WPC}  '(b@NMg>iz2T w6VI.&=Qn[ ~>sAim+Y=-P;JiQo\m_]`qx{Fqa&=D![l$}Aw\ xe 0SG`KƷPd{/r6C"?hrrәήJm&#iJӲ_)nSj9MJ"ɅKRu+jabu+/F~/< TmeIro0>6fK^ PD{R',QTnfU> 0 0<U 0Y 0_ 0iI 0x 0(I D+q AM %  0N 0M # UN M(N>^ @wL4Pd mf\  `&Times New Roman' Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. 24/1977 (14 August 1979), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP4, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2K$ !..      X7XXXX7XXX7  ($'dxd A<< cX#|x(O$($..      XXXXXXXXHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular* p*:i+00U !..      X7XXXX7XXX7  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  Lovelacev.Canada | CommunicationNo.24/1977 H 14August1979  d ADMISSIBILITY      Submittedby:SandraLovelaceon29December1977 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:Canada ` Dateofdecisiononadmissibility:14August1979(seventhsession) ,  4    <   DecisiononAdmissibility     Theauthorofthecommunicationdated29December1977isaCanadiancitizenofIndian @ origin,livinginCanada.Shestatedthatshewasbornandregisteredas"_Maliseet_ԀIndian"but &v thatshehadlostherrightsandstatusasanIndianinaccordancewiththerelevantsectionof  \ theIndianActafterhavingmarrieda_nonIndian_.Shealsostatedthat,inaccordancewiththat B sameAct,anIndianmanwhomarriedanonIndianwomandidnotlosehisIndianstatus, ( andclaimedthereforethattheActwasdiscriminatoryonthegroundofsexandcontraryto  theCovenant.Theauthorsubmitted"thatalldomesticremedieshavebeenexhaustedinso  farasthejurisprudencerestsonthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtofCanada".   Inafurthercommunication,dated17April1978,theauthormaintainedthatthejudgement V"! oftheSupremeCourtofCanadainTheAttorneyGeneralofCanadav.Jeanette_Lavell_, <#" RichardIsaacet.al.v.Yvonne_Bddard_Ԁ[1974]_S.C.R._Ԁ1349,ofwhichshetransmittedacopy, "$r# wasrelevanttoherclaim,andthatdomesticremedieshadalreadybeenexhaustedinCanada %X $ withregardtothesubjectmattershecomplainedofbeforetheHumanRightsCommittee. %>!% InthejudgementinquestiontheSupremeCourtdecidedthattheprovisionoftheIndianAct, &$"& underwhichanIndianwomanwhomarrieda_nonIndian_ԀlostherIndianstatus,wasvalidas ' #' itwasnotrenderedinoperativebysection1(b)oftheCanadianBillofRightsprovidingfor (#( "equalitybeforethelaw...withoutdiscriminationbyreasonof...sex". )$) Byitsdecisionof18July1978,theHumanRightsCommitteetransmittedthe R+&+ communication,underrule91oftheprovisionalrulesofprocedure,totheStateparty 8,', concerned,requestinginformationandobservationsrelevanttothequestionofadmissibility -n(- ofthecommunication.  Atitsmeetingon6April1979,theWorkingGroupoftheHumanRightsCommittee | reiterateditsrequesttotheStatepartyforinformationandobservationsanddecidedthat b considerationofthecommunicationbecontinuedattheseventhsessionoftheCommittee H anditsWorkingGroup. . ~ WhenconsideringthequestionofadmissibilityofthecommunicationtheCommitteehad  J notreceivedanyinformationorobservationsfromtheStateparty,theseconddeadlinefor  0 submissionofsuchobservationshavingexpiredon18May1979.    WithregardtoexhaustionofdomesticremediestheCommitteefindsthatarticle5(2)(b)   oftheOptionalProtocoldoesnotimposeontheallegedvictimtheobligationtohave x  recoursetothenationalcourtsifthehighestcourtoftheStatepartyConcernedhasalready ^  substantiallydecidedthequestionatissue.Accordingly,theCommitteeconcludesthatthe D  communicationisnotinadmissibleunderarticle5(2)(b)oftheOptionalProtocol. *z  TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: F 1.Thatthecommunicationisadmissible;  2.That,inaccordancewitharticle4(2)oftheOptionalProtocol,theStatepartyshallbe  requestedtosubmittotheCommittee,withinsixmonthsofthedateofthetransmittaltoit t ofthisdecision,writtenexplanationsorstatementsclarifyingthematterandtheremedy,if Z any,thatmayhavebeentakenbyit; @ 3.ThatanyexplanationsorstatementsreceivedfromtheStatepartyshallbecommunicated  \ bytheSecretaryGeneraltotheauthor,underrule93(3)oftheprovisionalrulesof B procedureoftheCommittee,withtherequestthatanycommentswhichtheauthormaywish ( tosubmitthereonshouldreachtheHumanRightsCommittee,incareoftheDivisionof  HumanRights,UnitedNationsOfficeatGeneva,withinsixweeksofthedateofthe  transmittal;   4.ThattheauthorshallberequestedtosubmitadditionalinformationtotheCommittee V"! withinsixweeksofthedateofthetransmittalofthisdecision,concerningherageandthe <#" dateofhermarriage; "$r# 5.ThatthisdecisionbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtheauthorofthe %>!% communication.10 &$"& _________ (#( */Pursuanttorule85oftheprovisionalrulesofprocedure,Mr.Walter_Surma_Ԁ_Tarnopolsky_ )$) didnotparticipateintheconsiderationofthiscommunication. l*%* A