ÿWPCB8 2£å(Ë⺤q*CE 1ÅÚ*.np¼4®¿ËܵƒJ/×TÅÛßôÙ‹¥$_¢¸ŸÙu*¡ÿ+×P™Ð/ë–%;‰¯ÂCë(æÏ¯.ÁUùÝ’¢ÿBñÈßAÏŽSwÊEq<\çdŽxÖÛ Qv¹jo]&ž5w¢=Ò¨œ#qÌ²Ú *OʵãùÄ#‘2'Ų•¬ )¿°Ê¶gûkþaçN^ë… {‰ºõö°"ð9¨h/ÜÀ¥r/ŒþçÐ逦ÀŸ€gÌ5—˜~b“Š ÑžïZv§'ÏÍ:S0¸ÑÒˆš‹%ª|‘³#dì]FI—ÑàÙ‚ S BVM–óÕÿuž¯¤‡>¨áHMS°í¨%ª! \ –êÏ“3E hvNþ­¾wI¥¹b¤ÕžÈ[±ÑO<^¬r+}Ue_’ ˜XÝÀðÎ'Úš’>s‡.n'€Œ !,'$aåX#ïÙs°ÈÈ+ÈÕ2?öw0óõƒ–⊨qè £ó}nÑ"bcˆx.uVs¢¾€ëo“gÆp*³˜ë¡Æ¹Íì]ÿôû)žC6|·[t ’9þÑ %wP=g~m4Ú©\_­ác#Ç‘UU >¦Âä 0µ¦ 0<[ 0Y— 0_ð 0iO %¸ ƾ 0á„ 0(e D+ AM¸ 0ô 0ñù 0îêØ 0Nè 0Æ6#ÁüUN½½M (N7^ 9wE4I] m_ 0ëv 0èa 0åI 0â. 0ß 0Üï 0âË 0ß­ 0ÜŒ 0Ùh 0ÖA 0Ó 0Ðê 0ͺ 0ʇ 0áQ! 0Þ2" 0Û# 0Øë# 0ÕÃ$ 0Ò˜% 0Ïj& 0Ì9' 0É( 00Î( 0<þ( 0¾:) 0>ø) 0v6* 0`¬* 0` + 0`l+ 0`Ì+ 0`,, 08Œ, 0ÒÄ, 02–- 0üÈ- 0:Ä. 0 þ. 0j0 0„r1 B*ö2 D/ 3 0„O3 D/Ó4 0Î5 06Ð5 06 0:7 0^H7 0<¦7U6â7U*8ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Kindler v. Canada, Communication No. 470/1991, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991 (1993).*470/1991 (1993)."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 =jSÓX Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2Ð$££Ý ƒ&Ç!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XkFXXXÔÔ€XkFXXXkFÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ž&Ç$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XjúXXXÔÔ€XjúXXXjúÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular˜S) è’.)ê:i¢Ø+00&ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€J(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€ (€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ&ÿÿ  d dI)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€L(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡T%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ7€ (€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔI)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(‹Courier New%ä2¼A`‹ArialÝ ƒ&Ç!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XkFXXXÔÔ€XkFXXXkFÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€470/1991Ð H˜ ÐÌ30€July€1993Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/48/D/470/1991€*/€Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Joseph€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€[represented€by€counsel]Ð D”  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€authorÐ ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€25€September€1991€(initial€submission)óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð @ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€30€July€1993,Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€470/1991,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€by€Mr.€Joseph€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ ¾ ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€its€Ð "$r# ÐÓ>ÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓOÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó:Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Joseph€Kindler,€a€citizen€of€the€United€States€ofÐ R+¢&+ ÐAmerica,€born€in€1961,€at€the€time€of€his€submission€detained€in€a€penitentiary€in€Montreal,Ð 8,ˆ', ÐCanada,€and€on€26€September€1991€extradited€to€the€United€States.€He€claims€to€be€a€victimÐ -n(- Ðof€a€violation€of€articles€6,€7,€9,€10,€14€and€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€andÐ ° ÐPolitical€Rights.€He€is€represented€by€counsel.Ð –æ ÐÌ2.1€In€November€1983€the€author€was€convicted€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€United€States,Ð b² Ðof€first€degree€murder€and€Ô_ÔkidnappingÔ_Ô;€the€jury€recommended€the€death€sentence.€AccordingÐ H˜ Ðto€the€author,€this€recommendation€is€binding€on€the€court.€In€September€1984,€prior€toÐ . ~ Ðsentencing,€the€author€escaped€from€custody.€He€was€arrested€in€the€province€of€Quebec€inÐ  d ÐApril€1985.€In€July€1985€the€United€States€requested€and€in€August€1985€the€Superior€CourtÐ ú J Ðof€Quebec€ordered€his€extradition.Ð à 0 ÐÌ2.2€Article€6€of€the€1976€Extradition€Treaty€between€Canada€and€the€United€States€provides:Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ"When€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€is€punishable€by€death€under€the€lawsÐ xÈ  Ðof€the€requesting€State€and€the€laws€of€the€requested€State€do€not€permit€such€punishmentÐ ^®  Ðfor€that€offence,€extradition€may€be€refused€unless€the€requesting€State€provides€suchÐ D”  Ðassurances€as€the€requested€State€considers€sufficient€that€the€death€penalty€shall€not€beÐ *z  Ðimposed€or,€if€imposed,€shall€not€be€executed".Ð ` ÐÌCanada€abolished€the€death€penalty€in€1976,€except€in€the€case€of€certain€military€offences.Ð Ü, ÐÌ2.3€The€power€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€is€conferred€onÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Minister€of€Justice€pursuant€to€section€25€of€the€1985€Extradition€Act.€On€January€17,Ð ŽÞ Ð1986,€after€hearing€the€author's€counsel,€the€Minister€of€Justice€decided€not€to€seek€theseÐ tÄ Ðassurances.Ð Zª ÐÌ2.4€The€author€filed€an€application€for€review€of€the€Minister's€decision€with€the€FederalÐ &v ÐCourt,€which€dismissed€the€application€in€January€1987.€The€author's€appeal€to€the€Court€ofÐ  \ ÐAppeal€was€rejected€in€December€1988.€The€matter€then€came€before€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ òB ÐCanada,€which€decided€on€26€September€1991€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€would€notÐ Ø( Ðviolate€his€rights€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Human€Rights.€The€author€was€extraditedÐ ¾ Ðon€the€same€day.Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð p!À  ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€the€decision€to€extradite€him€violates€articles€6,€7,€9,€14€and€26€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€Covenant.€He€submits€that€the€death€penalty€òòper€seóó€constitutes€cruel€and€inhumanÐ "$r# Ðtreatment€or€punishment,€and€that€conditions€on€death€row€are€cruel,€inhuman€and€degrading.Ð %X $ ÐHe€further€alleges€that€the€judicial€procedures€in€Pennsylvania,€inasmuch€as€theyÐ î%>!% ÐÔ_ÔrelatespecificallyÔ_Ô€to€capital€punishment,€do€not€meet€basic€requirements€of€justice.€In€thisÐ Ô&$"& Ðcontext,€the€author,€who€is€white,€generally€alleges€racial€bias€in€the€imposition€of€the€deathÐ º' #' Ðpenalty€in€the€United€States,€without,€however,€substantiating€how€this€alleged€bias€wouldÐ  (ð#( Ðaffect€him.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observations€and€the€author's€commentsóó:Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party€recalls€that€the€author€illegally€entered€the€territory€of€Canada,€where€heÐ -n(- Ðwas€arrested€in€April€1985.€It€submits€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðpersonaeóó,€òòlocióó€and€òòÔ_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó.Ð –æ ÐÌ4.2€It€is€argued€that€the€author€cannot€be€considered€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€theÐ b² ÐOptional€Protocol,€since€his€allegations€are€derived€from€assumptions€about€possible€futureÐ H˜ Ðevents,€which€may€not€materialize€and€which€are€dependent€on€the€law€and€actions€of€theÐ . ~ Ðauthorities€of€the€United€States.€The€State€party€refers€in€this€connection€to€the€Committee'sÐ  d ÐViews€in€communication€No.€61/1979òò€1óó,€where€it€was€found€that€the€Committee€"has€onlyÐ ú J Ðbeen€entrusted€with€the€mandate€of€examining€whether€an€individual€has€suffered€an€actualÐ à 0 Ðviolation€of€his€rights.€It€cannot€review€in€the€abstract€whether€national€legislationÐ Æ   Ðcontravenes€the€Covenant".Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ4.3€The€State€party€indicates€that€the€author's€allegations€concern€the€penal€law€and€judicialÐ xÈ  Ðsystem€of€a€country€other€than€Canada.€It€refers€to€the€Committee's€inadmissibility€decisionÐ ^®  Ðin€communication€No.€217/1986€òò2óó,€where€the€Committee€observed€"that€it€can€only€receiveÐ D”  Ðand€consider€communications€in€respect€of€claims€that€come€under€the€jurisdiction€of€a€StateÐ *z  Ðparty€to€the€Covenant".€The€State€party€submits€that€the€Covenant€does€not€imposeÐ ` Ðresponsibility€upon€a€State€for€eventualities€over€which€it€has€no€jurisdiction.Ð öF ÐÌ4.4€Moreover,€it€is€submitted€that€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€asÐ Â Ðincompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€since€the€Covenant€does€not€provide€forÐ ¨ø Ða€right€not€to€be€extradited.€In€this€connection,€the€State€party€quotes€the€Committee'sÐ ŽÞ Ðinadmissibility€decision€in€communication€No.€117/1981òò€3óó:€"There€is€no€provision€of€theÐ tÄ ÐCovenant€making€it€unlawful€for€a€State€party€to€seek€extradition€of€a€person€from€anotherÐ Zª Ðcountry".€It€further€argues€that€even€if€extradition€could€be€found€to€fall€within€the€scope€ofÐ @ Ðprotection€of€the€Covenant€in€exceptional€circumstances,€these€circumstances€are€not€presentÐ &v Ðin€the€instant€case.Ð  \ ÐÌ4.5€The€State€party€further€refers€to€the€United€Nations€Model€Treaty€on€Extraditionòò€4óó,€whichÐ Ø( Ðclearly€contemplates€the€possibility€of€unconditional€surrender€by€providing€for€discretionÐ ¾ Ðin€obtaining€assurances€regarding€the€death€penalty€in€the€same€fashion€as€is€found€in€articleÐ ¤ô Ð6€of€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty.€It€concludes€that€interference€with€theÐ Š Ú Ðsurrender€of€a€fugitive€pursuant€to€legitimate€requests€from€a€treaty€partner€would€defeat€theÐ p!À  Ðprinciples€and€objects€of€extradition€treaties€and€would€entail€undesirable€consequences€forÐ V"¦! ÐStates€refusing€these€legitimate€requests.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€points€out€that€itsÐ <#Œ" Ðlong,€unprotected€border€with€the€United€States€would€make€it€an€attractive€haven€forÐ "$r# Ðfugitives€from€United€States€justice.€If€these€fugitives€could€not€be€extradited€because€of€theÐ %X $ Ðtheoretical€possibility€of€the€death€penalty,€they€would€be€effectively€irremovable€and€wouldÐ î%>!% Ðhave€to€be€allowed€to€remain€in€the€country,€unpunished€and€posing€a€threat€to€the€safety€andÐ Ô&$"& Ðsecurity€of€the€inhabitants.Ð º' #' ÐÌ4.6€The€State€party€finally€submits€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€allegationsÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€the€treatment€he€may€face€in€the€United€States€will€violate€his€rights€under€the€Covenant.Ð l*¼%* ÐIn€this€connection,€the€State€party€points€out€that€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€is€notÐ R+¢&+ Ðòòper€seóó€unlawful€under€the€Covenant.€As€regards€the€delay€between€the€imposition€and€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðexecution€of€the€death€sentence,€the€State€party€submits€that€it€is€difficult€to€see€how€a€periodÐ -n(- ÐÔ_Ôof€detention€during€which€a€convicted€prisoner€would€pursue€all€avenues€of€appeal,€can€beÐ ° Ðheld€to€constitute€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð –æ ÐÌ5.€In€his€reply€to€the€State€party's€submission,€the€author€maintains€that,€since€the€right€to€lifeÐ b² Ðis€at€stake,€there€is€no€possible€argument€for€leaving€extradition€outside€the€Committee'sÐ H˜ Ðjurisdiction.Ð . ~ ÐÌòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€considerations€and€decisionóó:Ð ú J ÐÌ6.1€During€its€45th€session€in€July€1992,€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€of€theÐ Æ   Ðcommunication.€It€observed€that€extradition€as€such€is€outside€the€scope€of€application€of€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐCovenant€òò5óó,€but€that€a€State€party's€obligations€in€relation€to€a€matter€itself€outside€the€scopeÐ ’â  Ðof€the€Covenant€may€still€be€engaged€by€reference€to€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant€òò6óó€.€TheÐ xÈ  ÐCommittee€noted€that€the€author€does€not€claim€that€extradition€as€such€violates€theÐ ^®  ÐCovenant,€but€rather€that€the€particular€circumstances€related€to€the€effects€of€his€extraditionÐ D”  Ðwould€raise€issues€under€specific€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€Accordingly,€theÐ *z  ÐCommitteefound€that€the€communication€was€thus€not€excluded€òòratione€materiaeóó.Ð ` ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€considered€the€contention€of€the€State€party€that€the€claim€is€inadmissibleÐ Ü, Ðòòratione€locióó.€Article€2€of€the€Covenant€requires€States€parties€to€guarantee€the€rights€ofÐ Â Ðpersons€within€their€jurisdiction.€If€a€person€is€lawfully€expelled€or€extradited,€the€State€partyÐ ¨ø Ðconcerned€will€not€generally€have€responsibility€under€the€Covenant€for€any€violations€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€person's€rights€that€may€later€occur€in€the€other€jurisdiction.€In€that€sense€a€State€partyÐ tÄ Ðclearly€is€not€required€to€guarantee€the€rights€of€persons€within€another€jurisdiction.Ð Zª ÐHowever,€if€a€State€party€takes€a€decision€relating€to€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction,€and€theÐ @ Ðnecessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€is€that€that€person's€rights€under€the€Covenant€willÐ &v Ðbe€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð  \ ÐThat€follows€from€the€fact€that€a€State€party's€duty€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant€would€beÐ òB Ðnegated€by€the€handing€over€of€a€person€to€another€State€(whether€a€State€party€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCovenant€or€not)€where€treatment€contrary€to€the€Covenant€is€certain€or€is€the€very€purposeÐ ¾ Ðof€the€handing€over.€For€example,€a€State€party€would€itself€be€in€violation€of€the€CovenantÐ ¤ô Ðif€it€handed€over€a€person€to€another€State€in€circumstances€in€which€it€was€foreseeable€thatÐ Š Ú Ðtorture€would€take€place.€The€foreseeability€of€the€consequence€would€mean€that€there€wasÐ p!À  Ða€present€violation€by€the€State€party,€even€though€the€consequence€would€not€occur€untilÐ V"¦! Ðlater€on.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ6.3€The€Committee€therefore€considered€itself€competent€to€examine€whether€the€State€partyÐ %X $ Ðis€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€by€virtue€of€its€decision€to€extradite€the€author€under€theÐ î%>!% ÐExtradition€Treaty€of€1976€between€the€United€States€and€Canada,€and€the€Extradition€ActÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€1985.Ð º' #' ÐÌ6.4€The€Committee€observed€that€the€Covenant€does€not€prohibit€capital€punishment€for€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðmost€serious€crimes€provided€that€certain€conditions€are€met.€Article€7€of€the€CovenantÐ l*¼%* Ðprohibits€torture€and€cruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment.€In€respect€of€the€so„calledÐ R+¢&+ Ð"death€row€phenomenon"€the€Committee€recalled€its€earlier€jurisprudence€and€noted€thatÐ 8,ˆ', Ð"prolongued€judicial€proceedings€do€not€òòper€seóó€constitute€cruel,€inhuman€and€degradingÐ -n(- Ðtreatment,€even€if€they€can€be€a€source€of€mental€strain€for€the€convicted€persons."òò€7óó€This€alsoÐ ° Ðapplies€to€appeal€and€review€proceedings€in€cases€involving€capital€punishment,€althoughÐ –æ Ðan€assessment€of€the€particular€circumstances€of€each€case€would€be€called€for.€In€StatesÐ |Ì Ðwhose€judicial€system€provides€for€review€of€criminal€convictions€and€sentences,€an€elementÐ b² Ðof€delay€between€the€lawful€imposition€of€a€sentence€of€death€and€the€exhaustion€of€availableÐ H˜ Ðremedies€can€be€necessary€to€review€the€sentence.€Thus,€even€prolonged€periods€of€detentionÐ . ~ Ðunder€a€strict€custodial€regime€on€death€row€could€not€necessarily€be€considered€to€constituteÐ  d Ðcruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment€if€the€convicted€person€is€merely€availing€himselfÐ ú J Ðof€appellate€Ô_Ôremediesòò8Ô_Ôóó.€But€each€case€will€depend€on€its€own€facts.Ð à 0 ÐÌ6.5€The€Committee€observed€further€that€article€6€provides€a€limited€authorization€to€StatesÐ ¬ ü  Ðto€order€capital€punishment€within€their€own€jurisdiction.€It€decided€to€examine€on€the€meritsÐ ’â  Ðthe€question€whether€the€scope€of€the€authorization€permitted€under€article€6€extends€alsoÐ xÈ  Ðto€allowing€foreseeable€loss€of€life€by€capital€punishment€in€another€State,€even€one€with€fullÐ ^®  Ðprocedural€guarantees.Ð D”  ÐÌ6.6€The€Committee€also€found€that€it€is€clear€from€the€òòtravaux€preparatoiresóó€that€it€was€notÐ ` Ðintended€that€article€13€of€the€Covenant,€which€provides€specific€rights€relating€to€theÐ öF Ðexpulsion€of€aliens€lawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party,€should€detract€from€normalÐ Ü, Ðextradition€arrangements.€Nonetheless,€whether€an€alien€is€required€to€leave€the€territoryÐ Â Ðthrough€expulsion€or€extradition,€the€general€guarantees€of€article€13€in€principle€apply,€asÐ ¨ø Ðdo€the€requirements€of€the€Covenant€as€a€whole.€In€this€connection€the€Committee€noted€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€author,€even€though€he€had€unlawfully€entered€the€territory€of€Canada,€had€ampleÐ tÄ Ðopportunity€to€present€his€arguments€against€extradition€before€the€Canadian€courts,Ð Zª Ðincluding€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€which€considered€the€facts€and€the€evidence€beforeÐ @ Ðit€and€found€that€the€extradition€of€the€author€would€not€violate€his€rights€under€CanadianÐ &v Ðor€international€law.€In€this€context€the€Committee€reiterated€its€constant€jurisprudence€thatÐ  \ Ðit€is€not€competent€to€re„evaluate€the€facts€and€evidence€considered€by€national€courts.€WhatÐ òB Ðthe€Committee€may€do€is€to€verify€whether€the€author€was€granted€all€the€proceduralÐ Ø( Ðsafeguards€provided€for€in€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€concluded€that€a€careful€study€ofÐ ¾ Ðall€the€material€submitted€by€the€author€and€by€the€State€party€does€not€reveal€arguments€thatÐ ¤ô Ðwould€support€a€complaint€based€on€the€absence€of€those€guarantees€during€the€course€of€theÐ Š Ú Ðextradition€process.Ð p!À  ÐÌ6.7€The€Committee€also€observed€that,€in€principle,€lawful€capital€punishment€under€articleÐ <#Œ" Ð6€does€not€òòper€seóó€raise€an€issue€under€article€7.€The€Committee€considered€whether€there€areÐ "$r# Ðnonetheless€special€circumstances€that€in€this€particular€case€still€raise€an€issue€under€articleÐ %X $ Ð7.€Canadian€law€does€not€provide€for€the€death€penalty,€except€in€military€cases.€Canada€mayÐ î%>!% Ðby€virtue€of€article€6€of€the€Extradition€Treaty€seek€assurances€from€the€other€State€whichÐ Ô&$"& Ðretains€the€death€penalty,€that€a€capital€sentence€shall€not€be€imposed.€It€may€also,€under€theÐ º' #' ÐTreaty,€refuse€to€extradite€a€person€when€such€an€assurance€is€not€received.€While€theÐ  (ð#( Ðseeking€of€such€assurances€and€the€determination€as€to€whether€or€not€to€extradite€in€theirÐ †)Ö$) Ðabsence€is€discretionary€under€the€Treaty€and€Canadian€law,€these€decisions€may€raise€issuesÐ l*¼%* Ðunder€the€Covenant.€In€particular,€the€Committee€considered€that€it€might€be€relevant€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðknow€whether€the€State€party€satisfied€itself,€before€deciding€not€to€invoke€article€6€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐTreaty,€that€this€would€not€involve€for€the€author€a€necessary€and€foreseeable€violation€ofÐ -n(- Ðhis€rights€under€the€Covenant.Ð ° ÐÌ6.8€The€Committee€also€found€that€the€methods€employed€for€judicial€execution€of€aÐ |Ì Ðsentence€of€capital€punishment€may€in€a€particular€case€raise€issues€under€article€7.Ð b² ÐÌ7.€On€31€July€1992€the€Committee€decided€that€the€communication€was€admissible€in€asÐ . ~ Ðmuch€as€it€might€raise€issues€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€furtherÐ  d Ðindicated€that,€in€accordance€with€rule€93,€paragraph€4,€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€the€StateÐ ú J Ðparty€could€request€a€review€of€the€decision€on€admissibility€at€the€time€of€the€examinationofÐ à 0 Ðthe€merits€of€the€communication.€Two€Committee€members€appended€a€dissenting€opinionÐ Æ   Ðto€the€decision€on€admissibilityòò€9óó.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€submission€on€the€merits€and€request€for€review€of€admissibilityóó:Ð xÈ  ÐÌ8.1€In€its€submissions€dated€2€April€and€26€May€1993,€the€State€party€submits€facts€on€theÐ D”  Ðextradition€process€in€general,€on€the€Canada„United€States€extradition€relationship€and€onÐ *z  Ðthe€specifics€of€the€present€case.€It€further€requests€a€review€of€the€Committee's€decision€onÐ ` Ðadmissibility.Ð öF ÐÌ8.2€The€State€party€recalls€that€"extradition€exists€to€contribute€to€the€safety€of€the€citizensÐ Â Ðand€residents€of€States.€Dangerous€criminal€offenders€seeking€a€safe€haven€from€prosecutionÐ ¨ø Ðor€punishment€are€removed€to€face€justice€in€the€State€in€which€their€crimes€were€committed.Ð ŽÞ ÐExtradition€furthers€international€cooperation€in€criminal€justice€matters€and€strengthensÐ tÄ Ðdomestic€law€enforcement.€It€is€meant€to€be€a€straightforward€and€expeditious€process.Ð Zª ÐExtradition€seeks€to€balance€the€rights€of€fugitives€with€the€need€for€the€protection€of€theÐ @ Ðresidents€of€the€two€States€parties€to€any€given€extradition€treaty.€The€extraditionÐ &v Ðrelationship€between€Canada€and€the€United€States€dates€back€to€1794€...€In€1842,€the€UnitedÐ  \ ÐStates€and€Great€Britain€entered€into€the€Ashburton„Webster€Treaty€which€contained€articlesÐ òB Ðgoverning€the€mutual€surrender€of€criminals€...€this€treaty€remained€in€force€until€the€presentÐ Ø( ÐCanada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty€of€1976."Ð ¾ ÐÌ8.3€With€regard€to€the€principle€òòaut€dedere€aut€judicareóó€the€State€party€explains€that€whileÐ Š Ú Ðsome€States€can€prosecute€persons€for€crimes€committed€in€other€jurisdictions€in€which€theirÐ p!À  Ðown€nationals€are€either€the€offender€or€the€victim,€other€States,€such€as€Canada€and€certainÐ V"¦! Ðother€States€in€the€common€law€tradition,€cannot.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ8.4€Extradition€in€Canada€is€governed€by€the€Extradition€Act€and€the€terms€of€the€applicableÐ %X $ Ðtreaty.€The€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms,€which€forms€part€of€the€constitutionÐ î%>!% Ðof€Canada€and€embodies€many€of€the€rights€protected€by€the€Covenant,€applies.€UnderÐ Ô&$"& ÐCanadian€law€extradition€is€a€two€step€process,€the€first€involving€a€hearing€at€which€a€judgeÐ º' #' Ðconsiders€whether€a€factual€and€legal€basis€for€extradition€exits.€The€person€sought€forÐ  (ð#( Ðextradition€may€submit€evidence€at€the€judicial€hearing.€If€the€judge€is€satisfied€on€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðevidence€that€a€legal€basis€for€extradition€exists,€the€fugitive€is€ordered€committed€to€awaitÐ l*¼%* Ðsurrender€to€the€requesting€State.€Judicial€review€of€a€warrant€of€committal€to€awaitÐ R+¢&+ Ðsurrender€can€be€sought€by€means€of€an€application€for€a€writ€of€òòhabeas€corpusóó€in€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðprovincial€court.€A€decision€of€the€judge€on€the€òòhabeas€corpusóó€application€can€be€appealedÐ -n(- Ðto€the€provincial€court€of€appeal€and€then,€with€leave,€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€TheÐ ° Ðsecond€step€in€the€extradition€process€begins€following€the€exhaustion€of€the€appeals€in€theÐ –æ Ðjudicial€phase.€The€Minister€of€Justice€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€deciding€whetherÐ |Ì Ðto€surrender€the€person€sought€for€extradition.€The€fugitive€may€make€written€submissionsÐ b² Ðto€the€Minister€and€counsel€for€the€fugitive,€with€leave,€may€appear€before€the€Minister€toÐ H˜ Ðpresent€oral€argument.In€coming€to€a€decision€on€surrender,€the€Minister€considers€aÐ . ~ Ðcomplete€record€of€the€case€from€the€judicial€phase,€together€with€any€written€and€oralÐ  d Ðsubmissions€from€the€fugitive,€and€while€the€Minister's€decision€is€discretionary,€theÐ ú J Ðdiscretion€is€circumscribed€by€law.€The€decision€is€based€upon€a€consideration€of€manyÐ à 0 Ðfactors,€including€Canada's€obligations€under€the€applicable€treaty€of€extradition,€factsÐ Æ   Ðparticular€to€the€person€and€the€nature€of€the€crime€for€which€extradition€is€sought.€InÐ ¬ ü  Ðaddition,€the€Minister€must€consider€the€terms€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ ’â  ÐFreedoms€and€the€various€instruments,€including€the€Covenant,€which€outline€Canada'sÐ xÈ  Ðinternational€human€rights€obligations.€Finally,€a€fugitive€may€seek€judicial€review€of€theÐ ^®  ÐMinister's€decision€by€a€provincial€court€and€appeal€a€warrant€of€surrender,€with€leave,€upÐ D”  Ðto€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€In€interpreting€Canada's€human€rights€obligations€underÐ *z  Ðthe€Canadian€Charter,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€is€guided€by€international€instrumentsÐ ` Ðto€which€Canada€is€a€party,€including€the€Covenant.Ð öF ÐÌ8.5€With€regard€to€surrender€in€death€penalty€cases,€the€Minister€of€Justice€decides€whetherÐ Â Ðor€not€to€request€assurances€on€the€basis€of€an€examination€of€the€particular€facts€of€eachÐ ¨ø Ðcase.€The€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty€was€not€intended€to€make€the€seeking€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðassurances€a€routine€occurrence€but€only€in€circumstances€where€the€particular€facts€of€theÐ tÄ Ðcase€warrant€a€special€exercise€of€discretion.Ð Zª ÐÌ8.6€With€regard€to€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€in€Canada,€the€State€party€notes€that€"AÐ &v Ðsubstantial€number€of€States€within€the€international€community,€including€the€United€States,Ð  \ Ðcontinue€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€The€Government€of€Canada€does€not€use€extraditionÐ òB Ðas€a€vehicle€for€imposing€its€concepts€of€criminal€law€policy€on€other€States.€By€seekingÐ Ø( Ðassurances€on€a€routine€basis,€in€the€absence€of€exceptional€circumstances,€Canada€wouldÐ ¾ Ðbe€dictating€to€the€requesting€State,€in€this€case€the€United€States,€how€it€should€punish€itsÐ ¤ô Ðcriminal€law€offenders.€The€Government€of€Canada€contends€that€this€would€be€anÐ Š Ú Ðunwarranted€interference€with€the€internal€affairs€of€another€State.€The€Government€ofÐ p!À  ÐCanada€reserves€the€right€...€to€refuse€to€extradite€without€assurances.€This€right€is€held€inÐ V"¦! Ðreserve€for€use€only€where€exceptional€circumstances€exist.€In€the€view€of€the€GovernmentÐ <#Œ" Ðof€Canada,€it€may€be€that€evidence€showing€that€a€fugitive€would€face€certain€or€foreseeableÐ "$r# Ðviolations€of€the€Covenant€would€be€one€example€of€exceptional€circumstances€which€wouldÐ %X $ Ðwarrant€the€special€measure€of€seeking€assurances€under€article€6.€However,€there€was€noÐ î%>!% Ðevidence€presented€by€Kindler€during€the€extradition€process€in€Canada€and€there€is€noÐ Ô&$"& Ðevidence€in€this€communication€to€support€the€allegations€that€the€use€of€the€death€penaltyÐ º' #' Ðin€the€United€States€generally,€or€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€in€particular,€violates€theÐ  (ð#( ÐCovenant."Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ8.7€The€State€party€also€refers€to€article€4€of€the€United€Nations€Model€Treaty€onÐ R+¢&+ ÐExtradition,€which€lists€optional,€but€not€mandatory,€grounds€for€refusing€extradition:€"(d)Ð 8,ˆ', ÐIf€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€carries€the€death€penalty€under€the€law€ofÐ -n(- Ðthe€Requesting€State,€unless€the€State€gives€such€assurance€as€the€Requested€State€considersÐ ° Ðsufficient€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€or,€if€imposed,€will€not€be€carried€out."Ð –æ ÐSimilarly,€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty€provides€that€the€decisionÐ |Ì Ðwith€respect€to€obtaining€assurances€regarding€the€death€penalty€is€discretionary.Ð b² ÐÌ8.8€With€regard€to€the€link€between€extradition€and€the€protection€of€society,€the€State€partyÐ . ~ Ðsubmits€that€Canada€and€the€United€States€share€a€4,800€kilometre€unguarded€border,thatÐ  d Ðmany€fugitives€from€United€States€justice€cross€that€border€into€Canada€and€that€in€the€lastÐ ú J Ðtwelve€years€there€has€been€a€steadily€increasing€number€of€extradition€requests€from€theÐ à 0 ÐUnited€States.€In€1980€there€were€29€such€requests;€by€1992€the€number€had€increased€to€83.Ð Æ   Ð"Requests€involving€death€penalty€cases€are€a€new€and€growing€problem€for€Canada€...€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðpolicy€of€routinely€seeking€assurances€under€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€StatesÐ ’â  ÐExtradition€Treaty€will€encourage€even€more€criminal€law€offenders,€especially€those€guiltyÐ xÈ  Ðof€the€most€serious€of€crimes,€to€flee€the€United€States€for€Canada.€Canada€does€not€wish€toÐ ^®  Ðbecome€a€haven€for€the€most€wanted€and€dangerous€criminals€from€the€United€States.€If€theÐ D”  ÐCovenant€fetters€Canada's€discretion€not€to€seek€assurances,€increasing€numbers€of€criminalsÐ *z  Ðmay€come€to€Canada€for€the€purpose€of€securing€immunity€from€capital€punishment."Ð ` ÐÌ9.1€With€respect€to€Mr.€Kindler's€case,€the€State€party€recalls€that€he€challenged€the€warrantÐ Ü, Ðof€committal€and€the€warrant€of€surrender€in€accordance€with€the€extradition€processÐ Â Ðoutlined€above,€and€that€his€counsel€made€written€and€oral€submissions€to€the€Minister€toÐ ¨ø Ðseek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€not€be€imposed.€He€argued€that€extradition€to€face€theÐ ŽÞ Ðdeath€penalty€would€offend€his€rights€under€section€7€(comparable€to€articles€6€and€9€of€theÐ tÄ ÐCovenant)€and€section€12€(comparable€to€article€7€of€the€Covenant)€of€the€Canadian€CharterÐ Zª Ðof€Rights€and€Freedoms.Ð @ ÐÌ9.2€As€to€the€Committee's€admissibility€decision,€the€State€party€reiterates€its€argument€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€communication€is€inadmissible€òòratione€materiaeóó€because€extradition€òòper€seóó€is€beyond€theÐ òB Ðscope€of€the€Covenant.€A€review€of€the€òòtravaux€preparatoiresóó€reveals€that€the€drafters€of€theÐ Ø( ÐCovenant€specifically€considered€and€rejected€a€proposal€to€deal€with€extradition€in€theÐ ¾ ÐCovenant.€In€the€light€of€the€negotiating€history€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€submits€thatÐ ¤ô Ð"a€decision€to€extend€the€Covenant€to€extradition€treaties€or€to€individual€decisions€pursuantÐ Š Ú Ðthereto€would€stretch€the€principles€governing€the€interpretation€of€human€rights€instrumentsÐ p!À  Ðin€unreasonable€and€unacceptable€ways.€It€would€be€unreasonable€because€the€principles€ofÐ V"¦! Ðinterpretation€which€recognize€that€human€rights€instruments€are€living€documents€and€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðhuman€rights€evolve€over€time€cannot€be€employed€in€the€face€of€express€limits€to€theÐ "$r# Ðapplication€of€a€given€document.€The€absence€of€extradition€from€the€articles€of€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant€when€read€with€the€intention€of€the€drafters€must€be€taken€as€an€expressÐ î%>!% Ðlimitation."Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ9.3€As€to€the€merits,€the€State€party€stresses€that€Mr.€Kindler€enjoyed€a€full€hearing€on€allÐ  (ð#( Ðmatters€concerning€his€extradition€to€face€the€death€penalty.€"If€it€can€be€said€that€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐCovenant€applies€to€extradition€at€all€...€an€extraditing€State€could€be€said€to€be€in€violationÐ l*¼%* Ðof€the€Covenant€only€where€it€returned€a€fugitive€to€certain€or€foreseeable€treatment€orÐ R+¢&+ Ðpunishment,€or€to€judicial€procedures€which€in€themselves€would€be€a€violation€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCovenant."€In€the€present€case,€the€State€party€submits€that€whereas€it€was€reasonablyÐ -n(- Ðforeseeable€that€Mr.€Kindler€would€be€held€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€subject€to€a€sentenceÐ ° Ðof€death,€it€was€not€reasonably€foreseeable€that€he€would€in€fact€be€put€to€death€or€be€heldÐ –æ Ðin€conditions€of€incarceration€that€would€violate€rights€under€the€Covenant.€The€State€partyÐ |Ì Ðpoints€out€that€Mr.€Kindler€is€entitled€to€many€avenues€of€appeal€in€the€United€States€andÐ b² Ðthat€he€can€petition€for€clemency;€furthermore,€he€is€entitled€to€challenge€in€the€courts€of€theÐ H˜ ÐUnited€States€the€conditions€under€which€he€is€held€while€his€appeals€with€respect€to€theÐ . ~ Ðdeath€penalty€are€outstanding.Ð  d ÐÌ9.4€As€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€United€States,€the€State€party€recalls€thatÐ à 0 Ðarticle€6€of€the€Covenant€did€not€abolish€capital€punishment€under€international€law.€"InÐ Æ   Ðcountries€which€have€not€abolished€the€death€penalty,€the€sentence€of€death€may€still€beÐ ¬ ü  Ðimposed€for€the€most€serious€crimes€in€accordance€with€law€in€force€at€the€time€of€theÐ ’â  Ðcommission€of€the€crime,€not€contrary€to€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€not€contrary€toÐ xÈ  Ðthe€Convention€on€the€Prevention€and€Punishment€of€the€Crime€of€Genocide.€The€deathÐ ^®  Ðpenalty€can€only€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€a€competent€court.Ð D”  ÐIt€may€be€that€Canada€would€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€if€it€extradited€a€person€to€faceÐ *z  Ðthe€possible€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€where€it€was€reasonably€foreseeable€that€theÐ ` Ðrequesting€State€would€impose€the€death€penalty€under€circumstances€which€would€violateÐ öF Ðarticle€6.€That€is,€it€may€be€that€an€extraditing€State€would€be€violating€the€Covenant€toÐ Ü, Ðreturn€a€fugitive€to€a€State€which€imposed€the€death€penalty€for€other€than€the€most€seriousÐ Â Ðcrimes,€or€for€actions€which€are€not€contrary€to€a€law€in€force€at€the€time€of€commission,€orÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€carried€out€the€death€penalty€in€the€absence€of€or€contrary€to€the€final€judgment€of€aÐ ŽÞ Ðcompetent€court.€Such€are€not€the€facts€here€...€Kindler€did€not€place€any€evidence€before€theÐ tÄ ÐCanadian€courts,€before€the€Minister€of€Justice€or€before€the€Committee€which€wouldÐ Zª Ðsuggest€that€the€United€States€was€acting€contrary€to€the€stringent€criteria€established€byÐ @ ÐArticle€6€when€it€sought€his€extradition€from€Canada...€The€Government€of€Canada,€in€theÐ &v Ðperson€of€the€Minister€of€Justice,€was€satisfied€at€the€time€the€order€of€surrender€was€issuedÐ  \ Ðthat€if€Kindler€is€executed€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€this€will€be€within€the€conditionsÐ òB Ðexpressly€prescribed€by€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€Government€of€Canada€remainsÐ Ø( Ðsatisfied€that€this€is€so."Ð ¾ ÐÌ9.5€Finally,€the€State€party€observes€that€it€is€"in€a€difficult€position€attempting€to€defend€theÐ Š Ú Ðcriminal€justice€system€of€the€United€States€before€the€Committee.€It€contends€that€theÐ p!À  ÐOptional€Protocol€process€was€never€intended€to€place€a€State€in€the€position€of€having€toÐ V"¦! Ðdefend€the€laws€or€practices€of€another€State€before€the€Committee."Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ9.6€With€respect€to€the€issue€whether€the€death€penalty€violates€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€theÐ %X $ ÐState€party€submits€that€"article€7€cannot€be€read€or€interpreted€without€reference€to€articleÐ î%>!% Ð6.€The€Covenant€must€be€read€as€a€whole€and€its€articles€as€being€in€harmony...€It€may€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€certain€forms€of€execution€are€contrary€to€article€7.€Torturing€a€person€to€death€wouldÐ º' #' Ðseem€to€fall€into€this€category€as€torture€is€a€violation€of€article€7.€Other€forms€of€executionÐ  (ð#( Ðmay€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€because€they€are€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading.€However,Ð †)Ö$) Ðas€the€death€penalty€is€permitted€within€the€narrow€parameters€set€by€article€6,€it€must€be€thatÐ l*¼%* Ðsome€methods€of€execution€exist€which€would€not€violate€article€7."Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ9.7€As€to€the€methods€of€execution,€the€State€party€indicates€that€the€method€of€executionÐ -n(- Ðin€Pennsylvania€is€lethal€injection,€which€is€the€method€proposed€by€those€who€advocateÐ ° Ðeuthanasia€for€terminally€ill€patients.€It€is€thus€at€the€end€of€the€spectrum€of€methodsÐ –æ Ðdesigned€to€cause€the€least€pain.Ð |Ì ÐÌ9.8€As€to€the€"death€row€phenomenon"€the€State€party€submits€that€each€case€must€beÐ H˜ Ðexamined€on€its€facts,€including€the€conditions€in€the€prison€in€which€the€prisoner€would€beÐ . ~ Ðheld€while€on€"death€row",€the€age€and€the€mental€and€physical€condition€of€the€prisonerÐ  d Ðsubject€to€those€conditions,€the€reasonably€foreseeable€length€of€time€the€prisoner€wouldÐ ú J Ðbesubject€to€those€conditions,€the€reasons€underlying€the€length€of€time€and€the€avenues,€ifÐ à 0 Ðany,€for€remedying€unacceptable€conditions.€"Mr.€Kindler€argued€before€the€Minister€ofÐ Æ   ÐJustice€and€in€Canadian€courts€that€conditions€on€'death€row'€in€the€State€of€PennsylvaniaÐ ¬ ü  Ðwould€amount€to€a€denial€of€his€rights.€His€evidence€consisted€of€some€testimony€andÐ ’â  Ðacademic€journal€articles€on€the€effect€that€electrocution,€as€a€method€of€execution,€wasÐ xÈ  Ðalleged€to€have€on€the€psychological€state€of€prisoners€held€on€death€row.€He€did€not€presentÐ ^®  Ðevidence€on€the€facilities€or€prison€routines€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€...€he€did€not€presentÐ D”  Ðevidence€on€his€plans€to€contest€the€death€sentence€in€the€United€States€and€the€expectedÐ *z  Ðlength€of€time€he€would€be€held€awaiting€a€final€answer€from€the€courts€of€the€United€States.Ð ` ÐHe€did€not€present€evidence€that€he€intended€to€seek€a€commutation€of€his€sentence.€TheÐ öF Ðevidence€he€did€tender€was€considered€by€the€courts€and€by€the€Minister€of€Justice€but€wasÐ Ü, Ðjudged€insubstantial€and€therefore€insufficient€to€reverse€the€premises€underlying€theÐ Â Ðextradition€relationship€in€existence€between€Canada€and€the€United€States.€The€GovernmentÐ ¨ø Ðof€Canada€submits€that€the€Minister€of€Justice€and€the€Canadian€courts€in€the€course€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðextradition€process€in€Canada,€with€its€two€phases€of€decision„making€and€avenues€forÐ tÄ Ðjudicial€review,€examined€and€weighed€all€the€allegations€and€facts€presented€by€Kindler.Ð Zª ÐThe€Minister€of€Justice,€in€deciding€to€surrender€Kindler€to€face€the€possible€imposition€ofÐ @ Ðthe€death€penalty,€considered€all€the€factors.€The€Minister€was€not€convinced€on€the€evidenceÐ &v Ðthat€the€conditions€of€incarceration€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€when€considered€with€theÐ  \ Ðreasons€for€the€delay€and€the€continuing€access€to€the€courts€in€the€United€States,€wouldÐ òB Ðviolate€the€rights€of€Kindler,€either€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms€orÐ Ø( Ðunder€the€Covenant.€The€Canadian€Supreme€Court€upheld€the€Minister's€decision,€makingÐ ¾ Ðit€clear€that€the€decision€was€not€seen€as€subjecting€Kindler€to€a€violation€of€his€rights...€TheÐ ¤ô ÐMinister€of€Justice€and€the€Canadian€courts€came€to€the€conclusion€that€Kindler€would€notÐ Š Ú Ðbe€subjected€to€a€violation€of€rights€which€can€be€expressed€as€'death€row€phenomenon'.€TheÐ p!À  ÐGovernment€of€Canada€contends€that€the€extradition€process€and€its€result€in€the€case€ofÐ V"¦! ÐÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€satisfied€Canada's€obligation€in€respect€of€the€Covenant€on€this€point."Ð <#Œ" ÐÌòòComments€by€author's€counselóó:Ð %X $ ÐÌ10.1€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€author's€counsel€argues€that€whereasÐ Ô&$"& Ðarticle€6€of€the€Covenant€does€foresee€the€possibility€of€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,Ð º' #' Ðarticle€6,€paragraph€2,€applies€only€to€countries€"which€have€not€abolished€the€deathÐ  (ð#( Ðpenalty".€Since€Canada€has€abolished€capital€punishment€in€non„military€law,€the€principleÐ †)Ö$) Ðapplies€that€one€cannot€do€indirectly€what€one€cannot€do€directly,€and€that€Canada€wasÐ l*¼%* Ðrequired€to€demand€guarantees€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€would€not€be€executed€and€that€he€wouldÐ R+¢&+ Ðbe€treated€in€accordance€with€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð10.2€Author's€counsel€refers€to€the€factum€presented€to€the€Canadian€Supreme€Court€on€Mr.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€behalf.€In€said€factum,€the€relevant€aspects€of€Canadian€Constitutional€andÐ –æ ÐAdministrative€law€are€discussed,€and€the€arguments€are€said€to€be€applicable€òòmutatisÐ |Ì Ðmutandisóó€to€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€In€paragraphs€38€to€49€of€the€factum,€author'sÐ b² Ðcounsel€argues€that€the€United€States€use€of€the€death€penalty€is€not€compatible€with€theÐ H˜ Ðstandards€of€the€Covenant.€He€refers€to€a€book€by€Ô_ÔZimringÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔHawkingsÔ_Ô,€òòCapitalÐ . ~ ÐPunishment€and€the€American€Agendaóó€(1986),€which€argues€the€absence€of€any€deterrentÐ  d ÐÔ_ÔeffectandÔ_Ô€the€essentially€vengeance„based€motives€for€the€resurgence€of€capital€punishmentÐ ú J Ðin€the€United€States.€He€also€quotes€extensively€from€the€judgment€of€the€European€CourtÐ à 0 Ðof€Justice€in€the€òòÔ_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€v.€United€Kingdomóó€case.€He€indicates€that€while€the€majority€CourtÐ Æ   Ðdeclined€to€find€capital€punishment€òòper€seóó€cruel€and€unusual€in€every€case,€it€did€condemnÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€death€row€phenomenon€as€such.€The€European€Court€concluded:Ð ’â  ÐÌ"For€any€prisoner€condemned€to€death,€some€element€of€delay€between€imposition€andÐ ^®  Ðexecution€of€the€sentence€and€the€experience€of€severe€stress€in€conditions€necessary€forÐ D”  Ðstrict€incarceration€are€inevitable.€The€democratic€character€of€the€Virginia€legal€system€inÐ *z  Ðgeneral€and€the€positive€features€of€the€Virginia€trial,€sentencing€and€appeal€procedures€inÐ ` Ðparticular€are€beyond€doubt.€The€Court€agrees€with€the€Commission€that€the€machinery€ofÐ öF Ðjustice€to€which€the€applicant€would€be€subject€in€the€United€States€is€in€itself€neitherÐ Ü, Ðarbitrary€nor€unreasonable,€but,€rather,€respects€the€rule€of€law€and€affords€not€inconsiderableÐ Â Ðprocedural€safeguards€to€the€defendant€in€a€capital€trial.€Facilities€are€available€on€death€rowÐ ¨ø Ðfor€psychiatric€services...€However,€in€the€Court's€view,€having€regard€to€the€very€longÐ ŽÞ Ðperiod€of€time€spent€on€death€row€in€such€extreme€conditions,€with€the€ever€present€andÐ tÄ Ðmounting€anguish€of€awaiting€execution€of€the€death€penalty,€and€to€the€personalÐ Zª Ðcircumstances€of€the€applicant,€especially€his€age€and€mental€state€at€the€time€of€the€offence,Ð @ Ðthe€applicant's€extradition€to€the€United€States€would€expose€him€to€a€real€risk€of€treatmentÐ &v Ðgoing€beyond€the€threshold€set€by€article€3.€A€further€consideration€of€relevance€is€that€inÐ  \ Ðthe€particular€instance€the€legitimate€purpose€of€extradition€could€be€achieved€by€anotherÐ òB Ðmeans€which€would€not€involve€suffering€of€such€exceptional€intensity€or€duration."Ð Ø( ÐÌ10.3€Counsel€further€quotes€from€the€concurring€opinion€of€Judge€Ô_ÔDeMeyerÔ_Ô,€arguing€thatÐ ¤ô Ð"No€State€Party€to€the€Convention€can€in€that€context,€even€if€it€has€not€yet€ratified€the€SixthÐ Š Ú ÐProtocol,€be€allowed€to€extradite€any€person€if€that€person€thereby€incurs€the€risk€of€beingÐ p!À  Ðput€to€death€in€the€requesting€State."Ð V"¦! ÐÌ10.4€Counsel€also€quotes€from€numerous€articles€Ô_ÔanalysingÔ_Ô€the€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€decision,€includingÐ "$r# Ðone€by€Gino€J.€Ô_ÔNaldiÔ_Ô€of€the€University€of€East€Anglia:Ð %X $ ÐÌ"The€Court€considered€whether€the€death€penalty€violated€article€3.€The€Court€noted€that€asÐ Ô&$"& Ðoriginally€drafted,€the€Convention€did€not€seek€to€prohibit€the€death€penalty.€However,Ð º' #' Ðsubsequent€national€practice€meant€that€few€High€Contracting€Parties€now€retained€it€andÐ  (ð#( Ðthis€was€reflected€in€Protocol€No.€6€which€provides€for€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€butÐ †)Ö$) Ðwhich€the€United€Kingdom€has€not€ratified€notwithstanding€its€virtual€abolition€of€the€deathÐ l*¼%* Ðpenalty.€Yet€the€very€existence€of€this€Protocol€led€the€Court€to€the€conclusion€that€articleÐ R+¢&+ Ð3€had€not€developed€in€such€a€manner€that€it€could€be€interpreted€as€prohibiting€the€deathÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpenalty...Ð -n(- ЇIn€the€present€case€the€Court€found€that€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô's€fears€that€he€would€be€exposed€to€theÐ ° Ð'death€row€phenomenon'€were€real...€The€fact€that€a€condemned€prisoner€was€subjected€to€theÐ –æ Ðsevere€regime€of€death€row€in€a€high€security€prison€for€six€to€eight€years,€notwithstandingÐ |Ì Ðpsychological€and€psychiatric€services,€compounded€the€problem...€The€Court€wasÐ b² Ðadditionally€influenced€by€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô's€age€and€Ô_ÔmentalconditionÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€was€eighteen€yearsÐ H˜ Ðold€at€the€time€of€the€murders€in€1985€and€in€view€of€a€number€of€international€instrumentsÐ . ~ Ðprohibiting€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€on€minors€...€the€Court€expressed€the€opinionÐ  d Ðthat€a€general€principle€now€exists€that€the€youth€of€a€condemned€person€is€a€significantÐ ú J Ðfactor€to€be€taken€into€account...€Another€factor€the€Court€found€relevant€was€psychiatricÐ à 0 Ðevidence€that€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€was€mentally€disturbed€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€The€Court€was€alsoÐ Æ   Ðinfluenced€by€the€fact€that€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô's€extradition€was€sought€by€the€Federal€Republic€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐGermany€whose€constitution€allows€its€nationals€to€be€tried€for€offences€committed€in€otherÐ ’â  Ðcountries€but€prohibits€the€death€penalty.€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€could€therefore€be€tried€for€his€allegedÐ xÈ  Ðcrimes€without€being€exposed€to€the€'death€row€phenomenon'òò€10óó.Ð ^®  ÐÌ10.5€Counsel€contests€the€argument€by€the€State€party€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€was€not€a€minor€atÐ *z  Ðthe€time€of€the€offence.€"It€is€not€sufficient€to€state€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€is€not€a€minor€and€isÐ ` Ðcharged€with€a€serious€offence€because€in€a€society€in€which€minors€and€mentally€defectiveÐ öF Ðcitizens€can€be€executed,€the€access€to€a€pardon€is€almost€non„existent€for€someone€like€Mr.Ð Ü, ÐÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô;€yet€the€right€to€apply€for€pardon€is€an€essential€one€in€the€Covenant."Ð Â ÐÌ10.6€Counsel€further€contends€that€the€Canadian€Minister€of€Justice€did€not€consider€theÐ ŽÞ Ðissue€of€the€"death€row€phenomenon"€or€the€period€of€time€or€the€conditions€of€"death€row".Ð tÄ ÐÌ10.7€He€points€to€works€of€law€and€political€science€Ô_ÔfavouringÔ_Ô€abolition,€which€areÐ @ Ðpermeated€by€the€horror€at€the€thought€of€execution€and€the€sense€of€cruelty€which€alwaysÐ &v Ðaccompanies€it.€Ð  \ ÐÌ10.8€The€fact€that€the€Covenant€provides€for€capital€punishment€for€serious€offenses€doesÐ Ø( Ðnot€prevent€an€evolution€in€the€interpretation€of€the€law.€"By€now€capital€punishment€mustÐ ¾ Ðbe€viewed€as€per€se€cruel€and€unusual,€and€as€a€violation€of€Sec.€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€inÐ ¤ô Ðall€but€the€most€horrendous€cases€of€heinous€crime;€it€can€no€longer€be€accepted€as€theÐ Š Ú Ðstandard€penalty€for€murder;€thus€except€for€those€unusual€cases,€the€Covenant€does€notÐ p!À  Ðauthorize€it.€In€this€context,€executing€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€would€òòby€itselfóó€be€a€violation€of€Sec.€6Ð V"¦! Ðand€7€and€he€should€not€have€been€extradited€without€guarantees."Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ10.9€With€regard€to€Canada's€argument€that€it€does€not€wish€to€become€a€haven€for€foreignÐ %X $ Ðcriminals,€counsel€contends€that€there€is€no€proof€that€this€would€happen,€nor€was€such€proofÐ î%>!% Ðadvanced€at€any€time€in€the€proceedings.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ11.€As€to€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€counsel€rejects€the€State€party's€argumentsÐ  (ð#( Ðas€unfounded.€In€particular,€he€contends€that€"it€is€not€logical€to€exclude€extradition€from€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐCovenant€or€to€require€certainty€of€execution€as€Canada€suggests€...€law€almost€never€dealsÐ l*¼%* Ðwith€certainties€but€only€with€probabilities€and€possibilities."€He€stresses€"that€there€is€plentyÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€evidence€that,€òòwith€respect€to€the€death€sentenceóó,€the€legal€system€of€Ô_ÔtheUnitedÔ_Ô€States€isÐ 8,ˆ', Ðnot€in€conformity€with€the€Covenant€and€that€therefore,€applying€its€own€principles€...,Ð -n(- ÐCanada€should€have€considered€all€the€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô.€It€is€thus€not€possibleÐ ° Ðfor€Canada€to€argue€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€petition€was€inadmissible;€he€alleged€òòCanada'sóóÐ –æ Ðrepeated€violation€of€the€Covenant,€not€that€of€the€United€States;€that€the€American€systemÐ |Ì Ðmight€be€indirectly€affected€is€no€concern€for€Canada."Ð b² ÐÌòòReview€of€admissibility€and€consideration€of€meritsóó:Ð . ~ ÐÌ12.1€In€his€initial€submission€author's€counsel€claimed€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€was€a€victim€ofÐ ú J Ðviolations€of€articles€6,€7,€9,€10,€14€and€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ12.2€When€the€Committee,€at€its€forty„fifth€session,€examined€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðcommunication,€it€found€some€of€the€author's€allegations€unsubstantiated€and€thereforeÐ ’â  Ðinadmissible;€it€further€considered€that€the€communication€raised€new€and€complexÐ xÈ  Ðquestions€with€regard€to€the€compatibility€with€the€Covenant,€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó,€ofÐ ^®  Ðextradition€to€face€capital€punishment,€in€particular€with€regard€to€the€scope€of€articles€6€andÐ D”  Ð7€of€the€Covenant€to€such€situations€and€their€concrete€application€in€the€present€case.€ItÐ *z  Ðtherefore€declared€the€communication€admissible€inasmuch€as€it€might€raise€issues€underÐ ` Ðarticles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€The€State€party€has€made€extensive€new€submissions€onÐ öF Ðboth€admissibility€and€merits€and€requested,€pursuant€to€rule€93,€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ Ü, ÐCommittee's€rules€of€procedure,€a€review€of€the€Committee's€decision€on€admissibility.Ð Â ÐÌ12.3€In€reviewing€its€decision€on€admissibility,€the€Committee€takes€note€of€the€objectionsÐ ŽÞ Ðof€the€State€party€and€of€the€arguments€by€author's€counsel€in€this€respect.€The€CommitteeÐ tÄ Ðobserves€that€with€regard€to€the€scope€of€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee'sÐ Zª Ðjurisprudence€is€not€Ô_ÔdispositiveÔ_Ô€on€issues€of€admissibility€such€as€those€raised€in€the€instantÐ @ Ðcommunication.€Therefore,€the€Committee€considers€that€an€examination€on€the€merits€ofÐ &v Ðthe€communication€will€enable€the€Committee€to€pronounce€itself€on€the€scope€of€theseÐ  \ Ðarticles€and€to€clarify€the€applicability€of€the€Covenant€and€Optional€Protocol€to€casesÐ òB Ðconcerning€extradition€to€face€capital€punishment.Ð Ø( ÐÌ13.1€Before€examining€the€merits€of€this€communication,€the€Committee€observes€that,€asÐ ¤ô Ðindicated€in€the€admissibility€decision,€what€is€at€issue€is€not€whether€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€rightsÐ Š Ú Ðhave€been€or€are€likely€to€be€violated€by€the€United€States,€which€is€not€a€party€to€theÐ p!À  ÐOptional€Protocol,€but€whether€by€extraditing€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€to€the€United€States,€CanadaÐ V"¦! Ðexposed€him€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€his€rights€under€the€Covenant.€States€parties€toÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€Covenant€will€often€also€be€party€to€various€bilateral€obligations,€including€those€underÐ "$r# Ðextradition€treaties.€A€State€party€to€the€Covenant€is€required€to€ensure€that€it€carries€out€allÐ %X $ Ðits€other€legal€commitments€in€a€manner€consistent€with€the€Covenant.€The€starting€point€forÐ î%>!% Ðan€examination€of€this€issue€must€be€the€obligation€of€the€State€party€under€article€2,Ð Ô&$"& Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€namely,€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€andÐ º' #' Ðsubject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant.€The€right€to€life€is€the€mostÐ  (ð#( Ðessential€of€these€rights.13.2€If€a€State€party€extradites€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction€inÐ †)Ö$) Ðcircumstances€such€that€as€a€result€there€is€a€real€risk€that€his€or€her€rights€under€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCovenant€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violationÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€the€Covenant.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð14.1€With€regard€to€a€possible€violation€by€Canada€of€article€6€the€Covenant€by€its€decisionÐ ° Ðto€extradite€the€author,€two€related€questions€arise:Ð –æ ÐÌ(a)€Did€the€requirement€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€to€protect€the€right€to€life€prohibitÐ b² ÐCanada€from€exposing€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction€to€the€real€risk€(that€is€to€say,€aÐ H˜ Ðnecessary€and€foreseeable€consequence)€of€losing€his€life€in€circumstances€incompatible€withÐ . ~ Ðarticle€6€of€the€Covenant€as€a€consequence€of€extradition€to€the€United€States?Ð  d ÐÌ(b)€Did€the€fact€that€Canada€had€abolished€capital€punishment€except€for€certain€militaryÐ à 0 Ðoffences€require€Canada€to€refuse€extradition€or€request€assurances€from€the€United€States,Ð Æ   Ðas€it€was€entitled€to€do€under€article€6€of€the€Extradition€Treaty,€that€the€death€penalty€wouldÐ ¬ ü  Ðnot€be€imposed€against€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô?Ð ’â  ÐÌ14.2€As€to€(a),€the€Committee€recalls€its€General€Comment€on€Article€6€òò11óó,€which€providesÐ ^®  Ðthat€while€States€parties€are€not€obliged€to€abolish€the€death€penalty€totally,€they€are€obligedÐ D”  Ðto€limit€its€use.€The€General€Comment€further€notes€that€the€terms€of€article€6€also€point€toÐ *z  Ðthe€desirability€of€abolition€of€the€death€penalty.€This€is€an€object€towards€which€ratifyingÐ ` Ðparties€should€strive:€"All€measures€of€abolition€should€be€considered€as€progress€in€theÐ öF Ðenjoyment€of€the€right€to€life".€Moreover,€the€Committee€notes€the€evolution€of€internationalÐ Ü, Ðlaw€and€the€trend€towards€abolition,€as€illustrated€by€the€adoption€by€the€United€NationsÐ Â ÐGeneral€Assembly€of€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ ¨ø Ðand€Political€Rights.€Furthermore,€even€where€capital€punishment€is€retained€by€States€inÐ ŽÞ Ðtheir€legislation,€many€of€them€do€not€exercise€it€in€practice.Ð tÄ ÐÌ14.3€The€Committee€notes€that€article€6,€paragraph€1,€must€be€read€together€with€article€6,Ð @ Ðparagraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€most€seriousÐ &v Ðcrimes.€Canada€itself€did€not€impose€the€death€penalty€on€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€but€extradited€himÐ  \ Ðto€the€United€States,€where€he€faced€capital€punishment.€If€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€had€been€exposed,Ð òB Ðthrough€extradition€from€Canada,€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€in€theÐ Ø( ÐUnited€States,€that€would€have€entailed€a€violation€by€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€articleÐ ¾ Ð6,€paragraph€1.€Among€the€requirements€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€is€that€capital€punishmentÐ ¤ô Ðbe€imposed€only€for€the€most€serious€crimes,€in€circumstances€not€contrary€to€the€CovenantÐ Š Ú Ðand€other€instruments,€and€that€it€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€aÐ p!À  Ðcompetent€court.€The€Committee€notes€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€was€convicted€of€premeditatedÐ V"¦! Ðmurder,€undoubtedly€a€very€serious€crime.€He€was€over€18€years€of€age€when€the€crime€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðcommitted.€The€author€has€not€claimed€before€the€Canadian€courts€or€before€the€CommitteeÐ "$r# Ðthat€the€conduct€of€the€trial€in€the€Pennsylvania€court€violated€his€rights€to€a€fairÐ %X $ ÐÔ_ÔhearingunderÔ_Ô€article€14€of€the€Covenant.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ14.4€Moreover,€the€Committee€observes€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€was€extradited€to€the€United€StatesÐ º' #' Ðfollowing€extensive€proceedings€in€the€Canadian€Courts,€which€reviewed€all€the€evidenceÐ  (ð#( Ðsubmitted€concerning€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€trial€and€conviction.€In€the€circumstances,€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐCommittee€finds€that€the€obligations€arising€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€did€not€requireÐ l*¼%* ÐCanada€to€refuse€the€author's€extradition.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ14.5€The€Committee€notes€that€Canada€has€itself,€save€for€certain€categories€of€militaryÐ -n(- Ðoffences,€abolished€capital€punishment;€it€is€not,€however,€a€party€to€the€Second€OptionalÐ ° ÐProtocol€to€the€Covenant.€As€to€question€(b),€namely€whether€the€fact€that€Canada€hasÐ –æ Ðgenerally€abolished€capital€punishment,€taken€together€with€its€obligations€under€theÐ |Ì ÐCovenant,€required€it€to€refuse€extradition€or€to€seek€the€assurances€it€was€entitled€to€seekÐ b² Ðunder€the€extradition€treaty,€the€Committee€observes€that€the€abolition€of€capital€punishmentÐ H˜ Ðdoes€not€release€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€extradition€treaties.€However,€it€is€inÐ . ~ Ðprinciple€to€be€expected€that,€when€exercising€a€permitted€discretion€under€an€extraditionÐ  d Ðtreaty€(namely,€whether€or€not€to€seek€assurances€that€capital€punishment€will€not€beÐ ú J Ðimposed)€a€State€which€has€itself€abandoned€capital€punishment€would€give€seriousÐ à 0 Ðconsideration€to€its€own€chosen€policy€in€making€its€decision.€The€Committee€observes,Ð Æ   Ðhowever,€that€the€State€party€has€indicated€that€the€possibility€to€seek€assurances€wouldÐ ¬ ü  Ðnormally€be€exercised€where€exceptional€circumstances€existed.€Careful€consideration€wasÐ ’â  Ðgiven€to€this€possibility.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ14.6€While€States€must€be€mindful€of€the€possibilities€for€the€protection€of€life€whenÐ D”  Ðexercising€their€discretion€in€the€application€of€extradition€treaties,€the€Committee€does€notÐ *z  Ðfind€that€the€terms€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€necessarily€require€Canada€to€refuse€toÐ ` Ðextradite€or€to€seek€assurances.€The€Committee€notes€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_ÔÐ öF Ðwould€have€violated€Canada's€obligations€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€if€the€decision€toÐ Ü, Ðextradite€without€assurances€would€have€been€taken€arbitrarily€or€summarily.€The€evidenceÐ Â Ðbefore€the€Committee€reveals,€however,€that€the€Minister€of€Justice€reached€a€decision€afterÐ ¨ø Ðhearing€argument€in€favor€of€seeking€assurances.€The€Committee€further€takes€note€of€theÐ ŽÞ Ðreasons€given€by€Canada€not€to€seek€assurances€in€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€case,€in€particular,€theÐ tÄ Ðabsence€of€exceptional€circumstances,€the€availability€of€due€process,€and€the€importanceÐ Zª Ðof€not€providing€a€safe€haven€for€those€accused€of€or€found€guilty€of€murder.€Ð @ ÐÌ15.1€As€regards€the€author's€claims€that€Canada€violated€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€thisÐ  \ Ðprovision€must€be€read€in€the€light€of€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€including€article€6,Ð òB Ðparagraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€certain€limitedÐ Ø( Ðcircumstances.€Accordingly,€capital€punishment€as€such,€within€the€parameters€of€article€6,Ð ¾ Ðparagraph€2,€does€not€òòper€seóó€violate€article€7.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ15.2€As€to€whether€the€"death€row€phenomenon"€associated€with€capital€punishment,Ð p!À  Ðconstitutes€a€violation€of€article€7,€the€Committee€recalls€its€jurisprudence€to€the€effect€thatÐ V"¦! Ð"prolonged€periods€of€detention€under€a€severe€custodial€regime€on€death€row€cannotÐ <#Œ" Ðgenerally€be€considered€to€constitute€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€if€the€convictedÐ "$r# Ðperson€Ô_ÔismerelyÔ_Ô€availing€himself€of€appellate€remedies."òò12óó€The€Committee€has€indicated€thatÐ %X $ Ðthe€facts€and€the€circumstances€of€each€case€need€to€be€examined€to€see€whether€an€issueÐ î%>!% Ðunder€article€7€arises.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ15.3€In€determining€whether,€in€a€particular€case,€the€imposition€of€capital€punishment€couldÐ  (ð#( Ðconstitute€a€violation€of€article€7,€the€Committee€will€have€regard€to€the€relevant€personalÐ †)Ö$) Ðfactors€regarding€the€author,€the€specific€conditions€of€detention€on€death€row,€and€whetherÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€proposed€method€of€execution€is€particularly€abhorrent.€In€this€context€the€CommitteeÐ R+¢&+ Ðhas€had€careful€regard€to€the€judgment€given€by€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights€in€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐòòÔ_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€v.€United€Kingdomóó€case€òò13óó.€It€notes€that€important€facts€leading€to€the€judgment€ofÐ -n(- Ðthe€European€Court€are€distinguishable€on€material€points€from€the€facts€in€the€present€case.Ð ° ÐIn€particular,€the€facts€differ€as€to€the€age€and€mental€state€of€the€offender,€and€the€conditionsÐ –æ Ðon€death€row€in€the€respective€prison€systems.€The€author's€counsel€made€no€specificÐ |Ì Ðsubmissions€on€prison€conditions€in€Pennsylvania,€or€about€the€possibility€or€the€effects€ofÐ b² Ðprolonged€delay€in€the€execution€of€sentence;€nor€was€any€submission€made€about€theÐ H˜ Ðspecific€method€of€execution.€The€Committee€has€also€noted€in€the€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€case€that,€inÐ . ~ Ðcontrast€to€the€present€case,€there€was€a€simultaneous€request€for€extradition€by€a€State€whereÐ  d Ðthe€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed.€Ð ú J ÐÌ16.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€facts€as€submitted€in€the€instant€case€doÐ Æ   Ðnot€reveal€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€by€Canada.€The€Committee€also€concludesÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€the€facts€of€the€case€do€not€reveal€a€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant€by€Canada.Ð ’â  ÐÌ17.€The€Committee€expresses€its€regret€that€the€State€party€did€not€accede€to€the€SpecialÐ ^®  ÐRapporteur's€request€under€rule€86,€made€in€connection€with€the€registration€of€theÐ D”  Ðcommunication€on€26€September€1991.Ð *z  ÐÌ18.€The€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€finds€thatÐ öF Ðthe€facts€before€it€do€not€reveal€a€violation€by€Canada€of€any€provision€of€the€InternationalÐ Ü, ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Ð Â ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÌòòFootnotesóóÐ @ ÐÌ*€€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.Ð  \ ÐÌ*/€€€The€text€of€6€individual€opinions,€signed€by€7€Committee€members,€are€appended€to€theÐ Ø( Ðpresent€document.Ð ¾ ÐÌ1/€€òòLeo€Ô_ÔHertzbergÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Finlandóó€,€Views€adopted€on€2€April€1982,€para.€9.3.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ2/€€òòH.€Ô_Ôv.d.P.Ô_Ô€v.€the€Netherlandsóó€,€declared€inadmissible€on€8€April€1987,€para.€3.2.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ3/€€òòM.€A.€v.€Italyóó€,€declared€inadmissible€on€10€April€1984,€para.€13.4.Ð "$r# ÐÌ4/€€Adopted€at€the€Eighth€United€Nations€Congress€on€the€Prevention€of€Crime€and€theÐ î%>!% ÐTreatment€of€Offenders,€Havana,€1990;€see€General€Assembly€resolution€45/168€of€14Ð Ô&$"& ÐDecember€1990.Ð º' #' ÐÌ5/€€Communication€No.€117/1981€(€òòM.A.€v.€Italyóó€),€paragraph€13.4:€"There€is€no€provisionÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€the€Covenant€making€it€unlawful€for€a€State€party€to€seek€extradition€of€a€person€fromÐ l*¼%* Ðanother€country".€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ6/€€Ô_ÔòòAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Mauritiusóó€(No.€35/1978,€Views€adopted€on€9€April€1981)Ð -n(- Ðand€òòTorres€v.€Finlandóó€(No.€291/1988,€Views€adopted€on€2€April€1990).Ð ° ÐÌ7/€€Views€on€communications€Nos.€210/1986€and€225/1987€(€òòEarl€Pratt€and€Ivan€Morgan€v.Ð |Ì ÐJamaicaóó€)€adopted€on€6€April€1989,€paragraph€13.6.Ð b² ÐÌ8/€€Views€on€communications€Nos.€270/1988€and€271/1988€(€òòRandolph€Barrett€&€ClydeÐ . ~ ÐÔ_ÔSutcliffeÔ_Ô€v.€Jamaicaóó€),€adopted€on€30€March€1992,€paragraph€8.4.Ð  d ÐÌ9/€€See€Appendix€under€A.Ð à 0 ÐÌ10/€€Gino€J.€Ô_ÔNaldiÔ_Ô,€Death€Row€Phenomenon€Held€Inhuman€Treatment€,€The€ReviewÐ ¬ ü  Ð(International€Commission€of€Jurists),€December€1989,€at€pp.€61„62.Ð ’â  ÐÌ11/€€General€Comment€No.€6[16]€of€27€July€1982,€para.€6.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ12/€€òòHoward€Martin€v.€Jamaicaóó,€No.€317/1988,€Views€adopted€on€24€March€1993,€paragraphÐ *z  Ð12.2.Ð ` ÐÌ13/€€European€Court€of€Human€Rights,€judgment€of€7€July€1989.Ð Ü, ÐÌÌÓÊÓò òòòÓ  ÓAppendixÐ ŽÞ Ðó óóóÓW ÓÓÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinions€submitted€pursuant€to€rule€94,€paragraph€3óó,€Ð @ Ðòòof€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€the€Committee'sóó€Ð &v Ðòòviews€on€communication€No.€470/1991€(Joseph€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaóó)€Ð  \ ÐÌÌA.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Kurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_Ôóó€Ð ¾ ÐÌ(òòconcurring€on€the€merits/dissenting€on€admissibilityóó)€Ð Š Ú ÐÌWe€fully€concur€in€the€Committee's€finding€that€the€facts€of€this€case€do€not€reveal€aÐ V"¦! Ðviolation€by€Canada€of€any€provision€of€the€Covenant.€We€wish,€however,€to€repeat€ourÐ <#Œ" Ðconcerns€expressed€in€the€dissenting€opinion€we€appended€to€the€Committee's€decision€onÐ "$r# Ðadmissibility€of€31€July€1992:€Ð %X $ ÐÌ"[...]€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ3.€This€communication€in€its€essence€poses€a€threat€to€the€exercise€by€a€State€of€itsÐ  (ð#( Ðinternational€law€obligations€under€a€valid€extradition€treaty.€Indeed,€an€examination€of€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐòòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôóó€of€the€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€reveals€that€the€draftersÐ l*¼%* Ðgave€due€consideration€to€the€complex€issue€of€extradition€and€decided€to€exclude€this€issueÐ R+¢&+ Ðfrom€the€Covenant,€not€by€accident,€but€because€there€were€many€delegations€opposed€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinterference€with€their€governments'€international€law€obligations€under€extradition€treaties.Ð -n(- Ї4.€Yet,€in€the€light€of€the€evolution€of€international€law,€in€particular€of€human€rights€law,Ð ° Ðfollowing€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Covenant€in€1976,€the€question€arises€whether€underÐ –æ Ðcertain€òòexceptionalóó€circumstances€the€Human€Rights€Committee€could€or€even€shouldÐ |Ì Ðexamine€matters€directly€linked€with€a€State€party's€compliance€with€an€extradition€treaty.Ð b² ÐSuch€exceptional€circumstances€would€be€present€if,€for€instance,€a€person€were€facingÐ H˜ Ðarbitrary€extradition€to€a€country€where€substantial€grounds€existed€for€believing€that€he€orÐ . ~ Ðshe€could€be€subjected,€for€example,€to€torture.€In€other€words,€the€Committee€could€declareÐ  d Ðcommunications€involving€the€extradition€of€a€person€from€a€State€party€to€another€StateÐ ú J Ð(irrespective€of€whether€it€is€a€State€party),€admissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€locióó,Ð à 0 Ðprovided€that€the€author€substantiated€his€claim€that€his€basic€human€rights€would€be€violatedÐ Æ   Ðby€the€country€seeking€his€extradition;€this€requires€a€showing€of€reasonable€cause€to€believeÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€such€violations€would€probably€occur.€In€the€communication€at€bar,€the€author€has€notÐ ’â  Ðmade€such€a€showing,€and€the€State€party€has€argued€that€the€Extradition€Treaty€with€theÐ xÈ  ÐUnited€States€is€not€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€that€it€compliesÐ ^®  Ðwith€the€requirements€of€the€Model€Treaty€on€Extradition€produced€at€the€Eighth€UnitedÐ D”  ÐNations€Congress€on€the€Prevention€of€Crime€and€the€Treatment€of€Offenders,€held€inÐ *z  ÐHavana€in€1990.Ð ` ÐÌ5.€The€majority€opinion€nevertheless€declared€this€communication€admissible,€albeitÐ Ü, Ðprovisionally,€because€it€views€the€extradition€of€the€author€by€Canada€to€Pennsylvania€asÐ Â Ðpossibly€raising€issues€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€Yet,€the€facts€as€presented€toÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Committee€do€not€disclose€any€probability€that€violations€of€the€author's€Covenant€rightsÐ ŽÞ Ðby€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol€would€occur.€As€an€alien€who€illegally€entered€theÐ tÄ Ðterritory€of€Canada,€his€only€link€with€Canada€is€that€in€1985€he€was€committed€forÐ Zª Ðextradition€and€that€the€legality€of€his€extradition€was€tested€in€the€Canadian€courts€and,Ð @ Ðfollowing€due€consideration€of€his€arguments,€affirmed€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€inÐ &v ÐSeptember€1991.€The€author€does€not€raise€any€complaint€about€a€denial€of€due€process€inÐ  \ ÐCanada.€His€allegations€concern€hypothetical€violations€of€his€rights€by€the€United€States,Ð òB Ðwhich€is€not€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol.€In€our€opinion,€the€'link'€with€the€StateÐ Ø( Ðparty€is€much€too€tenuous€for€the€Committee€to€declare€the€communication€admissible.Ð ¾ ÐMoreover,€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€who€was€extradited€to€the€United€States€in€September€1991,€is€stillÐ ¤ô Ðappealing€his€conviction€before€the€Pennsylvania€courts.€In€this€connection,€an€unreasonableÐ Š Ú Ðresponsibility€is€being€placed€on€Canada€by€requiring€it€to€defend,€explain€or€justify€beforeÐ p!À  Ðthe€Committee€the€United€States€system€of€administration€of€justice.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ6.€Hitherto,€the€Committee€has€declared€numerous€communications€inadmissible,€where€theÐ "$r# Ðauthors€had€failed€to€substantiate€their€allegations€for€purposes€of€admissibility.€A€carefulÐ %X $ Ðexamination€of€the€material€submitted€by€author's€counsel€in€his€initial€submission€and€in€hisÐ î%>!% Ðcomments€on€the€State€party's€submission€reveals€that€this€is€essentially€a€case€where€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðdeliberate€attempt€is€made€to€avoid€application€of€the€death€penalty,€which€still€remains€aÐ º' #' Ðlegal€punishment€under€the€Covenant.€Here€the€author€has€not€substantiated€his€claim€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðhis€rights€under€the€Covenant€would,€with€a€reasonable€degree€of€probability,€be€violated€byÐ †)Ö$) Ðhis€extradition€to€the€United€States.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ7.€As€for€the€issues€the€author€alleges€may€arise€under€article€6,€the€Committee€concedes€thatÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€Covenant€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€most€seriousÐ -n(- Ðcrimes.€Indeed,€if€it€did€prohibit€it,€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€on€the€Abolition€of€theÐ ° ÐDeath€Penalty€would€be€superfluous.€Since€neither€Canada€nor€the€United€States€is€a€partyÐ –æ Ðto€the€Second€Optional€Protocol,€it€cannot€be€expected€of€either€State€that€they€ask€for€or€thatÐ |Ì Ðthey€give€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed.€The€question€whether€articleÐ b² Ð6,€paragraph€2,€read€in€conjunction€with€article€6,€paragraph€1,€could€lead€to€a€differentÐ H˜ Ðconclusion€is,€at€best,€academic€and€not€a€proper€matter€for€examination€under€the€OptionalÐ . ~ ÐProtocol.Ð  d ÐÌ8.€As€for€the€issues€that€may€allegedly€arise€under€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€we€agree€withÐ à 0 Ðthe€Committee's€reference€to€its€jurisprudence€in€the€views€on€communications€Nos.Ð Æ   Ð210/1986€and€225/1987€(òòEarl€Pratt€and€Ivan€Morgan€v.€Jamaicaóó)€and€Nos.€270€and€271/1988Ð ¬ ü  Ð(òòBarrett€and€Ô_ÔSutcliffeÔ_Ô€v.€Jamaicaóó),€in€which€the€Committee€decided€that€the€so„called€'deathÐ ’â  Ðrow€phenomenon'€does€not€òòper€seóó€constitute€cruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment,€evenÐ xÈ  Ðif€prolonged€judicial€proceedings€can€be€a€source€of€mental€strain€for€the€convictedÐ ^®  Ðprisoners.€In€this€connection€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€prolonged€periods€of€detentionÐ D”  Ðon€death€row€are€a€result€of€the€convicted€person's€recourse€to€appellate€remedies.€In€theÐ *z  Ðinstant€case€the€author€has€not€submitted€any€arguments€that€would€justify€the€Committee'sÐ ` Ðdeparture€from€its€established€jurisprudence.Ð öF ÐÌ9.€A€second€issue€allegedly€arising€under€article€7€is€whether€the€method€of€execution€„€inÐ Â Ðthe€State€of€Pennsylvania€by€lethal€injection€„could€be€deemed€as€constituting€cruel,€inhumanÐ ¨ø Ðor€degrading€treatment.€Of€course,€any€and€every€form€of€capital€punishment€can€be€seen€asÐ ŽÞ Ðentailing€a€denial€of€human€dignity;€any€and€every€form€of€execution€can€be€perceived€asÐ tÄ Ðcruel€and€degrading.€But,€since€capital€punishment€is€not€prohibited€by€the€Covenant,€articleÐ Zª Ð7€must€be€interpreted€in€the€light€of€article€6,€and€cannot€be€invoked€against€it.€The€onlyÐ @ Ðconceivable€exception€would€be€if€the€method€of€execution€were€deliberately€cruel.€ThereÐ &v Ðis,€however,€no€indication€that€execution€by€lethal€injection€inflicts€more€pain€or€sufferingÐ  \ Ðthan€other€accepted€methods€of€execution.€Thus,€the€author€has€not€made€a€òòprima€facieóó€caseÐ òB Ðthat€execution€by€lethal€injection€may€raise€an€issue€under€article€7.Ð Ø( ÐÌ10.€We€conclude€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€a€claim€under€article€2€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐOptional€Protocol,€that€the€communication€raises€only€remote€issues€under€the€Covenant€andÐ Š Ú Ðtherefore€that€it€should€be€declared€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€asÐ p!À  Ðan€abuse€of€the€right€of€submission."Ð V"¦! ÐÌK.€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_ԀР"$r# ÐÌW.€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_ԀРî%>!% ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð º' #' ÐÌÌB.€òòIndividual€opinion€submitted€byóó€òòMr.€Ô_ÔBertilÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWennergrenò òÔ_Ô€ó ó(dissentingóó)€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌI€cannot€share€the€Committee's€views€on€a€non„violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€In€myÐ 8,ˆ', Ðopinion,€Canada€violated€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€by€extraditing€the€authorÐ -n(- Ðto€the€United€States,€without€having€sought€assurances€for€the€protection€of€his€life,€i.e.€non„Ð ° Ðexecution€of€a€death€sentence€imposed€upon€him.€I€justify€this€conclusion€as€follows:€Ð –æ ÐÌFirstly,€I€would€like€to€clarify€my€interpretation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€ViennaÐ b² ÐConvention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties€stipulates€that€a€treaty€must€be€interpreted€in€good€faithÐ H˜ Ðand€in€accordance€with€the€ordinary€meaning€to€be€given€to€the€terms€of€the€treaty€in€theirÐ . ~ Ðcontext€and€in€the€light€of€its€object€and€purpose.€The€object€of€the€provisions€of€article€6€isÐ  d Ðhuman€life€and€the€purpose€of€its€provisions€is€the€protection€of€such€life.€Thus,€paragraphÐ ú J Ð1€emphasizes€this€point€by€guaranteeing€to€every€human€being€the€inherent€right€to€life.€TheÐ à 0 Ðother€provisions€of€article€6€concern€a€secondary€and€subordinate€object,€namely€to€allowÐ Æ   ÐStates€parties€that€have€not€abolished€capital€punishment€to€resort€to€it€until€such€time€theyÐ ¬ ü  Ðfeel€ready€to€abolish€it.€In€the€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôóó€to€the€Covenant,€the€death€penalty€wasÐ ’â  Ðseen€by€many€delegates€and€bodies€participating€in€the€drafting€process€an€"anomaly"€or€aÐ xÈ  Ð"necessary€evil".€Against€this€background,€it€would€appear€to€be€logical€to€interpret€theÐ ^®  Ðfundamental€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€in€a€wide€sense,€whereas€paragraph€2,€whichÐ D”  Ðaddresses€the€death€penalty,€should€be€interpreted€narrowly.€The€principal€differenceÐ *z  Ðbetween€my€and€the€Committee's€views€on€this€case€lies€in€the€importance€I€attach€to€theÐ ` Ðfundamental€rule€in€paragraph€1€of€article€6,€and€my€belief€that€what€is€said€in€paragraph€2Ð öF Ðabout€the€death€penalty€has€a€limited€objective€that€cannot€by€any€reckoning€override€theÐ Ü, Ðcardinal€principle€in€paragraph€1.€Ð  ÐÌThe€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€stands€out€from€among€the€others€laidÐ ŽÞ Ðdown€in€article€6;€moreover,€article€4€of€the€Covenant€makes€it€clear€that€no€derogationsÐ tÄ Ðfrom€this€rule€are€permitted,€not€even€in€time€of€a€public€emergency€threatening€the€life€ofÐ Zª Ðthe€nation.€No€society,€however,€has€postulated€an€absolute€right€to€life.€All€human€rights,Ð @ Ðincluding€the€right€to€life,€are€subject€to€the€rule€of€necessity.€If,€but€only€if,€absoluteÐ &v Ðnecessity€so€requires,€it€may€be€justifiable€to€deprive€an€individual€of€his€life€to€prevent€himÐ  \ Ðfrom€killing€others€or€so€as€to€avert€man„made€disasters.€For€the€same€reason,€it€is€justifiableÐ òB Ðto€send€citizens€into€war€and€thereby€expose€them€to€a€real€risk€of€their€being€killed.€In€oneÐ Ø( Ðform€or€another,€the€rule€of€necessity€is€inherent€in€all€legal€systems;€the€legal€system€of€theÐ ¾ ÐCovenant€is€no€exception.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌArticle€6,€paragraph€2,€makes€an€exception€for€States€parties€that€have€not€abolished€theÐ p!À  Ðdeath€penalty.€The€Covenant€permits€them€to€continue€applying€the€death€penalty.€ThisÐ V"¦! Ð"dispensation"€for€States€parties€should€not€be€construed€as€a€justification€for€the€deprivationÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€life€of€individuals,€albeit€lawfully€sentenced€to€death,€and€does€not€make€the€executionÐ "$r# Ðof€a€death€sentence€strictly€speaking€legal.€It€merely€provides€a€possibility€for€States€partiesÐ %X $ Ðto€be€released€from€their€obligations€under€articles€2€and€6€of€the€Covenant,€namely€toÐ î%>!% Ðrespect€and€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€within€their€territory€and€under€their€jurisdiction€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðinherent€right€to€life€without€any€distinction,€and€enables€them€to€make€a€distinction€withÐ º' #' Ðregard€to€persons€having€committed€the€"most€serious€crime(s)".€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌThe€standard€way€to€ensure€the€protection€of€the€right€to€life€is€to€criminalize€the€killing€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðhuman€beings.€The€act€of€taking€human€life€is€normally€subsumed€under€terms€such€asÐ R+¢&+ Ð"manslaughter",€"homicide"€or€"murder".€Moreover,€there€may€be€omissions€which€can€beÐ 8,ˆ', Ðsubsumed€under€crimes€involving€the€intentional€taking€of€life,€inaction€or€omission€thatÐ -n(- Ðcauses€the€loss€of€a€person's€life,€such€as€a€doctor's€failure€to€save€the€life€of€a€patient€byÐ ° Ðintentionally€failing€to€activate€life„support€equipment,€or€failure€to€come€to€the€rescue€ofÐ –æ Ða€person€in€a€life„threatening€situation€of€distress.€Criminal€responsibility€for€the€deprivationÐ |Ì Ðof€life€lies€with€private€persons€and€representatives€of€the€State€alike.€The€methodology€ofÐ b² Ðcriminal€legislation€provides€some€guidance€when€assessing€the€limits€for€a€State€party'sÐ H˜ Ðobligations€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€to€protect€the€right€to€life€withinÐ . ~ Ðits€jurisdiction.€Ð  d ÐÌWhat€article€6,€paragraph€2,€does€not,€in€my€view,€is€to€permit€States€parties€that€haveÐ à 0 Ðabolished€the€death€penalty€to€reintroduce€it€at€a€later€stage.€In€this€way,€the€"dispensation"Ð Æ   Ðcharacter€of€paragraph€2€has€the€positive€effect€of€preventing€a€proliferation€of€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeprivation€of€peoples'€lives€through€the€execution€of€death€sentences€among€States€partiesÐ ’â  Ðto€the€Covenant.€The€Second€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant€was€drafted€and€adopted€soÐ xÈ  Ðas€to€encourage€States€parties€that€have€not€abolished€the€death€penalty€to€do€so.€Ð ^®  ÐÌThe€United€States€has€not€abolished€the€death€penalty€and€therefore€may,€by€operation€ofÐ *z  Ðarticle€6,€paragraph€2,€deprive€individuals€of€their€lives€by€the€execution€of€death€sentencesÐ ` Ðlawfully€imposed.€The€applicability€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€in€the€United€States€should€notÐ öF Ðhowever€be€construed€as€extending€to€other€States€when€they€must€consider€issues€arisingÐ Ü, Ðunder€article€6€of€the€Covenant€in€conformity€with€their€obligations€under€article€2,Ð Â Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€The€"dispensation"€clause€of€paragraph€2€applies€merelyÐ ¨ø Ðdomestically€and€as€such€concerns€only€the€United€States,€as€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌOther€States,€however,€are€in€my€view€obliged€to€observe€their€duties€under€article€6,Ð Zª Ðparagraph€1,€namely€to€protect€the€right€to€life.€Whether€they€have€or€have€not€abolishedÐ @ Ðcapital€punishment€does€not,€in€my€opinion,€make€any€difference.€The€dispensation€inÐ &v Ðparagraph€2€does€not€apply€in€this€context.€Only€the€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€applies,Ð  \ Ðand€it€must€be€applied€strictly.€A€State€party€must€not€defeat€the€purpose€of€article€6,Ð òB Ðparagraph€1,€by€failing€to€provide€anyone€with€such€protection€as€is€necessary€to€preventÐ Ø( Ðhis/her€right€to€life€from€being€put€at€risk.€And€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,Ð ¾ Ðprotection€shall€be€ensured€to€òòallóó€individuals€without€distinction€of€any€kind.€No€distinctionÐ ¤ô Ðmust€therefore€be€made€on€the€ground,€for€instance,€that€a€person€has€committed€a€"mostÐ Š Ú Ðserious€crime".€Ð p!À  ÐÌThe€value€of€life€is€immeasurable€for€any€human€being,€and€the€right€to€life€enshrined€inÐ <#Œ" Ðarticle€6€of€the€Covenant€is€the€supreme€human€right.€It€is€an€obligation€of€States€parties€toÐ "$r# Ðthe€Covenant€to€protect€the€lives€of€all€human€beings€on€their€territory€and€under€theirÐ %X $ Ðjurisdiction.€If€issues€arise€in€respect€of€the€protection€of€the€right€to€life,€priority€must€notÐ î%>!% Ðbe€accorded€to€the€domestic€laws€of€other€countries€or€to€(bilateral)€treaty€articles.€DiscretionÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€any€nature€permitted€under€an€extradition€treaty€cannot€apply,€as€there€is€no€room€for€itÐ º' #' Ðunder€Covenant€obligations.€It€is€worth€repeating€that€no€derogation€from€a€State'sÐ  (ð#( Ðobligations€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€is€permitted.€This€is€why€Canada,€in€my€view,Ð †)Ö$) Ðviolated€article€6,€paragraph€1,€by€consenting€to€extradite€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€to€the€United€States,Ð l*¼%* Ðwithout€having€secured€assurances€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€would€not€be€subjected€to€the€executionÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€a€death€sentence.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐB.€Ô_ÔWennergrenÔ_ԀР° ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð |Ì ÐÌÌC.€òòIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_Ôóó€(òòdissentingóó)€Ð . ~ ÐÌ1.€I€am€unable€to€subscribe€to€the€Committee's€views€to€the€effect€that€the€facts€before€it€doÐ ú J Ðnot€disclose€a€violation€by€Canada€of€any€provision€of€the€Covenant.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ2.1€I€start€by€affirming€my€agreement€with€the€Committee's€opinion,€as€noted€in€paragraphÐ ¬ ü  Ð13.1€of€the€views,€that€what€is€at€issue€is€not€whether€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€rights€have€been,€or€runÐ ’â  Ðthe€real€risk€of€being,€violated€in€the€United€States€and€that€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€isÐ xÈ  Ðrequired€to€ensure€that€it€carries€out€other€commitments€it€may€have€under€a€bilateral€treatyÐ ^®  Ðin€a€manner€consistent€with€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant.€I€further€agree€with€theÐ D”  ÐCommittee's€view,€in€paragraph€13.2,€to€the€effect€that,€where€a€State€party€extradites€aÐ *z  Ðperson€in€such€circumstances€as€to€expose€him€to€a€real€risk€that€his€rights€under€theÐ ` ÐCovenant€will€be€violated€in€the€jurisdiction€to€which€that€person€is€extradited,€then€thatÐ öF ÐState€party€may€itself€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ2.2€I€wonder,€however,€whether€the€Committee€is€right€in€concluding€that,€by€extraditing€Mr.Ð ¨ø ÐÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€and€thereby€exposing€him€to€the€real€risk€of€being€deprived€of€his€life,€Canada€didÐ ŽÞ Ðnot€violate€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant.€The€question€whether€the€author€ran€that€riskÐ tÄ Ðunder€the€Covenant€in€its€concrete€application€to€Canada€must€be€examined,€as€theÐ Zª ÐCommittee€sets€out€to€do,€in€the€light€of€the€fact€that€Canada's€decision€to€abolish€the€deathÐ @ Ðpenalty€for€all€civil,€as€opposed€to€military,€offences€was€given€effect€to€in€Canadian€law.€Ð &v ÐÌ2.3€The€question€which€arises€is€what€exactly€are€the€obligations€of€Canada€with€regard€toÐ òB Ðthe€right€to€life€guaranteed€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant€even€if€read€alone€and,€perhapsÐ Ø( Ðand€possibly,€in€the€light€of€other€relevant€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€such€as€equality€ofÐ ¾ Ðtreatment€before€the€law€under€article€26€and€the€obligations€deriving€from€article€5(2)€whichÐ ¤ô Ðprevents€restrictions€or€derogations€from€Covenant€rights€on€the€pretext€that€the€CovenantÐ Š Ú Ðrecognizes€them€to€a€lesser€extent.€The€latter€feature€of€the€Covenant€would€have,€in€myÐ p!À  Ðview,€all€its€importance€since€the€right€to€life€is€one€to€which€Canada€gives€greater€protectionÐ V"¦! Ðthan€might€be€thought€to€be€required,€on€a€minimal€interpretation,€under€article€6€of€theÐ <#Œ" ÐCovenant.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ2.4€It€would€be€useful€to€examine,€in€turn,€the€requirements€of€articles€6,€26€and€5(2)€of€theÐ î%>!% ÐCovenant€and€their€relevance€to€the€facts€before€the€Committee.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ3.1€Article€6(1)€of€the€Covenant€proclaims€that€everyone€has€the€inherent€right€to€life.€ItÐ  (ð#( Ðrequires€that€this€right€shall€be€protected€by€law.€It€also€provides€that€no€one€shall€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðarbitrarily€deprived€of€his€life.€Undoubtedly,€in€pursuance€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant,Ð l*¼%* Ðdomestic€law€will€normally€provide€that€the€unlawful€violation€of€that€right€will€give€rise€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðpenal€sanctions€as€well€as€civil€remedies.€A€State€party€may€further€give€appropriateÐ 8,ˆ', Ðprotection€to€that€right€by€outlawing€the€deprivation€of€life€by€the€State€itself€as€a€method€ofÐ -n(- Ðpunishment€where€the€law€previously€provided€for€such€a€method€of€punishment.€Or,€withÐ ° Ðthe€same€end€in€view,€the€State€party€which€has€not€abolished€the€death€penalty€is€requiredÐ –æ Ðto€restrict€its€application€to€the€extent€permissible€under€the€remaining€paragraphs€of€articleÐ |Ì Ð6,€in€particular,€paragraph€2.€But,€significantly,€paragraph€6€has€for€object€to€prevent€StatesÐ b² Ðfrom€invoking€the€limitations€in€article€6€to€delay€or€to€prevent€the€abolition€of€capitalÐ H˜ Ðpunishment.€And€Canada€has€decided€to€abolish€this€form€of€punishment€for€civil,€asÐ . ~ Ðopposed€to€military,€offences.€It€can€be€said€that,€in€so€far€as€civil€offences€are€concerned,Ð  d Ðparagraph€2€is€not€applicable€to€Canada,€because€Canada€is€not€a€State€which,€in€the€wordsÐ ú J Ðof€that€paragraph,€has€not€abolished€the€death€penalty.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ3.2€It€seems€to€me,€in€any€event,€that€the€provisions€of€article€6(2)€are€in€the€nature€of€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðderogation€from€the€inherent€right€to€life€proclaimed€in€article€6(1)€and€must€therefore€beÐ ’â  Ðstrictly€construed.€Those€provisions€cannot€justifiably€be€resorted€to€in€order€to€have€anÐ xÈ  Ðadverse€impact€on€the€level€of€respect€for,€and€the€protection€of,€that€inherent€right€whichÐ ^®  ÐCanada€has€undertaken€under€the€Covenant€"to€respect€and€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€withinÐ D”  Ðits€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction".€In€furtherance€of€this€undertaking,€Canada€hasÐ *z  Ðenacted€legislative€measures€to€do€so,€going€to€the€extent€of€abolishing€the€death€penalty€forÐ ` Ðcivil€offences.€In€relation€to€the€matter€in€hand,€three€observations€are€called€for.€Ð öF ÐÌ3.3€First,€the€obligations€of€Canada€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant€have€effect€with€respectÐ Â Ðto€"all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction",€irrespective€of€the€factÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€is€not€a€citizen€of€Canada.€The€obligations€towards€him€are€those€that€mustÐ ŽÞ Ðavail€to€him€in€his€quality€as€a€human€being€on€Canadian€soil.€Secondly,€the€very€notion€ofÐ tÄ Ð"protection"€requires€prior€preventive€measures,€particularly€in€the€case€of€a€deprivation€ofÐ Zª Ðlife.€Once€an€individual€is€deprived€of€his€life,€it€cannot€be€restored€to€him.€These€preventiveÐ @ Ðmeasures€necessarily€include€the€prevention€of€any€real€risk€of€the€deprivation€of€life.€ByÐ &v Ðextraditing€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€without€seeking€assurances,€as€Canada€was€entitled€to€do€under€theÐ  \ ÐExtradition€Treaty,€that€the€death€sentence€would€not€be€applied€to€him,€Canada€put€his€lifeÐ òB Ðat€real€risk.€Thirdly,€it€cannot€be€said€that€unequal€standards€are€being€expected€of€CanadaÐ Ø( Ðas€opposed€to€other€States.€In€its€very€terms,€some€provisions€of€article€6€apply€to€StatesÐ ¾ Ðwhich€do€not€have€the€death€penalty€and€other€provisions€apply€to€those€States€which€haveÐ ¤ô Ðnot€yet€abolished€that€penalty.€Besides,€unequal€standards€may,€unfortunately,€be€the€resultÐ Š Ú Ðof€reservations€which€States€may€make€to€particular€articles€of€the€Covenant€though,€I€hastenÐ p!À  Ðto€add,€it€is€questionable€whether€all€reservations€may€be€held€to€be€valid.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ3.4€A€further€question€arises€under€article€6(1),€which€requires€that€no€one€shall€be€arbitrarilyÐ "$r# Ðdeprived€of€his€life.€The€question€is€whether€the€granting€of€the€same€and€equal€level€ofÐ %X $ Ðrespect€and€protection€is€consistent€with€the€attitude€that,€so€long€as€the€individual€is€withinÐ î%>!% ÐCanada's€territory,€that€right€will€be€fully€respected€and€protected€to€that€level,€underÐ Ô&$"& ÐCanadian€law€viewed€in€its€total€effect€even€though€expressed€in€different€enactments€(penalÐ º' #' Ðlaw€and€extradition€law),€whereas€Canada€might€be€free€to€abrogate€that€level€of€respect€andÐ  (ð#( Ðprotection€by€the€deliberate€and€coercive€act€of€sending€that€individual€away€from€itsÐ †)Ö$) Ðterritory€to€another€State€where€the€fatal€act€runs€the€real€risk€of€being€perpetrated.€Could€thisÐ l*¼%* Ðinconsistency€be€held€to€amount€to€a€real€risk€of€an€"arbitrary"€deprivation€of€life€within€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðterms€of€article€6(1)€in€that€unequal€treatment€is€in€effect€meted€out€to€different€individualsÐ 8,ˆ', Ðwithin€the€same€jurisdiction?€A€positive€answer€would€seem€to€suggest€itself€as€Canada,Ð -n(- Ðthrough€its€judicial€arm,€could€not€sentence€an€individual€to€death€under€Canadian€lawÐ ° Ðwhereas€Canada,€through€its€executive€arm,€found€it€possible€under€its€extradition€law€toÐ –æ Ðextradite€him€to€face€the€real€risk€of€such€a€sentence.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ3.5€For€the€above€reasons,€there€was,€in€my€view,€a€case€before€the€Committee€to€find€aÐ H˜ Ðviolation€by€Canada€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ4.€Consideration€of€the€possible€application€of€articles€26€and€5€of€the€Covenant€would,€inÐ ú J Ðmy€view,€lend€further€support€to€the€case€for€a€violation€of€article€6.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ5.€In€the€light€of€the€considerations€discussed€in€paragraph€3.4€above,€it€would€seem€thatÐ ¬ ü  Ðarticle€26€of€the€Covenant€which€guarantees€equality€before€the€law€has€been€breached.Ð ’â  ÐEquality€under€this€article,€in€my€view,€includes€substantive€equality€under€a€State€party'sÐ xÈ  Ðlaw€viewed€in€its€totality€and€its€effect€on€the€individual.€Effectively,€different€and€unequalÐ ^®  Ðtreatment€may€be€said€to€have€been€meted€out€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€when€compared€with€theÐ D”  Ðtreatment€which€an€individual€having€committed€the€same€offence€would€have€received€inÐ *z  ÐCanada.€It€does€not€matter,€for€this€purpose,€whether€Canada€metes€out€this€unequalÐ ` Ðtreatment€by€reason€of€the€particular€arm€of€the€State€through€which€it€acts,€that€is€to€say,Ð öF Ðthrough€its€judicial€arm€or€through€its€executive€arm.€Article€26€regulates€a€State€party'sÐ Ü, Ðlegislative,€executive€as€well€as€judicial€Ô_ÔbehaviourÔ_Ô.€That,€in€my€view,€is€the€prime€principle,Ð Â Ðin€questions€of€equality€and€non„discrimination€under€the€Covenant,€guaranteeing€theÐ ¨ø Ðapplication€of€the€rule€of€law€in€a€State€party.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ6.€I€have€grave€doubts€as€to€whether,€in€deciding€to€extradite€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€Canada€wouldÐ Zª Ðhave€reached€the€same€decision€if€it€had€properly€directed€itself€on€its€obligations€derivingÐ @ Ðfrom€article€5(2),€in€conjunction€with€articles€2,€6€and€26,€of€the€Covenant.€It€would€appearÐ &v Ðthat€Canada€rather€considered,€in€effect,€the€question€whether€there€were,€or€there€were€not,Ð  \ Ðspecial€circumstances€justifying€the€application€of€the€death€sentence€to€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€wellÐ òB Ðrealizing€that,€by€virtue€of€Canadian€law,€the€death€sentence€could€not€have€been€imposedÐ Ø( Ðin€Canada€itself€on€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€on€conviction€there€for€the€kind€of€offence€he€hadÐ ¾ Ðcommitted.€Canada€had€exercised€its€sovereign€decision€to€abolish€the€death€penalty€forÐ ¤ô Ðcivil,€as€distinct€from€military,€offences,€thereby€ensuring€greater€respect€for,€and€protectionÐ Š Ú Ðof€the€individual's€inherent€right€to€life.€Article€5(2)€would,€even€if€article€6€of€the€CovenantÐ p!À  Ðwere€given€a€minimal€interpretation,€have€prevented€Canada€from€invoking€that€minimalÐ V"¦! Ðinterpretation€to€restrict€or€give€lesser€protection€to€that€right€by€an€executive€act€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðextradition€though,€in€principle,€permissible€under€Canadian€extradition€law.€Ð "$r# ÐÌR.€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_ԀРî%>!% ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð º' #' ÐÌÌÔ_ÔD.Ô_Ô€òòIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Fausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌWhile€I€agree€with€the€decision€of€the€Committee€in€so€far€as€it€refers€to€the€considerationÐ 8,ˆ', Ðof€the€claim€under€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€I€am€not€able€to€agree€with€the€findings€of€theÐ -n(- ÐCommittee€that€in€the€present€case€there€has€been€no€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.Ð ° ÐThe€question€whether€the€fact€that€Canada€had€abolished€capital€punishment€except€forÐ –æ Ðcertain€military€offences€required€its€authorities€to€refuse€extradition€or€request€assurancesÐ |Ì Ðfrom€the€United€States€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€against€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,Ð b² Ðmust€in€my€view€receive€an€affirmative€answer.€Ð H˜ ÐÌRegarding€the€death€penalty,€it€has€to€be€recalled€that,€although€article€6€of€the€CovenantÐ  d Ðdoes€not€prescribe€categorically€the€abolition€of€capital€punishment,€it€imposes€a€set€ofÐ ú J Ðobligations€on€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolished€it.€As€the€Committee€has€pointed€outÐ à 0 Ðin€its€General€Comment€6(16),€"the€article€also€refers€generally€to€abolition€in€terms€whichÐ Æ   Ðstrongly€suggest€that€abolition€is€desirable."€Furthermore,€the€wording€of€paragraphs€2€andÐ ¬ ü  Ð6€clearly€indicates€that€article€6€tolerates€„€within€certain€limits€and€in€view€of€a€futureÐ ’â  Ðabolition€„€the€existence€of€capital€punishment€in€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolishedÐ xÈ  Ðit,€but€may€by€no€means€be€interpreted€as€implying€for€any€State€party€an€authorization€toÐ ^®  Ðdelay€its€abolition€or,€òòa€fortiorióó,€to€enlarge€its€scope€or€to€introduce€or€reintroduce€it.Ð D”  ÐConsequently,€a€State€party€that€has€abolished€the€death€penalty€is€in€my€view€under€theÐ *z  Ðlegal€obligation,€according€to€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€not€to€reintroduce€it.€This€obligationÐ ` Ðmust€refer€both€to€a€direct€reintroduction€within€the€State's€jurisdiction,€and€to€an€indirectÐ öF Ðone,€as€it€is€the€case€when€the€State's€jurisdiction,€and€to€an€indirect€one,€as€it€is€the€caseÐ Ü, Ðwhen€the€State€acts€„€through€extradition,€expulsion€or€compulsory€return€„€in€such€a€wayÐ Â Ðthat€an€individual€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€may€be€exposed€to€capitalÐ ¨ø Ðpunishment€in€another€State.€I€therefore€conclude€that€in€the€present€case€there€has€been€aÐ ŽÞ Ðviolation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€Ð tÄ ÐÌF.€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_ԀР@ ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð  \ ÐÌÌE.€òòIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Mrs.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ôóó€(òòdissentingóó)€Ð ¾ ÐÌThe€questions€posed€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô's€communication€areÐ Š Ú Ðclearly€set€forth€in€paragraph€14.1€of€the€Committee's€decision.€Ð p!À  ÐÌParagraph€14.2€does€not€require€any€particular€comment€on€my€part.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌOn€the€other€hand,€when€replying€to€the€questions€thus€identified€in€paragraph€14.1,€theÐ %X $ ÐCommittee,€in€order€to€conclude€in€Ô_ÔfavourÔ_Ô€of€a€non„violation€by€Canada€of€its€obligationsÐ î%>!% Ðunder€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€was€forced€to€undertake€a€joint€analysis€of€paragraphs€1€andÐ Ô&$"& Ð2€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€Ð º' #' ÐÌThere€is€nothing€to€show€that€this€is€a€correct€interpretation€of€article€6.€It€must€be€possibleÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€interpret€every€paragraph€of€an€article€of€the€Covenant€separately,€unless€expressly€statedÐ l*¼%* Ðotherwise€in€the€text€itself€or€deducible€from€its€wording.€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌThat€is€not€so€in€the€present€case.€Ð -n(- ЇThe€fact€that€the€Committee€found€it€necessary€to€use€both€paragraphs€in€support€of€itsÐ ° Ðargument€clearly€shows€that€each€paragraph,€taken€separately,€led€to€the€opposite€conclusion,Ð –æ Ðnamely,€that€a€violation€had€occurred.€Ð |Ì ÐÌAccording€to€article€6,€paragraph€1,€no€one€shall€be€arbitrarily€deprived€of€his€life;€thisÐ H˜ Ðprinciple€is€absolute€and€admits€of€no€exception.€Ð . ~ ÐÌArticle€6,€paragraph€2,€begins€with€the€words:€"In€countries€which€have€not€abolished€theÐ ú J Ðdeath€penalty€...".€This€form€of€words€requires€a€number€of€comments:€Ð à 0 ÐÌIt€is€negative€and€refers€not€to€countries€in€which€the€death€penalty€exists€but€to€those€inÐ ¬ ü  Ðwhich€it€has€not€been€abolished.€Abolition€is€the€rule,€retention€of€the€death€penalty€theÐ ’â  Ðexception.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌArticle€6,€paragraph€2,€refers€only€to€countries€in€which€the€death€penalty€has€not€beenÐ D”  Ðabolished€and€òòthus€rules€out€the€application€of€the€text€to€countries€which€have€abolished€theÐ *z  Ðdeath€penaltyóó.€Ð ` ÐÌLastly,€the€text€imposes€a€series€of€obligations€on€the€States€in€question.€Consequently,€byÐ Ü, Ðmaking€a€"joint"€interpretation€of€the€first€two€paragraphs€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€theÐ Â ÐCommittee€has,€in€my€view,€committed€three€errors€of€law:€Ð ¨ø ÐÌOne€error,€in€that€it€is€applying€to€a€country€which€has€abolished€the€death€penalty,€Canada,Ð tÄ Ða€text€exclusively€reserved€by€the€Covenant€„€and€that€in€an€express€and€unambiguous€way€„Ð Zª Ðfor€non„abolitionist€States.€Ð @ ÐÌThe€second€error€consists€in€regarding€as€an€authorization€to€re„establish€the€death€penaltyÐ  \ Ðin€a€country€which€has€abolished€it€what€is€merely€an€implicit€recognition€of€its€existence.Ð òB ÐThis€is€an€extensive€interpretation€which€runs€counter€to€the€proviso€in€paragraph€6€of€articleÐ Ø( Ð6€that€"nothing€in€this€article€shall€be€invoked€...€to€prevent€the€abolition€of€capitalÐ ¾ Ðpunishment".€This€extensive€interpretation,€which€is€restrictive€of€rights,€also€runs€counterÐ ¤ô Ðto€the€provision€in€article€5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant€that€"there€shall€be€no€restrictionÐ Š Ú Ðupon€or€derogation€from€any€of€the€fundamental€human€rights€recognized€or€existing€in€anyÐ p!À  ÐState€party€to€the€present€Covenant€pursuant€to€law,€conventions,€regulations€or€custom€onÐ V"¦! Ðthe€pretext€that€the€present€Covenant€does€not€recognize€such€rights€or€that€it€recognizesÐ <#Œ" Ðthem€to€a€lesser€extent".€Taken€together,€these€texts€prohibit€a€State€from€engaging€inÐ "$r# Ðdistributive€application€of€the€death€penalty.€There€is€nothing€in€the€Covenant€to€force€a€StateÐ %X $ Ðto€abolish€the€death€penalty€but,€if€it€has€chosen€to€do€so,€the€Covenant€forbids€it€to€re„Ð î%>!% Ðestablish€it€in€an€arbitrary€way,€even€indirectly.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌThe€third€error€of€the€Committee€in€the€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€decision€results€from€the€first€two.€AssumingÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€Canada€is€implicitly€authorized€by€article€6,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant,€to€re„establishÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€death€penalty,€on€the€one€hand,€and€to€apply€it€in€certain€cases€on€the€other,€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCommittee€subjects€Canada€in€paragraphs€14.3,€14.4€and€14.5,€as€if€it€were€a€non„abolitionistÐ R+¢&+ Ðcountry,€to€a€scrutiny€of€the€obligations€imposed€on€non„abolitionist€States:€penalty€imposedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðonly€for€the€most€serious€crimes,€judgement€rendered€by€a€competent€court,€etc.€Ð -n(- ЇThis€analysis€shows€that,€according€to€the€Committee,€Canada,€which€had€abolished€theÐ ° Ðdeath€penalty€on€its€territory,€has€by€extraditing€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€to€the€United€States€re„Ð –æ Ðestablished€it€by€proxy€in€respect€of€a€certain€category€of€persons€under€its€jurisdiction.€Ð |Ì ÐÌI€agree€with€this€analysis€but,€unlike€the€Committee,€I€do€not€think€that€this€Ô_ÔbehaviourÔ_Ô€isÐ H˜ Ðauthorized€by€the€Covenant.€Ð . ~ ÐÌMoreover,€having€thus€re„established€the€death€penalty€by€proxy,€Canada€is€limiting€itsÐ ú J Ðapplication€to€a€certain€category€of€persons:€those€that€are€extraditable€to€the€United€States.€Ð à 0 ÐÌCanada€acknowledges€its€intention€of€so€Ô_ÔpractisingÔ_Ô€in€order€that€it€may€not€become€a€havenÐ ¬ ü  Ðfor€criminals€from€the€United€States.€Its€intention€is€apparent€from€its€decision€not€to€seekÐ ’â  Ðassurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€applied€in€the€event€of€extradition€to€theÐ xÈ  ÐUnited€States,€as€it€is€empowered€to€do€by€its€bilateral€extradition€treaty€with€that€country.€Ð ^®  ÐÌConsequently,€when€extraditing€persons€in€the€position€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€Canada€isÐ *z  Ðdeliberately€exposing€them€to€the€application€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€requesting€State.€Ð ` ÐÌIn€so€doing,€Canada's€decision€with€regard€to€a€person€under€its€jurisdiction€according€toÐ Ü, Ðwhether€he€is€extraditable€to€the€United€States€or€not,€constitutes€a€discrimination€inÐ Â Ðviolation€of€article€2,€paragraph€1,€and€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌSuch€a€decision€affecting€the€right€to€life€and€placing€that€right,€in€the€last€analysis,€in€theÐ tÄ Ðhands€of€the€Government€which,€for€reasons€of€penal€policy,€decides€whether€or€not€to€seekÐ Zª Ðassurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€carried€out,€constitutes€an€arbitrary€deprivationÐ @ Ðof€the€right€to€life€forbidden€by€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€and,€consequently,Ð &v Ða€misreading€by€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€this€article€of€the€Covenant.€Ð  \ ÐÌÌCh.€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_ԀР¾ ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€French€text€being€the€original€version.]€Ð Š Ú ÐÌÌÔ_ÔF.Ô_Ô€òòDissenting€opinion€by€Mr.€Francisco€Jose€Ô_ÔAguilarÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔUrbinaÔ_Ôóó€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌòòI.€òòInability€to€join€in€the€majority€opinionóóóó€Ð %X $ ÐÌ1.€I€requested€the€Secretariat€to€clarify€various€defects€in€the€Draft€in€respect€of€which€noÐ Ô&$"& Ðexplanation€had€been€given€despite€the€fact€that€I€had€already€requested€their€elucidation€inÐ º' #' Ðadvance.€I€asked,€òòinter€aliaóó,€for€explanations€regarding€the€system€followed€in€the€State€ofÐ  (ð#( ÐPennsylvania€for€sentencing€a€person.€In€paragraph€2.1€of€the€Draft€it€was€stated€that€"òòtheÐ †)Ö$) Ðjury€recommended€the€death€sentenceóó".€From€my€first€statement€during€the€discussion,€IÐ l*¼%* ÐÔ_Ôcommented€that€there€could€be€three€possibilities,€and€that€whether€I€joined€in€the€majorityÐ R+¢&+ Ðor€opposed€it€depended€on€which€procedure€was€applied.€Those€possibilities€were:€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð(a)€That€the€jury€could€pronounce€only€on€the€guilt€of€the€accused€and€that€it€was€left€to€theÐ ° Ðjudge,€as€a€matter€of€law,€to€impose€the€sentence;€Ð –æ ÐÌ(b)€That€the€jury€not€only€pronounced€on€the€innocence€or€guilt€of€the€accused€but€alsoÐ b² Ðrecommended€the€penalty,€with€the€judge,€however,€remaining€completely€free€to€imposeÐ H˜ Ðthe€sentence€in€keeping€with€his€assessment€of€the€case€in€conformity€with€law€(in€the€termsÐ . ~ Ðin€which€paragraph€2.1€was€drafted,€this€would€appear€to€be€the€procedure€practised€by€theÐ  d ÐState€of€Pennsylvania);€Ð ú J ÐÌ(c)€That€the€jury€ruled€the€innocence€or€guilt€of€the€accused€and,€at€the€same€time,€decidedÐ Æ   Ðupon€the€sentence€to€be€imposed,€not€by€way€of€a€recommendation€but€as€a€penalty€whichÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€judge€would€necessarily€be€obliged€to€declare,€not€being€able€to€change€it€in€anyÐ ’â  Ðcircumstance€but€simply€serving€as€a€mouthpiece€for€the€jury.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌConsequently,€in€so€far€as€the€crux€of€the€matter€was€whether€Canada,€in€granting€Mr.Ð D”  ÐKindler's€extradition,€had€exposed€him,€òònecessarily€or€foreseeablyóó,€to€a€violation€of€articleÐ *z  Ð6€of€the€Covenant,€I€was€unable€to€give€an€opinion€until€that€point€was€clarified,€orally€andÐ ` Ðin€writing.€It€was€necessary€for€me€to€know€for€certain€what€conditions€governed€theÐ öF Ðimposition€of€the€death€penalty.€However,€the€Secretariat€explained€that€the€author€hadÐ Ü, Ðinformed€the€Committee€that€the€recommendation€of€the€jury€was€binding€(and€this€is€statedÐ Â Ðin€paragraph€2.1€of€the€views),€òòaóó/€[...]€that€the€question€had€been€addressed€in€the€CanadianÐ ¨ø Ðcourts€where€it€had€been€established€that€such€was€the€system€applied€in€Pennsylvania.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ2.€I€also€asked€for€explanations€concerning€the€powers€of€the€Canadian€Minister€of€JusticeÐ Zª Ðunder€the€Extradition€Treaty€between€Canada€and€the€United€States€of€America,€especiallyÐ @ Ðbecause€it€was€not€at€all€clear€„€in€the€Spanish€version€of€the€Draft€which€contained€the€textÐ &v Ðof€article€6€of€the€Treaty€„€whether€the€requesting€State€(in€this€case,€the€United€States€ofÐ  \ ÐAmerica)€should€not€have€officially€provided€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€notÐ òB Ðbe€applied.€Moreover,€I€requested€to€be€given€the€possibility€of€acquainting€myself€with€theÐ Ø( Ðtext€of€article€25€of€the€1985€Extradition€Act,€to€which€reference€was€made€in€paragraph€2.3Ð ¾ Ðof€the€Draft€but€which€was€not€reproduced€anywhere.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ3.€I€also€requested€the€Secretariat€to€clarify€exactly€of€which€offence€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€had€been€found€guilty,€in€so€far€as€a€number€of€matters€were€not€clear,Ð V"¦! Ðespecially€when€working€with€the€Spanish€version€of€the€text:€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ(a)€In€paragraph€2.1€of€the€Draft€it€was€stated€that€Joseph€John€Kindler€had€been€"òòconvictedÐ %X $ Ð...€of€first€degree€murder€and€kidnappingóó".€òòbóó/€Nevertheless,€in€other€parts€of€the€Draft,€as€wellÐ î%>!% Ðas€in€the€Amendments,€it€was€merely€stated€that€Mr.€Kindler€had€been€convicted€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðcommitting€a€murder.€The€first€aspect€that€remained€unclear€was€the€type€of€murderÐ º' #' Ðconcerned,€since€there€was€confusio