ÿWPC¤  ÖÈç ³š†9Ž•™â3U“ŸVD3‚œŒ›ö¹ \^m•QŸáTXËVw‚8~ns•´¿Gë¡¿I52¸×î»Ë%nµ‹Ô^ÿJóó ê‰4ÊÂŠŽ±ŠdÞÍ®çw\°. |)$Q¸ö~ œoTeîTG;¢$^@\ã]¡f΄¸ÜØ®µ=zÄŶڌ,·á¼bR;ZæðÎ1žàÒ^_!ØÿglZcùˆ#B†ØŠ¼—(h5(†³>µÃ_=uëYg¤8ãlh÷J‘¼òg]fäíB  œI² dîK –ôêvÔõ²•}2½~‚kÆzp9õ™Ç¡÷uhçgoéƒ×Ü!ÍE‹ª³Ç*¶ *ä'Ÿ:Ȇ;"]ýÎ ï-Õ‰ŽY–F‚ «jùóND q™–s5ŒÌ’ö„½²­œßuƒežŽI0žb`‚ âLæÙiÌÓf_ª‹[… Ǥn½(¿Æœéf@á¤9ÁéHÛ…²X1I…5ìºä¼HÙMÝ+õƨ7Á‚Áƒw!ðÃP`Î3>ßOTµ4¨2Ø4Ž*¨$ $¹$¦väþ·ÖíÀ§‹à g¿'¸Œ9L»rTÖaæû ãñšZ#ÁìUN­ %û 0: ^ ; wG 4K _ n mp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p B‡ ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ô9rô* Äpì* œk1`9 3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ dÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌÔ_ÔòòÔ_ÔÔ_ÔCoxÔ_Ô€v.€CanadaóóÐ à ÐÌCommunication€No.€539/1993Ð pÀ ÐÌ3€November€1993Ð P   ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/49/D/539/1993*Ð 0 € ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ P  ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓòòSubmitted€byóó:€€Keith€Cox€[represented€by€counsel]Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorÐ ° ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€€CanadaÐ à ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€€4€January€1993€(initial€submission)Ð pÀ ÐÌòòDocumentation€referencesóó:€€Prior€decisions€„€Combined€rule€86/rule€91€decision,€transmitted€on€20Ð P  ÐApril€1993€(not€issued€in€document€form)Ð @ ÐÌòòDate€of€present€decisionóó:€€3€November€1993óóÐ  p ÐÌÌòòÓ  Óò òDecision€on€admissibilityó óóó€òò**óó/Ð ð@ ÐÓ¾ÓÌÌ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Keith€Cox,€a€citizen€of€the€United€States€of€America€bornÐ À! Ðin€1952,€currently€detained€at€a€penitentiary€in€Montreal€and€facing€extradition€to€the€United€States.€Ð °"  ÐHe€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Canada€of€articles€6,€7,€14€and€26€of€the€InternationalÐ  #ð! ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€€The€author€had€submitted€an€earlier€communication€whichÐ $à" Ðwas€declared€inadmissible€because€of€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€on€29€July€1992.€òò1óó/Ð €%Ð # ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróóÐ `'°"% ÐÌ2.1€On€27€February€1991,€the€author€was€arrested€at€Laval,€Qubec,€for€theft,€a€charge€to€which€heÐ @)$' ÐÔ_ÔpleadedÔ_Ô€guilty.€€While€in€custody,€the€judicial€authorities€received€from€the€United€States€a€requestÐ 0*€%( Ðfor€his€extradition,€pursuant€to€the€1976€Extradition€Treaty€between€Canada€and€the€United€States.€Ð  +p&) ÐThe€author€is€wanted€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€on€two€charges€of€first„degree€murder,€relating€toÐ ,`'* Ðan€incident€that€took€place€in€Philadelphia€in€1988.€€If€convicted,€the€author€could€face€the€deathÐ -P(+ Ðpenalty,€although€the€two€other€accomplices€were€tried€and€sentenced€to€life€terms.Ð ð-@), Ї2.2€€Pursuant€to€the€extradition€request€of€the€United€States€Government€and€in€accordance€with€theÐ ° ÐExtradition€Treaty,€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec,€on€26€July€1991,€ordered€the€authorððs€extraditionÐ  ð Ðto€the€United€States€of€America.€€Article€6€of€the€Treaty€provides:Ð à ÐÌð ðWhen€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€is€punishable€by€death€under€the€laws€of€theÐ pÀ Ðrequesting€State€and€the€laws€of€the€requested€State€do€not€permit€such€punishment€for€that€offence,Ð ` ° Ðextradition€may€be€refused€unless€the€requesting€State€provides€such€assurances€as€the€requestedÐ P   ÐState€considers€sufficient€that€the€death€penalty€shall€not€be€imposed€or,€if€imposed,€shall€not€beÐ @  Ðexecutedðð.Ð 0 € ÐÌCanada€abolished€the€death€penalty€in€1976,€except€in€the€case€of€certain€military€offences.Ð `  ÐÌ2.3€€The€power€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€is€conferred€on€theÐ ð@  ÐMinister€of€Justice€pursuant€to€section€25€of€the€1985€Extradition€Act.Ð à0  ÐÌ2.4€€Concerning€the€course€of€proceedings€against€the€author,€it€is€states€that€a€òòhabeas€corpusóóÐ À Ðapplication€was€filed€on€his€behalf€on€13€September€1991;€he€was€represented€by€a€legal€aidÐ ° Ðrepresentative.€€The€application€was€dismissed€by€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec.€€The€authorððsÐ  ð Ðrepresentative€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€Qubec€on€17€October€1991.€€On€25€May€1992,Ð à Ðhe€abandoned€his€appeal,€considering€that,€in€the€light€of€the€Courtððs€jurisprudence,€it€was€bound€toÐ €Ð Ðfail.Ð pÀ ÐÌ2.5€€Counsel€requests€the€Committee€to€adopt€interim€measures€of€protection€because€extradition€ofÐ P  Ðthe€author€to€the€United€States€would€deprive€the€Committee€of€its€jurisdiction€to€consider€theÐ @ Ðcommunication,€and€the€author€to€properly€pursue€his€communication.Ð 0€ ÐÌòòThe€complaintóóÐ ` ÐÌ3.€€The€author€claims€that€the€order€to€extradite€him€violates€articles€6,€14,€and€26€of€the€Covenant;Ð ð@ Ðhe€alleges€that€the€way€death€penalties€are€pronounced€in€the€United€States€generally€discriminatesÐ à0 Ðagainst€black€people.€€He€further€alleges€a€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€in€that€he,€ifÐ Ð  Ðextradited€and€sentenced€to€death,€would€be€exposed€to€ð ðthe€death€row€phenomenonðð,€i.e.€years€ofÐ À! Ðdetention€under€harsh€conditions,€awaiting€execution.Ð °"  ÐÌòòInterim€measuresóóÐ $à" ÐÌ4.1€€On€12€January€1993€the€Special€Rapporteur€on€New€Communications€requested€the€State€party,Ð p&À!$ Ðpursuant€to€rule€86€of€the€Committeeððs€rules€of€procedure,€to€defer€the€authorððs€extradition€until€theÐ `'°"% ÐCommittee€had€had€an€opportunity€to€consider€the€admissibility€of€the€issues€placed€before€it.Ð P( #& ÐÌ4.2€€At€its€forty„seventh€session€the€Committee€decided€to€invite€both€the€author€and€the€State€partyÐ 0*€%( Ðto€make€further€submissions€on€admissibility.Ð  +p&) ÐÌòòThe€State€partyððs€observationsóóÐ -P(+ ÐÐ ð-@), Ð5.1€€The€State€party,€in€its€submission,€dated€26€May€1993,€submits€that€the€communication€shouldÐ ° Ðbe€declared€inadmissible€on€the€grounds€that€extradition€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,€orÐ  ð Ðalternatively€that,€even€if€in€exceptional€circumstances€the€Committee€could€examine€questionsÐ à Ðrelating€to€extradition,€the€present€communication€is€not€substantiated,€for€purposes€of€admissibility.Ð €Ð ÐÌ5.2€€With€regard€to€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€explains€that€extradition€is€a€two€step€processÐ ` ° Ðunder€Canadian€law.€€The€first€step€involves€a€hearing€at€which€a€judge€examines€whether€a€factualÐ P   Ðand€legal€basis€for€extradition€exists.€€The€judge€considers€òòinter€aliaóó€the€proper€authentication€ofÐ @  Ðmaterials€provided€by€the€requesting€State,€admissibility€and€sufficiency€of€evidence,€questions€ofÐ 0 € Ðidentity€and€whether€the€conduct€for€which€the€extradition€is€sought€constitutes€a€crime€in€CanadaÐ  p  Ðfor€which€extradition€can€be€granted.€€In€the€case€of€fugitives€wanted€for€trial,€the€judge€must€beÐ `  Ðsatisfied€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€warrant€putting€the€fugitive€on€trial.€€The€person€soughtÐ P  Ðfor€extradition€may€submit€evidence€at€the€judicial€hearing,€after€which€the€judge€decides€whetherÐ ð@  Ðthe€fugitive€should€be€committed€to€await€surrender€to€the€requesting€State.Ð à0  ÐÌ5.3€€Judicial€review€of€a€warrant€of€committal€to€await€surrender€can€be€sought€by€means€of€anÐ À Ðapplication€for€a€òòwrit€of€habeas€corpusóó€in€a€provincial€court.€€A€decision€of€the€judge€on€the€òòhabeasÐ ° Ðcorpusóó€application€€can€be€appealed€to€the€provincial€court€of€appeal€and€then€,€with€leave,€to€theÐ  ð ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada.Ð à ÐÌ5.4€€The€second€step€of€the€extradition€process€begins€following€the€exhaustion€of€the€appeals€in€theÐ pÀ Ðjudicial€phase.€€The€Minister€of€Justice€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€deciding€whether€toÐ `° Ðsurrender€the€person€sought€for€extradition.€€The€fugitive€may€make€written€submissions€to€theÐ P  ÐMinister,€and€counsel€for€the€fugitive€may€appear€before€the€Minister€to€present€oral€argument.€€InÐ @ Ðcoming€to€a€decision€on€surrender,€the€Minister€considers€the€case€record€from€the€judicial€phase,Ð 0€ Ðtogether€with€any€written€and€oral€submissions€from€the€fugitive,€the€relevant€treaty€terms€whichÐ  p Ðpertain€to€the€case€to€be€decided€and€the€law€on€extradition.€€While€the€Ministerððs€decision€isÐ ` Ðdiscretionary,€the€discretion€is€circumscribed€by€law.€€The€decision€is€based€upon€a€considerationÐ P Ðof€many€factors,€including€Canadaððs€obligations€under€the€applicable€treaty€of€extradition,€factsÐ ð@ Ðparticular€to€the€person€and€the€nature€of€the€crime€for€which€extradition€is€sought.€€In€addition,€theÐ à0 ÐMinister€must€consider€the€terms€of€the€òòCanadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedomsóó€and€the€variousÐ Ð  Ðinstruments,€including€the€Covenant,€which€outline€Canadaððs€international€human€rights€obligations.€Ð À! ÐA€fugitive,€subject€to€an€extradition€request,€cannot€be€surrendered€unless€the€Minister€of€JusticeÐ °"  Ðorders€the€fugitive€surrendered€and,€in€any€case,€not€until€all€available€avenues€for€judicial€reviewÐ  #ð! Ðof€the€Ministerððs€decision,€if€pursued,€are€completed.€€For€extradition€requests€before€1€DecemberÐ $à" Ð1992,€including€the€authorððs€request,€the€Ministerððs€decision€is€Ô_ÔreviewableÔ_Ô€either€by€way€of€anÐ €%Ð # Ðapplication€for€a€òòwrit€of€habeas€corpusóó€in€a€provincial€court€or€by€way€of€judicial€review€in€theÐ p&À!$ ÐFederal€Court€pursuant€to€section€18€of€the€òòFederal€Court€Actóó.€€As€with€appeals€against€a€warrantÐ `'°"% Ðof€committal,€appeals€against€a€review€of€the€warrant€of€surrender€can€be€pursued,€with€leave,€up€toÐ P( #& Ðthe€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.Ð @)$' ÐÌ5.5€€The€courts€can€review€the€Ministerððs€decision€on€jurisdictional€grounds,€i.e.€whether€theÐ  +p&) ÐMinister€acted€fairly,€in€an€administrative€law€sense,€and€for€its€consistency€with€the€CanadianÐ ,`'* Ðconstitution,€in€particular,€whether€the€Ministerððs€decision€is€consistent€with€Canadaððs€human€rightsÐ -P(+ Ðobligations.Ð ð-@), Ї5.6€€With€regard€to€the€exercise€of€discretion€in€seeking€assurances€before€extradition,€the€State€partyÐ ° Ðexplains€that€each€extradition€request€from€the€United€States,€in€which€the€possibility€exists€that€theÐ  ð Ðperson€sought€may€face€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€must€be€considered€by€the€Minister€ofÐ à ÐJustice€and€decided€on€its€own€particular€facts.€€ð ðCanada€does€not€routinely€seek€assurances€withÐ €Ð Ðrespect€to€the€non„imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€The€right€to€seek€assurances€is€held€in€reserveÐ pÀ Ðfor€use€only€where€exceptional€circumstances€exist.€€This€policy€...€is€in€application€of€article€6€ofÐ ` ° Ðthe€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty.€€The€Treaty€was€never€intended€to€make€the€seekingÐ P   Ðof€assurances€a€routine€occurrence.€€Rather,€it€was€the€intention€of€the€parties€to€the€Treaty€thatÐ @  Ðassurances€with€respect€to€the€death€penalty€should€only€be€sought€in€circumstances€where€theÐ 0 € Ðparticular€facts€of€the€case€warrant€a€special€exercise€of€the€discretion.€€This€policy€represents€aÐ  p  Ðbalancing€of€the€rights€of€the€individual€sought€for€extradition€with€the€need€for€the€protection€of€theÐ `  Ðpeople€of€Canada.€€This€policy€reflects€...€Canadaððs€understanding€of€and€respect€for€the€criminalÐ P  Ðjustice€system€of€the€United€States.ððÐ ð@  ÐÌ5.7€€Moreover,€the€State€party€refers€to€a€continuing€flow€of€criminal€offenders€from€the€UnitedÐ Ð  ÐStates€into€Canada€and€a€concern€that,€unless€such€illegal€flow€is€discouraged,€Canada€could€becomeÐ À Ða€safe€haven€for€dangerous€offenders€from€the€United€States,€bearing€in€mind€that€Canada€and€theÐ ° ÐUnited€States€share€a€4,800€kilometre€unguarded€border.€€In€the€last€twelve€years€there€has€been€anÐ  ð Ðincreasing€number€of€extradition€requests€from€the€United€States.€€In€1980€there€were€29€suchÐ à Ðrequests;€by€1992€the€number€had€grown€to€88€including€requests€involving€death€penalty€cases,Ð €Ð Ðwhich€were€becoming€a€new€and€pressing€problem.€€ð ðA€policy€of€routinely€seeking€assurances€underÐ pÀ Ðarticle€6€of€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty€would€encourage€more€criminal€offenders,Ð `° Ðespecially€those€guilty€of€the€most€serious€crimes,€to€flee€the€United€States€into€Canada.€€CanadaÐ P  Ðdoes€not€wish€to€become€a€haven€for€the€most€wanted€and€dangerous€criminals€from€the€UnitedÐ @ ÐStates.€€If€the€Covenant€fetters€Canadaððs€discretion€not€to€seek€assurances,€increasing€numbers€ofÐ 0€ Ðcriminals€may€come€to€Canada€for€the€purpose€of€securing€immunity€from€capital€punishment.ððÐ  p ÐÌ6.1€€As€to€the€specific€facts€of€the€instant€communication,€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.€Cox€isÐ P Ða€black€male,€40€years€of€age,€of€sound€mind€and€body,€an€American€citizen€with€no€immigrationÐ ð@ Ðstatus€in€Canada.€€He€is€charged€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€with€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder,Ð à0 Ðone€count€of€robbery€and€one€count€of€criminal€conspiracy€to€commit€murder€and€robbery,€goingÐ Ð  Ðback€to€an€incident€that€occurred€in€Philadelphia,€Pennsylvania€in€1988,€where€two€teenage€boysÐ À! Ðwere€killed€pursuant€to€a€plan€to€commit€robbery€in€connection€with€illegal€drug€trafficking.€€ThreeÐ °"  Ðmen,€one€of€whom€is€alleged€to€be€Mr.€Cox,€participated€in€the€killings.€€In€Pennsylvania,€firstÐ  #ð! Ðdegree€murder€is€punishable€by€death€or€a€term€of€life€imprisonment.€€Lethal€injection€is€the€methodÐ $à" Ðof€execution€mandated€by€law.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌ6.2€€With€regard€to€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.€Cox€wasÐ `'°"% Ðordered€committed€to€await€extradition€by€a€judge€of€the€Quebec€Superior€Court€on€26€July€1991.€Ð P( #& ÐThis€order€was€challenged€by€the€author€is€an€application€for€òòhabeas€corpusóó€before€the€QuebecÐ @)$' ÐSuperior€Court.€€The€application€was€dismissed€on€13€September€1991.€€Mr.€Cox€then€appealed€toÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€Quebec€Court€of€Appeal,€and,€on€18€February€1992,€before€exhausting€domestic€remedies€inÐ  +p&) ÐCanada,€he€submitted€a€communication€to€the€Committee,€which€was€registered€under€No.€486/1992.€Ð ,`'* ÐSince€the€extradition€process€had€not€yet€progressed€to€the€second€stage,€the€communication€wasÐ -P(+ Ðruled€inadmissible€by€the€Committee€on€26€July€1992.Ð ð-@), Ї6.3€€On€25€May€1992,€Mr.€Cox€withdrew€his€appeal€to€the€Quebec€Court€of€Appeal,€thus€concludingÐ ° Ðthe€judicial€phase€of€the€extradition€process.€€The€second€stage,€the€ministerial€phase,€began.€€HeÐ  ð Ðpetitioned€the€Minister€of€Justice€asking€that€assurances€be€sought€that€the€death€penalty€would€notÐ à Ðbe€imposed.€€In€addition€to€written€submissions,€counsel€for€the€author€appeared€before€the€MinisterÐ €Ð Ðand€made€oral€representations.€€ð ðIt€was€alleged€that€the€judicial€system€in€the€state€of€PennsylvaniaÐ pÀ Ðwas€inadequate€and€discriminatory.€€He€submitted€materials€which€purported€to€show€that€theÐ ` ° ÐPennsylvania€system€of€justice€as€it€related€to€death€penalty€cases€was€characterized€by€inadequateÐ P   Ðlegal€representation€of€impoverished€€accused,€a€system€of€assignment€of€judges€which€resulted€inÐ @  Ða€ððdeath€penalty€courtðð,€selection€of€jury€members€which€resulted€in€ððdeath€qualified€juriesðð€and€anÐ 0 € Ðoverall€problem€of€racial€discrimination.€€The€Minister€of€Justice€was€of€the€view€that€the€concernsÐ  p  Ðbased€on€alleged€racial€discrimination€were€premised€largely€on€the€possible€intervention€of€aÐ `  Ðspecific€prosecutor€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€who,€according€to€officials€in€that€state,€no€longerÐ P  Ðhas€any€connection€with€his€case.€€It€was€alleged€that,€if€returned€to€face€possible€imposition€of€theÐ ð@  Ðdeath€penalty,€Mr.€Cox€would€be€exposed€to€the€ððdeath€row€phenomenonðð.€€The€Minister€of€JusticeÐ à0  Ðwas€of€the€view€that€the€submissions€indicated€that€the€conditions€of€incarceration€in€the€state€ofÐ Ð  ÐPennsylvania€met€the€constitutional€standards€of€the€United€States€and€that€situations€which€neededÐ À Ðimprovement€were€being€addressed€...€it€was€argued€that€assurances€be€sought€on€the€basis€that€thereÐ ° Ðis€a€growing€international€movement€for€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€...€The€Minister€of€Justice,Ð  ð Ðin€coming€to€the€decision€to€order€surrender€without€assurances,€concluded€that€Mr.€Cox€had€failedÐ à Ðto€show€that€his€rights€would€be€violated€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€in€any€way€particular€to€him,Ð €Ð Ðwhich€could€not€be€addressed€by€judicial€review€in€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€under€theÐ pÀ ÐConstitution€of€the€United€States.€€That€is,€the€Minister€determined€that€the€matters€raised€by€Mr.Ð `° ÐCox€could€be€left€to€the€internal€working€of€the€United€States€system€of€justice,€a€system€whichÐ P  Ðsufficiently€corresponds€to€Canadian€concepts€of€justice€and€fairness€to€warrant€entering€into€andÐ @ Ðmaintaining€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty.ðð€€On€2€January€1993,€the€Minister,€havingÐ 0€ Ðdetermined€that€there€existed€no€exceptional€circumstances€pertaining€to€the€author€whichÐ  p Ðnecessitated€the€seeking€of€assurances€in€his€case,€ordered€him€surrendered€without€assurances.Ð ` ÐÌ6.4€€On€4€January€1993,€authorððs€counsel€sought€to€reactivate€his€earlier€communication€to€theÐ ð@ ÐCommittee.€€He€has€indicated€to€the€Government€of€Canada€that€he€does€not€propose€to€appeal€theÐ à0 ÐMinisterððs€decision€in€the€Canadian€courts.€€The€State€party,€however,€does€not€contest€theÐ Ð  Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication€on€this€issue.Ð À! ÐÌ7.1€€As€to€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€contends€that€extradition€òòper€seóó€is€beyond€itsÐ  #ð! Ðscope€and€refers€to€the€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôóó,€showing€that€the€drafters€of€the€Covenant€specificallyÐ $à" Ðconsidered€and€rejected€a€proposal€to€deal€with€extradition€in€the€Covenant.€€ð ðIt€was€argued€that€theÐ €%Ð # Ðinclusion€of€a€provision€on€extradition€in€the€Covenant€would€cause€difficulties€regarding€theÐ p&À!$ Ðrelationship€of€the€Covenant€to€existing€treaties€and€bilateral€agreements.ðð€€(A/2929,€Ô_ÔChaptÔ_Ô.€VI,€para.Ð `'°"% Ð72)€In€the€light€of€the€history€of€negotiations€during€the€drafting€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€partyÐ P( #& Ðsubmits€ð ðthat€a€decision€to€extend€the€Covenant€to€extradition€treaties€or€to€individual€decisionsÐ @)$' Ðpursuant€thereto,€would€stretch€the€principles€governing€the€interpretation€of€the€Covenant,€and€ofÐ 0*€%( Ðhuman€rights€instruments€in€general,€in€unreasonable€and€unacceptable€ways.€€It€would€beÐ  +p&) Ðunreasonable€because€the€principles€of€interpretation€which€recognize€that€human€rights€instrumentsÐ ,`'* Ðare€living€documents€and€that€human€rights€evolve€over€time€cannot€be€employed€in€the€face€ofÐ -P(+ Ðexpress€limits€to€the€application€of€a€given€document.€€The€absence€of€extradition€from€the€articlesÐ ð-@), Ðof€the€Covenant€when€read€with€the€intention€of€the€drafters€must€be€taken€as€an€express€limitation.ððÐ ° ÐÌ7.2€€As€to€the€authorððs€standing€as€a€ð ðvictimðð€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€partyÐ à Ðconcedes€that€he€is€subject€to€Canadaððs€jurisdiction€during€the€time€he€is€in€Canada€in€the€extraditionÐ €Ð Ðprocess.€€However,€the€State€party€submits€ð ðthat€Cox€is€not€a€victim€of€any€violation€in€Canada€ofÐ pÀ Ðrights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant€...€because€the€Covenant€does€not€set€forth€any€rights€with€respectÐ ` ° Ðto€extradition.€€In€the€alternative,€it€contends€that€even€if€[the]€Covenant€extends€to€extradition,€it€canÐ P   Ðonly€apply€to€the€treatment€of€the€fugitive€sought€for€extradition€with€respect€to€the€operation€of€theÐ @  Ðextradition€process€within€the€State€Party€to€the€Protocol.€€Possible€treatment€of€the€fugitive€in€theÐ 0 € Ðrequesting€State€cannot€be€the€subject€of€a€communication€with€respect€to€the€State€party€to€theÐ  p  ÐProtocol€(extraditing€State),€except€perhaps€for€instances€where€there€was€evidence€before€thatÐ `  Ðextraditing€State€such€that€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€in€the€requesting€State€was€reasonablyÐ P  Ðforeseeable.ððÐ ð@  ÐÌ7.3€€The€State€party€contends€that€the€evidence€submitted€by€authorððs€counsel€to€the€Committee€andÐ Ð  Ðto€the€Minister€of€Justice€in€Canada€does€not€show€that€it€was€reasonably€foreseeable€that€theÐ À Ðtreatment€that€the€author€may€face€in€the€United€States€would€violate€his€rights€under€the€Covenant.€Ð ° ÐThe€Minister€of€Justice€and€the€Canadian€Courts,€to€the€extent€that€the€author€availed€himself€of€theÐ  ð Ðopportunities€for€judicial€review,€considered€all€the€evidence€and€argument€submitted€by€counsel€andÐ à Ðconcluded€that€Mr.€Coxððs€extradition€to€the€United€States€to€face€the€death€penalty€would€not€violateÐ €Ð Ðhis€rights,€either€under€Canadian€law€or€under€international€instruments,€including€the€Covenant.€Ð pÀ ÐThus,€the€State€party€concludes€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€the€author€has€failedÐ `° Ðto€substantiate,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€that€the€author€is€a€victim€of€any€violation€in€CanadaÐ P  Ðof€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant.Ð @ ÐÌòòCounselððs€submissions€on€admissibilityóóÐ  p ÐÌ8.1€€In€his€submission€of€7€April€1993,€authorððs€counsel€argues€that€an€attempt€to€further€exhaustÐ P Ðdomestic€remedies€in€Canada€would€be€futile€in€the€light€of€the€judgment€of€the€Canadian€SupremeÐ ð@ ÐCourt€in€the€cases€of€Kindler€and€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô.€€ð ðI€chose€to€file€the€communication€and€apply€for€interimÐ à0 Ðmeasures€prior€to€discontinuing€the€appeal.€€This€move€was€taken€because€I€presumed€that€aÐ Ð  Ðdiscontinuance€in€the€appeal€might€result€in€the€immediate€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox.€€It€was€moreÐ À! Ðprudent€to€seize€the€Committee€first,€and€then€discontinue€the€appeal,€and€I€think€this€precaution€wasÐ °"  Ða€wise€one,€because€Mr.€Cox€is€still€in€Canada€...€Subsequent€to€discontinuation€of€the€appeal,€I€filedÐ  #ð! Ðan€application€before€the€Minister€of€Justice,€Kim€Campbell,€praying€that€she€exercise€herÐ $à" Ðdiscretionary€power€under€article€6€of€the€Extradition€Act,€and€refuse€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€until€anÐ €%Ð # Ðassurance€had€been€provided€by€the€United€States€government€that€if€Mr.€Cox€were€to€be€foundÐ p&À!$ Ðguilty,€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€applied€...€I€was€granted€a€hearing€before€Minister€Campbell,Ð `'°"% Ðon€November€13,€1992.€€In€reasons€dated€January€2,€1993€Minister€Campbell€refused€to€exercise€herÐ P( #& Ðdiscretion€and€refused€to€seek€assurances€from€the€United€States€government€that€the€death€penaltyÐ @)$' Ðnot€be€employed€...€It€is€possible€to€apply€for€judicial€review€of€the€decision€of€Minister€Campbell,Ð 0*€%( Ðon€the€narrow€grounds€of€breach€of€natural€justice€or€other€gross€irregularity.€€However,€there€is€noÐ  +p&) Ðsuggestion€of€any€grounds€to€justify€such€recourse,€and€consequently€no€such€dilatory€recourse€hasÐ ,`'* Ðbeen€taken€...€all€useful€and€effective€domestic€remedies€to€contest€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€haveÐ -P(+ Ðbeen€exhausted.ððÐ ð-@), Ї8.2€€Counsel€contends€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€would€expose€him€to€the€real€and€presentÐ ° Ðdanger€of:Ð  ð ÐÌð ða.€€arbitrary€execution,€in€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant;Ð €Ð ÐÌb.€€discriminatory€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€in€violation€of€articles€6€and€26€of€the€Covenant;Ð ` ° ÐÌc.€€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€breach€of€fundamental€procedural€safeguards,€specifically€byÐ @  Ðan€impartial€jury€(the€phenomenon€of€ððdeath€qualifiedðð€juriesðð,€in€violation€of€articles€6€and€14€ofÐ 0 € Ðthe€Covenant;Ð  p  ÐÌd.€€prolonged€detention€on€ððdeath€rowðð,€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.ððÐ P  ÐÌ8.3€€With€respect€to€the€system€of€criminal€justice€in€the€United€States,€authorððs€counsel€refers€to€theÐ à0  Ðreservations€which€the€United€States€formulated€upon€its€ratification€of€the€Covenant,€in€particularÐ Ð  Ðto€article€6:€ð ðThe€United€States€reserves€the€right,€subject€to€its€Constitutional€constraints,€to€imposeÐ À Ðcapital€punishment€on€any€person€(other€than€a€pregnant€woman)€duly€convicted€under€existing€orÐ ° Ðfuture€laws€permitting€the€imposition€of€capital€punishment,€including€such€punishment€for€crimesÐ  ð Ðcommitted€by€persons€below€eighteen€years€of€age.ðð€€Authorððs€counsel€argues€that€this€is€ð ðanÐ à Ðenormously€broad€reservation€that€no€doubt€is€inconsistent€with€the€nature€and€purpose€of€the€treatyÐ €Ð Ðbut€that€furthermore€...€creates€a€presumption€that€the€United€States€does€not€intend€to€respect€articleÐ pÀ Ð6€of€the€Covenant.ððÐ `° ÐÌ9.1€€In€his€comments,€dated€10€June€1993,€on€the€State€partyððs€submission,€counsel€addresses€theÐ @ Ðrefusal€of€the€Minister€to€seek€assurances€on€the€non„imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€and€refers€toÐ 0€ Ðthe€book€òòLa€Forestððs€Extradition€to€and€from€Canadaóó,€in€which€it€is€stated€that€Canada€in€factÐ  p Ðroutinely€seeks€such€an€undertaking.€€Moreover,€the€author€contests€the€State€partyððs€interpretationÐ ` Ðthat€it€was€not€the€intention€of€the€drafters€of€the€extradition€treaty€that€assurances€be€routinelyÐ P Ðsought.€€ð ðIt€is€known€that€the€provision€in€the€extradition€treaty€with€the€United€States€was€added€atÐ ð@ Ðthe€request€of€the€United€States.€€Does€Canada€have€any€evidence€admissible€in€a€court€of€law€toÐ à0 Ðsupport€such€a€questionable€claim?€€I€refuse€to€accept€the€suggestion€in€the€absence€of€any€seriousÐ Ð  Ðevidence.ððÐ À! ÐÌ9.2€€As€to€the€State€partyððs€argument€that€extradition€is€intended€to€protect€Canadian€society,€authorððsÐ  #ð! Ðcounsel€challenges€the€State€partyððs€belief€that€a€policy€of€routinely€seeking€guarantees€willÐ $à" Ðencourage€criminal€law€offenders€to€seek€refuge€in€Canada€and€contends€that€there€is€no€evidenceÐ €%Ð # Ðto€support€such€a€belief.€€Moreover,€with€regard€to€Canadaððs€concern€that€if€the€United€States€doesÐ p&À!$ Ðnot€give€assurances,€Canada€would€be€unable€to€extradite€and€have€to€keep€the€criminal€without€trial,Ð `'°"% Ðauthorððs€counsel€argues€that€ð ða€state€government€so€devoted€to€the€death€penalty€as€a€supremeÐ P( #& Ðpunishment€for€an€offender€would€surely€prefer€to€obtain€extradition€and€keep€the€offender€in€lifeÐ @)$' Ðimprisonment€rather€than€to€see€the€offender€freed€in€Canada.€€I€know€of€two€cases€where€theÐ 0*€%( Ðguarantee€was€sought€from€the€United€States,€one€for€extradition€from€the€United€kingdom€to€theÐ  +p&) Ðstate€of€Virginia€(Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô)€and€one€for€extradition€from€Canada€to€the€state€of€FloridaÐ ,`'* Ð(Ô_ÔOððBomsawinÔ_Ô).€€In€both€cases€the€states€willingly€gave€the€guarantee.€€It€is€pure€demagogy€forÐ -P(+ ÐCanada€to€raise€the€spectre€of€ðða€haven€for€many€fugitives€from€the€death€penaltyðð€in€the€absence€ofÐ ð-@), Ðevidence.ððÐ ° ÐÌ9.3€€As€to€the€murders€of€which€Mr.€Cox€is€accused,€authorððs€counsel€indicates€that€ð ðtwo€individualsÐ à Ðhave€Ô_ÔpleadedÔ_Ô€guilty€to€the€crime€and€are€now€serving€life€prison€terms€in€Pennsylvania.€€EachÐ €Ð Ðindividual€has€alleged€that€the€other€individual€actually€committed€the€murder,€and€that€Keith€CoxÐ pÀ Ðparticipated.ððÐ ` ° ÐÌ9.4€€With€regard€to€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,€counsel€refers€to€the€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôóó€of€theÐ @  ÐCovenant€and€argues€that€consideration€of€the€issue€of€extradition€must€be€places€within€the€contextÐ 0 € Ðof€the€debate€on€the€right€to€asylum,€and€claims€that€extradition€was€in€fact€a€minor€point€in€theÐ  p  Ðdebates.€€Moreover,€ð ðnowhere€in€the€summary€records€is€there€evidence€of€a€suggestion€that€theÐ `  ÐCovenant€would€not€apply€to€extradition€requests€when€torture€or€cruel,€inhuman€and€degradingÐ P  Ðpunishment€might€be€imposed€...€Germane€to€the€construction€of€the€Covenant,€and€to€CanadaððÐ ð@  Ðaffirmations€about€the€scope€of€human€rights€law,€is€the€more€recent€Convention€against€Torture€andÐ à0  ÐOther€Cruel,€Inhuman€or€Degrading€Treatment€or€Punishment,€which€provides,€in€article€3,€thatÐ Ð  ÐStates€parties€shall€not€extradite€a€person€to€another€State€where€there€are€serious€grounds€to€believeÐ À Ðthat€the€person€will€be€subjected€to€torture€...€It€is€respectfully€submitted€that€it€is€appropriate€toÐ ° Ðconstrue€articles€7€and€10€of€the€Covenant€in€light€of€the€more€detailed€provisions€in€the€ConventionÐ  ð ÐAgainst€Torture.€€Both€instruments€were€drafted€by€the€same€organization,€and€are€parts€of€the€sameÐ à Ðinternational€human€rights€system.€€The€Convention€Against€Torture€was€meant€to€give€moreÐ €Ð Ðdetailed€and€specialized€protection;€it€is€an€enrichment€of€the€Covenant.ððÐ pÀ ÐÌ9.5€€As€to€the€concept€of€victim€under€the€Optional€Protocol,€authorððs€counsel€contends€that€this€isÐ P  Ðnot€a€matter€for€admissibility€but€for€examination€of€the€merits.Ð @ ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€CommitteeóóÐ  p ÐÌ10.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€must,€inÐ P Ðaccordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€the€Communication€isÐ ð@ Ðadmissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð à0 ÐÌ10.2€€With€regard€to€the€requirement€of€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€Committee€notesÐ À! Ðthat€the€author€did€not€complete€the€judicial€phase€of€examination,€since€he€withdrew€the€appeal€toÐ °"  Ðthe€Court€of€Appeal€after€being€advised€that€it€would€have€no€prospect€of€success€and,€therefore,€thatÐ  #ð! Ðlegal€aid€would€not€be€provided€for€that€purpose.€€With€regard€to€the€ministerial€phase,€the€authorÐ $à" Ðindicated€that€he€did€not€intend€to€appeal€the€Ministerððs€decision€to€surrender€Mr.€Cox€withoutÐ €%Ð # Ðseeking€assurances,€since,€as€he€asserts,€further€recourse€to€domestic€remedies€would€have€been€futileÐ p&À!$ Ðin€the€light€of€the€1991€judgment€of€the€Canadian€Supreme€Court€in€Kindler€and€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€€òò2óó/.€€TheÐ `'°"% ÐCommittee€notes€that€the€State€party€has€explicitly€stated€that€it€does€not€wish€to€express€a€view€asÐ P( #& Ðto€whether€the€author€has€exhausted€domestic€remedies€and€does€not€contest€the€admissibility€of€theÐ @)$' Ðcommunication€on€this€ground.€€In€the€circumstances,€basing€itself€on€the€information€before€it,€theÐ 0*€%( ÐCommittee€concludes€that€the€requirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Covenant€have€beenÐ  +p&) Ðmet.Ð ,`'* ÐÌ10.3€€Extradition€as€such€is€outside€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant€(communication€No.Ð ð-@), Ð117/1981€[òòÔ_ÔM.A.Ô_Ô€v.€Italyóó],€paragraph€13.4:€ð ðThere€is€no€provision€of€the€Covenant€making€it€unlawfulÐ ° Ðfor€a€State€party€to€seek€extradition€of€a€person€from€another€countryðð).€€Extradition€is€an€importantÐ  ð Ðinstrument€of€cooperation€in€the€administration€of€justice,€which€requires€that€safe€havens€should€notÐ à Ðbe€provided€for€those€who€seek€to€evade€fair€trial€for€criminal€offences,€or€who€escape€after€such€fairÐ €Ð Ðtrial€has€occurred.€€But€a€State€partyððs€obligation€in€relation€to€a€matter€itself€outside€the€scope€of€theÐ pÀ ÐCovenant€may€still€be€engaged€by€reference€to€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant€òò3óó/.€€In€the€presentÐ ` ° Ðcase€the€author€does€not€claim€that€extradition€as€such€violates€the€Covenant,€but€rather€that€theÐ P   Ðparticular€circumstances€related€to€the€effects€of€his€extradition€would€raise€issues€under€specificÐ @  Ðprovisions€of€the€Covenant.€€The€Committee€finds€that€the€communication€is€thus€not€excluded€fromÐ 0 € Ðconsideration€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó.Ð  p  ÐÌ10.4€€With€regard€to€the€allegations€that,€if€extradited,€Mr.€Cox€would€be€exposed€to€a€real€andÐ P  Ðpresent€danger€of€a€violation€of€articles€14€and€26€of€the€Covenant€in€the€United€States,€theÐ ð@  ÐCommittee€observes€that€the€evidence€submitted€does€not€substantiate,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,Ð à0  Ðthat€such€violations€would€be€a€foreseeable€and€necessary€consequence€of€extradition.€€It€does€notÐ Ð  Ðsuffice€to€assert€before€the€Committee€that€the€criminal€justice€system€in€the€United€States€inÐ À Ðincompatible€with€the€Covenant.€€In€this€connection,€the€Committee€recalls€its€jurisprudence€that,Ð ° Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€procedure,€it€cannot€examine€òòin€Ô_ÔabstractoÔ_Ôóó€the€compatibility€with€theÐ  ð ÐCovenant€of€the€laws€and€practice€of€a€State€òò4óó/.€€For€purposes€of€admissibility,€the€author€has€toÐ à Ðsubstantiate€that€in€the€specific€circumstances€of€his€case,€the€Courts€of€Pennsylvania€would€be€likelyÐ €Ð Ðto€violate€his€rights€under€articles€14€and€26,€and€that€he€would€not€have€a€genuine€opportunity€toÐ pÀ Ðchallenge€such€violations€in€United€States€courts.€€The€author€has€failed€to€do€so.€€This€part€of€theÐ `° Ðcommunication€is€therefore€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð P  ÐÌ10.5€€The€Committee€considers€that€the€remaining€claim,€that€Canada€violated€the€Covenant€byÐ 0€ Ðdeciding€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€without€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed,Ð  p Ðor€if€imposed,€will€not€be€carried€out,€may€raise€issues€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€whichÐ ` Ðshould€be€examined€on€the€merits.Ð P ÐÌ11.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Ð à0 ÐÌ(a)€€that€the€communication€is€admissible€in€so€far€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€articles€6€and€7€of€theÐ À! ÐCovenant;Ð °"  ÐÌ(b)€€that,€in€accordance€with€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€shall€beÐ $à" Ðrequested€to€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€transmittal€to€it€of€thisÐ €%Ð # Ðdecision,€written€explanations€or€statements€clarifying€the€matter€and€the€measures,€if€any,€that€mayÐ p&À!$ Ðhave€been€taken€by€it;Ð `'°"% ÐÌ(c)€€that€any€explanations€or€statements€received€from€the€State€party€shall€be€communicated€to€theÐ @)$' Ðauthor€and€his€counsel,€with€the€request€that€any€comments€that€they€may€wish€to€make€should€reachÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€Human€Rights€Committee,€in€care€of€the€Centre€for€Human€Rights,€United€Nations€Office€atÐ  +p&) ÐGeneva,€within€six€weeks€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal;Ð ,`'* ÐÌ(d)€€that€the€State€party€shall€be€requested,€under€rule€86€of€the€Committeeððs€rules€of€procedure,€notÐ ð-@), Ðto€extradite€Mr.€Cox€without€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€or,€ifÐ ° Ðimposed,€will€not€be€carried€out,€while€his€communication€is€under€consideration€by€the€Committee.€Ð  ð ÐThis€requested€does€not€imply€a€determination€of€the€merits€of€the€communication;Ð à ÐÌ(e)€€that€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party,€to€the€author€and€to€his€counsel.Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌ_____________________Ð @  Ðòò*óó/€€All€persons€handling€this€document€are€requested€to€respect€and€observe€its€confidential€nature.Ð 0 € ÐÌòò**óó/€€The€text€of€two€individual€opinions,€signed€by€seven€members€of€the€Committee,€is€appended.Ð `  ÐÌòò1óó/€€Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/45/D/486/1993.Ð ð@  ÐÌòò2óó/€€The€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€decision€of€the€Minister€to€extradite€Mr.€Kindler€and€Mr.€Ô_ÔNgÔ_ÔÐ Ð  Ðwithout€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€or,€if€imposed,€would€notÐ À Ðbe€carried€out,€did€not€violate€their€rights€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms.Ð ° ÐÌòò3óó/€€See€the€Committeeððs€decisions€in€communications€Nos.€35/1978€(òòÔ_ÔAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.Ð à ÐÔ_ÔMauritusÔ_Ôóó,€Views€adopted€on€9€April€1981)€and€291/1988€(òòTorres€v.€Finlandóó,€Views€adopted€on€2Ð €Ð ÐApril€1990).Ð pÀ ÐÌòò4óó/€€Views€in€communication€No.€61/1979,€òòLeo€Ô_ÔHertzbergÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Finlandóó,€para.€9.3.Ð P  ÐÌÌÌòòÓ  Óò òAPPENDIXó óóóÐ ` ÐÓ#œÓÌÌòòA.€€Individual€opinion€by€Mrs.€Rosalyn€Higgins,€co„signed€by€Messrs.€Laurel€Francis,€Kurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_Ô,Ð à0 ÐAndreas€Ô_ÔMavrommatisÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔBirameÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNdiayeÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_Ô.óóÐ Ð  ÐÌWe€believe€that€this€case€should€have€been€declared€inadmissible.€€Although€extradition€as€such€isÐ °"  Ðoutside€the€scope€of€the€Covenant€(see€òòÔ_ÔM.A.Ô_Ô€v.€Italyóó,€communication€No.€117/1981,€decision€of€10Ð  #ð! ÐApril€1984,€paragraph€13.4),€the€Committee€has€explained,€in€its€decision€on€communication€No.Ð $à" Ð470/1991€(òòJoseph€J.€Kindler€v.€Canadaóó,€Views€adopted€on€30€July€1993),€that€a€State€partyððsÐ €%Ð # Ðobligations€in€relation€to€a€matter€itself€outside€the€scope€of€the€Covenant€may€still€be€engaged€byÐ p&À!$ Ðreference€to€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.Ð `'°"% ÐÌBut€here,€as€elsewhere,€the€admissibility€requirements€under€the€Optional€Protocol€must€be€met.€€InÐ @)$' Ðits€decision€on€òòKindleróó,€the€Committee€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€it€had€jurisdiction,€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€locióó,Ð 0*€%( Ðby€reference€to€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€in€an€extradition€case€that€brought€into€play€otherÐ  +p&) Ðprovisions€of€the€Covenant.€€It€observed€that€ð ðif€a€State€party€takes€a€decision€relating€to€a€personÐ ,`'* Ðwithin€its€jurisdiction,€and€the€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€is€that€the€personððs€rightsÐ -P(+ Ðunder€the€Covenant€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€theÐ ð-@), ÐCovenantðð€(paragraph€6.2).Ð ° ÐÌWe€do€not€see€on€what€jurisdictional€basis€the€Committee€proceeds€to€its€finding€that€theÐ à Ðcommunication€is€admissible€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€€The€Committee€finds€that€theÐ €Ð Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€by€reference€to€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol€(paragraph€10.4)Ð pÀ Ðinsofar€as€claims€relating€to€fair€trial€(article€14)€and€discrimination€before€the€law€(article€26)€areÐ ` ° Ðconcerned.€€We€agree.€€But€this€negative€finding€cannot€form€a€basis€for€admissibility€in€respect€ofÐ P   Ðarticles€6€and€7.€€The€Committee€should€have€applied€the€same€test€(ð ðforeseeable€and€necessaryÐ @  Ðconsequencesðð)€to€the€claims€made€under€articles€6€and€7,€before€simply€declaring€them€admissibleÐ 0 € Ðin€respect€of€those€articles.€€It€did€not€do€so€„€and€in€our€opinion€could€not€have€found,€in€theÐ  p  Ðparticular€circumstances€of€the€case,€a€proper€legal€basis€for€jurisdiction€had€it€done€so.Ð `  ÐÌThe€above€test€is€relevant€also€to€the€admissibility€requirement,€under€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ ð@  ÐProtocol,€that€an€author€be€a€ð ðvictimðð€of€a€violation€is€respect€of€which€he€brings€a€claim.€€In€otherÐ à0  Ðwords,€it€is€not€always€necessary€that€a€violation€already€have€occurred€for€an€action€to€come€withinÐ Ð  Ðthe€scope€of€article€1.€€But€the€violation€that€will€affect€him€personally€must€be€a€ð ðnecessary€andÐ À Ðforeseeable€consequenceðð€of€the€action€of€the€defendant€State.Ð ° ÐÌIt€is€clear€that€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Cox,€unlike€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Kindler,€this€test€is€not€met.€€Mr.Ð à ÐKindler€had,€at€the€time€of€the€Canadian€decision€to€extradite€him,€been€tried€in€the€United€StatesÐ €Ð Ðfor€murder,€found€guilty€as€charged€and€recommended€to€the€death€sentence€by€the€jury.€€Mr.€Cox,Ð pÀ Ðby€contrast,€has€not€yet€been€tried€and€òòa€fortiorióó€has€not€been€found€guilty€or€recommended€to€theÐ `° Ðdeath€penalty.€€Already€it€is€clear€that€his€extradition€would€òònotóó€entail€the€possibility€of€a€ð ðnecessaryÐ P  Ðand€foreseeable€consequence€of€a€violation€of€his€rightsðð€that€would€require€examination€on€theÐ @ Ðmerits.€€This€failure€to€meet€the€test€of€ð ðprospective€victimðð€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€theÐ 0€ ÐOptional€Protocol€is€emphasized€by€the€fact€that€Mr.€Coxððs€two€co„defendants€in€the€case€in€whichÐ  p Ðhe€has€been€charged€have€already€been€tried€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€and€sentences€not€to€deathÐ ` Ðbut€to€a€term€of€life€imprisonment.Ð P ÐÌThe€fact€that€the€Committee€„€and€rightly€so€in€our€view€„€found€that€òòKindleróó€raised€issues€thatÐ à0 Ðneeded€to€be€considered€on€their€merits,€and€that€the€admissibility€criteria€were€there€met,€does€notÐ Ð  Ðmean€that€every€extradition€case€of€this€nature€is€necessarily€admissible.€€In€every€case,€the€testsÐ À! Ðrelevant€to€articles€1,€2,€3€and€5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€must€be€applied€to€theÐ °"  Ðparticular€facts€of€the€case.Ð  #ð! ÐÌThe€Committee€has€not€at€all€addressed€the€requirements€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€thatÐ €%Ð # Ðis,€whether€Mr.€Cox€may€be€considered€a€ð ðvictimðð€by€reference€to€his€claims€under€articles€14,€26,Ð p&À!$ Ð6€or€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð `'°"% ÐÌWe€therefore€believe€that€Mr.€Cox€was€not€a€ð ðvictimðð€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ @)$' ÐProtocol,€and€that€his€communication€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee€is€inadmissible.Ð 0*€%( ÐÌThe€duty€to€address€carefully€the€requirements€for€admissibility€under€the€Optional€Protocol€is€notÐ ,`'* Ðmade€the€less€necessary€because€capital€punishment€is€somehow€involved€in€a€complaint.Ð -P(+ Ðà  àÐ ð-@), ÐFor€all€these€reasons,€we€believe€that€the€Committee€should€have€found€the€present€communicationÐ ° Ðinadmissible.Ð  ð ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓRosalyn€HigginsÐ €Ð ÐLaurel€FrancisÐ pÀ ÐKurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_ԀР` ° ÐAndreas€Ô_ÔMavrommatisÔ_ԀРP   ÐÔ_ÔBirameÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNdiayeÔ_ԀР@  ÐÔ_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_ÔÐ 0 € ÐÓª´ÓÓ  ÓòòÌÌB.€€Individual€opinion€by€Mrs.€Elizabeth€EvattóóÐ P  ÐÌFor€his€claim€to€be€admissible,€the€author€must€show€that€he€is€a€victim.€€To€do€this€he€must€submitÐ à0  Ðfacts€which€support€the€conclusion€that€his€extradition€exposed€him€to€a€real€risk€that€his€rights€underÐ Ð  Ðarticles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€would€be€violated€(in€the€sense€that€the€violation€is€necessary€andÐ À Ðforeseeable).€€The€author€in€the€present€case€has€not€done€so.Ð ° ÐÌAs€to€article€6,€the€author€is,€of€course,€exposed€by€his€extradition€to€the€risk€of€facing€the€deathÐ à Ðpenalty€for€the€crime€of€which€he€is€accused.€€But€he€has€not€submitted€facts€to€show€a€real€risk€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€would€itself€violate€article€6,€which€does€not€exclude€the€deathÐ pÀ Ðpenalty€in€certain€limited€circumstances.€€Furthermore,€his€accomplices€in€the€crime€he€is€chargedÐ `° Ðwith€were€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€a€factor€which€does€not€support€the€contention€that€theÐ P  Ðauthorððs€extradition€would€expose€him€to€a€ð ðnecessary€and€foreseeableðð€risk€that€the€death€will€beÐ @ Ðimposed.Ð 0€ ÐÌAs€to€article€7,€his€claim€that€the€author€has€been€exposed€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€thisÐ ` Ðprovision€by€his€extradition€is€based€on€the€death€row€phenomenon€(paragraph€8.2);€the€author€hasÐ P Ðnot,€however,€submitted€facts€which,€in€the€light€of€the€Committeeððs€jurisprudence,€show€that€thereÐ ð@ Ðis€a€real€risk€of€violation€of€this€article€if€he€is€extradited€to€the€United€States.€€Furthermore,€since,Ð à0 Ðin€my€opinion,€the€authorððs€extradition€does€not€expose€him€to€a€real€risk€of€being€sentenced€to€death,Ð Ð  Ðhis€extradition€entails€òòa€fortiorióó€no€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€of€a€violation€of€his€rightsÐ À! Ðwhile€on€death€row.Ð °"  ÐÌFor€these€reasons€I€am€of€the€view€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€articles€1€and€2€ofÐ $à" Ðthe€Optional€Protocol.Ð €%Ð # ÐÌElizabeth€Evatt