ÿWPC 4h‡—Ø™«W·ˆOi²yX¶Ý¸È–  ìÕxªéI=¨¢òIPËnGþãx]Žª¬åÆ'9í¿¹G#“Ÿ·Ì€ˆSŸa†ÞªÔ–Âîý=1 êYÜ'—šuGa™gƒi¿ŠCéF êjumSx±ˆoø" µ.:ºK¤ò1Ñ(Ÿ‘, ´@2‰ç„¶'•f!G5 H샡¯k0^ëûÍÿ˜”7–LâÃÙ†·¿d2°ûŠ ­——!ö¶«°S moj+0¶=VÁØŽÖ¦™h»KˆÆC5×À{li¬·!Îu’ÂÁ#šžzÐ÷jƒé!ù!¾½Èßúýv΃†Š—4ŸÃ{L²E{xÂ`Ã?ÒFlžU’i®Ç4.»pm¡»­?Knò5Öt4Ü]kZ2uaÿ¾¤CT'³x¾Zú, Ú98Ülb°ýÙ›†ãöOˆE¨iß¶»¤=/éÊuÜå.z‚:"»|B&ÖÜÜ!×§ªSºjí6¿Þ•›Oý?5ã¼l¼ güžÚëQøuÞùöô òsm ûÌâMÃÄÿ%â—mzFRQÚT(03R5¼¼x©F/¨bÛ; .ûm:…£Á¤Ê£ÎK<U>–ÌÔ 0µ  0<U 0Y‘ 0_ê 0iIƲ 0áx 0(Y D+ AM¬ ¬ ¬ ù 0N 0ÆW #Á UNÞ %,M2(6N^^ `wl4p„ m†ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' J. R. T. and the W. G. Party v. Canada, Communication No. 112/1981 (6 April 1983), U.N. Do4 April 1983), U.N. Do"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(¹2ÚV$££Ý ƒtÈ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xñ¯XXXÔÔ€Xñ¯XXXñ¯ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(žtÈ$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xé[XXXÔÔ€Xé[XXXé[ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX‰<) è’.)À€ŸÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒtÈ!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xñ¯XXXÔÔ€Xñ¯XXXñ¯ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòY.€L.€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€112/1981Ð H˜ ÐÌ8€April€1986Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Y.€L.€on€7€December€1981Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€Canada€Ð ` ÐÌòòDeclared€inadmissibleóó:€8€April€1986€(twenty„seventh€session)*/€óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òòòDecision€on€Admissibilityóóó óÐ ŽÞ ÐÓ¨ÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€7€December€1981€and€further€lettersÐ @ Ðdated€26€June€1982,€27€February€1983,€10€June€1983,€13,€14,€19€and€20€June€1984,€9Ð &v ÐDecember€1984,€6€and€30€January€1985,€8€and€14€February€1985€and€27€May€1985),€Y.€L.,Ð  \ Ðis€a€Canadian€citizen,€living€at€present€in€Cowansville,€Province€of€Quebec,€Canada,€allegingÐ òB Ðthat€he€is€a€victim€of€a€breach€by€Canada€of€articles€14,€paragraph€1,€and€26€of€theÐ Ø( ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€main€facts€underlying€the€author'sÐ ¾ Ðclaims€are€as€follows:€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ2.1.€On€I€July€1967,€at€the€age€of€36,€the€author€was€dismissed€from€the€Canadian€Army€afterÐ p!À  Ð19€years€of€service.€The€competent€authorities€alleged€that€he€suffered€from€mentalÐ V"¦! Ðdisorders.€Requests€by€the€author€for€more€specific€information€about€the€medical€diagnosisÐ <#Œ" Ðwere€repeatedly€declined€by€the€Army.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.2.€Even€before€he€had€been€officially€discharged,€the€author€.€applied€for€"disability"Ð î%>!% Ðpension.€The€Canadian€Pension€Commission€rejected€this€request€by€a€decision€of€17€JulyÐ Ô&$"& Ð1967.€The€Commission€held€that€the€author's€disability€neither€arose€out€of,€nor€was€directlyÐ º' #' Ðconnected€with,€his€military€service,€as€required€by€the€Pension€Act€(1952).€On€appeal,€thisÐ  (ð#( Ðdecision€was€confirmed€on€31€March€1969.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ2.3.€After€the€Pension€Act€was€amended€in€1971,€the€author€renewed€his€request€for€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðpension.€Again,€he€was€unsuccessful.€Two€consecutive€applications€to€the€Canadian€PensionÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCommission€were€rejected.€As€a€next€step€in€the€proceedings,€the€author€applied€to€anÐ -n(- ÐEntitlement€Board€of€the€Commission,€which,€on€9€November€1977,€also€gave€a€negativeÐ ° Ðdecision.€Finally,€the€author€appealed€to€the€Pension€Review€Board,€which,€after€a€hearingÐ –æ Ðon€10€July€1979,€confirmed€the€earlier€rulings€in€its€decision€of€15€August€1979.€The€author,Ð |Ì Ðwho€had€been€represented€before€the€Pension€Review€Board€by€Maitre€R.€A.€Ô_ÔPinsonnaultÔ_Ô,Ð b² ÐÔ_Ôc.r.Ô_Ô,€a€member€of€the€Bureau€of€Pensions€Advocates€(a€government€agency€made€up€of€civilÐ H˜ Ðservants),€was€not€provided€with€a€copy€of€the€Board's€decision.€Instead,€as€the€State€partyÐ . ~ Ðexplained,€a€copy€was€transmitted€to€his€lawyer€with€the€indication€that€it€was€up€to€him€toÐ  d Ðdecide€whether€he€should€show€the€text€to€his€client.€The€author€did€not€receive€the€full€textÐ ú J Ðof€the€decision€until€January€1983.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ2.4.€Since€the€author€had€never€had€access€to€his€medical€records,€he€asked€to€be€providedÐ ¬ ü  Ðwith€all€relevant€information€after€his€appeal€had€been€definitively€rejected.€On€7€DecemberÐ ’â  Ð1979,€270€pages€of€documents€were€sent€to€him.€However,€the€relevant€medical€informationÐ xÈ  Ðhad€been€excluded.€Some€elements€of€the€medical€file€were€later€made€available€to€theÐ ^®  Ðauthor€in€January€1983,€after€he€had€submitted€the€communication€to€the€Human€RightsÐ D”  ÐCommittee.€To€date,€however,€the€author€has€not€had€the€opportunity€to€see€his€medicalÐ *z  Ðdossier€in€its€entirety.€All€his€applications€to€that€effect€were€unsuccessful.€Ð ` ÐÌ3.1.€The€author€now€challenges€the€proceedings€that€took€place€before€the€Pension€ReviewÐ Ü, ÐBoard€as€violating€guarantees€under€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€He€maintainsÐ Â Ðthat€for€several€reasons€he€was€not€grantees€"a€fair€public€hearing€by€a€competent,Ð ¨ø Ðindependent€and€impartial€tribunal"€in€the€sense€contemplated€by€that€provision.€He€claimsÐ ŽÞ Ðthat,€first€of€all,€he€should€have€been€informed€in€detail€of€the€exact€nature€of€the€mentalÐ tÄ Ðdisease€from€which€he€was€alleged€to€be€suffering.€In€addition,€he€states€that€he€was€notÐ Zª Ðallowed€to€attend€the€hearing€before€the€Board.€His€lawyer,€who€had€been€appointed€and€paidÐ @ Ðby€the€Canadian€Government,€also€refused€to€discuss€fully€with€the€author€the€medicalÐ &v Ðaspects€of€the€case.€Finally,€the€author€asserts€that€the€Board€does€not€qualify€as€anÐ  \ Ðindependent€and€impartial€tribune€I€since€it€is€made€up€of€civil€servants€of€the€executiveÐ òB Ðbranch€of€government.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ3.2.€The€author€claims€that€the€refusal€to€grant€him€access€to€his€medical€file€amounts€to€aÐ ¤ô Ðviolation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.€The€Canadian€Government€requests€that€the€communication€be€declared€inadmissible.€AsÐ V"¦! Ðfar€as€the€proceedings€before€the€Pension€Review€Board€are€concerned,€it€contends€primarilyÐ <#Œ" Ðthat€the€complaints€of€the€author€are€outside€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_ÔÐ "$r# ÐÔ_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ô€óóbecause€those€proceedings€did€not€constitute€a€"suit€at€law"€as€envisaged€underÐ %X $ Ðarticle€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€In€addition,€and€also€with€regard€to€the€allegedÐ î%>!% Ðviolation€of€a€right€to€access€to€the€complete€personal€dossier,€it€claims€that€domesticÐ Ô&$"& Ðremedies€have€not€been€exhausted.€It€states€that€the€decision€of€the€Pension€Review€BoardÐ º' #' Ðcould€have€been€challenged€before€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal,€under€article€28€(1)€of€theÐ  (ð#( ÐFederal€Court€Act.€Finally€the€Government€rejects€as€unfounded€the€author's€objections€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€proceedings€before€the€Pension€Review€Board.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ5.€The€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€meeting€during€the€Committee'sÐ 8,ˆ', Ðtwenty„third€session€on€9€November€1984,€considered€that,€despite€the€detailed€informationÐ -n(- Ðprovided€by€the€author€and€by€the€State€party,€the€Committee€did€not€yet€have€at€its€disposalÐ ° Ðall€the€legal€and€factual€elements€required€for€its€decision€on€the€admissibility€of€theÐ –æ Ðcommunication.€In€particular,€it€considered€that€the€decision€might€require€a€finding€as€toÐ |Ì Ðwhether€the€claim€which€the€author€pursued,€in€the€last€instance€before€the€Pension€ReviewÐ b² ÐBoard€vas€a€"suit€at€law"€within€the€meaning€of€article€14€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€TheÐ H˜ ÐWorking€Group€of€the€Committee€therefore€requested€the€author€and€the€State€party€toÐ . ~ Ðrespond€to€the€best€of€their€abilities,€to€the€following€questions:€Ð  d ÐÌ(a)€How€does€Canadian€domestic€law€classify€the€relationship€beòòtween€a€member€of€theÐ à 0 ÐArmy€and€the€Canadian€State?€Are€the€rightsóó€òòand€obligations€deriving€from€such€aÐ Æ   Ðrelationship€considered€to€beóó€òòcivil€rights€and€obligations€or€rights€and€obligations€underÐ ¬ ü  Ðpublic€law?óó€Ð ’â  ÐÌòò(b)Are€there€different€categories€of€civil€servants?€Does€Canadaóó€òòmake€a€distinction€betweenÐ ^®  Ða€statutory€regime€(under€public€law)€andóó€òòa€contractual€regime€(under€civil€law)?óó€Ð D”  ÐÌòò(c)€Is€there€a€distinction,€in€Canadian€domestic€law,€between€persons€employed€by€privateÐ ` Ðemployers€under€a€Ô_ÔlabourÔ_Ô€contract€and€persons€employed€by€the€Government?óó€Ð öF ÐÌ(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€òòHas€anyóó€òòdecisionóó€òòthe€Pension€Review€Board€ever€beenóó€òòchallenged€before€the€FederalÐ Â ÐCourt€of€Appeal?óó€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€òòWhat€has€been€the€outcome€of€such€proceedings,€if€any?óó€Ð tÄ ÐÌ(iii)€òòDo€decisions€rendered€by€the€Pension€Review€Board€explicitly€mention€that€they€mayÐ @ Ðbe€challenged€before€theóó€òòFederal€Court€of€Appeal?óó€Ð &v ÐÌ(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô€v)€òòDid€the€decision€of€the€Pension€Review€Board€of€15€Augustóó€òò1979€in€the€present€caseÐ òB Ðcontain€such€an€indication?óó€Ð Ø( ÐÌ(v)€òòDid€the€counsel€appointed€by€the€Government€of€Canadaóó€òòto€protect€the€author's€interestsÐ ¤ô Ðknow€that€the€remedy€provided€for€in€article€28€(1)€of€the€Federal€Court€Act€could€beóóÐ Š Ú Ðòòresorted€to€in€the€proceedings€under€consideration?óó€Ð p!À  ÐÌ6.1.€In€its€submission€of€22€January€1985,€in€reply€to€the€Committee's€interim€decision,€theÐ <#Œ" ÐState€party€explained€that€within€the€Canadian€legal€system€the€relationship€between€aÐ "$r# Ðmember€of€the€armed€forces€and€the€Crown€was€classified€as€a€matter€of€public€law.€SoldiersÐ %X $ Ðwere€placed€under€a€statutory€regime€as€opposed€to€a€contractual€arrangement.€This€meant,Ð î%>!% Ðòòinteróó€òòalia,€óóthat€members€of€the€armed€forces€could€not€recover€their€pay€through€the€ordinaryÐ Ô&$"& Ðcourts.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ6.2.€In€regard€to€the€actual€exercise€of€the€remedy€ranted€under€article€28€(1)€of€the€FederalÐ †)Ö$) ÐCourt€Act,€the€State€party€points€out€that,€since€1970,€10€decisions€of€the€Pension€ReviewÐ l*¼%* ÐBoard€have€been€the€subject€of€applications€for€review.€Six€of€those€appeals€had€beenÐ R+¢&+ Ðreferred€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€in€1984€and€were€still€pending,€but€in€one€case€òò(WarÐ 8,ˆ', ÐAmputations€ofóó€òòCanada€v.€Pension€Review€Board€óó[1975]€C.F.€447)€a€decision€had€beenÐ -n(- Ðhanded€down€in€1975.€Ð ° ÐÌ6.3.€In€addition,€the€State€party€states€that€Maitre€R.€A.€Ô_ÔPinsonnaultÔ_Ô,€Ô_Ôc.r.Ô_Ô,€who€wasÐ |Ì Ðrepresenting€the€author€in€the€proceedings€before€the€Pension€Review€Board,€was€well€awareÐ b² Ðof€the€remedy€under€article€28€(1)€of€the€Federal€Court€Act.€As€to€the€reason€why€MaitreÐ H˜ ÐÔ_ÔPinsonnaultÔ_Ô€had€not€suggested€that€the€author€avail€himself€of€that€remedy,€the€State€partyÐ . ~ Ðpoints€out€that€the€members€of€the€Bureau€of€Pensions€Advocates€are€not€entitled€toÐ  d Ðrepresent€parties€before€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal.€Ð ú J ÐÌ7.1.€Responding€to€the€interim€decision€of€the€Committee,€the€author€transmitted€a€letterÐ Æ   Ðfrom€the€National€Defense€Headquarters,€dated€7€February€1985,€in€which€it€was€indicatedÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€the€rights€and€obligations€of€the€members€of€the€armed€forces€"relate€to€public€law€asÐ ’â  Ðopposed€to€private€civil€law".€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ7.2.€Concerning€the€remedy€provided€for€under€article€28€(1)€of€the€Federal€Court€Act,€theÐ D”  Ðauthor€furnished€the€Committee€with€the€letter€dated€15€August€1979,€by€which€the€PensionÐ *z  ÐReview€Board€itself€informed€him€of€the€outcome€of€the€proceedings€before€that€body.€AsÐ ` Ðto€the€legal€force€of€the€decision€of€òò15óó€August€1979€and€as€to€available€remedies,€the€letterÐ öF Ðcontained€a€paragraph€which€read€as€follows:€Ð Ü, ÐÌIt€is€to€be€noted€that€the€decisions€of€the€Board€are€final€and€enforceable€for€the€purposes€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Pension€Act.€However,€the€Pension€Review€Board€may,€if€new€facts€are€brought€to€itsÐ ŽÞ Ðattention€or€if€it€discovers€an€error€in€the€exposition€of€the€facts€or€in€the€interpretation€of€aÐ tÄ Ðrule€of€law,€quash€or€amend€that€decision.€Ð Zª ÐÌ7.3.€in€letters€which€the€author€received€from€Maitre€Ô_ÔPinsonnaultÔ_Ô€(dated€22€August€1979)€andÐ &v Ðwhich€his€lawyers€received€from€the€Chief€Pension€Advocate€of€the€Bureau€of€PensionsÐ  \ ÐAdvocates€(dated€17€September€1979)€after€the€final€decision€of€Pension€Review€Board,€noÐ òB Ðmention€was€made€of€the€possibility€of€an€appeal€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal.€Both€ofÐ Ø( Ðthese€letters€confined€themselves€to€discussing€the€possibilities€of€reopening€the€proceedingsÐ ¾ Ðbefore€the€Pension€Review€Board.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ8.€Before€considering€the€merits€of€any€claim€contained€in€a€communication,€the€HumanÐ p!À  ÐRights€Committee€must€determine€whether€the€communication€is€admissible€under€theÐ V"¦! ÐOptional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ9.€1.€With€regard€to€the€alleged€violation€of€the€guarantees€of€"a€fair€and€public€hearing€byÐ %X $ Ða€competent,€independent€and€impartial€tribunal€established€by€law",€contained€in€article€14,Ð î%>!% Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€it€is€correct€to€state€that€those€guarantees€are€limited€toÐ Ô&$"& Ðcriminal€proceedings€and€to€any€"suit€at€law".€The€latter€expression€is€formulated€differentlyÐ º' #' Ðin€the€various€language€texts€of€the€Covenant€and€each€and€every€one€of€those€texts€is,€underÐ  (ð#( Ðarticle€53,€equally€authentic.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÔ_ÔÌ9.2.€The€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpreparatoiresÔ_Ô€óódo€not€resolve€the€apparent€discrepancy€in€the€variousÐ R+¢&+ Ðlanguage€texts.€In€the€view€of€the€Committee,€the€concept€of€a€suit€at€law"€or€its€equivalentÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€the€other€language€texts€is€based€on€the€nature€of€the€right€in€question€rather€than€on€theÐ -n(- Ðstatus€of€one€of€the€parties€(governmental,€Ô_ÔparastatalÔ_Ô€or€autonomous€statutory€entities),€orÐ ° Ðelse€on€the€particular€forum€in€which€individual€legal€systems€may€provide€that€the€right€inÐ –æ Ðquestion€is€to€be€adjudicated€upon,€especially€in€common€law€systems€where€there€is€noÐ |Ì Ðinherent€difference€between€public€law€and€private€law,€and€where€the€courts€normallyÐ b² Ðexercise€control€over€the€proceedings€either€at€first€instance€or€on€appeal€specificallyÐ H˜ Ðprovided€by€statute€or€else€by€way€of€judicial€review.€In€this€regard,€each€communicationÐ . ~ Ðmust€be€examined€in€the€light€of€its€particular€features.€Ð  d ÐÌ9.3.€In€the€present€communication,€the€right€to€a€fair€hearing€in€relation€to€the€claim€for€aÐ à 0 Ðpension€by€the€author€must€be€looked€at€globally,€irrespective€o@€the€different€steps€whichÐ Æ   Ðthe€author€had€to€take€in€order€to€have€his€claim€for€a€pension€finally€adjudicated.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ9.4.€The€Committee€notes€that€the€author€pursued€his€claim€successively€before€the€CanadianÐ xÈ  ÐPension€Commission,€an€Entitlement€Board€of€the€Commission€and,€finally,€the€PensionÐ ^®  ÐReview€Board.€It€is€clear€from€the€observations€made€by€the€State€party€on€the€author'sÐ D”  Ðcommunication€that€the€Canadian€legal€system€subjects€the€proceedings€in€those€variousÐ *z  Ðbodies€to€judicial€supervision€and€control,€because€the€Federal€Court€Act€does€provide€theÐ ` Ðpossibility€of€judicial€review€in€unsuccessful€claims€of€this€nature.€It€would€be€hazardous€toÐ öF Ðspeculate€on€whether€that€Court€would€or€would€not€have,€first,€quashed€the€decision€of€theÐ Ü, ÐBoard€on€the€grounds€advanced€by€the€author€and,€secondly,€directed€the€Board€to€give€theÐ Â Ðauthor€a€fair€hearing€on€his€claim.€The€fact€that€the€author€was€not€advised€that€he€could€haveÐ ¨ø Ðresorted€to€judicial€review€is€irrelevant€in€determining€the€question€whether€the€claim€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðauthor€was€of€a€kind€subject€to€judicial€supervision€and€control.€It€has€not€been€claimed€byÐ tÄ Ðthe€author€that€this€remedy€would€not€have€complied€with€the€guarantees€provided€in€articleÐ Zª Ð14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€Nor€has€he€claimed€that€this€remedy€would€not€haveÐ @ Ðavailed€in€correcting€whatever€deficiencies€may€have€marked€the€hearing€of€his€case€beforeÐ &v Ðthe€lower€jurisdictions,€including€any€grievance€that€he€may€have€had€regarding€the€denialÐ  \ Ðof€access€to€his€medical€file.€Ð òB ÐÌ9.5.€In€the€view€of€the€Committee,€therefore,€it€would€appear€that€the€Canadian€legal€systemÐ ¾ Ðdoes€contain€provisions€in€the€Federal€Court€Act€to€ensure€to€the€author€the€right€to€a€fairÐ ¤ô Ðhearing€in€the€situation.€Consequently,€his€basic€allegations€do€not€reveal€the€possibility€ofÐ Š Ú Ðany€breach€of€the€Covenant.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ10.€The€Committee,€therefore,€concludes€that€the€author€has€no€claim€under€article€2€of€theÐ <#Œ" ÐOptional€Protocol€and€decides:€Ð "$r# ÐÌThe€communication€is€inadmissible.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ__________Ð º' #' Ð*/€€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€submitted€by€Committee€members€Bernhard€Ô_ÔGraefrathÔ_Ô,Ð  (ð#( ÐFausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ô€and€Christian€Ô_ÔTomuschatÔ_Ô€is€appended€to€the€present€decision.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌÌÓÓòòò òÓ  ÓAppendix€ó óóóÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÓ1IÓÓÓÐ -n(- Ðò òINDIVIDUAL€OPINIONó ó€Ð ° ÐÌòòSubmitted€by€Messrs.€Bernhard€Ô_ÔGraefrathÔ_Ô,€Fausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ô€and€Christian€Ô_ÔTomuschatÔ_ÔÐ |Ì Ðconcerning€the€admissibility€of€communication€No.€112/1981,€Y.€L.€v.€Canadaóó.€Ð b² ÐÌ1.€We€concur€in€the€view€expressed€by€the€majority€of€the€Committee€that€theÐ . ~ Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible.€But€we€do€not€share€the€reasons€on€which€that€view€is€based.€Ð  d ÐÌ2.€The€majority€view€stresses€in€paragraph€9.4€that€the€Canadian€legal€system,€in€accordanceÐ à 0 Ðwith€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€provides€sufficient€protection€for€a€claim€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€kind€pursued€by€the€author,€because€an€appeal€could€be€made€to€the€Federal€Court€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐAppeal.€However,€the€availability€of€this€legal€remedy€cannot€be€held€against€the€author.€InÐ ’â  Ðthe€letter€by€which€the€Pension€Review€Board€informed€the€author€of€its€decision€as€beingÐ xÈ  Ðfinal€and€enforceable,€no€mention€was€made€of€the€possibility€of€such€an€appeal€to€a€judicialÐ ^®  Ðbody.€Moreover,€the€lawyers€who€acted€for€the€author€and€who€are€civil€servants€specificallyÐ D”  Ðappointed€to€represent€claimants€before€the€Pension€Review€Board€did€not€advise€the€authorÐ *z  Ðaccordingly.€Under€these€circumstances,€Canada€is€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€asserting€that€either,Ð ` Ðprocedurally,€the€author€has€failed€to€exhaust€local€remedies€or€that,€substantively,€theÐ öF Ðrequisite€guarantees€under€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€have€been€complied€with.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ3.€However,€the€dispute€between€the€author€and€Canada€does€not€come€within€the€purviewÐ ¨ø Ðof€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌThe€guarantees€therein€contained€apply€to€the€determination€both€of€any€criminal€charge€andÐ Zª Ðof€rights€and€obligations€in€a€suit€at€law.€Whereas€this€phrase€in€its€English€and€RussianÐ @ Ðversions€refers€to€proceedings,€the€French€and€the€Spanish€texts€rely€on€the€nature€of€theÐ &v Ðright€or€obligation€which€constitutes€the€subject„matter€of€the€proceedings€concerned.€In€theÐ  \ Ðcircumstances€of€the€present€case,€there€is€no€need€to€clarify€the€common€meaning€to€beÐ òB Ðgiven€to€the€different€terms€used€in€the€various€languages€which,€under€article€53€of€theÐ Ø( ÐCovenant,€are€equally€authentic.€It€is€quite€clear€from€the€submissions€of€both€the€State€partyÐ ¾ Ðand€the€author€that€in€Canada€the€relationship€between€a€soldier,€whether€in€active€serviceÐ ¤ô Ðor€retired,€and€the€Crown€has€many€specific€features,€differing€essentially€from€a€Ô_ÔlabourÔ_ÔÐ Š Ú Ðcontract€under€Canadian€law.€In€addition,€it€has€emerged€that€the€Pension€Review€Board€isÐ p!À  Ðan€administrative€body€functioning€within€the€executive€branch€of€the€Government€ofÐ V"¦! ÐCanada,€lacking€the€quality€of€a€court.€Thus,€in€the€present€case,€neither€of€the€two€criteriaÐ <#Œ" Ðwhich€would€appear€to€determine€conjunctively€the€scope€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€theÐ "$r# ÐCovenant€is€met.€It€must€be€concluded,€therefore,€that€proceedings€before€the€PensionÐ %X $ ÐReview€Board,€initiated€with€a€view€to€claiming€pension€rights,€cannot€be€challenged€byÐ î%>!% Ðcontending€that€the€requirements€of€a€fair€hearing€as€laid€down€in€article€14,€paragraph€1,€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€Covenant€have€been€violated,€Ð º' #' ÐÌòòBernhard€Ô_ÔGraefrathÔ_Ôóó€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌòòFausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ôóó€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌòòChristian€Ô_ÔTomuschatÔ_Ôóó€Ð -n(- ÐÓqIÓ