ÿWPCƒ Öt<‰C=Ö›ÛOÊ«Ïõ± åÂoZ\Ó6OÇ£úrC£=ÿwã,9ZÜgJEÑ DŒ¸Þ¬¬Z0ÐxüðF²®$Nfˆo½ó:ÓÑ£éۧŜ£±.¨}]<•±ü“Üö[ ÐÞGQüÿcÚë’¶Ž±—SDµï¥â›èýjb*‚%ÿÆ`<Ï#›‹ i˜ÊþÁס ð )ÍQ.we²f[K,}i¯¾8_tŒï‚¬tX•rÇåOSX,|bVŒKw›÷h8³B*b\Å”D;Ȳ]qÍðî,üH¶pYZ&¤¸üË־Ƣaî…=™^¹‡Ëfô»Ô›¥‘/”ù»®Ç!&+Ùþ’ãêqÒhÒœW±„àÖn±Ñ”}Hô,ÀÅäÉdkƒCU “uê×hó͇ãX%¤ïh> Vöz̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 0P–Ææ 0ᬠ0( D+µ AMà - 0Æ= #Á UNÄ %M(ND^ FwR4Vj mlô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Alexander MacIsaac v. Canada, Communication No. 55/1979 (3 July 1979), U.N. Doc. Supp. No.4, U.N. Doc. Supp. No."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2ÕB$££Ý ƒVM!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XpgXXXÔÔ€XpgXXXpgÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(žVM$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X~ÛXXXÔÔ€X~ÛXXX~ÛÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXz¨ó* Äpì*ê:i¢Ø+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒVM!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XpgXXXÔÔ€XpgXXXpgÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€55/1979Ð H˜ ÐÌ14€October€1982Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Alexander€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô€(represented€by€Ô_ÔEtelÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSwedahlÔ_Ô)€òòÐ xÈ  ÐÌAlleged€victim:óó€Alexander€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_ԀРD”  ÐÌòòState€Party€concerned:óó€Canada€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:óó€3€July€1979Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:óó€25€July€1980óó€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌMeeting€on€14€October€1982,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€55/1979€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Alexander€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_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€followings€Ð "$r# ÐÓ¢ÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòVIEWS€UNDER€ARTICLE€5€(4)€OF€THE€OPTIONAL€PROTOCOLóóó ó€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÓ¢ÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€this€communication€(initial€letter€dated€3€July€1979€and€a€further€letter€datedÐ †)Ö$) Ð21€April€1980)€is€Alexander€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô,€a€Canadian€citizen,€residing€in€Kingston,€Ontario,Ð l*¼%* ÐCanada.€He€is€represented€by€Ô_ÔEtelÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSwedahlÔ_Ô.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ2.1€The€author€alleges€that€he€is€a€victim€of€a€Ô_ÔaÔ_Ô€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€26€November€1968,€the€author€was€sentenced€to€a€term€of€eight€years€imprisonmentÐ b² Ðon€counts€of€armed€robbery.€On€21€March€1972,€after€serving€circa€three€years€and€fourÐ H˜ Ðmonths,€the€author€was€released€on€parole€from€a€federal€penitentiary€in€Campbellford,Ð . ~ ÐOntario.€On€27€June€1975,€he€was€convicted€of€a€criminal€offence€while€still€being€on€paroleÐ  d Ðand,€on€25€July€1975,€he€was€sentenced€to€a€term€of€14€months€imprisonment.€Pursuant€toÐ ú J Ðthe€conviction,€by€operation€of€:he€Parole€Act€1970,€the€time€which€the€author€had€spent€onÐ à 0 Ðparole€from€21€March€1972€to€27€June€1975€(three€years,€three€months€and€six€days)€wasÐ Æ   Ðautomatically€forfeited€and€he€was€required€to€re„serve€that€time.€The€author€was€againÐ ¬ ü  Ðreleased€on€7€May€1979,€to€serve€the€remaining€part€of€his€sentence€under€mandatoryÐ ’â  Ðsupervision.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.3€On€15€October€1977,€the€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€was€proclaimed€in€force.Ð D”  ÐThe€new€law,€inter€alia,€repealed€certain€provisions€of€the€Parole€Act€1970€and,€in€effect,Ð *z  Ðabolished€automatic€forfeiture€of€time€spent€on€parole€(forfeiture€of€parole)€upon€subsequentÐ ` Ðconviction€for€an€indictable€offence€committed€while€still€on€parole.€The€Criminal€LawÐ öF ÐAmendment€Act€1977€now€stipulates€that€only€the€sanction€of€revocation€of€parole€isÐ Ü, Ðpresently€applicable€to€persons€on€parole,€which€sanction€is€invoked€at€the€discretion€of€theÐ Â ÐNational€Parole€Board€rather€than€automatically€by€law€upon€conviction€of€an€indictableÐ ¨ø Ðoffence.€Section€31€(2)€(a)€of€the€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€provides€further€that,Ð ŽÞ Ðupon€revocation€of€parole,€any€time€that€a€person€had€spent€on€parole€after€the€coming€intoÐ tÄ Ðforce€of€this€provision,€that€is€after€15€October€1977,€is€credited€against€his/her€sentence.Ð Zª ÐConsequently,€a€person€presently€in€the€position€in€which€the€author€found€himself€on€27Ð @ ÐJune€1975€would€not€necessarily€attract€any€sanction€concerning€revocation€of€parole€and,Ð &v Ðeven€if€such€a€sanction€were€to€be€invoked,€would€not€be€required€to€re„serve€the€period€ofÐ  \ Ðtime€spent€on€parole€after€15€October€1977.€Ð òB ÐÌ2.4€The€author€claims€that,€by€specifying€that€section€31€(2)€(a)€of€the€Criminal€LawÐ ¾ ÐAmendment€Act€1977€shall€not€be€retroactive,€the€Government€of€Canada€has€contravenedÐ ¤ô Ðarticle€15€(1)€of€the€Covenant.€He€submits€that€section€31€(2)€(a),€in€providing€that€time€spentÐ Š Ú Ðon€parole€after€15€October€1977€is€not€to€be€re„served€in€prison€upon€revocation€of€thatÐ p!À  Ðparole,€constitutes€a€lighter€penalty€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant.€HeÐ V"¦! Ðfurther€submits€that,€contrary€to€article€2€(2)€of€the€Covenant,€the€Government€of€Canada€hasÐ <#Œ" Ðfailed€to€enact€legislation€to€give€effect€to€article€15.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.5€The€author€submits€that€in€the€present€state€of€the€law€in€Canada,€any€recourse€toÐ î%>!% Ðdomestic€courts,€for€the€purpose€of€obtaining€the€remedy€he€seeks,€would€be€futile.€HeÐ Ô&$"& Ðtherefore€Ô_ÔendeavouredÔ_Ô€to€seek€relief€by€applying,€on€5€September€1978,€for€the€RoyalÐ º' #' ÐPrerogative€of€Mercy.€This€recourse€was€unsuccessful€and€the€author€claims€that€theÐ  (ð#( Ðrejection€by€the€Government€of€Canada€of€the€application€for€an€executive€remedy,€that€isÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€say€the€exercise€of€the€Royal€Prerogative€of€Mercy,€constitutes€a€violation€of€article€2€(3)Ð l*¼%* Ð(a)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ2.6€The€author€maintains€that€there€are€no€further€domestic€remedies€to€exhaust,€and€statesÐ -n(- Ðthat€the€same€matter€has€not€been€submitted€to€any€other€international€procedure€ofÐ ° Ðinvestigation.€The€author,€in€conclusion,€states€that€the€object€of€his€submission€is€to€seekÐ –æ Ðredress€of€the€alleged€violation€by€the€State€party€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant€and,Ð |Ì Ðspecifically,€to€obtain€an€amendment€of€section€31€(2)€(a)€of€the€Criminal€Law€AmendmentÐ b² ÐAct€1977,€so€as€to€make€that€section€compatible€with€article€15€of€the€Covenant.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€10€October€1979,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ  d Ðtransmitted€the€communication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€theÐ ú J ÐState€party€concerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€ofÐ à 0 Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ4.€By€a€note€dated€24€March€1980,€the€State€party€objected€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ’â  Ðcommunication€on€the€ground€that€the€communication€was€incompatible€with€the€provisionsÐ xÈ  Ðof€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€and€as€such€was€inadmissibleÐ ^®  Ðunder€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€The€State€party€contested€inÐ D”  Ðparticular€that€Canada€was€in€breach€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant€by€not€making€retroactiveÐ *z  Ðsection€31€of€the€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977.€In€support€of€these€arguments,€it€wasÐ ` Ðsubmitted€that€the€word€'penalty'€in€article€15€of€the€Covenant€referred€to€the€punishment€orÐ öF Ðsanction€decreed€by€law€for€a€particular€offence€at€the€time€of€its€commission.€Therefore,€inÐ Ü, Ðrespect€of€a€particular€criminal€act,€a€breach€of€the€right€to€a€lesser€penalty€can€only€occurÐ Â Ðwhen€there€is€a€reduction€of€the€punishment€which€can€be€imposed€by€a€court}€parole€wasÐ ¨ø Ðthe€authority€granted€by€law€to€a€person€to€be€at€large€during€his€term€of€imprisonment}€itÐ ŽÞ Ðdid€not€reduce€the€punishment€which,€according€to€law,€could€be€imposed€for€a€givenÐ tÄ Ðoffence,€but€rather€dealt€with€the€way€a€sentence€would€be€served.€The€State€party€furtherÐ Zª Ðmaintained€that€the€relevant€provisions€of€the€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€did€notÐ @ Ðreduce€the€penalty€which€the€law€decrees€for€any€given€criminal€offence€and€that,€therefore,Ð &v Ðthe€new€provisions€did€not€result€in€a€"lighter€penalty'€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€of€theÐ  \ ÐCovenant.€Ð òB ÐÌ5.€On€21€April€1980.€comments€on€behalf€of€the€author€of€the€communication€wereÐ ¾ Ðsubmitted€in€reply€to€the€State€party's€submission€of€24€March€1980,€disputing€in€particularÐ ¤ô Ðthe€State€party's€contention€that€the€granting€of€parole€did€not€come€within€the€legal€termÐ Š Ú Ð"penalty".€In€substantiation,€the€author€referred€to€legal€practice€in€Canada,€according€toÐ p!À  Ðwhich€two€meanings€of€'penalty'€exist:€a€narrower€meaning€of€being€a€pecuniary€punishmentÐ V"¦! Ðand€a€general€or€primary€meaning€of€being€'the€consequences€visited€by€law€upon€the€headsÐ <#Œ" Ðof€those€who€violate€the€laws'.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ6.€By€its€decision€of€25€July€1980,€the€Committee,€after€finding,€inter€alia,€that€theÐ î%>!% Ðcommunication€was€not€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€declared€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðcommunication€admissible.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ7.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€18€February€1981,Ð †)Ö$) Ðthe€State€party€sets€out,€inter€alia,€the€law€relating€to€the€Canadian€parole€system€and€assertsÐ l*¼%* Ðthat€it€is€not€in€breach€of€its€obligations€under€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ R+¢&+ ÐPolitical€Rights.€It€contends:€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð(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 –æ Ðcriminal€proceedings;€Ð |Ì ÐÌ(b)€That€the€forfeiture€of€parole€is€not€a€criminal€penalty€within€the€meaning€of€article€15€ofÐ H˜ Ðthe€Covenant;€Ð . ~ ÐÌ(c)€That€by€replacing€forfeiture€of€parole€by€revocation€of€parole€it€did€not€substitute€aÐ ú J Ð'lighter€penalty"€for€the€'commission€of€an€indictable€offence€while€on€parole".€Ð à 0 ÐÌ7.2€The€State€party€further€elaborates€on€the€definition€of€the€word€"penalty"€as€used€inÐ ¬ ü  Ðarticle€15€(a)€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ’â  ÐÌ7.3€The€State€party€submits€that€there€are€various€kinds€of€penalties:€these€may€~e€criminal,Ð ^®  Ðcivil€or€administrative.€This€distinction€between€criminal€penalties€and€administrative€orÐ D”  Ðdisciplinary€ones,€the€State€party€argues,€is€generally€accepted.€Criminal€penalties,€it€furtherÐ *z  Ðsubmits,€are€sometimes€referred€to€as€'formal€punishment'€while€the€administrative€penaltiesÐ ` Ðare€referred€to€as€'informal€punishment".€Ð öF ÐÌ7.4€The€State€party€contends€that€in€Canada€the€grant€of€parole€is€an€administrative€matterÐ Â Ðleft€entirely€to€the€discretion€of€the€National€Parole€Board€(Ex€parte€Ô_ÔMcCaudÔ_Ô€(1965)€1Ð ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔC.C.C.Ô_Ô€168€at€169,€Supreme€Court€of€Canada).€Therefore€parole€established€under€the€ParoleÐ ŽÞ ÐAct€is€a€privilege€accorded€to€certain€prisoners€at€the€discretion€of€the€Parole€Board€and€notÐ tÄ Ða€right€to€which€all€prison€inmates€are€entitled€(Mitchell€v.€The€Queen€(1976)€2€Ô_ÔS.C.R.Ô_Ô€589Ð Zª Ðat€593,€per€Mr.€Justice€Ritchie€speaking€for€the€majority€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada).Ð @ ÐA€grant€of€parole€does€not€have€the€effect€of€altering€the€length€of€a€sentence€imposed€by€aÐ &v Ðcourt€upon€an€offender€(Regina€v.€Ô_ÔWilmottÔ_Ô,€(1966)€2€O.R.€654€at€662,€Ontario€Court€ofÐ  \ ÐAppeal)€or€of€making€changes€in€sentences€(Ô_ÔMarcotteÔ_Ô€v.€Deputy€Attorney€General€of€CanadaÐ òB Ð(1975)€1€Ô_ÔS.C.R.Ô_Ô€108€at€113,€Supreme€Court€of€Canada).€Rather€parole€provides€that€theÐ Ø( Ðoffender€serves€his€sentence€outside€the€prison,€not€as€a€free€man,€but€under€supervision€andÐ ¾ Ðsubject€to€terms€and€conditions€imposed.€Because€the€essence€of€parole€is€release€onÐ ¤ô Ðconditions€(Ô_ÔHowarthÔ_Ô€v.€National€Parole€Board€(1976)€1€Ô_ÔS.C.R.Ô_Ô€453€at€468€per€Ô_ÔDicsonÔ_ÔÐ Š Ú Ðdissenting€on€another€point,€Supreme€Court€of€Canada),€a€person€on€parole€is€not€a€free€manÐ p!À  Ð(Regina€v.€Ô_ÔWilmottÔ_Ô€(1966)€20.R.€257€at€662,€Ontario€Court€of€Appeal)}€and€because€aÐ V"¦! Ðperson€on€parole€is€not€a€free€man,€his€parole€may€be€suspended€or€revoked€at€the€discretionÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€National€Parole€Board.€Revocation€of€a€parole€is€an€administrative€decision€and€is€notÐ "$r# Ðpart€of€the€criminal€prosecution€(Ô_ÔHowarthÔ_Ô€v.€National€Parole€Board€(1976)€1€Ô_ÔS.C.R.Ô_Ô€453€atÐ %X $ Ð474,€475€and€461).€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ7.5€The€State€party€adds€that€the€setting€or€context€of€article€15€of€the€Covenant€is€criminalÐ º' #' Ðlaw.€The€words€'guilty',€'criminal€offence'€and€'offender"€are€evidence€that€when€the€wordÐ  (ð#( Ð'penalty"€is€used€in€the€context€of€article€15,€what€is€meant€is€'criminal€penalty".€The€StateÐ †)Ö$) Ðparty€finds€unacceptable€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€proposition€that€the€word€"penalty"€in€article€15€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€Covenant€must€be€given€a€wide€construction,€which€would€mean€that€article€15€wouldÐ R+¢&+ Ðapply€to€administrative€or€disciplinary€sanctions€imposed€by€law€as€a€consequence€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcriminal€convictions.€Ð -n(- Ї7.6€The€State€party€furthermore€refers€to€a€series€of€Canadian€court€decisions€on€the€natureÐ ° Ðand€effects€of€parole,€its€suspension€or€revocation.€It€also€argues,€quoting€various€authorities,Ð –æ Ðthat€the€Canadian€process€of€sentencing€permits€flexibility€with€respect€to€forfeiture€ofÐ |Ì Ðparole.€It€points€out€that€"in€sentencing€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô,€the€judge€did€mention€explicitly€theÐ b² Ðfact€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€parole€had€been€forfeited.€Although,€in€the€judge's€view,€Mr.Ð H˜ ÐÔ_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€criminal€record€was€'serious',€he€sentenced€him€to€a€term€of€imprisonment€of€14Ð . ~ Ðmonths€for€an€offence€carrying€a€statutory€maximum€of€14€years."€Finally,€the€role€of€theÐ  d ÐNational€Parole€Board€is€discussed€in€this€context.€Ð ú J ÐÌ7.7€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€Human€Rights€Committee€oughtÐ Æ   Ðto€dismiss€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€communication.€Article€15,€it€submits,€deals€with€criminalÐ ¬ ü  Ðpenalties,€while€the€process€of€parole€is€purely,€administrative,€and€therefore€the€CriminalÐ ’â  ÐLaw€Amendment€Act€1977€cannot€be€regarded€as€providing€a€Ô_ÔligherÔ_Ô€penalty€within€the€ambitÐ xÈ  Ðof€article€15.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ8.€No€further€information€or€observations€have€been€submitted€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô.€Ð *z  ÐÌ9.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€ofÐ öF Ðall€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5€(1)€of€the€OptionalÐ Ü, ÐProtocol.€Ð  ÐÌ9.2€The€Committee€notes€that€the€facts€of€the€present€case€are€not€substantially€in€dispute.Ð ŽÞ ÐIt€recalls€that€the€Canadian€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act,€1977,€removed€the€automaticÐ tÄ Ðforfeiture€of€parole€for€offences€committed€while€on€parole.€This€Act€was€made€effectiveÐ Zª Ðfrom€15€October€1977,€at€a€time€when€the€alleged€victim€was€serving€the€sentences€imposedÐ @ Ðon€him€under€the€earlier€legislation,€namely€in€1968€(8€years)€and€1975€(14€months).€By€theÐ &v Ðterms€of€section€31€(2)€(a)€of€the€Act,€the€deduction€of€time€spent€on€parole€from€theÐ  \ Ðunexpired€term€of€imprisonment€was,€however,€only€applicable€to€offenders€whose€penaltiesÐ òB Ðwere€imposed€after€the€coming€into€force€of€the€new€provisions.€The€author€alleges€that€byÐ Ø( Ðnot€making€the€Act€retroactive,€Canada€contravened€the€last€sentence€of€article€15€(1)€of€theÐ ¾ ÐCovenant;€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ"...€If,€subsequent€to€the€commission€of€the€offence,€provision€is€made€by€law€for€theÐ p!À  Ðimposition€of€a€lighter€penalty,€the€offender€shall€benefit€thereby."€Ð V"¦! ÐÌThe€Government€disputes€this€allegation.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ9.3€The€Committee€notes€that€the€provision€just€quoted€refers€to€two€points€of€time:€theÐ î%>!% Ð"commission€of€the€offence"€and€the€"imposition"€of€a€penalty.€If€the€provision€applies€onlyÐ Ô&$"& Ðat€the€time€when€the€offender€is€sentenced€by€the€court,€then€it€would€not€be€applicable€toÐ º' #' Ðthe€present€case.€It€would€in€fact€be€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ôóó,€since€all€relevant€factsÐ  (ð#( Ðtook€place€before€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Covenant€for€Canada€on€19€August€1976.€If,€onÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€other€hand,€the€provision€applies€as€long€as€the€sentence€is€not€Ô_ÔfulllyÔ_Ô€served,€the€situationÐ l*¼%* Ðwould€be€different.€When€declaring€this€case€(and€similarly€R.12/50)€admissible,€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐCommittee€left€this€point€of€interpretation€open,€because€it€had€to€consider€the€effect€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐAct€of€1977€on€the€position€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô.€Ð -n(- Ї10.€The€author€states€that€the€object€of€his€submission€is€to€obtain€an€amendment€of€sectionÐ ° Ð31€(2)€(a)€of€the€Canadian€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act,€1977,€so€as€to€make€that€sectionÐ –æ Ðcompatible€with€article€15€of€the€Covenant.€It€appears€from€the€submissions€of€the€partiesÐ |Ì Ðand€documents€presented€by€them€in€this€case,€as€well€as€in€a€similar€case€(R.€12/50;€viewsÐ b² Ðon€7€April€1982),€that€this€matter€is€one€considered€to€be€of€general€interest€as€affectingÐ H˜ Ðhundreds€of€inmates€in€Canadian€prisons.€However,€this€fact€alone€is€not€a€reason€for€theÐ . ~ ÐCommittee€to€consider€the€general€issue.€The€Committee€notes€in€this€respect€that€it€is€notÐ  d Ðits€task€to€decide€in€the€abstract€whether€or€not€a€provision€of€national€law€is€compatible€withÐ ú J Ðthe€Covenant,€but€only€to€consider€whether€there€is€or€has€been€violation€of€the€Covenant€inÐ à 0 Ðthe€particular€case€submitted€to€it.€In€the€other€case,€the€Committee€expressed€the€view,Ð Æ   Ðwithout€prejudice€to€the€general€legal€issues,€that€the€information€submitted€on€behalf€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðalleged€victim€did€not€clearly€establish€that€his€position€in€the€end€was€substantially€affectedÐ ’â  Ðby€the€applicability€or€non„applicability€of€the€new€provision,€and€that€therefore€there€wasÐ xÈ  Ðno€violation€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ11.€In€the€absence€of€more€precise€submissions€from€the€author€in€the€present€case,€theÐ *z  ÐCommittee€has€attempted€to€examine€in€what€way,€if€any,€the€position€of€the€alleged€victimÐ ` Ðwas€affected€by€the€situation€of€which€he€basically€complains.€It€notes€that€the€system€forÐ öF Ðdealing€with€recidivists€was€changed€by€the€1977€Act,€to€make€it€more€flexible.€The€Act€asÐ Ü, Ðamended€provides,€instead€of€the€automatic€forfeiture€of€parole,€for€a€system€of€revocationÐ Â Ðat€the€discretion€of€the€National€Parole€Board€and€sentencing€for€the€recidivist€offence€at€theÐ ¨ø Ðdiscretion€of€the€judge.€However,€the€recidivist€cannot€be€made€to€re„serve€the€full€timeÐ ŽÞ Ðspent€on€parole.€Apparently,€the€author's€claim€in€the€present€case€is€that€he€would€have€beenÐ tÄ Ðreleased€earlier€on€the€hypothesis€that€the€new€provisions€had€been€applied€to€himÐ Zª Ðretroactively.€The€Committee€notes€that€it€is€not€clear€how€this€should€have€been€done.Ð @ ÐHowever,€here€a€comparison€with€the€system€existing€before€1977€is€necessary.€Under€theÐ &v Ðold€system,€the€judge€exercised€his€discretion€in€deciding€the€length€of€a€penalty€to€beÐ  \ Ðimposed.€In€the€case€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô,€whose€second€sentence€was€rendered€in€1975,€theÐ òB Ðrecidivist€offence€carried€a€possible€sentence€of€up€to€14€years.€While€noting€that€Mr.Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€criminal€record€was€"serious"€and€explicitly€mentioning€the€fact€that€Mr.Ð ¾ ÐÔ_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô's€parole€had€been€forfeited,€the€judge€in€1975€sentenced€him€to€14€months.€TheÐ ¤ô ÐCommittee€notes€that€one€cannot€focus€only€on€the€Ô_ÔfavourableÔ_Ô€aspects€of€a€hypotheticalÐ Š Ú Ðsituation€and€fail€to€take€into€account€that€the€imposition€of€the€14„month€sentence€on€Mr.Ð p!À  ÐÔ_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô€for€a€recidivist€offence€was€explicitly€linked€with€the€forfeiture€of€parole.€InÐ V"¦! ÐCanadian€law€there€is€no€single€fixed€penalty€for€a€recidivist€offence.€The€law€allows€a€scaleÐ <#Œ" Ðof€penalties€for€such€offences€and€full€judicial€discretion€to€set€the€term€of€imprisonmentÐ "$r# Ð(e.g.€up€to€14€years€for€the€offence€of€breaking€and€entering€and€theft€as€in€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô'sÐ %X $ Ðcase).€It€follows€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔMacIsaacÔ_Ô€has€not€established€the€hypothesis€that€if€parole€had€notÐ î%>!% Ðbeen€forfeited,€the€judge€would€have€imposed€the€same€sentence€of€14€months€and€that€heÐ Ô&$"& Ðwould€therefore€have€been€actually€released€prior€to€May€of€1979.€The€Committee€is€not€inÐ º' #' Ða€position€to€know,€nor€is€it€called€upon€to€speculate,€how€the€fact€that€his€earlier€parole€wasÐ  (ð#( Ðforfeited€may€have€influenced€the€penalty€meted€out€for€the€Ô_ÔoffonceÔ_Ô€committed€while€onÐ †)Ö$) Ðparole.€The€burden€of€proving€that€in€1977€he€has€been€denied€an€advantage€under€the€newÐ l*¼%* Ðlaw€and€that€he€is€therefore€a€"victim"€lies€with€the€author.€It€is€not€the€Committee's€functionÐ R+¢&+ Ðto€make€a€hypothetical€assessment€of€what€would€have€happened€if€the€new€Act€had€beenÐ 8,ˆ', Ðapplicable€to€him.€Ð -n(- Ї12.€The€Canadian€Criminal€Law€Amendment€Act€1977€in€this€light,€and€as€explained€by€theÐ ° ÐState€party,€only€entails€a€modification€in€the€system€of€dealing€with€recidivist€cases€andÐ –æ Ðleaves€the€question€as€to€whether€the€total€effect€in€the€individual€case€will€be€a€"lighterÐ |Ì Ðpenalty"€to€the€judge€who€sentences€the€recidivist€offender.€The€new€law€does€notÐ b² Ðnecessarily€result€automatically,€for€those€to€whom€it€is€applied,€in€a€lighter€penaltyÐ H˜ Ðcompared€to€that€under€the€earlier€legislation.€The€judge€entrusted€with€sentencing€theÐ . ~ Ðrecidivist€„€now€as€before€„€is€bound€to€take€into€account€the€facts€of€every€case,€including,Ð  d Ðof€course,€the€revocation€or€forfeiture€of€parole,€and€exercise€his€discretion€in€sentencingÐ ú J Ðwithin€the€prescribed€scale€of€statutory€minimum€and€maximum€penalties.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ13.€These€considerations€lead€to€the€conclusion€that€it€cannot€be€established€that€in€fact€orÐ ¬ ü  Ðlaw€the€alleged€victim€was€denied€the€benefit€of€a€"lighter"€penalty€to€which€he€would€haveÐ ’â  Ðbeen€entitled€under€the€Covenant.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ14.€For€these€reasons€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5€(4)€of€theÐ D”  ÐOptional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€is€of€the€viewÐ *z  Ðthat€the€facts€of€the€present€case€do€not€disclose€any€violation€of€article€15€(1)€of€theÐ ` ÐCovenant.Ð öF ÐÌÓÓ