ÿWPC= H?u!ÚG"5ÿ"5ÿk-Š„It?g°JÏ*|œ y ú)/Š{ ÅÙ¯L^Dh9¦ý U²züý2±ËdÏb›O(‚ºüð?gÕNì+w7lD#‘4ªžö]áäZ{Z>]Šq 1AŸò¢¨Kó*š®›A§å'È¥%T…þ€¯3J²¿/Ô¶Î'jœ|ªù³ÎrÖüg¯I›e†˜ß¸ÜÈzËë›_£)p˜˜Ôêwu‘N:°k¸ÎÍö ¡+*â¾ý&sy½˜ÇBÊ^ÔÓ½¿’ùpY),¤ºÅ×óŸX1VÿçÊ.G“°TÓ’¯Ò&˜ :„²×99èÝ4–¥ªšÈX®ÆLþžÇàè¼Ï“< /ÂâR¹Ÿ{Qš„<@¤ôø@ T"3í~¬Ì«ê°7øx'‘„9k­÷#¤¢%v~&¢©:p+Äðü ŠjܱaL3Ñ$êü"ÒG«'X—¨¼ü¡Ç_ã|ü*¯9u7zy‘-9ÃÖ®ÓƒŒÈ{øRWTe3[¥%ÊlÔö Me.~ \Ç&‰ºH[•(jŠÓú‘J½±Ž/(Vȉ㚯­"!åªþGYa¤š,“¢Ä÷µzºZ˜?ï‘•ƒPù²­]¹˜=Ïκۚù1ÄU>²Ìð 0µ¼ 0<q 0Y­ 0_ 0ieÆÎ 0Ñ” 0(e D+ AM¸ ¸     0N) 0¶w #!- UNN %œ M¢ (¦ NÎ ^ Ð w4Ü 4$ m&ô\  `‹&Times New Roman'  L.S.N v. Canada, Communication No. 94/1981 (30 March 1984), UN doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 6 (1994CCPR/C/OP/2 at 6 (199"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 =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2Ì$££Ý ƒF]!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÀ*XXXÔÔ€XÀ*XXXÀ*ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ1ÿÿ*ÿÿ1#|x+(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ŽF]$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XmòXXXÔÔ€XmòXXXmòÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXAx;)Æ$[%[&£'D(U)D*U+Das()c(„³CorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒF]!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÀ*XXXÔÔ€XÀ*XXXÀ*ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔL.S.NÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€94/1981*ÌÌ30€March€1984ÌÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€L.€S.€N.€(name€deleted)€on€6€April€1981€Ð À  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð pÀ ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€30€March€1984€(twenty„first€session)€Ð H˜ ÐÌòòSubsequently€withdrawnóó:€31€July€1985óóÐ  p ÐÌÌñ&ñÓ  Óñ&ññ%ñòòñ%ññ$ñò òñ$ñDecisionñ$ñó óñ$ññ%ñóóñ%ñÐ ä4 Ðñ&ñÓïÓñ&ññ)ñÌñ)ññ*ñÌÌñ*ñÓ  Óñ'ñÐ Ðñ'ññ+ññ(ñÌñ(ññ+ñ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€6€April€1981;€further€submissions€ofÏ26€May,€19€July€and€26€November€1982€and€28€June€1983)€is€òòL.€S.€N.,€óóa€26„year„oldÐ ”ä ÐCanadian€citizen€of€Indian€origin,€living€in€Canada.€She€states€that€she€lost€her€Indian€statusÏin€accordance€with€section€12€(1)€òò(b)€óóof€the€Indian€Act,€after€having€married€a€non„Indian€onÐ l¼ Ð30€August€1975.€Pointing€out€that€an€Indian€man€who€marries€a€non„Indian€woman€does€notÏlose€his€Indian€status,€she€claims€that€the€Act€is€discriminatory€on€the€grounds€of€sex€andÏcontrary€to€articles€2€(1),€3,€23€(1)€and€(4),€26€and€27€of€the€Covenant.€As€to€the€admissibilityÏof€the€communication€on€the€ground€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€she€states€that€sheÏfinds€herself€in€the€same€'€situation€as€Sandra€Lovelace€(case€No.€24/1977).Ô4‚Ý jÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÝ‚ÿÿÿÝóóòòÔÿÿÔÝ  Ý'Ý‚ÿÿÿfƒÝóóÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6ÔÝ‚.ƒÝñ+ñóóñ+ñÔÿÔñ+ñóóñ+ññ*ñóóóóñ*ññ)ñóóóóñ)ññ(ñóóñ(ññ'ñóóóóñ'ññ&ñóóñ&ññ%ñóóñ%ññ$ñóóóóñ$ñÝ  ÝÔ7Ý Œ\Ô€Sandra€Lovelace,Ð $X" Ðin€her€submission€to€the€Committee,€contended€that€she€was€not€required€to€exhaust€localÏremedies€since€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€had€held€that,€notwithstanding€the€provisionsÏof€the€Canadian€Bill€of€Rights€providing€for€"equality€before€the€law€.€.€.€withoutÏdiscrimination€by€reason€of€sex",€section€12€òò(1)€óó(b)€was€fully€operative.€Ð ¸'#& ÐÐ Ð2.€By€its€decision€of€21€October€1982,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÏcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€State€partyÏconcerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibility.ÏAt€the€same€time,€the€author€was€requested€to€furnish€factual€information€in€regard€to€herÏfamily€and€marital€circumstances€and€in€regard€to€any€effect€of€loss€of€Indian€status€upon€herÐ @-(, Ðparticipation€in€the€life€of€the€Indian€community.€ÌÌ3.€By€a€letter€of€28€June€1983,€the€author€points€out€that€her€communication€is€similar€to€thatÏof€Mrs.€Lovelace€in€every€respect,€including€the€fact€that€her€date€of€marriage€was€prior€toÏthe€entry€into€force€of€the€Covenant€for€Canada,€and€requests€that€the€Committee€find€CanadaÏin€breach€of€article€27€of€the€Covenant€as€previously€held€in€the€case€of€Sandra€Lovelace.€4.1.ÏOn€23€August€1983,€the€State€party€submitted€its€observations€on€the€admissibility€of€theÏcommunication.€It€contests€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€in€so€far€as€article€26€ofÏthe€Covenant€is€concerned,€arguing€that€any€claim€by€the€author€of€the€presentÏcommunication€that€her€rights€to€equality€before€the€law€or€to€the€equal€protection€of€the€lawÏhave€been€violated€is€based€on€her€loss€of€Indian€status€on€30€August€1975€as€a€result€of€theÏoperation€of€s.€12€(1)€òò(b)€óóof€the€Indian€Act.€Her€loss€of€Indian€status€was€final€upon€that€date;Ð Ô$  Ðany€possible€subsequent€effects€of€that€loss€occurring€after€the€coming€into€force€of€theÏCovenant€in€Canada€were€in€regard€to€her€family€life€or€her€participation€in€the€life€of€theÏIndian€community.€In€other€words,€such€effects€do€not€relate€to€Article€26€of€the€Covenant.ÏThe€State€party€does€not€contest€the€admissibility€of€"the€portion€of€the€communicationÏrelating€to€articles€23€and€27,€.€.€.€and€also€the€portion€relating€to€articles€2€(1)€and€3,€but€onlyÏto€the€extent€that€they€bear€on€the€interpretation€of€articles€23€and€27".€4.2€In€its€submissionÏCanada€expresses€its€commitment€to€remove€from€the€Indian€Act€"any€provisions€whichÏdiscriminate€against€women€or€in€some€other€way€offend€human€rights",€referring€inÏparticular€to€the€work€of€a€Parliamentary€Sub„Committee€on€Indian€Women€which,€in€itsÏreport€of€21€September€1982€recommended,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€the€Indian€Act€should€beÐ  \ Ðamended€so€that€Indian€women€no€longer€lose€their€Indian€status€upon€marrying€non„IndiansÏand€that€Indian€women€who€had€previously€lost€their€status€should,€upon€application,€beÏentitled€to€regain€it.€The€State€party€affirms€that€"the€necessary€steps€are€now€being€taken€toÏdevelop€legislation€to€amend€the€Indian€Act".€Ð ÐÐ Ð4.3€The€State€party€recognizes€that€at€present€no€domestic€remedies€are€available€to€theÏauthor€of€the€communication.€it€is,€however,€pointed€out€that€as€of€April€1985€(when€sect.Ï15€òò(1)€óóof€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms€will€come€into€effect),€there€will€beÐ l¼ Ðan€available€domestic€remedy€in€Canada€for€persons€who€feel€that€they€have€beenÏdiscriminated€against€on€the€basis€of€sex€by€federal€laws.€Ð ÐÐ Ð4.4€The€State€party€also€refers€to€several€other€provisions€0€the€Constitution€Act,€1982Ï"which€are€of€relevance€to€the€claims€of€the€author€of€the€communication".€ParticularlyÏmentioned€in€this€connection€are€sections€24,€25,€27€and€28€of€the€Act€(protection€ofÏestablished€rights€and€freedoms,€interpretation€of€the€Charter€in€a€manner€consistent€with€theÏpreservation€and€enhancement€of€the€Ô_ÔmulticulturalÔ_Ô€heritage,€equal€rights€for€men€and€womenÏand€the€right€to€a€remedy€before€a€court€when€rights€guaranteed€by€the€Charter€have€beenÏinfringed).€Ð ÐÐ Ð4.5€In€addition,€the€State€party€stresses€the€need€for€more€factual€information€in€the€case€inÏorder€to€enable€it€to€make€an€adequate€submission€on€the€merits€of€the€case.€It€requests€inÏparticular€factual€information€in€regard€to€the€family€and€'marital€circumstances€of€the€author,Ïand€in€regard€to€any€effect€of€loss€of€Indian€status€upon€her€participation€in€the€life€of€theÐ @-(, ÐÔ_ÔIndian€community,€as€already€requested€from€the€author€in€paragraph€4€of€the€Committee'sÏdecision€of€21€October€1982.€Ð ÐÐ Ð5.1€In€a€letter€dated€27€October€1983,€the€author€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,Ïcontesting€in€particular€the€State€party's€statement€that€the€communication€is€inadmissibleÏwith€respect€to€issues€raised€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€The€author€urges€theÏCommittee€to€consider€the€individual€opinion€annexed€to€case€No.€24/1977,€SandraÏLovelace,€in€this€respect.€The„€author€also€rejects€as€inappropriate€the€State€party's€contentionÏthat€articles€2€(1)€and€3€be€considered€only€to€the€extent€that€they€bear€on€the€interpretationÏof€articles€23€and€27.€The€author€submits€that€the€Committee€should€declare€theÏcommunication€admissible€under€articles€2€(1),€3,€23,€26€and€27.€Ð ÐÐ Ð5.2€In€a€further€letter,€dated€9€December€1983,€the€author€furnished€the€following€additionalÏinformation€relevant€to€her€family€and€marital€circumstances.€She€states€that€she€is€married,Ïthat€prior€to€her€marriage€she€had€lived€with€her€parents€on€the€Ô_ÔTobiqueÔ_Ô€reserve,€that€she€hadÏbeen€warned€that€she€would€not€be€allowed€to€live€on€the€reserve€if€she€married€a€white€man,Ïand€that€since€her€marriage€she€has€lived€in€several€different€white€communities.€She€alsoÏalleges€in€general€terms€the€loss€of€cultural,€political€and€economic€rights€as€a€result€of€theÏloss€of€her€Indian€status,€without,€however,€any€further€explanations.€ÌÌ6.€The€Committee€notes€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€communication€in€so€far€as€itÏrelates€to€article€26€is€inadmissible€òòrations€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô,€óóbecause€Mrs€N's€loss€of€Indian€statusÐ  \ Ðwas€final€before€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Covenant€for€Canada.€However,€the€CommitteeÏreserves€for€its€examination€of€the€merits€the€questions€of€interpretation€and€application€ofÏarticle€26€as€well€as€of€any€other€article€which€might€be€considered,€such€as€article€12.€This,Ïexamination€will€depend€on€the€sub.€mission€by€the€author€of€more€precise€facts€on€whichÏher€claim€of€violation€of€the€Covenant€is€based.€ÌÌ7.€With€regard€to€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€takes€note€of€the€StateÏparty's€statement€that€no€domestic€remedies€are€available€in€the€case.€Accordingly,€theÏCommittee€concludes€that€the€communication€is€not€inadmissible€under€article€5€(2)€(b)€ofÏthe€Optional€Protocol.€8.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:€ÌÌ(1)€That€the€communication€is€admissible€in€so€far€as€it€relates€to€events€said€to€haveÏcontinued€or€taken€place€on€or€after€23€March€1976,€the€date€on€which€the€Covenant€and€theÏOptional€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€Canada;€ÌÌ(2)€That,€in€accordance€with€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€shall€beÏrequested€'to€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal€to€itÏof€this€decision,€written€explanations€or€statements€clarifying€the€matter€and€the€remedy,€ifÏany,€that€may€have€been€taken€by€it;€ÌÌ(3)€That€any€explanations€or€statements€received€from€the€State€party€shall€be€communicatedÏby€the€Secretary„General€to€the€author,€under€rule€93€(3)€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedureÏof€the€Committee,€with€the€request€that€any€comments€which€the€author€may€wish€to€submitÐ @-(, Ðthereon€should€reach€the€Human€Rights€Committee€in€care€of€the€Ô_ÔCentreÔ_Ô€for€Human€Rights,ÏUnited€Nations€Office€at€Geneva,€within€six€weeks€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal;€Ð ÐÐ Ð(4)€That€the€author€shall€be€requested€to€furnish,€within€six€weeks€of€the€date€of€theÏtransmittal€to€her€of€this€decision,€any€additional€factual€information€in€regard€to€theÏcommunication,€and€in€particular€to€specify€more€precisely€the€respects€in€which€she€allegesÏthat€the€rights€under€article€23€of€the€Covenant€to.€protection€of€the€family,€the€rightsÏguaranteed€under€article€27€to€persons€belonging€to€minorities€with€regard€to€culture,€religionÏor€language,€and€any€other€rights€under€the€Covenant,'have€been€violated€in€her€case€and€theÏsteps,€if€any,€which€she€has€taken€to€enable€her€to€enjoy€those€rights€in€practice€(see€paras.Ï4.5€and€5.2€above);€ÌÌ(5)€Any€information€received€from€the€author€pursuant€to€paragraph€4€above€shall€beÏtransmitted€to€the€State€party€to€enable€it€to€take€that€information€into€account€in€theÏpreparation€of€its€submission€under€article€4€(2)€of€the€Covenant;€ÌÌ(6)€That€this€decision€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€the€author€of€theÏcommunication.€ÌÌ*€*€*€ÌÌòòAt€its€twenty„sixth€session,€the€Committee€closed€itsóó€òòexamination€of€communication€No.Ð  \ Ð94112€following€aóó€òòletter€of€31€July€1985€by€the€author€withdrawing€theóó€òòcommunication€inÐ øH Ðview€of€the€abrogation€of€article€12óó€(1)€(b)€òòof€the€Indian€Act.€See€in€this€connection€Ô_ÔHRCÔ_ÔóóÐ ä4 Ðòò1983€report,€pp.€249€óóet€seq.€Ð Ð  ÐññÓ  Óß~€ J:6x \%@€@XEÜl%Ìl2!~ßññÌññÓ  ÓÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%†5Ôññ*ññ/ññññ€€ññ€Not€previously€published€in€the€annual€report€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.€Ìñ ñÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔSà p ÀÔÓ SÓÝ  ÝÝ‚ÿÿÿ-6ÝÝ  Ýñ ññ ñÌñ ññ ñòòÔ% ‡ ÔÔ%† 6Ôñ ñ1ñ ñ/€€ñ ññ ñóóñ ñ€Views€adopted€on€30€July€1981,€òòSelected€Decisions€óó...€I€Vol.€1,€pp.€83„87.€Ð €Ð ÐññÓ  ÓññÌ