and two incomplete follow-up replies received from the State Party

524. A country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997 provides the following picture (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included):

Canada: Six Views finding violations: 24/1978 - Lovelace (Selected decisions, vol. 1);12/ for State party follow-up reply, see Selected decisions, vol. 2, annex I);13/ 27/1978 - Pinkney (Selected decisions, vol. 1); no State party follow-up reply received; 167/1984 - Ominayak (1990 Report);14/ State party follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished; 359/1989 and 385/1989 - Davidson and McIntyre (1993 Report);15/ State party follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished; 469/1991 - Ng (1994 Report);9/ State party follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished.

12/ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected decisions under the Optional Protocol (CCPR/C/OP/1) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 84.XIV.2), vol. 1.

13/ Ibid. (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.

14/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/45/40).

9/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40).

486. The Committee's previous report (A/52/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1997. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included). It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the previous report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work were considerably reduced in the current year, preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Canada: Six Views finding violations: 24/1978 - Lovelace (Selected decisions, vol. 1);2/ for State party follow-up reply, see Selected decisions, vol. 2, annex I);3/ 27/1978 - Pinkney (Selected decisions, vol. 1); no State party follow-up reply received; 167/1984 -Ominayak (1990 Report (A/45/40)); State party follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished; 359/1989 and 385/1989 - Davidson and McIntyre (1993 Report (A/48/40)); State party follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished; 469/1991 - Ng (1994 Report (A/49/40)); State party follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished.

2/ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected decisions under the Optional Protocol (CCPR/C/OP/1) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 84.XIV.2), vol. 1.

3/ Ibid. (CCPR/C/OP/2) (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), vol. 2.

461. The Committee's previous report (A/53/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1998. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included). It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the resources available for the Committee's work have been considerably reduced preventing it from undertaking a comprehensive systematic follow-up programme.

Canada: Six Views finding violations: 24/1977 - Lovelace (Selected Decisions, vol. 1);17/ for State party's follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, vol. 2, 18/ annex I; 27/1978 - Pinkney (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); no follow-up reply received; 167/1984 -Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished; 359/1989 and 385/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson, and McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished; 469/1991 - Ng (A/49/40); follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished.

17/ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee. Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol (United Nations publication, Sales No. 84.XIV.2), vol. 1, hereafter "Selected Decisions, vol. 1".

18/ Ibid., vol. 2 (United Nations publication, Sales No. 89.XIV.1), hereafter "Selected Decisions, vol. 2".

596. The Committee’s previous report (A/54/40) contained a detailed country-by-country breakdown of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 1999. The list that follows shows the additional cases in respect of which follow-up information has been requested from States. (Views in which the deadline for receipt of follow-up information had not yet expired have not been included.) It also indicates those cases in which replies are outstanding. In many of these cases there has been no change since the last report. This is because the limited resources available for the Committee’s work prevent it from undertaking a comprehensive or systematic follow-up programme.

Canada: Nine Views finding violations: 24/1977 - Lovelace (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); for State party’s follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, vol. 2, annex I; 27/1978 - Pinkney (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); no follow-up reply received; 167/1984 - Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished; 359/1989 and 385/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson and McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished; 455/1991 - Singer (A/49/40); no follow-up reply required; 469/1991 - Ng (A/49/40); follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished; 633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40); for follow-up reply see below; 694/1996 - Waldman (annex IX, sect. H.); for follow-up reply see below.

Overview of follow-up replies received and of the Special Rapporteur’s follow-up consultations during the reporting period

Canada. In response to the Committee’s Views in case No. 633/1995 - Gauthier, the Government of Canada informed the Committee on 20 October 1999 that it had appointed an independent expert to review the Press Gallery’s criteria for accreditation, as well as the author’s application for accreditation. The Government has also taken measures to allow visitors to Parliament to take notes. In order to address the Committee’s concern that there should be a possibility of recourse for individuals who are denied membership of the Press Gallery, in the future the Speaker of the House will be competent to receive complaints and appoint an independent expert to report to him about the validity of the complaints. By a later submission, dated March 2000, the Government provided the Committee with a copy of the expert report on the Press Gallery’s criteria for accreditation and their application in the author’s case. Following the issuing of the report, the author has been invited to apply again for accreditation with the Press Gallery, if he so wishes.

With regard to case No. 694/1996 - Waldman, the Government of Canada informed the Committee by note of 3 February 2000, that matters of education fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The Government of Ontario has communicated that it has no plans to extend funding to private religious schools or to the parents of children that attend such schools, and that it intends to adhere fully to its constitutional obligation to fund Roman Catholic schools. After receipt of the State party’s reply the Committee organized a meeting with the State party’s representative, which took place on 18 July 2000. A reference to this meeting will be included in the follow-up progress report, to be presented to the Committee in March 2001.

180. The Committee’s previous annual report (A/55/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey on follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2000. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not take into account the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-second session, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

Canada: Eight Views concerning nine cases finding violations: 24/1977 - Lovelace (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); for State party’s follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, vol. 2, annex I; 27/1978 - Pinkney (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); no follow-up reply received; 167/1984 - Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished; 359/1989 and 385/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson, and McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished; 455/1991 - Singer (A/49/40); no follow-up reply required; 469/1991 - Ng (A/49/40); follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished; 633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 607 and below; 694/1996 - Waldman (A/55/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40; paragraph 608 and below.

Overview of follow-up replies received during the reporting period, Special Rapporteur’s follow-up consultations and other developments

186. Canada: Following the Committee’s Views in case No. 633/1995 - Gauthier, the Government of Canada informed the Committee on 20 October 1999 that it had appointed an independent expert to review the Press Gallery’s criteria for accreditation as well as the author’s application for accreditation. In order to address the Committee’s concern that there be a possibility of recourse by individuals who are denied membership of the Press Gallery, in the future the Speaker of the House will be competent to receive complaints and appoint an independent expert to report to him about the validity of the complaint. By submission of 4 March 2000, the Government provided the Committee with a copy of the expert report on the Press Gallery’s criteria for accreditation and their application in the author’s case. The Special Rapporteur met with a representative of Canada on 18 July 2000. The Secretariat has requested the State party to provide a copy of the Speaker’s decision in the author’s case. By letters of 9 October 2000 and of 7 March 2001, the author complains that the Views have not been implemented by the State party and refers to a letter he received from the House of Commons Law Clerk advising him that the Speaker of the House plays no part in respect of applications to the Press Gallery and that he would have to reapply with the Press Gallery. The author alleges that no appeal process is available.

187. With regard to case No. 694/1996 - Waldman, the Government of Canada informed the Committee, by note of 3 February 2000, that matters of education fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. The Government of Ontario has communicated that it has no plans to extend funding to private religious schools or to the parents of children that attend such schools, and that it intends to adhere fully to its constitutional obligation to fund Roman Catholic schools. On 17 February 2000, the author sent a critical response to the State party’s reply. He met with the Special Rapporteur on Monday, 13 March 2000. The Special Rapporteur met with a representative of Canada on 18 July 2000. In a further letter, dated 14 February 2001, the author again expresses his dissatisfaction with the State party’s failure to implement the Views and asks the Committee to discuss Canada’s non-compliance at a public meeting or in the context of a follow-up visit. He indicates that the Minister of Education of Ontario has stated that the Government of Ontario “is not prepared to adopt the alternatives suggested by the UNHRC for complying with the decision”.

228. The previous annual report of the Committee (A/56/40, vol. I, chap. VI) contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2001. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.

24/1977 - Lovelace (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); for State party’s follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, vol. 2, annex I;

167/1984 - Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished;

359/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson - 385/1989, and McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished;

455/1991 - Singer (A/49/40); no follow-up reply required; 469/1991 - Ng (A/49/40); follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished;

633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 607; A/56/40, paragraph 186; and paragraph [236] below;

694/1996 - Waldman (A/55/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 608, and A/56/40, paragraph 187, and paragraph [237] below.

229. For further information on the status of all the Views in which follow-up information remains outstanding or in respect of which follow-up consultations have been or will be scheduled, reference is made to the follow-up progress report prepared for the seventy-fourth session of the Committee (CCPR/C/74/R.7/Rev.1, dated 28 March 2002), discussed in public session at the Committee’s 2009th meeting on 4 April 2002 (CCPR/C/SR.2009). Reference is also made to the Committee’s previous reports, in particular A/56/40, paragraphs 182 to 200.

Overview of follow-up replies received during the reporting period, Special Rapporteur’s follow-up consultations and other developments

230. The Committee welcomes the follow-up replies that have been received during the reporting period and expresses its appreciation for all the measures taken or envisaged to provide victims of violations of the Covenant with an effective remedy. It encourages all States parties which have addressed preliminary follow-up replies to the Special Rapporteur to conclude their investigations in as expeditious a manner as possible and to inform the Special Rapporteur of their results. The follow-up replies received during the period under review and other developments are summarized below.

236. Canada: With regard to case No. 633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40), the author, by letter of 24 November 2001, informed the Committee that he had been granted a temporary six-month pass by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery Corporation, which he had accepted under protest for economic reasons. He had been denied a permanent pass, with membership of the Press Gallery Corporation still required. The author stated that the Independent Expert appointed by the Speaker to review the author’s case was summary and superficial, and came to the opposite conclusions of the Committee. The Speaker now regarded the matter closed. By letter of 23 February 2002, the author informed the Committee that the State party had still failed to comply with the Committee’s Views. The author has been advised that all dealings must be with the private Press Gallery organization, and had still only been provided a temporary pass with limited benefits. He sought the Committee’s determination of the amount of damages that the State party should pay him.

237. With regard to case No. 694/1996 - Waldman (A/55/40), the author informed the Committee by letter of 20 March 2002 that the State party had failed to take any measures to correct the discrimination identified by the Committee and asked the Special Rapporteur to follow up again with the State party’s authorities.

223. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2002. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the seventy-seventh and seventy-eighth sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

24/1977 - Lovelace (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); for State party’s follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, volume 2, annex I;

27/1978 - Pinkney (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); no follow-up reply received;

167/1984 - Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished;

359/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson and 385/1989 - McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished;

633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 607, A/56/40, paragraph 186 and A/57/40, paragraph 236;

694/1996 - Waldman (A/55/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 608, A/56/40, paragraph 187 and A/57/40, paragraph 237.

1. [Official Records of the General Assembly], Fifty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40(A/57/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[Session No.] /40 refers to the Official Record of the General Assembly

Follow-Up Progress Report submitted by The Special Rapporteur for Follow-Up on Views

1. The current report updates the previous Follow-up Progress Report, (CCPR/C/71/R.13) [Ed. Note: CCPR/C/71/R.13 is not publicly available] which focused on cases in which, by the end of February 2001, no or only incomplete follow-up information had been received from States parties, or where follow-up information challenged the findings and recommendations of the Committee. In an effort to reduce the size of the follow-up report, this current report only reflects cases in which information was received from either the author or the State party from 1 March 2001 to 2 April 2004. It is the intention of the Special Rapporteur to update this report on an annual basis.

Remedy recommended: An independent review of the author's application to have access to the press facilities of Parliament.

Follow-up information received from State party: See previous Follow-up Report (CCPR/C/71/R.13)

Follow-up information received from author: See previous Follow-up Report (CCPR/C/71/R.13) or the Committee's Annual Report (A/57/40, Vol.1, para. 236). By letter of 24 November 2001, the author informed the Committee that he had been granted a temporary six-month pass by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery Corporation, which he had accepted under protest for economic reasons. He had been denied a permanent pass, with membership of the Press Gallery Corporation still required. The author stated that the Independent Expert appointed by the Speaker to review the author's case was summary and superficial, and came to opposite conclusions than those of the Committee. The Speaker now regarded the matter closed. By letter of 23 February 2002, the author informed the Committee that the State party had still failed to comply with the Committee's Views. The author has been advised that all dealings must be with the private Press Gallery organization, and had still only been provided a temporary pass with limited benefits. He sought the Committee's determination of the amount of damages that the State party should pay him. By letter of 15 April 2002, he again informed the Committee that its Views have not been implemented by the State party.

Special Rapporteur's recommendations: A copy of the Independent Expert's/Speaker's report should be requested from the State party.

Issues of case: Discrimination on the basis of religion in the distribution of subsidies to schools

Follow-up information received from State party: See previous follow-up report of 20 March 2001 (CCPR/C/71/R.13) or the Committee's Annual Report (A/56/40, Vol.1, para.187).

Follow-up information received from author: See previous the follow-up report of 20 March 2001 (CCPR/C/71/R.13) or the Committee's Annual Report (A/57/40, Vol. 1, para. 237). By letters of 20 March 2002 and 2 January 2004, the author reiterated that the Views had still not been implemented and requested to meet again with the Rapporteur. He also requested the Special Rapporteur to meet again with a representative of the State party.

Special Rapporteur's recommendation: A meeting should be arranged with a State party representative.

Remedy recommended: To make such representations as are possible to the receiving state to prevent the carrying out of the death penalty on the author.

Follow-up information received from State party: By note verbale of 17 November 2003, the State party informed the Committee that on 7 October 2003 pursuant to a request received by Amnesty International, the federal government officials, representatives of Amnesty and the author's counsel met to hear Amnesty's views on how Canada should give effect to the Views. On 24 October 2003, the Canadian Consul General in Buffalo contacted the Governor of Pennsylvania and raised the Judge case with him. On 7 November 2003, the Government of Canada delivered in person a diplomatic note to the Government of the United States, which included a copy of the Views and requested the United States not to carry out the death penalty against Mr. Judge. It also requested that this request not to carry out the death penalty be transmitted to relevant state authorities expeditiously. The State party informed the Committee that since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in U.S. v. Burns and Rafaey in 2001, it has been in substantial compliance with the Committee's interpretation of article 6, paragraph 1 as stated in its Views. The Views have been posted on the Department of Canadian Heritage website.

The State party notes that the Committee's interpretation of article 6, paragraph 1, goes beyond the language in resolution 2003/67 of the 59th session of the Commission on Human Rights. It expresses concern over the Committee's statement that the rights in the Covenant should be interpreted by reference to the time of the Committee's examination, and not by reference to the time the alleged violation took place. It asserts that compliance with the Covenant should not be assessed against an interpretation of Covenant rights that had no currency at the time of the alleged violation and thus could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of their actions.

Follow-up information received from author: By letter of 1 December 2003, author's counsel expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the State party's attempts to have the author removed from death row. He has received no information either on the nature of the intervention made by the State party nor its outcome.

Special Rapporteur's recommendation: State party should be requested to provide any further update received from the US authorities on the author's situation.

3. Mr. Scheinin said that, with regard to reconsideration, if the State party complained that the Committee was mistaken as to the facts, the answer should be that the Committee’s decision was made only on the basis of the facts provided by the parties. The Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views under the Optional Protocol could discuss with the State party and with the Committee the possible effect of the corrected facts with respect to the remedy, but the Views would stand nonetheless. If, on the other hand, the State party was contesting the interpretation of the law, the Special Rapporteur should stand firm, since the interpretation had been arrived at through an adversarial proceeding between the parties. However, he might suggest to the State party that it could raise such issues of law in a general way in its next periodic report.

4. In the face of a failure or refusal to implement the Views, it must be admitted that the Committee itself had little power to induce compliance and would need to call for political support from the United Nations and the other States parties to the Protocol. The Organization as a whole should discuss what mechanisms could be developed.

6. Mr. Solari Yrigoyen said that the principle should be made clear that there was no procedure for reconsideration of the Committee’s Views except in case of obvious error. In case No. 701/1996 (Gómez Vásquez v. Spain), the Committee’s firmness had ultimately led the State party to change its legislation. With regard to case No. 848/1999 (Rodríguez Orejuela v. Colombia) and case No. 859/1999 (Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia), he found it odd that the State party was awaiting the Committee’s response before implementing the Views. He recalled that in the consideration of the State party’s report concerns had been expressed about the Committee of Ministers that had the power to recommend whether or not to implement the Committee’s Views. In case No. 633/1995 (Gauthier v. Canada) it appeared that the State party had not complied with the Committee’s Views. He agreed that such cases should be mentioned in the Committee’s report.

12. Mr. Shearer said that he agreed with Mr. Scheinin’s proposals. With reference to case No. 694/1996 (Waldman v. Canada), a further meeting with the State party would be pointless and counterproductive, since the case involved a constitutional issue beyond the power of the federal Government of Canada to resolve.

230. The previous annual report of the Committee¹ contained a detailed country-by-country survey of follow-up replies received or requested and outstanding as of 30 June 2003. The list that follows updates that survey, indicating those cases in which replies are outstanding, but does not include responses concerning the Committee’s Views adopted during the eightieth and eighty-first sessions, for which follow-up replies are not yet due in the majority of cases. In many cases there has been no change since the previous report.^*

Canada:	Views in 11 cases with findings of violations:
	24/1977 - Lovelace (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); for State party’s follow-up reply, see Selected Decisions, volume 2, annex I;
	27/1978 - Pinkney (in Selected Decisions, vol. 1); no follow-up reply received;
	167/1984 - Ominayak (A/45/40); follow-up reply, dated 25 November 1991, unpublished;
	359/1989 - Ballantyne and Davidson and 385/1989 - McIntyre (A/48/40); follow-up reply, dated 2 December 1993, unpublished;
	455/1991 - Singer (A/49/40); no follow-up reply required;
	469/1991 - Ng (A/49/40); follow-up reply, dated 3 October 1994, unpublished;
	633/1995 - Gauthier (A/54/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 607, A/56/40, paragraph 186 and A/57/40, paragraph 236. In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that a copy of the independent expert’s report should be requested of the State party. This report was provided to the Special Rapporteur after consultations with the State party during the eighty-first session. Subsequently, the Special Rapporteur recommended to the Committee that this case should no longer be considered under the follow-up procedure;
	694/1996 - Waldman (A/55/40); for follow-up reply, see A/55/40, paragraph 608, A/56/40, paragraph 187 and A/57/40, paragraph 237 and paragraph 234 below. In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that a meeting should be arranged with a State party representative. During the eighty-first session follow-up consultations were held during which the State party’s representative reiterated the State party’s position expressed in previous correspondence;
	829/1998 - Judge (A/58/40); for follow-up, see paragraph 235 below. In the follow-up report (CCPR/C/80/FU1), adopted by the Committee during its eightieth session, the Special Rapporteur recommended that a further update on the author’s situation in the United States should be requested of the State party. Following consultations between the State party and the Special Rapporteur during the eighty-first session, the State party’s representative indicated his intention to provide the Special Rapporteur with further information, to the extent possible, of the author’s current situation in the United States;
	1051/2002 - Ahani (annex IX); follow-up reply not yet due.

OVERVIEW OF FOLLOW-UP REPLIES RECEIVED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR’S FOLLOW-UP CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

231. The Committee welcomes the follow-up replies that have been received during the reporting period and expresses its appreciation for all the measures taken or envisaged to provide victims of violations of the Covenant with an effective remedy. It encourages all States parties which have addressed preliminary follow-up replies to the Special Rapporteur to conclude their investigations in as expeditious a manner as possible and to inform the Special Rapporteur of their results. The follow-up replies received during the period under review and other developments are summarized below.

237. Canada: with regard to case No. 694/1996 - Waldman (A/56/40 and A/57/40): on 2 January 2004, the author reiterated that the Views had still not been implemented.

238. Case No. 829/1998 - Judge (A/58/40): on 17 November 2003, the State party informed the Committee that on 7 October 2003, pursuant to a request received by Amnesty International, federal government officials, representatives of Amnesty and the author’s counsel met to hear Amnesty’s views on how Canada should give effect to the Views. On 24 October 2003, the Canadian Consul General in Buffalo, New York, contacted the Governor of Pennsylvania and raised the Judge case with him. On 7 November 2003, the Government of Canada delivered a diplomatic note to the Government of the United States, which included a copy of the Views and requested the United States not to carry out the death penalty against Mr. Judge. It also requested that the request not to carry out the death penalty be transmitted to relevant state authorities expeditiously. The State party informed the Committee that since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in United States v. Burns and Rafaey in 2001, it had been in substantial compliance with the Committee’s interpretation of article 6, paragraph 1, as stated in its Views. It stated that the Views had been posted on the Department of Canadian Heritage web site.

239. The State party is of the view that the Committee’s interpretation of article 6, paragraph 1, goes beyond the language in Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/67. It expressed concern over the Committee’s statement that the rights in the Covenant should be interpreted by reference to the time of the Committee’s examination, and not by reference to the time the alleged violation took place. It asserted that compliance with the Covenant should not be assessed against an interpretation of Covenant rights that had no currency at the time of the alleged violation and thus could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of its actions. By letter of 1 December 2003, author’s counsel expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the State party’s attempts to have the author removed from death row. He has received no information either on the nature of the intervention made by the State party nor its outcome.

1/ Ibid., Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I, chap. VI.

* The document symbol A/[session No.]/40 refers to the Official Records of the General Assembly in which the case appears; annex IX refers to the present report, volume II.

224. In July 1990, the Committee established a procedure for the monitoring of follow-up to its Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, and created the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for the follow-up on Views to this effect. Mr. Ando has been the Special Rapporteur since March 2001 (seventy-first session).

225. In 1991, the Special Rapporteur began to request follow-up information from States parties. Such information has been systematically requested in respect of all Views with a finding of a violation of Covenant rights. A total of 391 Views out of the 503 Views adopted since 1979 concluded that there had been a violation of the Covenant.

228. In many cases, the Secretariat has also received information from complainants to the effect that the Committee’s Views have not been implemented. Conversely, in rare instances, the petitioner has informed the Committee that the State party has in fact given effect to the Committee’s recommendations, even though the State party did not itself provide that information.

229. The present annual report adopts a different format for the presentation of follow-up information compared to previous annual reports. The table below displays a complete picture of follow-up replies from States parties received as of 28 July 2005, in relation to Views in which the Committee found violations of the Covenant. Wherever possible, it indicates whether follow-up replies are or have been considered as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, in terms of complying with the Committee’s Views, or whether the dialogue between the State party and the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on Views continues. The notes following a number of case entries convey an idea of the difficulties in categorizing follow-up replies.

230. Follow-up information provided by States parties and by petitioners or their representatives since the last annual report is set out in a new annex VII, contained in Volume II of the present annual report. This, more detailed, follow-up information also indicates action still outstanding in those cases that remain under review.

State party and number of cases with violation	Communication number, author and location^a	Follow-up response received from State party and location	Satisfactory response	Unsatisfactory response	No follow-up response	Follow-up dialogue ongoing
...
Canada (11)	24/1977, Lovelace Selected Decisions, vol. 1	X Selected Decisions, vol. 2, annex 1	X
	27/1978, Pinkney Selected Decisions, vol. 1				X	X
	167/1984, Ominayak et al. A/45/40	X A/59/40*				X
	*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 25 November 1995, but was unpublished. It appears from the Follow-up file that in this response, the State party states that the remedy was to consist of a comprehensive package of benefits and programmes valued at $45 million and a 95-square-mile reserve. Negotiations were still ongoing as to whether the Band should receive additional compensation.
	359/1989, Ballantyne and Davidson A/48/40	X A/59/40*	X
	*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 2 December 1993, but was unpublished. It appears from the Follow-up file that in this response, the State party stated that sections 58 and 68 of the Charter of the French Language, the legislation which was central to the communication, will be modified by Bill 86 (S.Q. 1993, c. 40). The date for the entry into force of the new law was to be around January 1994.
	385/1989, McIntyre A/48/40	X*	X
	*Note: See footnote on case No. 359/1989 above.
	455/1991, Singer A/49/40	Finding of a violation was considered sufficient	X
	469/1991, Ng A/49/40	X A/59/40*	X
	*Note: According to this report, information was provided on 3 October 1994, but was unpublished. The State party transmitted the Views of the Committee to the Government of the United States of America and asked it for information concerning the method of execution currently in use in the State of California, where the author faced criminal charges. The Government of the United States of America informed Canada that the law in the State of California currently provided that an individual sentenced to capital punishment may choose between gas asphyxiation and lethal injection. In the event of a future request for an extradition where the death penalty is possible, the Views of the Committee in this communication will be taken into account.
	633/1995, Gauthier A/54/40	X A/55/40, A/56/40, A/57/40	X A/59/40
	694/1996, Waldman A/55/40	X A/55/40, A/56/40, A/57/40, A/59/40		X		X
	829/1998, Judge A/58/40	X A/59/40, A/60/40	X A/60/40			X* A/60/40
	*Note: The Committee decided that it should monitor the outcome of the author’s situation and take any appropriate action.
	1051/2002, Ahani A/59/40	X A/60/40		X		X* A/60/40
	*Note: The State party went some way towards implementing the Views: the Committee has not specifically said that implementation was satisfactory.

^a The location refers to the document symbol of the Official Records of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 40, which is the annual report of the Committee to the respective sessions of the Assembly.

FOLLOW-UP OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE ON INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

This report sets out all information provided by States parties and authors or their counsel since the last Annual Report (A/59/40).

State party	CANADA
Case	Judge, 829/1998
Views adopted on	5 August 2003
Issues and violations found	Deportation to face the death penalty - articles 6, paragraph 1, and 2, paragraph 3.
Remedy recommended	To make such representations as are possible to the receiving State to prevent the carrying out of the death penalty on the author.
Due date for State party response	13 November 2003
Date of reply	8 August 2004 - had previously replied on 17 November 2003.
State party response	Following the Special Rapporteur’s request to the State party to provide an update from the United States authorities on the author’s situation, the State party reiterated its response outlined in the Follow-up Report (CCPR/C/80/FU1) and the Annual Report (CCPR/C/81/CRP.1/Add.6). It added that a stay of execution was issued by the United States District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in October 2002, and no date has been set for his execution.
State party	CANADA
Case	Mansour Ahani, 1051/2002