WPC%  #?߼6='j%{0}2JPSej}p +iA4:gHSc͈bNpph4'>Zrz+tҝYm i9, M]ū5ήZ GK4Ln-s5;PPᥛcsA5HF%STͭ27wL_e<tN]YIo-=dNJ̇'>>LAaa^.2^>_"02i13Vpρdpbq1LWʪຂ(?ܭ"uے1g&YPb8j;#ў!Wcd 9DY-^K/ԏ^faJtP뜙CECc4\s&\f`7&s!yؐc[LU #~oJOWoA]a#TKYͽ,La\h|JY|\:/8mjU>l 0v 0<+ 0Yg 0_ 0i 0N 0(/ D+W AM  0 # UNf % M ( N ^ w 4   m\  `&Times New Roman' J. R. T. and the W. G. Party v. Canada, Communication No. 170/1984 (25 October 1985), U.N.45 October 1985), U.N."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2E$ I!..      X0?XXXX0?XXX0?  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(I$..      X"GXXXX"GXXX"GHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX$E) .)c(CorelU I!..      X4WXXXX4WXXX4W  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  E.H.v.Finland | CommunicationNo.170/1984 H 25October1985  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:E.H.(namedeleted)on16April1984 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:Finland ` Declaredinadmissible:25October1985(twentysixthsession) ,   Decisiononadmissibility     1.Theauthorofthecommunication,dated16April1984,isMrs.E.H.,amemberofthe @ 4,000strongRomanyminorityinFinland.SheisrepresentedbyMr.E.W.,ajournalistand &v magazineeditor.  \ 2.ItisallegedthatMrs.E.H.isavictimofracialdiscriminationinviolationofarticle26of ( theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,becauseshereceivedaheavier  sentenceforacriminaloffencethanthatmetedouttoanotherFinnishwomaninasimilar  case.Itissubmittedthattheoffenceforwhichtheotherwomanwasfoundguiltywasgraver   thanthatforwhichMrs.E.H.wasconvicted.Bothcasesconcernedtaxevasionandusury p!  andwereconcludedin1983beforedifferenttrialcourts.On25May1983,theSupreme V"! CourtofFinlandupheldthedecisionofthelowercourtinthecaseofMrs.E.H. <#" 3.TheauthorhasnotfurnishedtheCommitteewithcopiesofanyjudicialdecisionsrelevant %X $ tothemattercomplainedof,althoughrepeatedlygivenanopportunitytodoso. %>!% 4.Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights ' #' Committeeshall,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decide (#( whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. )$) 5.Athoroughexaminationofthecommunicationhasnotrevealedanyfactsinsubstantiation R+&+ oftheauthor'sclaimthatonthegroundofbelongingtotheRomanyminorityinFinlandshe 8,', receivedaheaviersentencethananotheraccusedpersoninasimilarcaseinviolationofthe -n(- rightsprotectedbytheCovenant.TheCommittee,accordingly,concludesthattheauthorhas  noclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.  6.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: b Thecommunicationisinadmissible . ~