ÿWPCå Üz“»ÂåHµgU¾k窹Þý8^ÖP3ÙWí¬D‡ú}X™6G²×¿ fÅ—o_uëé9Þ_KÛ·æxæà“ß½ÊÕnˆ‡¶=/;B™2»oÍ~®&$ü?SU\€™_‡™}\Ã)BŸO¢~…W+È#ïÃ&«b„-‡¥}Ð1”Q]wSÃ|¬È³ºí¤òO‘Õð?œ[FÐt)2E³PuÂûƼŒ°n©ö÷ÇÀ´W²HÃÙûŒ/F@ö¯}Ç|ÃV£±Ù„®eëT»/ÛÇZwך.7•¬%øÿ3nõ¯¼ä“ßùwVqÐ8á¶jì›—+·Î˜SƒÐc¯ë‰Pi6~sìdîטA^þׄÀÇÊq…‚–1­%t£k¶y"ýP{¹]ÛK!)!k+$ŽYWÔ4x¨ýo]KäX]¹cƒ@P­n0U@—¿*ÍWÿüic5Gzho…k»‚4T «©¥ˆˆºÂ™Ý¥*Êl´JÐ7n`1Nñ“º‹;W-ém°å…QÇ¿wËÐ¥ßÒ-`oîD¿(Ñ€Hˆ"[ÔHóAyϲO&Šð_‹¯ÐoMµÔçC´C?[§n|çiLE:\¯ìïú}ä!úÅ L– 8ÎU>ˆÌÆ 0µ’ 0<G 0Yƒ 0_Ü 0i; 0P¤ 0TôÆH 0á 0(ï D+ AMB  0ÆŸ #Áe UN& %tMz(~N¦^ ¨w´4¸Ì mÎô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Gordon C. Van Duzen v. Canada, Communication No. R.12/50 (18 May 1979), U.N. Doc. Supp. No4), U.N. Doc. Supp. No"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô4ÿÿ2EmphasisòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2K$££Ý ƒö!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¼‡XXXÔÔ€X¼‡XXX¼‡ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(žö$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¥ XXXÔÔ€X¥ XXX¥ ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXf¨ó* Äpì*c(„³CorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒö!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¼‡XXXÔÔ€X¼‡XXX¼‡ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔVanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDuzenÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€R.12/50Ð H˜ ÐÌ7€April€1982Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:€óóGordon€C.€Van€Ô_ÔDuzenÔ_Ô€(represented€by€Professor€H.€R.€S.€Ryan)Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:€óóGordon€C.€Van€Ô_ÔDuzenÔ_ԀРD”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:€óóCanada€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó18€May€1979€(date€of€Initial€letter)€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€On€admissibility:€óó25€July€1980€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€7€April€1982,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€R.12/50€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Gordon€C.€Van€Ô_ÔDuzenÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€InternationalÐ ¾ ÐCovenant€on€Human€Rights,€Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€Information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned,€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð "$r# ÐÓéÓÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓVIEWS€UNDER€ARTICLE€5€(4)€OF€THE€OPTIONAL€PROTOCOLóóó ó€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓóÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€this€communication€(Initial€letter€dated€18€May€1979€and€further€letters€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ð17€April€1980,€2€June€and€II€June€1981)€Is€Gordon€C.€Van€Ô_ÔDuzenÔ_Ô,€a€Canadian€citizen,€whoÐ l*¼%* Ðis€represented€before€the€Committee€by€Professor€H.€R.€S.€Ryan.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ2.1€The€author€alleges€that€he€is€the€victim€of€a€breach€by€Canada€of€article€15€(1)€of€theÐ -n(- ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€relevant€facts,€which€are€not€inÐ ° Ðdispute,€are€as€follows:€Ð –æ ÐÌ2.2€On€17€November€1967€and€12€June€1968,€respectively,€the€author€was€sentenced€uponÐ b² Ðconviction€of€different€offences€to€a€three€year€and€a€10„year€prison€term.€The€latter€termÐ H˜ Ðwas€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€former,€so€that€the€combined€terms€were€to€expire€onÐ . ~ Ð11€June€1978.€On€31€May€1971,€the€author€was€released€on€parole€under€the€Parole€ActÐ  d Ð1970,€then€in€force.€On€13€December€1974,€while€still€on€parole,€the€author€was€convictedÐ ú J Ðof€the€indictable€offence€of€breaking€and€entering€and,€on€23€December€1974,€sentenced€toÐ à 0 Ðimprisonment€for€a€term€of€three€years.€By€application,€of€section€17€of€the€Parole€Act€1970Ð Æ   Ðhis€parole€was€treated€as€forfeited€on€13€December€1974.€As€a€consequence,€the€author'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðcombined€terms€have€been€calculated€to€expire€on€4€January€1985.€òòaóó/€€In€1977€severalÐ ’â  Ðsections€of€the€Parole€Act€1970,€among€them€section€17,€were€repealed.€New€provisionsÐ xÈ  Ðcame€into€force€on€15€October€1977€(Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977).€Ð ^®  ÐÌ2.3€According€to€the€author€the€combined€effect€of€the€new€law€was€that€forfeiture€of€paroleÐ *z  Ðwas€abolished€and€the€penalty€lot€committing€an€Indictable€offence€while€on€parole€wasÐ ` Ðmade€lighter,€provided€the€indictable€offence€was€committed€on€or€alter€15€October€1977,Ð öF Ðbecause,€òòinter€alia,€óópursuant€to€the€new€provisions,€time€spent€on€parole€after€15€OctoberÐ Ü, Ð1977€and€before€suspension€of€parole,€was€credited€as€time€spent€under€sentence.€Therefore,Ð Â Ða€parolee€whose€parole€was€revoked€alter€that€date€was€not€required€to€spend€an€equivalentÐ ¨ø Ðtime€in€custody€under€the€previous€sentence.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ2.4€The€author€alleges€that,€by€not€making€the€"lighter€penalty"€retroactively€applicable€toÐ Zª Ðpersons€who€have€committed€indictable€offences€while€on€parole€before€15€October€1977,Ð @ Ðthe€Parliament€of€Canada€has€enacted€a€law€which€deprives€him€of€the€benefit€of€article€15Ð &v Ðof€the€Covenant€and€thereby€failed€to€perform€its€duty,€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€toÐ  \ Ðensure€to€all€Individuals€within€Its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rightsÐ òB Ðrecognized€in€the€Covenant€and€to€take€the€necessary€steps€to€adopt€such€legislativeÐ Ø( Ðmeasures€as€may€be€necessary€to€give€effect€to€those€rights.€Ð ¾ ÐÌ3.1€As€regards€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€the€author€claimed€that€in€the€presentÐ Š Ú Ðstate€oi€the€law€in€Canada€the€benefit€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant€could€only€be€affordedÐ p!À  Ðto€him€through€the€royal€prerogative€of€mercy,€exercised€by€the€Governor„General€of€CanadaÐ V"¦! Ðon€the€advice€of€the€Privy€Council€lot€Canada.€A€petition€submitted€by€the€author€in€thisÐ <#Œ" ÐÔ_ÔconnexionÔ_Ô€was€rejected€on€19€January€1979€denying€the€validity€of€the€author's€claim.€It€wasÐ "$r# Ðexplained€that€the€relevant€provisions€in€article€15€of€the€Covenant€applied€only€where€theÐ %X $ Ðpenalty€for€an€offence€had€been€reduced€by€law,€and€since€there€was€no€suggestion€that€theÐ î%>!% Ðpenalties€attributable€to€the€offences€for€which€the€author€was€incarcerated€had€been€reduced,Ð Ô&$"& Ðalter€he€committed€them,€the€said€provision€was€not€applicable€in€his€case.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ3.2€The€author€maintained€that,€as€a€result,€domestic€remedies€had€been€exhausted.€He€alsoÐ †)Ö$) Ðstated€that€he€had€not€applied€to€any€other€International€body.€He€requested€the€CommitteeÐ l*¼%* Ðto€rind€that€he€was€entitled€to€receive€credit,€as€partial€completion€of€his€combined€terms€ofÐ R+¢&+ ÐImprisonment,€for€the€time€spent€by€him€on€parole,€namely€1,292€days,€between€31€MayÐ 8,ˆ', Ð1971€and€13€December€1974.€Ð -n(- ÐÔ_Ô‡4.€By€its€decision€of€7€August€1979€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ ° Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€partyÐ –æ Ðconcerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibilityÐ |Ì Ðof€the€communication.€Ð b² ÐÌ5.€By€a€note€dated€24€March€1980€the€State€party€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ . ~ Ðcommunication€on€the€ground€that€the€communication€was€incompatible€with€the€provisionsÐ  d Ðof€the€Covenant€and€as€such€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ ú J ÐCovenant.€The€State€party€submitted,€in€particular,€that€the€word€"penalty"€in€article€15€ofÐ à 0 Ðthe€Covenant€referred€to€the€punishment€or€sanction€decreed€by€law€for€a€particular€offenceÐ Æ   Ðat€the€time€of€its€commission.€Therefore,€in€respect€of€a€particular€criminal€act,€a€breach€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€right€to€a€lesser€penalty€could€only€occur€when€there€was€a€reduction€of€the€punishmentÐ ’â  Ðwhich€could€be€imposed€by€a€court.€Parole€was€the€authority€granted€by€law€for€an€inmateÐ xÈ  Ðto€be€at€liberty€during€his€term€of€imprisonment;€it€did€not€reduce€the€punishment€which,Ð ^®  Ðaccording€to€law,€could€be€imposed€for€a€given€offence,€but€rather€dealt€with€the€way€aÐ D”  Ðsentence€would€be€served.€The€State€party€further€maintained€that€the€relevant€provisions€ofÐ *z  Ðthe€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€did€not€reduce€the€penalty€which€the€law€decreedÐ ` Ðfor€any€given€criminal€offence€and€that,€therefore,€the€new€provisions€did€not€result€in€aÐ öF Ð'lighter€penalty"€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ6.1€On€17€April€1980,€comments€on€behalf€of€the€author€or€the€communication€wereÐ ¨ø Ðsubmitted€in€reply€to€the€State€party's€submission€or€24€March€1980.€They€refuted€the€StateÐ ŽÞ Ðparty's€contention€that€the€granting€of€parole€did€not€come€within€the€legal€term€of€"penalty"Ð tÄ Ðand€that€the€provisions€of€the€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€did€not€result€in€a€"lighterÐ Zª Ðpenalty".€Discussing€a€wide€range€of€meanings€or€the€word€"penalty",€the€submissionÐ @ Ðreferred€to€several€laws€enacted€in€Canada€which,€by€way€of€legal€interpretations€and€judicialÐ &v Ðdecisions,€Old€not€permit€the€State€party's€conclusion€that€a€punishment€not€imposed€by€aÐ  \ Ðcourt€is€not€a€penalty.€The€author€further€claimed€that,€according€to€Canadian€Court€rulingsÐ òB Ðin€specific€cases,€it€was€not€unjustifiable€to€conclude€that€automatic€deprivation€of€"statutoryÐ Ø( Ðremission"€(application€of€forfeiture€of€parole)€by€operation€of€law,€although€without€anyÐ ¾ Ðcourt€order,€was€a€penalty€and€that€therefore€the€provisions€of€the€Criminal€Law€AmendmentÐ ¤ô ÐAct€1977,€If€applied€to€his€case,€Would€result€In€a€lighter€penalty.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ6.2€Discussing€applicable€principles€of€Interpretation€it€was€submitted€that,€in€case€of€doubt,Ð V"¦! Ða€presumption€in€favour€of€the€liberty€of€the€Individual€should€be€applied€to€article€15€(1).Ð <#Œ" ÐAs€a€Consequence,€this€provision€„€unlike€the€Canadian€Interpretation€Act,€section€36€„€wasÐ "$r# Ðsaid€not€to€be€limited€to€a€penalty€imposed€or€adjudged€after€the€change€in€the€law.€In€thisÐ %X $ Ðconnexion€it€was€argued€that€this€meaning€was€assumed€in€reservations€made€by€certainÐ î%>!% Ðother€States€parties€when€they€ratified€the€Covenant,€and€was€also€supported€in€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðproceedings€in€the€Third€Committee€of€the€General€Assembly€of€the€United€Nations€in€1960,Ð º' #' Ðin€which€Canada€had€participated.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ7.€By€its€decision€of€25€July€1980€the€Committee,€after€finding,€òòInter€alia,óó€that€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCommunication€was€not€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€declared€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðcommunication€admissible.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð8.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€18€February€1981,Ð ° Ðthe€State€party€sets€out,€òòinter€alia,€óóthe€law€relating€to€the€Canadian€parole€system€and€assertsÐ –æ Ðthat€it€is€not€in€breach€of€Its€obligations€under€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ |Ì ÐPolitical€Rights.€It€contends:€Ð b² ÐÌ(a)€That€article€15€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€deals€only€withÐ . ~ Ðcriminal€penalties€imposed€by€a€criminal€court€for€a€particular€criminal€offence,€pursuant€toÐ  d Ðcriminal€proceedings;€Ð ú J ÐÌ(b)€That€the€forfeiture€of€parole€is€not€a€criminal€penalty€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€Covenant;€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ(c)€That€by€replacing€forfeiture€of€parole€by€revocation€of€parole€it€did€not€substitute€aÐ xÈ  Ð"lighter€penalty"€for€the€"commission€of€an€indictable€offence€while€on€parole".€Ð ^®  ÐÌ8.2€The€State€party€further€elaborates€on€the€definition€of€the€word€"penalty"€as€used€inÐ *z  Ðarticle€15€(1)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ` ÐÌ8.3€The€State€party€submits€that€there€are€various€kinds€of€penalties:€these€may€be€criminal,Ð Ü, Ðcivil€or€administrative.€This€distinction€between€criminal€penalties€and€administrative€orÐ Â Ðdisciplinary€ones,€the€State€party€argues,€is€generally€accepted.€Criminal€penalties,€it€furtherÐ ¨ø Ðsubmits,€are€sometimes€referred€to€as€"formal€punishment"€while€the€administrative€penaltiesÐ ŽÞ Ðare€referred€to€as€"informal€punishment".€Ð tÄ ÐÌ8.4€The€State€party€adds€that€the€setting€or€context€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant€is€criminalÐ @ Ðlaw.€The€words€"guilty",€"criminal€offence"€and€"offender"€are€evidence€that€when€the€wordÐ &v Ð"penalty"€is€used€in€the€context€of€article€15,€what€is€meant€is€"criminal€penalty".€The€StateÐ  \ Ðparty€finds€unacceptable€Mr.€Van€Duzen's€proposition,€that€the€word€"penalty"€in€article€15Ð òB Ðof€the€Covenant€must€be€given€a€wide€construction€which€would€mean€that€article€15€wouldÐ Ø( Ðapply€to€administrative€or€disciplinary€sanctions€imposed€by€law€as€a€consequence€ofÐ ¾ Ðcriminal€convictions.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ8.5€The€State€party€furthermore€refers€to€a€series€of€Canadian€court€decisions€on€the€natureÐ p!À  Ðand€effects€of€parole,€its€suspension€or€revocation.€It€also€argues,€quoting€various€authorities,Ð V"¦! Ðthat€the€Canadian€process€of€sentencing€permits€flexibility€with€respect€to€forfeiture€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðparole.€It€points€out€that€the€last€sentence€of€three€years€(plus€forfeiture€of€parole)€when€theÐ "$r# Ðstatutory€maximum€is€14€years,€makes€it€possible€to€argue,€in€view€of€Mr.€Van€Duzen'sÐ %X $ Ðcriminal€record,€that€the€judge€did€take€into€consideration€his€forfeiture€of€parole.€Also€theÐ î%>!% Ðrole€of€the€National€Parole€Board€is€discussed€in€this€context.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ8.6€The€State€party€agrees€with€the€alleged€principle€of€interpretation€referred€to€in€paragraphÐ  (ð#( Ð6.2€above,€but€is€unable€to€find€any€ambiguity€in€article€15€of€the€Covenant€because€it€isÐ †)Ö$) Ðclearly€restricted,€it€submits,€to€the€field€of€criminal€law.€Therefore,€the€State€party€submits,Ð l*¼%* Ðthe€author€cannot€benefit€from€the€presumption€in€favour€of€liberty.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ8.7€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€Human€Rights€Committee€oughtÐ -n(- Ðto€dismiss€Mr.€Van€Duzen's€communication.€Article€15,€it€submits,€deals€with€criminalÐ ° Ðpenalties,€while€the€process€of€parole€is€purely€administrative,€and€therefore€the€CriminalÐ –æ ÐLaw€Amendments€Act€1977€cannot€be€regarded€as€providing€a€lighter€penalty€within€theÐ |Ì Ðambit€of€article€15.€Ð b² ÐÌ9.1€On€2€June€1981€the€author€through€his€representative€submitted€observations€under€ruleÐ . ~ Ð93€(3)€of€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure€in€response€to€the€State€party'sÐ  d Ðsubmission€of€18€February€1981€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð ú J ÐÌ9.2€The€author€observes€that€in€article€15€(1)€the€word€"criminal"€is€associated€withÐ Æ   Ð"offence"€and€not€with€"penalty".€The€State€party's€attempt€to€narrow€the€meaning€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ð"penalty"€is€not€supported€by€the€words€of€the€article.€It€is€submitted€that€if€the€offence€isÐ ’â  Ðcriminal€within€the€meaning€of€the€article,€any€penalty€for€the€offence€is€a€penalty€within€theÐ xÈ  Ðmeaning€of€the€article.€The€State€party€admits€that€forfeiture€and€revocation€of€parole€wereÐ ^®  Ðpenalties€and€that€revocation€continues€to€be€a€penalty,€but€tries€to€divide€penalties€intoÐ D”  Ðcategories€tor€which€it€has€no€authority€in€the€words€of€the€article,€in€precedent€or€in€reason.€Ð *z  ÐÌ9.3€The€author€maintains€in€his€submission€that€the€word€"penalty"€is€not€confined€to€aÐ öF Ð"criminal€penalty",€as€defined€by€the€State€party,€and€is€consistent€not€only€with€the€languageÐ Ü, Ðof€article€15€(1)€but€also€with€judicial€and€other€usage€in€the€English„speaking€world.€Ð  ÐÌ9.4€The€penalty€of€forfeiture€or€revocation€of€parole,€he€states,€is€an€integral€part€of€the€penalÐ ŽÞ Ðprocess€resulting€from€conviction€and€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€andÐ tÄ Ðenforced€by€the€agencies€executing€that€sentence.€The€Penitentiary€Service,€the€NationalÐ Zª ÐParole€Board€and€the€National€Parole€Service€are€all€under€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Solicitor„Ð @ ÐGeneral€of€Canada,€and€the€Penitentiary€Service€and€the€National€Parole€Service€areÐ &v Ðbranches€of€the€Correctional€Service€of€Canada,€under€the€jurisdiction€and€administrativeÐ  \ Ðdirection€and€control€of€the€Commissioner€of€Corrections.€Ð òB ÐÌ9.5€As€the€Government€has€emphasized,€the€author€states,€parole€affects€the€mode€ofÐ ¾ Ðundergoing€a€sentence€of€imprisonment€imposed€for€the€offence.€Forfeiture€and€revocationÐ ¤ô Ðof€parole€were,€before€15€October€1977,€penalties€for€breach€of€conditions€of€parole.Ð Š Ú ÐRevocation€of€parole€continues€to€be€such€a€penalty.€The€State€party's€argument€is€that€aÐ p!À  Ðpenalty€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€(1)€is€only€a€so„called€"criminal€penalty"€imposedÐ V"¦! Ðby€a€criminal€court€for€a€particular€criminal€offence,€pursuant€to€criminal€proceedings.€ItÐ <#Œ" Ðmust€surely€be€agreed€that€a€term€of€imprisonment€is€such€a€penalty.€A€penalty€is€notÐ "$r# Ðexhausted€when€it€is€pronounced.€It€continues€in€operation€until€it€has€been€completelyÐ %X $ Ðexecuted.€Being€at€large€on€parole€is€therefore€a€mode€of€undergoing€a€criminal€penalty.Ð î%>!% ÐForfeiture€and€revocation€of€parole€and€their€consequences€were€penalties€for€breach€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðconditions€of€a€mode€of€undergoing€a€criminal€penalty.€Even€it€the€State€party's€definitionÐ º' #' Ðof€"penalty"€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€(1)€were€correct,€which€is€not€admitted,Ð  (ð#( Ðforfeiture€and€revocation€of€parole€would€be€criminal€penalties€within€that€interpretation€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€article.€The€attempted€distinction€put€forward€by€the€Government€between€anÐ l*¼%* Ðadministrative€and€a€criminal€penalty€is€without€foundation€in€this€context.€In€this€connexion,Ð R+¢&+ Ðattention€is€drawn€to€the€statement€of€Mr.€Justice€LeDain,€in€the€Canadian€Federal€Court€ofÐ 8,ˆ', ÐAppeal,€in€his€reasons€for€judgement€in€Re€Zong€and€Commissioner€of€Penitentiaries€(1976)Ð -n(- Ð1€C.F.€657,€at€579„80,€cited€in€the€reply,€where€he€said€that€forfeiture€of€parole€was€a€penaltyÐ ° Ðtor€the€act€of€committing€an€Indictable€offence€while€on€parole.€Ð –æ ÐÌ9.6€The€author€further€maintains€that€the€distinction€between€formal€punishment,€which€isÐ b² Ðadministered€through€the€courts,€and€informal€punishment€which€is€used€extensively€in€aÐ H˜ Ðwide€variety€of€Inter€personal€and€Institutional€contexts,€misses€the€point€of€thisÐ . ~ Ðcommunication.€The€penalty€here€at€Issue€clearly€entails€"punishment€tor€crime".€TheÐ  d Ðdistinction€does€not€depend€on€the€agency€that€administers€or€imposes€the€penalty.€TheÐ ú J Ðnature€of€the€penalty,€Its€relation€to€the€offence,€and€its€consequences€are€the€critical€factors,Ð à 0 Ðnot€the€agency€that€imposes€it.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ9.7€Forfeiture€of€parole,€when€in€effect,€was€a€lawful€automatic€consequence€by€operationÐ ’â  Ðof€law€of€conviction€of€an€Indictable€offence€In€certain€Circumstances,€but€this€òòper€se€óóis€notÐ xÈ  Ðthe€subject€of€the€complaint.€The€author€states€that€ne€would€have€no€complaint€under€articleÐ ^®  Ð15€(1)€about€the€forfeiture€of€his€parole€or€the€consequence€of€forfeiture€of€parole,€as€theyÐ D”  Ðapplied€to€him,€it€the€amendments€of€1977€had€not€made€lighter€the€penalty€tor€breach€ofÐ *z  Ðconditions€of€parole€without€making€the€amendment€retroactive.€Ð ` ÐÌ9.8€Commenting€on€the€State€party's€submissions€as€to€the€process€of€sentencing€and€theÐ Ü, Ðalleged€flexibility€both€before€and€after€the€amendments€of€1977,€the€author€refers€toÐ Â Ðstatistics€showing€that€despite€the€maximum€fixed€by€law€at€14€years,€his€Last€sentence,Ð ¨ø Ðwhich€was€a€prison€term€of€three€years,€is€close€to€the€normal€upper€end€for€such€offences.Ð ŽÞ ÐHe€therefore€considers€the€suggestion€that€the€sentencing€judge€took€his€forfeiture€of€paroleÐ tÄ Ðinto€account€in€reduction€of€his€term€to€be€without€foundation.€The€author€maintains€that,Ð Zª Ðalthough€revocation€of€parole€continues€to€be€authorized€not€only€on€conviction€for€offencesÐ @ Ðfor€which€forfeiture€would€have€automatically€ensued€before€15€October€1977,€but€alsoÐ &v Ðfollowing€conviction€of€other€offences€or€for€some€other€reason€not€constituting€an€offence,Ð  \ Ðthe€consequences€of€revocation€are€less€severe€under€the€present€law€than€they€were€beforeÐ òB Ð15€October€1977.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ9.9€Finally,€the€author's€submission€at€2€June€1981€provides€Information€that€on€1€May€1981Ð ¤ô Ðhe€was€again€released€under€the€Parole€Act,€under€mandatory€supervision,€which€isÐ Š Ú Ðsubstantially€equivalent€to€parole.€It€is€argued,€however,€that€as€a€result€of€the€conditions€orÐ p!À  Ðhis€release,€he€is€not€a€free€man€and€may€be€re„imprisoned€at€any€time€until€late€in€1984.òòbóó/Ð V"¦! ÐHe€claims€to€be€entitled€to€be€completely€free€alter€9€June€1981.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ9.10€In€additional€observations,€dated€ll€June€1981,€the€author€further€maintains€that€he€wasÐ %X $ Ðindeed€subjected€to€the€jurisdiction€of€a€judicial€authority€in€connexion€with€the€forfeitureÐ î%>!% Ðat€his€parole.€He€states€that€in€accordance€with€the€law€in€force,€he€was€brought€before€aÐ Ô&$"& ÐProvincial€judge,€on€or€about€13€January€1975€(at€a€time€when€he€was€already€In€custodyÐ º' #' Ðfollowing€his€conviction€on€13€December€1974)€who,€in€the€exercise€at€his€judicial€functions,Ð  (ð#( Ðdeclared€that€the€author's€parole€was€forfeited€and€issued€a€warrant,€pursuant€to€section€18Ð †)Ö$) Ð(2)€of€the€Parole€Act,€for€his€recommitment€to€a€penitentiary€pursuant€to€section€21€at€theÐ l*¼%* ÐParole€Act,€then€in€force.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ10.l€The€Human€Rights€Committee€notes€that€the€main€point€raised€and€declared€Ô_ÔadmissibleÐ -n(- Ðin€the€present€communication€is€whether€the€provision€tot€the€retroactivity€of€a€'lighterÐ ° Ðpenalty'€in€article€15€(l)€of€the€Covenant€is€applicable€in€the€circumstances€or€the€presentÐ –æ Ðcase.€In€this€respect,€the€Committee€recalls€that€the€Canadian€legislation€removing€theÐ |Ì Ðautomatic€forfeiture€or€parole€for€offences€committed€while€on€parole€was€made€effectiveÐ b² Ðfrom€15€October€1977,€at€a€time€when€the€alleged€victim€was€serving€the€sentence€imposedÐ H˜ Ðon€him€under€the€earlier€legislation.€He€now€claims€that€under€article€15€(l)€he€should€benefitÐ . ~ Ðfrom€this€subsequent€change€In€the€law.€Ð  d ÐÌ10.2€The€Committee€further€notes€that€its€interpretation€and€application€of€the€InternationalÐ à 0 ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€has€to€be€based€on€the€principle€that€the€terms€andÐ Æ   Ðconcepts€Or€the€Covenant€are€independent€of€any€particular€national€system€or€law€and€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðall€dictionary€definitions.€Although€the€terms€of€the€Covenant€are€derived€from€longÐ ’â  Ðtraditions€within€many€nations,€the€Committee€must€now€regard€them€as€having€anÐ xÈ  Ðautonomous€meaning.€The€parties€have€made€extensive€submissions,€in€particular€as€regardsÐ ^®  Ðthe€meaning€of€the€word€"penalty'€and€as€regards€relevant€Canadian€law€and€practice.€TheÐ D”  ÐCommittee€appreciates€their€relevance€for€the€light€they€shed€on€the€nature€of€the€issue€inÐ *z  Ðdispute.€On€the€other€hand,€the€meaning€of€the€word€"penalty"€in€Canadian€law€is€not,€asÐ ` Ðsuch,€decisive.€Whether€the€word€"penalty"€in€article€15€(1)€should€be€interpreted€narrowlyÐ öF Ðor€widely,€and€whether€it€applies€to€different€kinds€of€penalties,€"criminal"€andÐ Ü, Ð"administrative",€under€the€Covenant,€must€depend€on€other€factors.€Apart€from€the€text€ofÐ Â Ðarticle€15€(1),€regard€must€be€had,€òòinter€alia,óó€to€its€object€and€purpose.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ10.3€However,€in€the€opinion€of€the€Committee,€it€is€not€necessary€for€the€purposes€of€theÐ tÄ Ðpresent€case€to€go€further€into€the€very€complex€issues€raised€concerning€the€interpretationÐ Zª Ðand€application€of€article€15€(1).€In€this€respect€regard€must€be€had€to€the€fact€that€the€authorÐ @ Ðhas€subsequently€been€released,€and€that€this€happened€even€before€the€date€when€he€claimsÐ &v Ðhe€should€be€free.€Whether€or€not€this€claim€should€be€regarded€as€justified€under€theÐ  \ ÐCovenant,€the€Committee€considers€that,€although€his€release€is€subject€to€some€conditions,Ð òB Ðfor€practical€purposes€and€without€prejudice€to€the€correct€interpretation€of€article€15€(1),€heÐ Ø( Ðhas€in€fact€obtained€the€benefit€he€has€claimed.€It€is€true€that€he€has€maintained€his€complaintÐ ¾ Ðand€that€his€status€upon€release€is€not€identical€in€law€to€the€one€he€has€claimed.€However,Ð ¤ô Ðin€the€view€of€the€Committee,€since€the€potential€risk€of€re„imprisonment€depends€upon€hisÐ Š Ú Ðown€Ô_ÔbehaviourÔ_Ô,€this€risk€cannot,€in€the€circumstances,€represent€any€actual€violation€of€theÐ p!À  Ðright€invoked€by€him.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ10.4€For€the€reasons€set€out€in€paragraph€10.3,€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€underÐ "$r# Ðarticle€5€(4)€of€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ %X $ ÐRights€is€of€the€view€that€the€present€case€does€not€disclose€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ____________Ð º' #' Ða/€€€This€date€appears€from€a€correction€submitted€by€the€State€party€(19€February€1982),€theÐ  (ð#( ÐCare€having€earlier€been€given€by€the€parties€as€19€December€1984.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌb/€€According€to€a€correction€submitted€by€the€state€party€(19€February€1982),€Mr.€VanÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔDuzenÔ_Ô's€combined€terms€nave€been€calculated€to€expire€on€5€January€1985.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÓ_Ó