ÿWPC¿ ¢~7•›‰iG–%Äêî§xŸ%G–%"ñ”¿pcžç¤µœê°ë¸€ä8SíÕË V¢šÀ»6…»ÞÒš­×Ç"~ÚÒòú+“=°E¥m¸.Û$®IÀp8v6Y¤'Ñô‡;g¹ZT¹¿ 1 }¤ñˆZØ ]jÊÞ‡›µ˜Öä™Åkîÿiq^Ñí5!-ãmSïôÇóg˜g%s.?a@ùn‰Rüûnï:)ã]•Zìj´3Á±_ wZÇãt—F„×ÄÙI€­ "f+—öVΙ)mfnŸZ|ä3çÞ»ÿzýC§à¶ù€/°“½™´SXóIÊ]É ý½°òU×_m˜,ç ö“c©‰¯<:¬­éÔ™ ÿÍ,\Y…ËL(\!Ïo> Ô“\œ¢ž,ÀJ*ŒÆŒ1öT¥ |ÍŒ¸˜‰\ÈÞ¢³ãK«wà{S¬ÒS§ØÙ¼zS‰G„¼Ç?‡2Þ^0B¥Æ£rï’PdfÍ©K8šé¨/Sor¸…ôJñJó´jnok:ƒÜ/•+3‹‘ë‰8®£…?ð<–$œAGœÑ`÷SÈA"€.ò§[wð©P6zÌ2Üd(Á² `|ºIw¶õ!—ÌA¶&ªíÑé[Np‚¾ ·ÄÒd`ö #!šUN» %  0:^ Iw.U4ƒ—¦ m¨˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ô…x;)Æ££U[[[[as() Docume £3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔR.L.Ô_Ô€et€al.€v.€CanadaóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€358/1989ÌÌ5€November€1991ÌÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/43/D/358/1989*ÌÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€R.L.€et€al.€[names€deleted]Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimsóó:€The€authorsÐ pÀ ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ H˜ ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€1€April€1989€(initial€submission)óóÐ  p ÐÌÌòòññÓ  ÓññThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€of€CivilÐ ä4 Ðand€Political€Rights,ÌÌòòMeetingóó€on€5€November€1991,Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð €Ð ÐññÓXÓññÌÌÓ  Óòòò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóÐ D!” ÐÓzÓÌÌññÓ  Óññ1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€(initial€submission€dated€1€April€1989€and€subsequentÏcorrespondence)€are€Chief€Ô_ÔR.L.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔM.B.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔM.H.Ô_Ô€and€14€other€members€of€the€Whispering€Pines€IndianÏBand,€residing€in€the€province€of€British€Columbia,€Canada.€The€authors€allege€violations€by€theÏGovernment€of€Canada€of€article€1,€paragraph€1,€article€2,€paragraph€1,€articles€17,€22,€23,€26€andÏ27€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€They€are€represented€by€counsel.ÌÌññòòññThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authorsññóóññ:Ð )à$( ÐÌ2.1€The€Whispering€Pines€Indian€Band€belongs€to€the€Shuswap€Nation€in€south-central€BritishÏColumbia.€The€Shuswap€are€the€indigenous€people€of€the€region€and€constitute€a€single€social,Ïcultural,€political€and€linguistic€community€distinct€both€from€Euro-Canadians€and€fromÐ @-(, Ðneighbouring€indigenous€peoples.€Approximately€half€of€the€contemporary€members€of€the€Band€liveÏin€a€small€farming€community€numbering€about€26€persons€and€engage€in€raising€cattle€on€1,200Ïacres€(750€ha)€of€land.ÌÌ2.2€The€communication€challenges€certain€aspects€of€Bill€C-31,€i.e.€the€legislation€which€was€enactedÏby€the€Government€of€Canada€in€1985€in€response€to€the€recommendations€of€the€Human€RightsÏCommittee€in€its€Views€in€the€case€of€Sandra€Lovelace€v.€Canada€(adopted€on€30€July€1981€at€theÏCommittee's€thirteenth€session).€[€Communication€No.€24/1977,€reproduced€in€Human€RightsÏCommittee€1981€Report€to€the€General€Assembly,€Annex€XVIII;€Selected€Decisions,€Vol.€I,€pp.€83Ïet€seq.€.€See€also€the€statement€by€the€Government€of€Canada€concerning€the€implementation€of€theÏViews€in€the€case€of€Lovelace€,€in€HRC€1983€Report,€Annex€XXXI;€Selected€Decisions,€Vol.€II,€pp.Ï224€et€seq.€.]€By€virtue€of€Bill€C-31€certain€persons€formerly€deprived€of€"Indian"€status€on€the€basisÏof€sex€were€reinstated,€but€at€the€same€time,€other€persons€who€formerly€enjoyed€Indian€status€wereÏdeprived€of€it€on€the€basis€of€a€racial€quota.ÌÌ2.3€Owing€to€the€small€size€of€the€Band,€members€frequently€marry€non-members.€Because€of€itsÏgeographical€isolation€from€other€Ô_ÔShuswapÔ_Ô€communities€and€in€view€of€the€relative€proximity€to€theÏcity€of€Kamloops,€social€contact€and€inter-marriage€with€non-Indians€has€been€common.€TraditionalÏIndian€membership€rules€allowed€for€considerable€flexibility€and€facilitated€the€incorporation€ofÏnon-members€into€the€various€bands.€Problems€allegedly€started€with€the€enactment€of€the€originalÏIndian€Act,€1876,€which€imposed€the€Euro-Canadian€concept€of€patrilineal€kinship€and€inheritanceÏon€the€indigenous€peoples€of€Canada.€To€be€considered€an€"Indian"€under€the€Indian€Act,€a€personÏhad€to€be€the€biological€child€of€an€Indian€father,€or€have€been€adopted€by€an€Indian€father€inÏaccordance€with€Canadian€family€law.€The€Indian€Act€also€provided€that€women€would€take€theirÏlegal€status€from€their€husbands.€A€Shuswap€woman€who€married€a€non-Indian€Canadian€continuedÏto€belong€to€her€childhood€band€under€Shuswap€law,€but€became€"white"€under€the€Indian€Act.ÏLikewise,€although€a€"white"€Canadian€woman€who€married€a€Shuswap€became€a€member€of€herÏhusband's€band€under€the€Indian€Act,€she€wasnever€regarded€as€Ô_ÔShuswapÔ_Ô€by€her€husband's€band.€AsÏa€result€of€the€original€Indian€Act,€Shuswap€women€who€married€non-Indians€were€removed€fromÏ"band€lists"€maintained€by€the€Government€of€Canada,€thereby€losing€their€rights€to€live€on€lands€setÏaside€for€Ô_ÔShuswapÔ_Ô€bands€("Indian€reserves").€In€1951€the€Indian€Act€was€amended€to€the€extent€thatÏminor€Indian€children€would€also€lose€their€status€if€their€mother€marries€a€non-Indian;€bands€could,Ïhowever,€apply€for€an€exemption€from€this€rule.€Other€Shuswaps€lost€their€Indian€status€uponÏobtaining€off-reserve€employment,€serving€in€the€Canadian€armed€forces,€or€completing€higherÏeducation.€The€authors€conclude€that€it€was€Government€policy€to€remove€from€Indian€reservesÏanyone€deemed€capable€of€assimilating€into€non-Indian€Canadian€society.ÌÌ2.4€By€virtue€of€Bill€C-31€women€who,€on€account€of€their€marriage€to€non-Indians€prior€to€17€AprilÏ1985,€had€lost€their€Indian€status€under€the€former€Indian€Act,€together€with€any€of€their€childrenÏwho€had€lost€status€with€them,€could€be€reinstated€and€thus€be€re-considered€band€members.€InÏaddition,€Bill€C-31€authorized€the€reinstatement€of€men€or€women€who€were€deprived€of€their€statusÏbefore€1951€for€other€reasons.€The€children€of€such€persons,€however,€were€added€to€a€band€list€onlyÏif€both€parents€were€Indians€or€were€entitled€to€be€registered€as€Indians.€Children€born€before€17ÏApril€1985,€merely€required€the€child's€father€(or,€if€the€parents€were€unmarried,€mother)€to€haveÏIndian€status.Ð @-(, Ї2.5€Bill€C-31€provides€that€a€band€"may€assume€control€of€its€own€membership€if€it€establishesÏmembership€rules€for€itself€in€writing".€It€is€submitted,€however,€that€few€bands€were€able€to€obtainÏapproval€of€their€own€rules€before€28€June€1987,€the€deadline€established€by€Bill€C-31.€The€net€effectÏhas€been€that€persons€who€left€the€reserves€before€1985,€together€with€most€of€their€children,€haveÏbeen€reinstated€upon€request,€and€that€all€children€born€out€of€interracial€marriages€after€1985€haveÏbeen,€or€will€be,€deleted€from€band€lists.ÌÌññòòññThe€complaintññóóññ:Ð $ t ÐÌ3.1€The€authors€submit€that€two€aspects€of€Bill€C-31€affect€them€adversely:€bringing€in€new€bandÏmembers€whom€the€community€cannot€house€or€support,€and€imposing€new€standards€for€IndianÏstatus€which€will€operate€to€deprive€many€of€the€authors'€children€and€grandchildren€of€their€BandÏmembership€and€right€to€live€on€the€reserve.€The€net€result€on€the€Band€is€a€gain€of€nine€persons,€inÏterms€of€Indian€status,€and€a€loss€of€two.€In€addition,€since€the€Band's€proposed€membership€rulesÏwere€not€approved€by€the€Minister€before€28€June€1987,€all€persons€acquiring€the€legal€statusÏofIndians€are€entitled€to€Band€membership.€Another€problem€arises€with€respect€to€children€bornÏafter€17€April€1985,€since€they€may€acquire€such€status€only€if€they€have€two€Indian€parents.€TheÏcontinued€application€of€Bill€C-31€will€have€an€increasingly€negative€effect€on€the€authors'€familiesÏif€their€children€marry€non-Indians€in€the€same€proportions€as€their€parents.€To€avoid€the€terminationÏof€family€lines€through€the€operation€of€Section€6(2)€of€Bill€C-31,€the€authors€would€have€to€arrangeÏall€future€marriages€of€Band€members€with€members€of€other€Bands.€This€is€said€to€force€them€toÏchoose€between€gradually€losing€their€legal€rights€and€their€reserve€land,€and€depriving€their€childrenÏof€personal€freedom€and€privacy,€which€would€be€incompatible€with€the€Covenant€and€the€CanadianÏCharter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms.ÌÌ3.2€Another€current€problem€is€that€twenty-eight€persons€who€are€not€directly€related€to€the€familiesÏnow€residing€on€the€reserve€have€applied€for€Indian€status€and€Band€membership.€This€would€entailÏa€50€per€cent€increase€in€housing€requirements,€which€the€Band€cannot€meet.€So€as€to€accommodateÏnew€members,€the€Band€would€have€to€develop€a€cluster-housing€project€requiring€new€water€wells,Ïsewer€systems€and€power€lines,€at€an€estimated€cost€of€$223,000€Canadian€dollars.€FederalÏadjustment€assistance€under€Bill€C-31€is,€however,€extremely€limited.€Even€if€new€members€couldÏbe€housed€on€the€reserve,€there€is€very€little€possibility€of€ensuring€their€employment.€CulturalÏproblems€also€arise,€because€some€of€the€newcomers€have€never€lived€on€an€Indian€reserve€andÏothers€have€lived€off-reserve€for€more€than€ten€years.€Considering€that€most€are€single,€older€adultsÏwithout€children,€their€social€impact€on€a€community€which€has€consisted€of€three€to€fourÏself-sufficient€farm€families€would€be€overwhelming.ÌÌ3.3€The€authors€believe€that€the€Committee's€Views€in€the€Lovelace€case€confirm€that€States€cannotÏunreasonably€restrict€freedom€of€association€and€co-habitation€of€individual€families,€nor€of€theÏrelated€families€which€comprise€an€ethnic,€religious€or€linguistic€community.€The€authors€considerÏthat€their€"freedom€of€association€with€others"€(article€22,€paragraph€1)€has€been€interfered€with,€inÏthat€they€cannot€themselves€determine€membership€in€their€small€farming€community.€They€can€beÏforced€to€share€their€limited€land€and€resources€with€persons€who€acquire€Indian€status€andÏmembership,€while€their€own€direct€descendants€may€lose€the€right€to€be€part€of€the€community.ÌÐ @-(, Ð3.4€It€is€submitted€that€the€implementation€of€Bill€C-31€constitutes€"arbitrary€and€unlawfulÏinterference"€with€the€authors'€families€(article€17,€paragraph€1),€on€account€of€the€fact€that€theÏGovernment,€and€not€the€Band,€determines€who€may€live€on€the€reserve.€Moreover,€this€interferenceÏis€said€to€be€arbitrary€in€that€it€distinguishes€among€family€members€on€the€basis€of€whether€theyÏwere€born€before€or€after€17€April€1985,€and€in€that€it€distinguishes€among€family€members€on€theÏbasis€of€whether€one€or€both€of€their€parents€were€Indians,€a€purely€racial€criterion€contrary€to€articlesÏ2,€paragraph€1,€and€26€of€the€Covenant.ÌÌ3.5€The€implementation€of€Bill€C-31€allegedly€conflicts€with€article€23€of€the€Covenant,€in€that€itÏrestricts€the€freedom€of€Band€members€to€choose€their€own€spouses,€particularly€considerating€thatÏmarriage€to€non-Indians€would€result€in€disenfranchising€the€children.ÌÌ3.6€Further,€the€authors€claim€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€which€prohibits€"anyÏdiscrimination"€on€the€ground€of€race,€in€that€it€makes€racial€quantum,€rather€than€cultural€factorsÏand€individual€allegiance,€the€basis€for€allocating€indigenous€rights€and€indigenous€peoples'€lands.ÏTraditional€Shuswap€law€regarded€as€Shuswap€anyone€who€was€born€in€the€territory€or€raised€as€aÏShuswap.€Bill€C-31€requires€that,€in€the€future,€both€parents€be€"Indian"€as€defined€under€CanadianÏlaw.€Children€born€to€a€Shuswap€mother€or€father€and€raised€on€Shuswap€territory€in€the€ShuswapÏculture€would€still€be€denied€Indian€status€and€Band€membership.ÌÌ3.7€Concerning€article€27€of€the€Covenant,€the€authors€point€out€that€they€regard€themselves€as€anÏindigenous€people€rather€than€an€"ethnic€(or)€linguistic€minority",€but€that€since€the€indigenous€andÏminority€categories€overlap,€indigenous€peoples€should€also€be€entitled€to€exercise€the€rights€ofÏminorities.€They€conclude€that€Bill€C-31€violates€article€27€by€imposing€restrictions€on€who€canÏreside€in,€or€share€in€the€economic€and€political€life€of€the€community.ÌÌ3.8€The€Shuswap€consider€themselves€a€distinct€people€and€thus€entitled€to€determine€the€form€andÏmembership€of€their€own€economic,€social€and€political€institutions,€in€accordance€with€article€1,Ïparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€Control€of€membership€being€one€of€the€inherent€and€fundamentalÏrights€of€indigenous€communities,€the€authors€invoke€article€24€of€the€draft€Universal€DeclarationÏof€Indigenous€Rights.ÌÌ3.9€As€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€authors€state€that€theyÏendeavoured€to€counter€the€detrimental€effects€of€Bill€C-31€by€attempting€to€assume€control€of€BandÏmembership.€On€23€June€1987€they€adopted€rules€which€were€duly€transmitted€to€the€Ministry€ofÏIndian€Affairs.€On€25€January€1988,€the€Minister€replied€that€the€proposed€rules€were€inconsistentÏwith€Bill€C-31,€in€that€they€excluded€certain€classes€of€persons€eligiblefor€reinstatement.€In€thisÏconnection€the€authors€invoke€Section€35€of€the€Constitution€Act,€1982,€which€was€intended€toÏsecure€"aboriginal€and€treaty€rights€of€the€aboriginal€peoples€of€Canada"€against€future€legislativeÏerosion.€The€authors€admit€that,€in€theory,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€could€determine€that€BillÏC-31€is€of€no€effect€if€it€is€found€to€conflict€with€the€authors'€"aboriginal€rights".€But€they€claim€thatÏit€would€take€several€years€of€litigation€to€settle€the€issue€at€a€financial€cost€considerably€beyond€theÏmeans€of€three€farm€families.€According€to€the€authors,€an€attempt€to€solve€the€matter€by€appeals€toÏthe€Canadian€courts€would€entail€"unreasonably€prolonged"€proceedings€in€the€sense€of€article€5,Ïparagraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Moreover,€once€the€legal€issue€is€determined€by€theÐ @-(, ÐSupreme€Court,€it€would€be€too€late€to€reverse€the€effects€on€the€community€of€losing€some€of€itsÏmembers€and€accommodating€others€under€Bill€C-31.€Therefore,€the€authors€seek€immediateÏmeasures€to€preserve€the€status€quo€Ô_ÔpendenteÔ_Ô€lite€and€request€the€Committee,€pursuant€to€rule€86€ofÏthe€rules€of€procedure,€to€urge€the€State€party€to€refrain€from€making€any€additions€to€or€deletionsÏfrom€the€Band€List€of€the€Whispering€Pines€Indian€Band,€except€as€may€be€necessary€to€ensure€thatÏevery€direct€descendant€of€the€authors€is€included€for€the€time€being€as€a€member€of€the€Band.ÌÌññòòññThe€State€party's€observations€and€authors'€commentsññóóññ:Ð $ t ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party€contends€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€ratione€personae,€pursuant€toÏarticle€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€It€notes€that€the€authors€contend€that€Bill€C-31€threatens€to€depriveÏtheir€descendants€of€Indian€status,€and€observes€that€the€victims€of€such€a€claim€would€be€childrenÏborn€after€1985,€of€one€parent€who€is€non-Indian€and€another€parent€who€alone€cannot€pass€on€IndianÏstatus€(i.e.€a€child€out€of€a€marriage€between€a€status€Indian€and€a€non-status€Indian,€who€marries€aÏnon-status€Indian).€In€the€State€party's€opinion,€the€authors€have€not€shown€that€there€are€in€the€BandÏindividuals€meeting€these€criteria€and€who€therefore€could€claim€to€be€victims.€The€State€partyÏfurther€contends€that€the€Committee€itself€has€repeatedly€acknowledged€that€it€will€not€entertainÏclaims€of€abstract€or€potential€breaches€of€the€Covenant;€it€adds€that€the€communication€does€notÏidentify€anyone€currently€affected€by€Bill€C-31,€and€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€on€thatÏground.ÌÌ4.2€The€State€party€submits€that€the€authors€have€not€complied€with€their€obligation€to€exhaustÏdomestic€remedies.€It€emphasized€that€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€reflects€aÏfundamental€principle€of€general€international€law€that€local€remedies€be€exhausted€before€resortingÏto€an€international€instance.€This€rule€ensures€that€domestic€courts€are€not€superseded€by€anÏinternational€organ,€and€that€a€State€has€an€opportunity€to€correct€any€wrong€which€may€be€shownÏbefore€its€internal€fora,€before€that€State's€international€responsibility€is€engaged.€Domestic€courtsÏare€generally€better€placed€to€determine€the€facts€of€and€the€law€applicable€to€any€given€case,€andÏwhere€necessary,€to€enforce€an€appropriate€remedy.€In€the€present€case,€mere€doubts€about€theÏsuccess€of€remedies€does€not€absolve€the€authors€from€resorting€to€them,€a€principle€recognized€byÏthe€Committee€in€its€decisions€in€cases€R.T.€v.€France€(communication€No.€262/1987)€[€DeclaredÏinadmissible€at€the€Committee's€thirty-fifth€session.]€and€S.S.€v.€Norway€(communication€No.Ï79/1980)€[€Declared€inadmissible€at€the€Committee's€fifteenth€session.]€.ÌÌ4.3€With€regard€to€the€alleged€prohibitive€cost€of,€and€length€of€time€for€exhausting€domesticÏremedies,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee's€decisions€in€J.R.C.€v.€Costa€Rica€(communicationÏNo.€296/1988)€[€Declared€inadmissible€at€the€Committee's€thirty-fifth€session.]€and€S.H.B.€v.€CanadaÏ(communication€No.€192/1985)€[€Declared€inadmissible€at€the€Committee's€twenty-ninth€session.]Ïwhere,€in€similar€circumstances,€the€communications€were€declared€inadmissible.ÌÌ4.4€Moreover,€the€State€party€points€out€that€judicial€remedies€remain€available€to€the€authors:€thus,Ïit€remains€open€to€them€to€apply€to€the€Federal€Court,€Trial€Division,€for€a€declaration€thatÏ"aboriginal€rights"€include€control€over€the€Band's€own€membership.€The€State€party€notes€that€theÏrecent€judgment€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€in€the€case€of€R.€v.€Sparrow€clarifies€both€meaningÏand€scope€of€the€"aboriginal€rights"€referred€to€in€Section€35€of€the€Constitution€Act,€1982;€in€thisÐ @-(, ÐÔ_Ôcase,€itÔ_Ô€was€held€that€the€government€must€meet€exacting€standards€before€implementing€actions€thatÏimpinge€upon€the€enjoyment€Ô_Ôof€existingÔ_Ô€aboriginal€and€treaty€rights.€The€State€party€submits€that€thisÏjudgment€underlines€the€importance€of€first€allowing€Ô_Ôlocal€courtsÔ_Ô€to€address€national€issues.ÌÌ4.5€Further,€it€is€open€to€the€authors€to€file€an€action€in€the€same€court,€based€on€breach(es)€of€theÏCanadian€Charter€Ô_Ôof€RightsÔ_Ô€and€Freedoms.€Among€the€rights€guaranteed€in€the€Charter€are€the€rightÏto€freedom€of€association€[s.€2(d)],€the€Ô_Ôright€notÔ_Ô€to€be€deprived€of€life,€liberty€or€security€of€theÏperson€except€in€accordance€with€principles€of€fundamental€justice€(s.€Ô_Ô7),€andÔ_Ô€the€right€to€equalityÏ"before€and€under€the€law€and...€the€right€to€equal€protection€and€equal€benefit€of€the€law€Ô_ÔwithoutÏdiscriminationÔ_Ô€based€on€race,€national€or€ethnic€origin,€colour,€religion,€sex,€age€or€mental€orÏphysical€disability"€(s.€15).€Ô_ÔThese€rightsÔ_Ô€are€guaranteed€to€individuals€in€relation€to€federal€andÏprovincial€governments€(s.€32).€Anyone€whose€Charter€rights€Ô_Ôhave€beenÔ_Ô€infringed€may€apply€to€aÏcompetent€court€jurisdiction€to€obtain€such€remedy€as€the€court€considers€appropriate€and€Ô_Ôjust€withinÔ_ÔÏthe€circumstances€(s.€24).ÌÌ4.6€The€State€party€notes€that€the€two€avenues€of€recourse€described€above€have€been€tried€by€aÏnumber€of€Indian€Bands.€Ô_ÔIn€TwinnÔ_Ô€v.€R.,€members€of€six€Alberta€Indian€Bands€applied€to€the€FederalÏCourt,€Trial€Division,€for€a€declaration:€(a)€that€Ô_ÔBill€C-31Ô_Ô€is€inconsistent€with€section€35€of€theÏConstitution€Act,€1982,€to€the€extent€that€it€limits,€or€denies,€the€aboriginal€Ô_Ôand€impliedÔ_Ô€treaty€rightsÏof€Indian€Bands€to€determine€their€own€membership;€or€(b)€that€the€imposition€of€additionalÏmembers€Ô_Ôon€theÔ_Ô€plaintiff€Bands€pursuant€to€the€Bill,€without€the€Bands'€consent,€constitutes€aÏviolation€of€the€right€to€freedom€of€Ô_Ôassociation,€guaranteedÔ_Ô€by€section€2(d)€of€the€Charter.ÏEvidence-gathering€examinations€were€initiated€early€in€1989,€but€because€Ô_Ôof€severalÔ_Ô€interlocutoryÏmotions€and€the€large€number€of€parties€seeking€to€intervene,€they€have€not€been€completed.€TheÏÔ_ÔState€partyÔ_Ô€expresses€its€hope€that€the€matter€will€go€on€trial€late€in€1991.€Similar€issues€have€beenÏraised€in€the€cases€of€Martel€Ô_Ôv.€ChiefÔ_Ô€Omeasoo€before€the€Federal€Court,€Trial€Division,€and€of€ChiefÏOmeasoo€v.€The€Queen€before€the€Federal€Ô_ÔCourt,€AppealsÔ_Ô€Division;€the€State€party€indicates,Ïhowever,€that€the€plaintiffs€in€these€cases€are€not€currently€actively€pursuing€Ô_Ôtheir€actions.Ô_ÔÌÌ4.7€In€respect€of€allegedly€prohibitive€costs€of€litigation,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€DepartmentÏof€Indian€Affairs€Ô_Ôand€NorthernÔ_Ô€Development€has€provided€funding€to€various€of€the€parties€involvedÏin€the€cases€discussed€above.€In€Ô_ÔTwinn,€approximatelyÔ_Ô€$55,000€was€given€to€the€Native€Council€ofÏCanada€and€Indian€Rights€for€Indian€Women,€to€assist€in€Ô_Ôthe€preparationÔ_Ô€of€court€documentation.€InÏSeptember€1988,€the€government€approved€a€Bill€C-31€Litigation€Funding€Ô_ÔProgram.€SinceÔ_Ô€fundsÏhave€already€been€granted€to€certain€litigants€in€the€Twinn€case€pursuant€to€this€programme,€it€is,Ïhowever,€Ô_Ôunlikely€thatÔ_Ô€further€funds€will€be€made€available€for€the€litigation€of€identical€issuesÏbetween€different€parties,€at€leastuntil€the€Twinn€Ô_Ôcase€isÔ_Ô€resolved.€The€State€also€contends€that€theÏauthors€may€seek€financial€assistance€through€the€Court€Challenges€Ô_ÔProgram,€whichÔ_Ô€was€establishedÏin€1985€to€assist€litigants€in€cases€involving€important€and€novel€issues€relating€to€the€applicabilityÏof€Ô_Ôthe€Charter'sÔ_Ô€equality€clause€to€federal€laws.€The€State€party€notes€that€there€is€no€indicationÏwhether€the€authors€have€Ô_Ôsought€financialÔ_Ô€assistance€under€this€programme€from€its€independentÏadministering€body.€Finally,€the€State€party€refers€to€Ô_Ôthe€existenceÔ_Ô€of€a€Test€Case€FundingÏProgramme,€but€observes€that€there€is€no€indication€that€the€authors€applied€for€Ô_Ôassistance€underÔ_Ô€it.ÌÌ4.8€Bill€C-31€also€allows€Indian€Bands€to€determine€their€own€membership€rules€if€two€conditionsÐ @-(, Ðare€met.€These€conditions€are€that€the€rules€be€approved€by€a€majority€of€band€electors,€and€thatÏcertain€specified€groups€of€persons€be€included€in€the€membership€list.ÌÌ4.9€In€1987€the€authors€submitted€their€membership€rules€for€approval€to€the€Department€of€IndianÏAffairs€and€Northern€Development.€By€letter€dated€25€January€1988,€the€Chief€of€the€WhisperingÏPines€Band€was€advised€that€the€membership€rules€were€not€acceptable€because€they€excludedÏcertain€specified€groups,€such€as€women€who€lost€their€entitlement€to€band€membership€as€a€resultÏof€marriage€to€non-Indians,€their€minor€children,€and€others.€The€Minister€invited€the€Band€to€amendÏits€membership€rules€in€accordance€with€the€preconditions,€and€re-submit€the€amended€rules€forÏapproval€by€the€Department.€The€two€year€deadline€to€which€the€Band€refers€does€not€apply€toÏre-submission€of€proposed€rules.€Therefore,€the€Minister's€offer€to€the€Band€remains€valid€and€wouldÏprovide€a€remedy€to€the€alleged€violations€of€the€Covenant.ÌÌ5.1€In€response€to€the€State€party's€submission,€the€authors€assert€that€since€the€complaint€arisesÏdirectly€from€the€State€party's€efforts€to€implement€a€previous€decision€of€the€Committee€involvingÏthe€same€State,€the€same€category€of€persons€and€the€same€basic€principles,€it€constitutes€a€case€ofÏ"continuing€jurisdiction".€They€invoke€the€principles€of€natural€justice,€that€the€author€of€aÏcommunication€may€return€to€the€Committee€for€a€clarification€and€reaffirmation€of€its€ViewsÏwithout€first€having€to€re-litigate€the€matter€before€domestic€tribunals.€The€authors€believe€that€notÏonly€the€author€of€a€communication€could€seek€further€action€following€the€transmittal€of€theÏCommittee's€Views,€but€also€other€individuals,€similarly€placed€and€similarly€affected,€should€beÏentitled€to€address€the€Committee€for€clarifications€of€the€application€of€its€Views€to€them.ÌÌ5.2€The€authors€argue€that€the€Committee's€Views€were€not€properly€implemented,€as€Bill€C-31Ïmerely€replaced€gender€restrictions€by€racial€ones,€and€that€it€would€be€unreasonably€formalistic€toÏrequire€prior€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€in€these€circumstances.ÌÌ5.3€In€respect€of€the€availability€of€domestic€remedies,€the€authors€reiterate€their€view€that€litigationÏwould€not€afford€them€an€"effective€and€available"€remedy€and€that€the€cost€and€time€required€forÏjudicial€resolution€would€not€be€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.€They€also€claim€irreparableÏharm€as€pendente€lite€there€would€be€no€protection€for€children€not€registered€as€Indians€or€asÏmembers€of€the€Band.€Finally,€the€authors€reiterate€that€a€constitutional€challenge€could€take€at€leastÏ4€1/2€years,€a€period€the€Committee€has€deemed€unreasonably€prolonged€within€the€meaning€ofÏarticle€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€on€previous€occasions.€[€Weinberger€Weisz€v.ÏUruguay€(communication€No.€28/1978),€Selected€Decisions,€Vol.€I,€pp.€57€et€seq.€.]€ÌÌ5.4€The€authors€further€contend€that€they€have€been€offered€neither€financial€nor€legal€assistance.ÏFunding€remains€entirely€at€the€discretion€of€the€Minister€for€Indian€Affairs€and€NorthernÏDevelopment,€and€none€of€the€government's€comments€suggest€that€legal€assistance€would€beÏforthcoming€if€the€current€complaint€were€to€be€dismissed.ÌÌ5.5€In€respect€of€revising€and€re-submitting€their€Band€by-laws€to€the€competent€Minister,€the€authorsÏunderline€that€by-laws€cannot€override€the€provisions€of€Bill€C-31,€including€the€racial€standards€theyÏhave€challenged.€The€Minister€cannot€approve€by-laws€which€conflict€with€statutory€norms.ÌÐ @-(, Ð5.6€In€another€submission,€dated€3€October€1990,€the€authors€explain€that€they€have€not€applied€forÏfinancial€assistance€from€the€Department€of€Justice,€since€they€were€advised€that€there€is€little€hopeÏof€success€and€that€this€assistance€is€ordinarily€available€only€for€appeals,€rather€than€for€theÏpreparation€for€trial€and€initial€complaints.€In€addition,€the€authors€have€ascertained€that€in€otherÏdomestic€litigation€concerning€rights€of€indigenous€peoples,€no€judicial€decisions€have€been€handedÏdown.€In€particular,€the€Twinn€case€is€not€expected€to€go€to€trial€before€1991.ÌÌ5.7€Author's€counsel€indicates€that€there€are€presently€six€adults€in€the€Whispering€Pines€Band€withÏso-called€"6(2)"€status€under€Bill€C-31€-€i.e.€adults€who,€if€marrying€a€non-status€Indian,€cannot€passÏon€Indian€status€to€their€children.€None€of€these€children€can€be€registered€under€Bill€C-31.€TheÏconsequences€for€the€others€depend€on€whom€they€will€marry;€in€view€of€the€small€size€of€the€Band,Ïcounsel€notes€that€it€is€unlikely€that€they€will€marry€anyone€with€status€under€Bill€C-31.€Thus,€theÏchildren€of€Ô_ÔP.E.Ô_Ô€and€Ô_ÔV.E.Ô_Ô€will€be€ineligible€to€become€Band€members,€since€P.E€and€V.E.€marriedÏnon-Indians;€counsel€adds€that€it€is€unlikely€that€any€of€the€future€children€of€other€registered€BandÏmembers€will€be€eligible.€This€situation,€it€is€submitted,€does€not€involve€hypothetical€and€futureÏviolations€of€the€Covenant:€some€of€the€Band's€children€will€grow€up€in€the€knowledge€that€they€canÏonly€protect€their€cultural€heritage€if€they€marry€an€Indian€registered€under€Bill€C-31.€The€Bill€is€thusÏsaid€to€constitute€an€infringement€on€the€right€to€marry€even€in€circumstances€where€noÏindividualized€child€has€as€of€yet€been€disenfranchised.ÌÌññòòññThe€issues€and€proceedings€before€the€Ô_ÔCommitteeññóóññ:Ô_ÔÐ  p ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÏmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissibleÏunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.ÌÌ6.2€With€respect€to€the€authors'€claim€of€a€violation€of€article€1€of€the€Covenant,€the€CommitteeÏrecalls€its€constant€jurisprudence€that€pursuant€to€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€it€may€receiveÏand€consider€communications€only€if€they€emanate€from€individuals€who€claim€that€their€individualÏrights€have€been€violated€by€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol.€While€all€peoples€have€the€rightÏto€self-determination€and€the€right€freely€to€determine€their€political€status,€pursue€their€economic,Ïsocial€and€cultural€development€(and€may,€for€their€own€ends,€freely€dispose€of€their€natural€wealthÏand€resources)€the€Committee€has€already€decided€that€no€claim€for€self-determination€may€beÏbrought€under€the€Optional€Protocol.€[€Communication€No.€167/1984€(B.€Ominayak€v.€Canada),Ïdecision€of€26€March€1990,€paragraph€32.1;€communication€No.€413/1990€(Ô_ÔA.B.Ô_Ô€et€al.€v.€Italy),Ïinadmissibility€decision€of€2€November€1990,€paragraph€3.2.]€Thus,€this€aspect€of€theÏcommunication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€ÌÌ6.3€With€regard€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€has€notedÏthe€authors'€arguments€that€they€have€unsuccessfully€endeavoured€to€challenge€Bill€C-31€byÏattempting€to€assume€control€of€Band€membership.€It€observes,€however,€that€the€authors€themselvesÏconcede€that€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€could€rule€Bill€C-31€to€have€no€effect€where€it€conflictsÏwith€the€authors'€"aboriginal€rights",€i.e.€the€desired€control€of€Band€membership.ÌÌ6.4€The€Committee€further€observes€that€other€Indian€Bands€have€instituted€proceedings€before€theÐ @-(, ÐFederal€Courts,€the€outcome€of€which€is€pending,€notably€in€the€case€of€Ô_ÔTwinnÔ_Ô€v.€R.,€and€that€theÏalleged€high€cost€of€litigation€can,€under€specific€circumstances,€be€offset€by€funding€providedÏpursuant€to€a€number€of€programmes€instituted€by€the€State€party.€As€to€the€authors'€concern€aboutÏthe€potential€length€of€proceedings,€the€Committee€reiterates€its€constant€jurisprudence€that€fearsÏabout€the€length€of€proceedings€do€not€absolve€authors€from€the€requirement€of€at€least€making€aÏreasonable€effort€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies€(A.€and€Ô_ÔS.N.Ô_Ô€v.€Norway,€communication€No.Ï224/1987,€declared€inadmissible€on€11€July€1988,€paragraph€6.2).€In€this€light,€the€Committee€findsÏthat€available€domestic€remedies€that€may€indeed€prove€to€be€effective€remain€to€be€exhausted.ÌÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:ÌÌ(a)€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol€in€so€far€as€itÏconcerns€the€right€of€self-determination€and€under€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÏin€so€far€as€it€concerns€the€authors'€other€allegations;ÌÌ(b)€that€this€decision€shall€be€transmitted€to€the€State€party,€to€the€authors€and€to€their€counsel.€ÌÌÌ[Done€in€English,€French,€Russian€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version].ÌññÌññÌòòFootnotesóóÐ  \ ÐÌ*€All€persons€handling€this€document€are€requested€to€respect€and€observe€its€confidential€nature.ÌÌ*/€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.