ÿWPC  mM¿Ë‰° ø´V,ŸÞØ`;x .¥VZ¤AçÔÐ\œ-h5êSº-i’{}\ËÕª¿IÒÅûiªs þùveT­:ëüÕEr®kè„­tÖÆ¬Èj“Ì>Gß I ­ÐH¯‰É¼$ß6«—ñ2/ìKÊ•fJ–=–(ãD¼¯¥ºÎšKÅI"Z‰og ™Øøh‹á>zJ¨  Í aÔî‹ÃÅdCƒ·šðèE«*:ÇhÐ!¬âŸJ(9 .ÓêŸÂ¾Ä'9-flK°n…wø:…–Ò òÎWxªO -øø(({™ø÷;f ý7RìŒS_÷>r}¥»5-7Hcü»8 {ŠJ÷UÝÒçƒ(ÉLãÞvŸuQc.i a0]æ¨7LAš0ÄU×`‘) ¬Ì‹>÷5G=2YïÔ_F÷[•¹U1w*KŠú¡•Àúê(Wýp]È2hÓsaÖl¥ý¦¹Q\‰pUáÑfo¾ÅÝÆ–Ä£‚ùd©DùQÁõ0šíDiÀ]iWŸBt6d#ïÅ©œå,G‡ˆý͹z€’°”MÐR´yPþÇ ©øLÀ“ˆ*îÎVGÕףJÏUÏëh_ rЪ‚6 Z#!ìUN  %[ 0:a^ ›w§4½Ñà mâââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ Bù˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ôu;)Æ£U£as()¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòZ.€P.€v.€CanadaóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€341/1988ÌÌ11€April€1991ÌÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/41/D/341/1988*ÌÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€€Z.€P.€€(name€deleted)Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorÐ pÀ ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€CanadaÐ H˜ ÐòòÌDate€of€communicationóó:€12€April€1988€(date€of€initial€letter)óóÐ  p ÐÌÌòòññÓ  ÓññThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ ä4 Ðand€Political€Rights,ÌÌòòMeetingóó€on€11€April€1991,Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð €Ð ÐÌÌññÓ9ÓññòòññÓ  Óññò òññÓ  ÓññDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ D!” ÐññÓ,ÓññññÓzÓÓÓññÌÌ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€(first€submission€dated€12€April€1988€and€subsequentÏcorrespondence)€is€Z.€P.,€a€Yugoslav€citizen€formerly€residing€and€employed€in€Montreal,€Canada,Ïat€present€residing€in€Yugoslavia.€€He€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€his€human€rights€byÏCanada.€€Although€he€does€not€specifically€invoke€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÏRights,€it€appears€from€his€submissions€that€his€allegations€relate€to€articles€9€and€14€of€theÏCovenant.€ÌÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÌ2.1€€The€author,€a€technician€in€civil€engineering,€lived€in€Canada€from€September€1970€to€DecemberÏ1981,€and€was€employed€with€a€Montreal€engineering€company€as€an€industrial€draftsman.€€InÐ @-(, ÐDecember€1981,€he€was€deported€to€Yugoslavia.ÌÌ2.2€€The€author€was€accused€of€having€raped,€in€1978€and€1979€respectively,€two€Canadian€women,ÏF.€B.€and€H.€R.€€On€30€April€1979,€he€was€sentenced€to€three€yearsðð€imprisonment€for€the€rape€of€F.ÏB.€and€on€26€March€1980,€he€was€sentenced€to€seven€yearsðð€imprisonment€for€the€rape€of€H.€R.€€InÏboth€instances,€Z.€P.€claimed€to€be€innocent€of€the€charges.ÌÌ2.3€€In€the€case€of€F.€B.,€the€author€was€formally€charged€with€rape€by€the€Montreal€UrbanÏCommunity€Police€on€11€July€1978.€€Z.€P.€was€assigned€to€a€legal€representative,€Ô_ÔMað3ðtreÔ_Ô€J.€C.,€andÏasked€for€a€trial€by€jury.€On€20€December€1978,€he€instead€opted€for€a€trial€before€a€single€judge.€ÏHis€trial€started€before€the€Montreal€Court€of€Assizes€(Ô_ÔCourÔ_Ô€des€Sessions€de€la€Ô_ÔPaixÔ_Ô)€on€29€MarchÏ1979.€€On€10€April€1979€he€was€found€guilty€as€charged€and€the€sentence€was€pronounced€on€30ÏApril€1979.€€On€8€May€1979,€Z.€P.€applied€for€leave€to€appeal€against€his€conviction€to€the€QubecÏCourt€of€Appeal;€two€days€later,€the€Court€of€Appeal€granted€leave€to€appeal.€€On€21€March€1980,Ïthe€transcript€of€the€proceedings€and€the€evidence€before€the€court€of€first€instance€were€submittedÏto€the€Court€of€Appeal,€which€heard€the€appeal€on€19€January€1981€and€dismissed€it€on€13€FebruaryÏ1981.€€On€13€March€1981,€Z.€P.€sought€leave€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada;€theÏSupreme€Court€refused€leave€to€appeal€on€22€June€1981.ÌÌ2.4€€In€the€case€of€H.€R.,€the€author€was€arrested€on€25€March€1979€and€charged€with€rape€theÏfollowing€day,€i.e.,€three€days€before€the€beginning€of€his€trial€on€the€case€of€F.€B.€€Z.€P.€wasÏrepresented€by€the€same€lawyer€who€defended€him€in€the€case€of€F.€B.,€and€he€again€initially€askedÏfor€a€trial€by€jury.€€On€23€April€1979,€he€changed€his€mind€and€opted€for€a€trial€before€a€single€judge;Ïa€trial€òòin€cameraóó€was€ordered€at€the€request€of€the€prosecutor.€€On€26€April€1979,€the€authorððs€lawyer,Ð ä4 ÐÔ_ÔMað3ðtreÔ_Ô€J.€C.,€asked€to€be€removed€from€the€case€relating€to€the€rape€of€H.€R.,€and€several€lawyersÏhandled€later€stages€of€the€case.ÌÌ2.5€€On€15€November€1979,€Z€.P.€applied€for€permission€to€assume€his€own€representation€andÏentered€a€plea€of€not€guilty.€€A€lawyer€representing€the€Yugoslav€Embassy€in€Canada€acted€as€hisÏcounsel.€€The€case€was€heard€between€15€November€1979€and€28€February€1980;€on€29€FebruaryÏ1980,€Z.€P.€was€found€guilty€as€charged;€sentence€was€passed€on€26€March€1980.€€On€16€May€1980,Ïthe€author€filed€a€formal€notice€of€application€for€permission€to€appeal€against€conviction€andÏrequested€an€extension€of€the€deadline€as€well€as€a€judicial€review.€€His€case€was€heard€on€15ÏSeptember€1980€and€dismissed€on€26€September€1980.€€The€author€then€sought€leave€to€appeal€toÏthe€Supreme€Court€but€his€petition€was€denied€on€22€June€1981.ÌÌòòThe€complaintóóÐ à%0!$ ÐÌ3.1€€The€author€claims€that€he€did€not€have€a€fair€trial€in€either€of€the€criminal€cases€against€him,€andÏmaintains€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€re„trial€before€the€Canadian€courts.ÌÌ3.2€€In€respect€to€the€first€rape€charge,€the€author€alleges€that:ÌÌ(a)€€He€was€found€guilty€in€the€absence€of€conclusive€evidence€against€him;ÌÐ @-(, Ð(b)€€The€trial€judge€was€wrong€to€admit€as€evidence€testimony€concerning€a€similar€act€involving€H.ÏR.,€the€victim€of€the€second€rape€charge;ÌÌ(c)€€The€trial€judge€was€wrong€to€admit€as€evidence€contradictory€statements€made€by€the€victim;ÌÌ(d)€€The€trial€judge€wrongly€interpreted€the€authorððs€words€addressed€to€F.€B.€as€threats€against€her;ÌÌ(e)€€The€judges€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€similarly€failed€to€see€that€the€words€deemed€as€threats€againstÏF.€B.€could€not€be€used€as€evidence€against€him,€since€Ô_ÔF.B.Ô_Ô€was€no€longer€able€to€tell€the€court€theÏcontent€of€the€presumed€threats;ÌÌ(f)€€Both€the€trial€judge€and€the€judges€on€the€Court€of€Appeal€were€wrong€to€admit€as€evidenceÏtestimony€of€a€friend€of€F.€B.,€who€merely€told€the€court€that€she€had€been€informed€that€F.€B.€hadÏbeen€raped;ÌÌ(g)€€Both€the€court€of€first€instance€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€should€have€provided€him€with€anÏinterpreter,€because€of€his€insufficient€mastery€of€English€and€French;ÌÌ(h)€€The€trial€judge,€at€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€effectively€acted€as€a€ð ðdefence€lawyerðð€for€F.€B.,Ïfinding€the€author€guilty€on€the€basis€of€mere€ð ðsuppositionsðð.ÌÌ3.3€€In€respect€of€the€second€rape€charge,€the€author€alleges€that:ÌÌ(a)€€He€was€framed€by€the€police,€who€arrested€him€within€a€minute€after€H.€R.€left€his€apartment.€ÏHe€adds€in€this€context€that€the€police€had€already€arrived€in€front€of€the€building€when€H.€R.€left€hisÏflat;ÌÌ(b)€€He€was€arrested€for€assault€but€later€charged€formally€with€a€different€offence,€namely€rape;ÌÌ(c)€€The€trial€judge€was€wrong€to€admit€as€evidence€a€number€of€contradictory€statements€made€byÏH.€R.;ÌÌ(d)€€The€trial€judge€first€misinterpreted€and€subsequently€misused€a€statement€given€by€H.€R.€to€theÏeffect€that€the€author€had€used€a€pretext€to€lure€her€into€his€apartment;ÌÌ(e)€€The€trial€judge€was€wrong€to€admit€as€evidence€contradictory€statements€made€by€the€arrestingÏofficer€and€the€doctor€who€examined€H.€R.€after€the€offence,€once€their€evidence€had€been€comparedÏwith€that€of€H.€R.;ÌÌ(f)€€Both€the€court€of€first€instance€and€the€Court€of€Appeal€should€have€provided€him€with€anÏinterpreter,€because€of€his€insufficient€mastery€of€English€and€French;ÌÌ(g)€€The€Montreal€Office€of€Legal€Aid€wrongly€refused€to€provide€him€with€the€assistance€of€a€lawyerÏduring€the€trial€and€for€purposes€of€preparing€the€appeal;ÌÐ @-(, Ð(h)€€The€trial€judge€wrongly€accepted€as€evidence€testimony€about€a€similar€act€involving€F.€B.,€theÏalleged€victim€of€the€first€rape€offence;ÌÌ(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€€He€did€not€have€all€the€court€transcripts€in€his€possession,€which€should€have€been€madeÏavailable€to€him€free€of€charge;ÌÌ(j)€€The€trial€judge€refused€to€allow€him€to€be€tried€in€a€public€hearing€before€a€jury.ÌÌòòThe€State€partyððs€observationsóóÐ  ` ÐññÌññ4.1€€The€State€party€submits€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€articles€1,€2€and€3€of€theÏOptional€Protocol.€€It€contends€that€Z.€P.€did€not€sufficiently€support€his€allegations€with€facts€toÏestablish€òòprima€facieóó€violations€of€the€Covenant€and€that€his€claims,€referring€merely€to€violationsÐ À  Ðof€ð ðthe€law€of€Canada€and€the€Human€Rightsðð,€do€not€meet€the€admissibility€criteria€of€article€2€ofÏthe€Optional€Protocol.€€It€further€points€out€that€the€author€in€effect€seeks€a€review€of€the€evaluationÏof€facts€and€evidence€before€the€Canadian€courts,€and€adds,€with€reference€to€the€CommitteeððsÏjurisprudence,€that€the€Committee€is€not€competent€to€review€findings€of€fact€made€by€nationalÏtribunals.€€To€this€extent,€therefore,€the€State€party€considers€the€communication€to€be€inadmissibleÏas€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€ÌÌ4.2€€In€respect€of€the€authorððs€trial€in€the€case€of€F.€B.,€the€State€party€notes€that€virtually€all€of€theÏauthorððs€claims€raise€issues€of€fact€and€evidence.€€Only€his€claim€that€the€courts€did€not€provide€himÏwith€an€interpreter€might€conceivably€raise€issues€under€article€14,€paragraph€3€(f),€of€the€Covenant.€ÏThe€State€party€affirms,€however,€that€the€author€failed€to€support€this€allegation€adequately.€€It€notesÏthat€he€could€have€requested€the€assistance€of€an€interpreter,€or€that€his€lawyer€could€have€made€suchÏa€request€on€his€behalf;€however,€the€records€of€both€trials€show€that€no€request€for€an€interpreter€wasÏmade.€€Moreover,€the€court€records€reveal€that€the€author€was€perfectly€able€to€follow€theÏproceedings€and€to€express€himself€in€English€and/or€in€French.ÌÌ4.3€€In€respect€of€the€trial€case€of€H.€R.,€the€State€party€reiterates€its€arguments€laid€out€in€paragraphÏ4.2€above€in€as€much€as€the€authorððs€claim€about€the€absence€of€an€interpreter€is€concerned.€€As€toÏhis€claim€concerning€the€lack€of€legal€assistance€during€the€second€trial,€the€State€party€points€outÏthat€the€author€asked€to€defend€himself€during€his€trial€in€the€court€of€first€instance;€furthermore,€theÏrecords€reveal€that€Z.€P.€was€advised€by€a€lawyer€by€virtue€of€a€legal€aid€order€and€that,€accordingly,Ïhe€was€given€legal€assistance€in€accordance€with€the€Legal€Aid€Act.€€The€State€party€thereforeÏconcludes€that€the€author€is€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€arguing€that€he€had€to€defend€himself.ÌÌ4.4€€As€to€the€issue€of€legal€assistance€for€purposes€of€the€appeal€in€the€second€trial,€the€State€partyÏexplains€that€the€authorððs€request€for€legal€aid€was€refused€in€the€light€of€the€representations€he€madeÏto€the€Legal€Aid€Board,€the€evidence€presented€during€the€trial€and€the€verdict€of€the€court€of€firstÏinstance.€€Since€the€author€did€not€present€any€facts€to€the€effect€that€he€had€any€arguable€groundsÏof€appeal,€the€Board€concluded€that€he€was€not€entitled€under€the€Legal€Aid€Act€to€receive€such€aidÏfor€the€purpose€for€which€he€had€requested€it.€€The€State€party€adds€that€article€14,€paragraph€3€(d),Ïdoes€not€require€a€hearing€in€the€physical€presence€of€the€applicant€in€order€to€determine€his€legalÏaid€entitlements;€in€the€authorððs€case,€a€telephone€conversation€sufficed.Ð @-(, Ї4.5€€In€respect€of€the€claim€that€the€author€was€unable€adequately€to€prepare€his€defence€owing€to€theÏalleged€unavailability€of€relevant€court€documents,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€author€is€merelyÏcomplaining€of€his€own€omission.€€In€fact,€by€letter€dated€31€August€1981€drafted€in€adequateÏFrench,€after€he€had€exhausted€his€domestic€remedies,€Z.€P.€expressed€interest€in€obtaining€copiesÏof€the€court€transcripts€and€the€court€tapes.€€The€State€party€submits€that€if€the€author€had€consideredÏit€essential€for€his€defence€to€be€in€possession€of€the€transcripts,€it€was€his€responsibility€to€requestÏthem.ÌÌ4.6€€With€regard€to€the€authorððs€claim€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€public€trial€before€a€jury,€the€StateÏparty€notes€that€Z.€P.€himself,€on€23€April€1979,€opted€for€a€trial€before€a€single€judge.€€Furthermore,Ïit€point€out€that€article€14,€paragraph€1,€stipulates€that€the€public€may€be€excluded€from€all€or€partÏof€a€trial€for€reasons€of€morals€„€a€request€frequently€made€and€granted€in€sexual€abuse€cases€„€andÏsubmits€that€the€author€has€failed€to€adduce€a€single€argument€in€favour€of€a€public€trial.ÌÌ4.7€€Finally,€in€respect€of€the€allegation€that€there€was€a€contradiction€between€the€charge€against€theÏauthor€at€the€time€of€the€arrest€and€the€charge€under€which€he€was€tried,€the€State€party€submits€thatÏboth€articles€9,€paragraph€2,€and€14,€paragraph€3(a),€were€complied€with,€since€what€matters€for€legalÏqualification€of€the€offence€is€the€information€contained€in€the€police€report€prepared€after€the€arrest.€ÏBoth€the€application€to€institute€proceedings€against€Z.€P.,€dated€25€March€1979€(the€day€of€theÏarrest),€and€the€written€information€submitted€to€the€judge€on€26€March€1979€refer€to€a€rape€charge.€ÌÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€CommitteeóóÐ  \ ÐÌ5.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÏmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€determine€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÏunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.ÌÌ5.2€€The€Committee€notes€that€many€of€the€authorððs€allegations,€both€in€connection€with€the€case€ofÏF.€B.€and€H.€R.,€relate€to€the€evaluation€of€facts€and€evidence€by€the€trial€judge.€€The€CommitteeÏobserves€that€it€is€generally€for€the€appellate€courts€of€States€parties€to€the€Covenant€and€not€for€theÏCommittee€to€evaluate€the€facts€and€evidence€placed€before€domestic€courts€and€to€review€theÏinterpretation€of€domestic€law€by€national€courts.€€Similarly,€it€is€for€the€appellate€courts€and€not€forÏthe€Committee€to€review€alleged€errors€by€the€judge€in€the€conduct€of€a€trial,€unless€it€is€apparentÏfrom€the€authorððs€submission€that€the€conduct€of€the€trial€was€clearly€arbitrary€or€tantamount€to€aÏdenial€of€justice,€or€that€the€judge€manifestly€violated€his€obligation€of€impartiality.€€The€author€hasÏnot€shown€that€the€conduct€of€the€trials€in€question€suffered€from€such€defects.€€In€this€respect,Ïtherefore,€the€authorððs€claims€of€unfair€trials€do€not€come€within€the€competence€of€the€CommitteeÏand,€in€that€sense,€fall€outside€the€scope€of€protection€provided€by€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€theÏCovenant.€€Accordingly,€this€part€of€the€communication€is€inadmissible€as€incompatible€with€theÏprovisions€of€the€Covenant,€pursuant€to€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.ÌÌ5.3€€With€respect€to€the€claim€that€the€author€was€denied€the€services€of€an€interpreter,€theÏCommittee€finds€that€Z.€P.€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€claim€sufficiently,€for€purposes€ofÏadmissibility.€€The€material€before€the€Committee€shows€that€the€author€could€express€himself€inÏadequate€English€and€French,€and€that€he€did€not€apply€for€an€interpreter€during€the€trial.€€TheÐ @-(, ÐCommittee€reaffirms€in€this€context€that€the€requirement€of€a€fair€hearing€does€not€obligate€StatesÏparties€to€make€the€services€of€an€interpreter€available€òòex€officioóó€or€upon€application€to€a€personÐ œì Ðwhose€mother€tongue€differs€from€the€official€court€language,€if€the€person€is€capable€of€expressingÏhimself€adequately€in€the€official€language.€€òò1óó/Ð tÄ ÐÌ5.4€€In€respect€of€the€claim€that€the€author€was€refused€legal€aid€for€his€appeal€in€the€case€concerningÏH.€R.,€the€case€file€reveals€that€the€Montreal€Legal€Aid€Board€did€examine€the€authorððs€request,€butÏconcluded€that€the€interests€of€justice€did€not€require€the€assignment€of€legal€aid.€€Accordingly,€theÏauthor€has€not€sufficiently€substantiated€his€allegation,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€and€this€partÏof€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.ÌÌ5.5€€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€3(b),€the€Committee€notes€that€the€first€timeÏthe€author€complained€about€the€unavailability€of€the€trial€transcript€was€over€two€months€after€beingÏdenied€leave€to€appeal€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€In€the€circumstances,€he€is€Ô_ÔestoppedÔ_Ô€from€invokingÏan€òòex€Ô_ÔpostoÔ_Ô€factoóó€violation€on€his€right€to€adequate€time€and€facilities€for€the€preparation€of€hisÐ ˜è  Ðdefence.€€The€Committee€concludes€that€this€part€of€the€communication€is€inadmissible€as€an€abuseÏof€the€right€of€submission€pursuant€to€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.ÌÌ5.6€€Finally,€with€regard€to€the€claims€of€a€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€1€(entitlement€to€a€publicÏhearing),€and€article€9,€paragraph€2,€the€author€has€not€sufficiently€substantiated€his€allegation,€forÏthe€purposes€of€admissibility,€and€this€part€of€the€communication€is€also€inadmissible€under€articleÏ2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.ÌÌ6.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:ÌÌ(a)€€The€communication€is€inadmissible€under€articles€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€;ÌÌ(b)€€This€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€author€of€the€communication.ÌÌÌ________________Ìà  àÌà  àòò*óó/€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àòò1óó/€€See€views€in€communication€No.€219/1986,€para.€10.2,€(Ô_ÔGuesdonÔ_Ô€v.€France),€adopted€onÐ $X" Ð25€July€1990.ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔññÓ9Óññ