ÿWPC³ þNGFsù^åOª’[ó{bWŒˆ2åU•'`ü©õóÀ–töÍhÂ><žð8/Þ2TvùÁ§)ÏqƬ®oþƪ@-èÅIìMÆVãÏÏlŠ2@xXÓ§il>ì1C xmE'‰.ßÉDŽE×LX•[ fÑæ[š%vX©}×>´VêI;ƒ%ì×k¶Ì’Z2Â0¿$j&¡Rçâåäx€ƒò¶ñ¼þ¦óá¼bVöpby$o"}çšÅg?ðâ Œ| ’éRçuøÄc½fIõ;mB³¶’¥±¯\ vZ*xÑÔ6£èaTmL‡9Š(xçå(;˜Ô;¥€}:ÅšÍc¸?Î÷¿í¨“÷ôÖ|ÅÂG÷ÅtºìFÑ*ñÛÃUÛN’$C*(¿Y£nFrš faÆüIbÆ6˱;Ûþ¦%Ñkx¼`¢7³J}–g½´n qk†#͸8e`'Ë“²»á;Ë ½ïÉáä~èØIA5¿xëÉÛ‰1J¼)æäƒ1l×~ìïïs:OdÜûª±”öö  †1Mw¬pºåIÌÎŽIsÞÞ£¬U>²Æð 0µ¶ 0<k 0Y§ 0_ 0i_ %ÈÆÎ 0á” 0(u D+ AMÈ È È È  0N% 0Æs #Á9 UNú ú MH(LNt^ vw‚4†š mœô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Chitat Ng v. Canada, Communication No. 469/1991, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 (1994)..D/469/1991 (1994)."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓX Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2§Ð$££Ý ƒ?!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XxŽXXXÔÔ€XxŽXXXxŽÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ž?$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xg:XXXÔÔ€Xg:XXXg:ÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular­rô* Äpì*¢Ø+00!ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ?!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XxŽXXXÔÔ€XxŽXXXxŽÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔNgÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€469/1991*/€Ð H˜ ÐÌ5€November€1993Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/49/D/469/1991Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Charles€Ô_ÔChitatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€[represented€by€counsel]Ð D”  ÐÌòòVictimóó:€The€authorÐ ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€25€September€1991€(initial€submission)óóÐ ¨ø Ðò òÌÌòòó óÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€5€November€1993,Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€469/1991,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Charles€Ô_ÔChitatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€under€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ ¾ Ðto€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€its€Ð "$r# ÐÓ|ÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓ½ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó:Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Charles€Chitat€Ng,€a€British€subject,€born€on€24Ð R+¢&+ ÐDecember€1960€in€Hong€Kong,€and€resident€of€the€United€States€of€America,€at€the€time€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhis€submission€detained€in€a€penitentiary€in€Alberta,€Canada,€and€on€26€September€1991Ð -n(- Ðextradited€to€the€United€States.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€his€human€rightsÐ ° Ðby€Canada€because€of€his€extradition.€He€is€represented€by€counsel.Ð –æ ÐÌ2.1€The€author€was€arrested,€charged€and€convicted,€in€1985,€in€Calgary,€Alberta,€followingÐ b² Ðan€attempted€store€theft€and€shooting€of€a€security€guard.€In€February€1987,€the€United€StatesÐ H˜ Ðformally€requested€the€author's€extradition€to€stand€trial€in€California€on€19€criminal€counts,Ð . ~ Ðincluding€kidnapping€and€12€murders,€committed€in€1984€and€1985.€If€convicted,€the€authorÐ  d Ðcould€face€the€death€penalty.Ð ú J ÐÌ2.2€In€November€1988,€a€judge€of€the€Alberta€Court€of€Queen's€Bench€ordered€the€author'sÐ Æ   Ðextradition.€In€February€1989€the€author's€habeas€corpus€application€was€denied,€and€on€31Ð ¬ ü  ÐAugust€1989€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€refused€the€author€leave€to€appeal.Ð ’â  ÐÌ2.3€Article€6€of€the€Extradition€Treaty€between€Canada€and€the€United€States€provides:Ð ^®  ÐÌ"When€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€is€punishable€by€death€under€the€lawsÐ *z  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 öF Ðassurances€as€the€requested€State€considers€sufficient€that€the€death€penalty€shall€not€beÐ Ü, Ðimposed€or,€if€imposed,€shall€not€be€executed."Ð Â ÐÌCanada€abolished€the€death€penalty€in€1976,€except€for€certain€military€offences.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ2.4€The€power€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€is€discretionary,Ð Zª Ðand€is€conferred€on€the€Minister€of€Justice€pursuant€to€section€25€of€the€Extradition€Act.€InÐ @ ÐOctober€1989,€the€Minister€of€Justice€decided€not€to€seek€these€assurances.Ð &v ÐÌ2.5€The€author€subsequently€filed€an€application€for€review€of€the€Minister's€decision€withÐ òB Ðthe€Federal€Court.€On€8€June€1990,€the€issues€in€the€case€were€referred€to€the€Supreme€CourtÐ Ø( Ðof€Canada,€which€rendered€judgement€on€26€September€1991.€It€found€that€the€author'sÐ ¾ Ðextradition€without€assurances€as€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€did€not€contraveneÐ ¤ô ÐCanada's€constitutional€protection€for€human€rights€nor€the€standards€of€the€internationalÐ Š Ú Ðcommunity.€The€author€was€extradited€on€the€same€day.Ð p!À  ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€the€decision€to€extradite€him€violates€articles€6,€7,€9,€10,€14€and€26Ð %X $ Ðof€the€Covenant.€He€submits€that€the€execution€of€the€death€sentence€by€gas€asphyxiation,Ð î%>!% Ðas€provided€for€under€California€statutes,€constitutes€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€orÐ Ô&$"& Ðpunishment€ò òper€seó ó,€and€that€the€conditions€on€death€row€are€cruel,€inhuman€and€degrading.Ð º' #' ÐHe€further€alleges€that€the€judicial€procedures€in€California,€in€as€much€as€they€relateÐ  (ð#( Ðspecifically€to€capital€punishment,€do€not€meet€basic€requirements€of€justice.€In€this€context,Ð †)Ö$) Ðthe€author€alleges€that€in€the€United€States€racial€bias€influences€the€imposition€of€the€deathÐ l*¼%* Ðpenalty.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€initial€observations€and€the€author's€commentsóó:Ð -n(- Ї4.1€The€State€party€submits€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€ò òratione€personaeó ó,€ò òloció óÐ ° Ðand€ò òmateriaeó ó.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€from€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€ofextradition€without€conditions€by€providing€forÐ ¾ Ðdiscretion€in€obtaining€assurances€regarding€the€death€penalty€in€the€same€fashion€as€is€foundÐ ¤ô Ðin€article€6€of€the€CanadaUnited€States€Extradition€Treaty.€It€concludes€that€interference€withÐ Š Ú Ðthe€surrender€of€a€fugitive€pursuant€to€legitimate€requests€from€a€treaty€partner€would€defeatÐ p!À  Ðthe€principles€and€objects€of€extradition€treaties€and€would€entail€undesirable€consequencesÐ V"¦! Ðfor€States€refusing€these€legitimate€requests.€In€this€context,€the€State€party€points€out€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðits€long,€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+¢&+ Ðò òper€seó ó€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(- Ðof€detention€during€which€a€convicted€prisoner€would€pursue€all€avenues€of€appeal,€can€beÐ ° Ðheld€to€constitute€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð –æ ÐÌ5.1€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€counsel€submits€that€the€author€is€andÐ b² Ðwas€himself€actually€and€personally€affected€by€the€decision€of€the€State€party€to€extraditeÐ H˜ Ðhim€and€that€the€communication€is€therefore€admissible€ò òratione€personaeó ó.€In€this€context,Ð . ~ Ðhe€refers€to€the€Committee's€Views€in€communication€No.€35/1978€òò5óó,€and€argues€that€anÐ  d Ðindividual€can€claim€to€be€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€the€Optional€Protocol€if€the€laws,Ð ú J Ðpractices,€actions€or€decisions€of€a€State€party€raise€a€real€risk€of€violation€of€rights€set€forthÐ à 0 Ðin€the€Covenant.Ð Æ   ÐÌ5.2€Counsel€further€argues€that,€since€the€decision€complained€of€is€one€made€by€CanadianÐ ’â  Ðauthorities€while€the€author€was€subject€to€Canadian€jurisdiction,€the€communication€isÐ xÈ  Ðadmissible€ò òratione€loció ó.€In€this€connection,€he€refers€to€the€Committee's€Views€inÐ ^®  Ðcommunication€No.€110/1981òò€6óó,€where€it€was€held€that€article€1€of€the€Covenant€was€"clearlyÐ D”  Ðintended€to€apply€to€individuals€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€State€party€concerned€ò òat€theÐ *z  Ðtime€of€the€alleged€violationó ó€of€the€Covenant"€(emphasis€added).Ð ` ÐÌ5.3€Counsel€finally€stresses€that€the€author€does€not€claim€a€rightnot€to€be€extradited;€he€onlyÐ Ü, Ðclaims€that€he€should€not€have€been€surrendered€without€assurances€that€the€death€penaltyÐ Â Ðwould€not€be€imposed.€He€submits€that€the€communication€is€therefore€compatible€with€theÐ ¨ø Ðprovisions€of€the€Covenant.€He€refers€in€this€context€to€the€Committee's€Views€onÐ ŽÞ Ðcommunication€No.€107/1981òò€7óó,€where€the€Committee€found€that€anguish€and€stress€can€giveÐ tÄ Ðrise€to€a€breach€of€the€Covenant;€he€submits€that€this€finding€is€also€applicable€in€the€instantÐ Zª Ðcase.Ð @ ÐÌòòThe€Committee's€admissibility€considerations€and€decisionóó:Ð  \ ÐÌ6.1€During€its€46th€session€in€October€1992,€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€ofÐ Ø( Ðthe€communication.€It€observed€that€extradition€as€such€is€outside€the€scope€of€applicationÐ ¾ Ðof€the€Covenantòò€8óó,€but€that€a€State€party's€obligations€in€relation€to€a€matter€itself€outside€theÐ ¤ô Ðscope€of€the€Covenant€may€still€be€engaged€by€reference€to€other€provisions€of€the€€Ð Š Ú ÐCovenantòò€9óó.€The€Committee€noted€that€the€author€does€not€claim€that€extradition€as€suchÐ p!À  Ðviolates€the€Covenant,€but€rather€that€the€particular€circumstances€related€to€the€effects€ofÐ V"¦! Ðhis€extradition€would€raise€issues€under€specific€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€Accordingly,Ð <#Œ" Ðthe€Committee€found€that€the€communication€was€thus€not€excluded€ò òratione€materiaeó ó.Ð "$r# ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€considered€the€contention€of€the€State€party€that€the€claim€is€inadmissibleÐ î%>!% Ðò òratione€loció ó.€Article€2€of€the€Covenant€requires€States€parties€to€guarantee€the€rights€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðpersons€within€their€jurisdiction.€If€a€person€is€lawfully€expelled€or€extradited,€the€State€partyÐ º' #' Ðconcerned€will€not€generally€have€responsibility€under€the€Covenant€for€any€violations€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€person's€rights€that€may€later€occur€in€the€other€jurisdiction.€In€that€sense€a€State€partyÐ †)Ö$) Ðclearly€is€not€required€to€guarantee€the€rights€of€persons€within€another€jurisdiction.Ð l*¼%* ÐHowever,€if€a€State€party€takes€a€decision€relating€to€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction,€and€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðnecessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€is€that€this€person's€rights€under€the€Covenant€willÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbe€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð -n(- ÐThat€follows€from€the€fact€that€a€State€party's€duty€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant€would€beÐ ° Ðnegated€by€the€handing€over€of€a€person€to€another€State€(whether€a€State€party€to€theÐ –æ ÐCovenant€or€not)€where€treatment€contrary€to€the€Covenant€is€certain€or€is€the€very€purposeÐ |Ì Ðof€the€handing€over.€For€example,€a€State€partywould€itself€be€in€violation€of€the€CovenantÐ b² Ðif€it€handed€over€a€person€to€another€State€in€circumstances€in€which€it€was€foreseeable€thatÐ H˜ Ðtorture€would€take€place.€The€foreseeability€of€the€consequence€would€mean€that€there€wasÐ . ~ Ða€present€violation€by€the€State€party,€even€though€the€consequence€would€not€occur€untilÐ  d Ðlater€on.Ð ú J ÐÌ6.3€The€Committee€therefore€considered€itself,€in€principle,€competent€to€examine€whetherÐ Æ   Ðthe€State€party€is€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€by€virtue€of€its€decision€to€extradite€the€authorÐ ¬ ü  Ðunder€the€Extradition€Treaty€of€1976€between€the€United€States€and€Canada,€and€theÐ ’â  ÐExtradition€Act€of€1985.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ6.4€The€Committee€observed€that€pursuant€to€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol€theÐ D”  ÐCommittee€may€only€receive€and€consider€communications€from€individuals€subject€to€theÐ *z  Ðjurisdiction€of€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€and€to€the€Optional€Protocol€"who€claim€to€beÐ ` Ðvictims€of€a€violation€by€that€State€party€of€any€of€their€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant".€ItÐ öF Ðconsidered€that€in€the€instant€case,€only€the€consideration€on€the€merits€of€the€circumstancesÐ Ü, Ðunder€which€the€extradition€procedure,€and€all€its€effects,€occurred,€would€enable€theÐ Â ÐCommittee€to€determine€whether€the€author€is€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€theÐ ¨ø ÐOptional€Protocol.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€found€it€appropriate€to€consider€this€issue,Ð ŽÞ Ðwhich€concerned€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€together€with€the€examination€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€merits€of€the€case.Ð Zª ÐÌ7.€On€28€October€1992,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decided€to€join€the€questionÐ &v Ðof€whether€the€author€was€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ  \ Ðto€the€consideration€of€the€merits.€The€Committee€expressed€its€regret€that€the€State€partyÐ òB Ðhad€not€acceded€to€the€Committee's€request€under€rule€86,€to€stay€extradition€of€the€author.Ð Ø( ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€further€submission€on€the€admissibility€and€the€merits€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðcommunicationóó:Ð Š Ú ÐÌ8.1€In€its€submission,€dated€14€May€1993,€the€State€party€elaborates€on€the€extraditionÐ V"¦! Ðprocess€in€general,€on€the€Canada„United€States€extradition€relationship€and€on€the€specificsÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€present€case.€It€also€submits€comments€with€respect€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ "$r# Ðcommunication,€in€particular€with€respect€to€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð %X $ ÐÌ8.2€The€State€party€recalls€that€"extradition€exists€to€contribute€to€the€safety€of€the€citizensÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€residents€of€States.€Dangerous€criminal€offenders€seeking€a€safe€haven€from€prosecutionÐ º' #' Ðor€punishment€are€removed€to€face€justice€in€the€State€in€which€their€crimes€were€committed.Ð  (ð#( ÐExtradition€furthers€international€cooperation€in€criminal€justice€matters€and€strengthensÐ †)Ö$) Ðdomestic€law€enforcement.€It€is€meant€to€be€a€straightforward€and€expeditious€process.Ð l*¼%* ÐExtradition€seeks€to€balance€the€rights€of€fugitives€with€the€need€for€the€protection€of€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðresidents€of€the€two€States€parties€to€any€given€extradition€treaty.The€extradition€relationshipÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbetween€Canada€and€the€United€States€dates€back€to€1794....€In€1842,€the€United€States€andÐ -n(- ÐGreat€Britain€entered€into€the€Ashburton„Webster€Treaty€which€contained€articles€governingÐ ° Ðthe€mutual€surrender€of€criminals....€This€treaty€remained€in€force€until€the€present€Canada„Ð –æ ÐUnited€States€Extradition€Treaty€of€1976."Ð |Ì ÐÌ8.3€With€regard€to€the€principle€ò òaut€dedere€aut€judicareó ó€the€State€party€explains€that€whileÐ H˜ Ðsome€States€can€prosecute€persons€for€crimes€committed€in€other€jurisdictions€in€which€theirÐ . ~ Ðown€nationals€are€either€the€offender€or€the€victim,€other€States,€such€as€Canada€and€certainÐ  d Ðother€States€in€the€common€law€tradition,€cannot.Ð ú J ÐÌ8.4€Extradition€in€Canada€is€governed€by€the€Extradition€Act€and€the€terms€of€the€applicableÐ Æ   Ðtreaty.€The€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms,€which€forms€part€of€the€constitutionÐ ¬ ü  Ðof€Canada€and€embodies€many€of€the€rights€protected€by€the€Covenant,€applies.€UnderÐ ’â  ÐCanadian€law€extradition€is€a€two€step€process,€the€first€involving€a€hearing€at€which€a€judgeÐ xÈ  Ðconsiders€whether€a€factual€and€legal€basis€for€extradition€exists.€The€person€sought€forÐ ^®  Ðextradition€may€submit€evidence€at€the€judicial€hearing.€If€the€judge€is€satisfied€on€theÐ D”  Ðevidence€that€a€legal€basis€for€extradition€exists,€the€fugitive€is€ordered€committed€to€awaitÐ *z  Ðsurrender€to€the€requesting€State.€Judicial€review€of€a€warrant€of€committal€to€awaitÐ ` Ðsurrender€can€be€sought€by€means€of€an€application€for€a€writ€of€ò òhabeas€corpusó ó€in€aÐ öF Ðprovincial€court.€A€decision€of€the€judge€on€the€ò òhabeas€corpusó ó€application€can€be€appealedÐ Ü, Ðto€the€provincial€court€of€appeal€and€then,€with€leave,€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€TheÐ Â Ðsecond€step€in€the€extradition€process€begins€following€the€exhaustion€of€the€appeals€in€theÐ ¨ø Ðjudicial€phase.€The€Minister€of€Justice€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€deciding€whetherÐ ŽÞ Ðto€surrender€the€person€sought€for€extradition.€The€fugitive€may€make€written€submissionsÐ tÄ Ðto€the€Minister€and€counsel€for€the€fugitive,€with€leave,€may€appear€before€the€Minister€toÐ Zª 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 &v Ðsubmissions€from€the€fugitive,€and€while€the€Minister's€decision€is€discretionary,€theÐ  \ Ðdiscretion€is€circumscribed€by€law.€The€decision€is€based€upon€a€consideration€of€manyÐ òB Ðfactors,€including€Canada's€obligations€under€the€applicable€treaty€of€extradition,€factsÐ Ø( Ðparticular€to€the€person€and€the€nature€of€the€crime€for€which€extradition€is€sought.€InÐ ¾ Ðaddition,€the€Minister€must€consider€the€terms€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ ¤ô ÐFreedoms€and€the€various€instruments,€including€the€Covenant,€which€outline€Canada'sÐ Š Ú Ðinternational€human€rights€obligations.€Finally,€a€fugitive€may€seek€judicial€review€of€theÐ p!À  ÐMinister's€decision€by€a€provincial€court€and€appeal€a€warrant€of€surrender,€with€leave,€upÐ V"¦! Ðto€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.€In€interpreting€Canada's€human€rights€obligations€underÐ <#Œ" Ðthe€Canadian€Charter,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€is€guided€by€international€instrumentsÐ "$r# Ðto€which€Canada€is€a€party,€including€the€Covenant.Ð %X $ ÐÌ8.5€With€regard€to€surrender€in€capital€cases,€the€Minister€of€Justice€decides€whether€or€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€request€assurances€to€the€effect€that€the€death€penalty€should€not€be€imposed€or€carriedÐ º' #' Ðout€on€the€basis€of€anexamination€of€the€particular€facts€of€each€case.€The€Canada„UnitedÐ  (ð#( ÐStates€Extradition€Treaty€was€not€intended€to€make€the€seeking€of€assurances€a€routineÐ †)Ö$) Ðoccurrence€but€only€in€circumstances€where€the€particular€facts€of€the€case€warrant€a€specialÐ l*¼%* Ðexercise€of€discretion.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ8.6€With€regard€to€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€in€Canada,€the€State€party€notes€thatÐ -n(- Ð"certain€States€within€the€international€community,€including€the€United€States,€continue€toÐ ° Ðimpose€the€death€penalty.€The€Government€of€Canada€does€not€use€extradition€as€a€vehicleÐ –æ Ðfor€imposing€its€concepts€of€criminal€law€policy€on€other€States.€By€seeking€assurances€onÐ |Ì Ða€routine€basis,€in€the€absence€of€exceptional€circumstances,€Canada€would€be€dictating€toÐ b² Ðthe€requesting€State,€in€this€case€the€United€States,€how€it€should€punish€its€criminal€lawÐ H˜ Ðoffenders.€The€Government€of€Canada€contends€that€this€would€be€an€unwarrantedÐ . ~ Ðinterference€with€the€internal€affairs€of€another€State.€The€Government€of€Canada€reservesÐ  d Ðthe€right€...€to€refuse€to€extradite€without€assurances.€This€right€is€hold€in€reserve€for€use€onlyÐ ú J Ðwhere€exceptional€circumstances€exist.€In€the€view€of€the€Government€of€Canada,€it€may€beÐ à 0 Ðthat€evidence€showing€that€a€fugitive€would€face€certain€of€foreseeable€violations€of€theÐ Æ   ÐCovenant€would€be€one€example€of€exceptional€circumstances€which€would€warrant€theÐ ¬ ü  Ðspecial€measure€of€seeking€assurances€under€article€6.€However,€the€evidence€presented€byÐ ’â  ÐNg€during€the€extradition€process€in€Canada€(which€evidence€has€been€submitted€by€counselÐ xÈ  Ðfor€Ng€in€this€communication)€does€not€support€the€allegations€that€the€use€of€the€deathÐ ^®  Ðpenalty€in€the€United€States€generally,€or€in€the€State€of€California€in€particular,€violates€theÐ D”  ÐCovenant."Ð *z  ÐÌ8.7€The€State€party€also€refers€to€article€4€of€the€United€Nations€Model€Treaty€onÐ öF ÐExtradition,€which€lists€optional,€but€not€mandatory,€grounds€for€refusing€extradition:€"(d)Ð Ü, ÐIf€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€carries€the€death€penalty€under€the€law€ofÐ Â Ðthe€Requesting€State,€unless€the€State€gives€such€assurance€as€the€Requested€State€considersÐ ¨ø Ðsufficient€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€or,€if€imposed,€will€not€be€carried€out."Ð ŽÞ ÐSimilarly,€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty€provides€that€the€decisionÐ tÄ Ðwith€respect€to€obtaining€assurances€regarding€the€death€penalty€is€discretionary.Ð Zª ÐÌ8.8€With€regard€to€the€link€between€extradition€and€the€protection€of€society,€the€State€partyÐ &v Ðsubmits€that€Canada€and€the€United€States€share€a€4,800€kilometre€unguarded€border,€thatÐ  \ Ðmany€fugitives€from€United€States€justice€cross€that€border€into€Canada€and€that€in€the€lastÐ òB Ðtwelve€years€there€has€been€a€steadily€increasing€number€of€extradition€requests€from€theÐ Ø( ÐUnited€States.€In€1980€there€were€29€such€requests;€by€1992€the€number€had€increased€to€88.Ð ¾ Ð"Requests€involving€death€penalty€cases€are€a€new€and€growing€problem€for€Canada€...€aÐ ¤ô Ðpolicy€of€routinely€seeking€assurances€under€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€StatesÐ Š Ú ÐExtradition€Treaty€will€encourage€even€more€criminal€law€offenders,€especially€those€guiltyÐ p!À  Ðof€the€most€serious€crimes,€to€flee€the€United€States€for€Canada.€Canada€does€not€wish€toÐ V"¦! Ðbecome€a€haven€for€the€most€wanted€and€dangerous€criminals€from€the€United€States.€If€theÐ <#Œ" ÐCovenant€fetters€Canada's€discretion€not€to€seek€assurances,increasing€numbers€of€criminalsÐ "$r# Ðmay€come€to€Canada€for€the€purpose€of€securing€immunity€from€capital€punishment."Ð %X $ ÐÌ9.1€With€regard€to€Mr.€Ng's€case,€the€State€party€recalls€that€he€challenged€the€warrant€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðcommittal€to€await€surrender€in€accordance€with€the€extradition€process€outlined€above,€andÐ º' #' Ðthat€his€counsel€made€written€and€oral€submissions€to€the€Minister€to€seek€assurances€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed.€He€argued€that€extradition€to€face€the€death€penaltyÐ †)Ö$) Ðwould€offend€his€rights€under€section€7€(comparable€to€articles€6€and€9€of€the€Covenant)€andÐ l*¼%* Ðsection€12€(comparable€to€article€7€of€the€Covenant)€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ R+¢&+ ÐFreedoms.€The€Supreme€Court€heard€Mr.€Ng's€case€at€the€same€time€as€the€appeal€by€Mr.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐKindler,€an€American€citizen€who€also€faced€extradition€to€the€United€States€on€a€capitalÐ -n(- Ðchargeòò€10óó,€and€decided€that€their€extradition€without€assurances€would€not€violate€Canada'sÐ ° Ðhuman€rights€obligations.Ð –æ ÐÌ9.2€With€regard€to€the€admissibility€of€the€communication,€the€State€party€once€moreÐ b² Ðreaffirms€that€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€ò òratione€materiaeó ó€becauseÐ H˜ Ðextradition€ò òper€seó ó€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€Covenant.€A€review€of€the€ò òtravauxÐ . ~ Ðprparatoiresó ó€reveals€that€the€drafters€of€the€Covenant€specifically€considered€and€rejectedÐ  d Ða€proposal€to€deal€with€extradition€in€the€Covenant.€In€the€light€of€the€negotiating€history€ofÐ ú J Ðthe€Covenant,€the€State€party€submits€that€"a€decision€to€extend€the€Covenant€to€extraditionÐ à 0 Ðtreaties€or€to€individual€decisions€pursuant€thereto,€would€stretch€the€principles€governingÐ Æ   Ðthe€interpretation€of€human€rights€instruments€in€unreasonable€and€unacceptable€ways.€ItÐ ¬ ü  Ðwould€be€unreasonable€because€the€principles€of€interpretation€which€recognize€that€humanÐ ’â  Ðrights€instruments€are€living€documents€and€that€human€rights€evolve€over€time€cannot€beÐ xÈ  Ðemployed€in€the€face€of€express€limits€to€the€application€of€a€given€document.€The€absenceÐ ^®  Ðof€extradition€from€the€articles€of€the€Covenant€when€read€with€the€intention€of€the€draftersÐ D”  Ðmust€be€taken€as€an€express€limitation."Ð *z  ÐÌ9.3€The€State€party€further€contends€that€Mr.€Ng€has€not€submitted€any€evidence€that€wouldÐ öF Ðsuggest€that€he€was€a€victim€of€any€violation€in€Canada€of€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant.Ð Ü, ÐIn€this€context,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€merely€claims€that€his€extradition€to€theÐ Â ÐUnited€States€was€in€violation€of€the€Covenant,€because€he€faces€charges€in€the€United€StatesÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€may€lead€to€his€being€sentenced€to€death€if€found€guilty.€The€State€party€submits€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðit€satisfied€itself€that€the€foreseeable€treatment€of€Mr.€Ng€in€the€United€States€would€notÐ tÄ Ðviolate€his€rights€under€the€Covenant.Ð Zª ÐÌ10.1€On€the€merits,€the€State€party€stresses€that€Mr.€Ng€enjoyed€a€full€hearing€on€all€mattersÐ &v Ðconcerning€his€extradition€to€face€the€death€penalty.€"If€it€can€be€said€that€the€CovenantÐ  \ Ðapplies€to€extradition€at€all€...€an€extraditing€State€could€be€said€to€be€in€violation€ofÐ òB ÐtheCovenant€only€where€it€returned€a€fugitive€to€certain€or€foreseeable€treatment€orÐ Ø( Ðpunishment,€or€to€judicial€procedures€which€in€themselves€would€be€a€violation€of€theÐ ¾ ÐCovenant."€In€the€present€case,€the€State€party€submits€that€since€Mr.€Ng's€trial€has€not€yetÐ ¤ô Ðbegun,€it€was€not€reasonably€foreseeable€that€he€would€be€held€in€conditions€of€incarcerationÐ Š Ú Ðthat€would€violate€rights€under€the€Covenant€or€that€he€would€in€fact€be€put€to€death.€TheÐ p!À  ÐState€party€points€out€that€if€convicted€and€sentenced€to€death,€Mr.€Ng€is€entitled€to€manyÐ V"¦! Ðavenues€of€appeal€in€the€United€States€and€that€he€can€petition€for€clemency;€furthermore,Ð <#Œ" Ðhe€is€entitled€to€challenge€in€the€courts€of€the€United€States€the€conditions€under€which€heÐ "$r# Ðis€held€while€his€appeals€with€respect€to€the€death€penalty€are€outstanding.Ð %X $ ÐÌ10.2€With€regard€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€United€States,€the€State€partyÐ Ô&$"& Ðrecalls€that€article€6€of€the€Covenant€did€not€abolish€capital€punishment€under€internationalÐ º' #' Ðlaw:Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ"In€countries€which€have€not€abolished€the€death€penalty,€the€sentence€of€death€may€still€beÐ l*¼%* Ðimposed€for€the€most€serious€crimes€in€accordance€with€law€in€force€at€the€time€of€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðcommission€of€the€crime,€not€contrary€to€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€not€contrary€toÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€Convention€on€the€Prevention€and€Punishment€of€the€Crime€of€Genocide.€The€deathÐ -n(- Ðpenalty€can€only€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€a€competent€court.Ð ° ÐIt€may€be€that€Canada€would€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€if€it€extradited€a€person€to€faceÐ –æ Ðthe€possible€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€where€it€was€reasonably€foreseeable€that€theÐ |Ì Ðrequesting€State€would€impose€the€death€penalty€under€circumstances€which€would€violateÐ b² Ðarticle€6.€That€is,€it€may€be€that€an€extraditing€State€would€be€violating€the€Covenant€toÐ H˜ Ðreturn€a€fugitive€to€a€State€which€imposed€the€death€penalty€for€other€than€the€most€seriousÐ . ~ Ðcrimes,€or€for€actions€which€are€not€contrary€to€a€law€in€force€at€the€time€of€commission,€orÐ  d Ðwhich€carried€out€the€death€penalty€in€the€absence€of€or€contrary€to€the€final€judgment€of€aÐ ú J Ðcompetent€court.€Such€are€not€the€facts€here€...€Ng€did€not€place€any€evidence€before€theÐ à 0 ÐCanadian€courts,€before€the€Minister€of€Justice€or€before€the€Committee€which€wouldÐ Æ   Ðsuggest€that€the€United€States€was€acting€contrary€to€the€stringent€criteria€established€byÐ ¬ ü  Ðarticle€6€when€it€sought€his€extradition€from€Canada....€The€Government€of€Canada,€in€theÐ ’â  Ðperson€of€the€Minister€of€Justice,€was€satisfied€at€the€time€the€order€of€surrender€was€issuedÐ xÈ  Ðthat€if€Ng€is€convicted€and€executed€in€the€State€of€California,€this€will€be€within€theÐ ^®  Ðconditions€expressly€prescribed€by€article€6€of€the€Covenant."Ð D”  ÐÌ10.3€Finally,€the€State€party€observes€that€it€is€"in€a€difficult€position€attempting€to€defendÐ ` Ðthe€criminal€justice€system€of€the€United€States€before€the€Committee.€It€contends€that€theÐ öF ÐOptional€Protocol€process€was€never€intended€to€place€a€State€in€the€position€of€having€toÐ Ü, Ðdefend€the€laws€or€practices€of€another€State€before€the€Committee."Ð Â ÐÌ10.4€With€respect€to€the€issue€whether€the€death€penalty€violates€article€7€of€the€Covenant,Ð ŽÞ Ðthe€State€party€submits€that€"article€7cannot€be€read€or€interpreted€without€reference€toÐ tÄ Ðarticle€6.€The€Covenant€must€be€read€as€a€whole€and€its€articles€as€being€in€harmony....€ItÐ Zª Ðmay€be€that€certain€forms€of€execution€are€contrary€to€article€7.€Torturing€a€person€to€deathÐ @ Ðwould€seem€to€fall€into€this€category€as€torture€is€a€violation€of€article€7.€Other€forms€ofÐ &v Ðexecution€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant€because€they€are€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading.Ð  \ ÐHowever,€as€the€death€penalty€is€permitted€within€the€narrow€parameters€set€by€article€6,€itÐ òB Ðmust€be€that€some€methods€of€execution€exist€which€would€not€violate€article€7."Ð Ø( ÐÌ10.5€As€to€the€method€of€execution,€the€State€party€submits€that€there€is€no€indication€thatÐ ¤ô Ðexecution€by€cyanide€gas€asphyxiation,€the€chosen€method€in€California,€is€contrary€to€theÐ Š Ú ÐCovenant€or€to€international€law.€It€further€submits€that€no€specific€circumstances€exist€inÐ p!À  ÐMr.€Ng's€case€which€would€lead€to€a€different€conclusion€concerning€the€application€of€thisÐ V"¦! Ðmethod€of€execution€to€him;€nor€would€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€be€in€violation€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðò òSafeguards€Guaranteeing€Protection€of€Those€Facing€the€Death€Penaltyó ó,€adopted€by€theÐ "$r# ÐEconomic€and€Social€Council€in€Resolution€1984/50.Ð %X $ ÐÌ10.6€Concerning€the€"death€row€phenomenon",€the€State€party€submits€that€each€case€mustÐ Ô&$"& Ðbe€examined€on€its€specific€facts,€including€the€conditions€in€the€prison€in€which€the€prisonerÐ º' #' Ðwould€be€held€while€on€"death€row",€the€age€and€the€mental€and€physical€condition€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðprisoner€subject€to€those€conditions,€the€reasonably€foreseeable€length€of€time€the€prisonerÐ †)Ö$) Ðwould€be€subject€to€those€conditions,€the€reasons€underlying€the€length€of€time€and€theÐ l*¼%* Ðavenues,€if€any,€for€remedying€unacceptable€conditions.€It€is€submitted€that€the€Minister€ofÐ R+¢&+ ÐJustice€and€the€Canadian€courts€examined€and€weighed€all€the€evidence€submitted€by€Mr.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐNg€as€to€the€conditions€of€incarceration€of€persons€sentenced€to€death€in€California:Ð -n(- Ї"The€Minister€of€Justice€...€was€not€convinced€that€the€conditions€of€incarceration€in€the€StateÐ ° Ðof€California,€considered€together€with€the€facts€personal€to€Ng,€the€element€of€delay€and€theÐ –æ Ðcontinuing€access€to€the€courts€in€the€State€of€California€and€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€theÐ |Ì ÐUnited€States,€would€violated€Ng's€rights€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€andÐ b² ÐFreedoms€or€under€the€Covenant.€The€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€upheld€the€Minister'sÐ H˜ Ðdecision€in€such€a€way€as€to€make€clear€that€the€decision€would€not€subject€Ng€to€a€violationÐ . ~ Ðof€his€rights€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms."Ð  d ÐÌ10.7€With€respect€to€the€question€of€the€foreseeable€length€of€time€Mr.€Ng€would€spend€onÐ à 0 Ðdeath€row€if€sentenced€to€death,€"[t]here€was€no€evidence€before€the€Minister€or€theÐ Æ   ÐCanadian€courts€regarding€any€intentions€of€Ng€to€make€full€use€of€all€avenues€for€judicialÐ ¬ ü  Ðreview€in€the€United€States€of€any€potential€sentence€of€death.€There€was€no€evidence€thatÐ ’â  Ðeither€the€judicial€system€in€the€State€of€California€or€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€StatesÐ xÈ  Ðhad€serious€problems€of€backlogs€or€other€forms€of€institutional€delay€which€would€likelyÐ ^®  Ðbe€a€continuing€problem€when€and€if€Ng€is€held€to€await€execution."€In€this€connection,€theÐ D”  ÐState€party€refers€to€the€Committee's€jurisprudencethat€prolonged€judicial€proceedings€to€notÐ *z  Ðò òper€seó ó€constitute€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€even€if€they€can€be€a€source€ofÐ ` Ðmental€strain€for€the€convicted€prisonersòò€11óó.€The€State€party€contends€that€it€was€notÐ öF Ðreasonably€foreseeable€on€the€facts€presented€by€Mr.€Ng€during€the€extradition€process€inÐ Ü, ÐCanada€that€any€possible€period€of€prolonged€detention€upon€his€return€to€the€United€StatesÐ Â Ðwould€result€in€a€violation€of€the€Covenant,€but€that€it€was€more€likely€that€any€prolongedÐ ¨ø Ðdetention€on€death€row€would€be€attributable€to€Mr.€Ng€pursuing€the€many€avenues€forÐ ŽÞ Ðjudicial€review€in€the€United€States.Ð tÄ ÐÌòòAuthor's€and€counsel's€comments€on€the€State€party's€submissionóó:Ð @ ÐÌ11.1€With€regard€to€the€extradition€process€in€Canada,€counsel€points€out€that€a€fugitive€isÐ  \ Ðordered€committed€to€await€surrender€when€the€Judge€is€satisfied€that€a€legal€basis€forÐ òB Ðextradition€exists.€Counsel€emphasizes,€however,€that€the€extradition€hearing€is€not€a€trialÐ Ø( Ðand€the€fugitive€has€no€general€right€to€cross„examine€witnesses.€The€extradition€judge€doesÐ ¾ Ðnot€weigh€evidence€against€the€fugitive€with€regard€to€the€charges€against€him,€butÐ ¤ô Ðessentially€determines€whether€a€ò òprima€facieó ó€case€exists.€Because€of€this€limitedÐ Š Ú Ðcompetence,€no€evidence€can€be€called€pertaining€to€the€effects€of€the€surrender€on€theÐ p!À  Ðfugitive.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ11.2€As€regards€article€6€of€the€Extradition€Treaty,€counsel€recalls€that€when€the€Treaty€wasÐ "$r# Ðsigned€in€December€1971,€the€Canadian€Criminal€Code€still€provided€for€capital€punishmentÐ %X $ Ðin€cases€of€murder,€so€that€article€6€could€have€been€invoked€by€either€contracting€State.Ð î%>!% ÐCounsel€submits€that€article€6€does€not€require€assurances€to€be€sought€only€in€particularlyÐ Ô&$"& Ð"special"€death€penalty€cases.€He€argues€that€the€provision€of€the€possibility€to€ask€forÐ º' #' Ðassurances€under€article€6€of€the€Treaty€implicitly€acknowledges€that€offences€punishableÐ  (ð#( Ðby€death€are€to€be€dealt€with€differently,€that€different€values€and€traditions€with€regard€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€death€penalty€may€be€taken€into€account€when€deciding€upon€an€extradition€request,€andÐ l*¼%* Ðthat€an€actual€demand€for€assurances€will€not€be€perceived€by€the€other€party€as€unwarrantedÐ R+¢&+ Ðinterference€with€the€internal€affairs€of€the€requesting€State.€In€particular,€article€6€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐTreaty€is€said€to€"...€allow€the€requested€State€...€to€maintain€a€consistent€position:€if€the€deathÐ -n(- Ðpenalty€is€rejected€within€its€own€borders€...€it€could€negate€any€responsibility€for€exposingÐ ° Ða€fugitive€through€surrender,€to€the€risk€of€imposition€of€that€penalty€or€associated€practicesÐ –æ Ðand€procedures€in€the€other€State".€It€is€further€submitted€that€"it€is€very€significant€that€theÐ |Ì Ðexistence€of€the€discretion€embodied€in€article€6,€in€relation€to€the€death€penalty,€enables€theÐ b² Ðcontracting€parties€to€honour€both€their€own€domestic€constitutions€ò òandó ó€their€internationalÐ H˜ Ðobligations€without€violating€their€obligations€under€the€bilateral€Extradition€Treaty".Ð . ~ ÐÌ11.3€With€regard€to€the€link€between€extradition€and€the€protection€of€society,€counsel€notesÐ ú J Ðthat€the€number€of€requests€for€extradition€by€the€United€States€in€1991€was€17,€whereas€theÐ à 0 Ðnumber€in€1992€was€88.€He€recalls€that€at€the€end€of€1991,€the€Extradition€Treaty€betweenÐ Æ   Ðthe€United€States€and€Canada€was€amended€to€the€effect€that€ò òinter€aliaó ó€taxation€offencesÐ ¬ ü  Ðbecame€extraditable;€ambiguities€with€regard€to€the€rules€of€double€jeopardy€and€reciprocityÐ ’â  Ðwere€removed.€Counsel€contends€that€the€increase€in€extradition€requests€may€be€attributableÐ xÈ  Ðto€these€1991€amendments.€In€this€context,€he€submits€that€at€the€time€of€the€author'sÐ ^®  Ðsurrender,€article€6€of€the€Treaty€had€been€in€force€for€15€years,€during€which€the€CanadianÐ D”  ÐMinister€of€Justice€had€been€called€upon€to€make€no€more€than€three€decisions€on€whetherÐ *z  Ðor€not€to€ask€for€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€or€executed.€It€isÐ ` Ðtherefore€submitted€that€the€State€party's€fear€that€routine€requests€for€assurances€would€leadÐ öF Ðto€a€flood€of€capital€defendants€is€unsubstantiated.€Counsel€finally€argues€that€it€isÐ Ü, Ðinconceivable€that€the€United€States€would€have€refused€article€6€assurances€had€they€beenÐ Â Ðrequested€in€the€author's€case.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ11.4€As€regards€the€extradition€proceedings€against€Mr.€Ng,€counsel€notes€that€his€FederalÐ tÄ ÐCourt€action€against€the€Minister's€decision€to€extradite€the€author€without€seekingÐ Zª Ðassurances€never€was€decided€upon€by€the€Federal€Court,€but€was€referred€to€the€SupremeÐ @ ÐCourt€to€be€decided€together€with€Mr.€Kindler's€appeal.€In€this€context,€counsel€notes€thatÐ &v Ðthe€Supreme€Court,€when€deciding€that€the€author's€extradition€would€not€violate€theÐ  \ ÐCanadian€constitution,€failed€to€discuss€criminal€procedure€in€California€or€evidence€adducedÐ òB Ðin€relation€to€the€death€row€phenomenon€in€California.Ð Ø( ÐÌ11.5€As€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€extradition€is€beyond€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,Ð ¤ô Ðcounsel€argues€that€the€ò òtravaux€prparatoiresó ó€do€not€show€that€the€fundamental€humanÐ Š Ú Ðrights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant€should€never€apply€to€extradition€situations:€"Reluctance€toÐ p!À  Ðinclude€an€express€provision€on€extradition€because€the€Covenant€should€'lay€down€generalÐ V"¦! Ðprinciples'€or€because€it€should€lay€down€'fundamental€human€rights€and€not€rights€which€areÐ <#Œ" Ðcorollaries€thereof'€or€because€extradition€was€'too€complicated€to€be€included€in€a€singleÐ "$r# Ðarticle'€simply€does€not€bespeak€an€intention€to€narrow€or€stultify€those€'general€principles'Ð %X $ Ðor€'fundamental€human€rights'€or€evidence€a€consensus€that€these€general€principles€shouldÐ î%>!% Ðnever€apply€to€extradition€situations."Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ11.6€Counsel€further€argues€that,€already€during€the€extradition€proceedings€in€Canada,€theÐ  (ð#( Ðauthor€suffered€from€anxiety€because€of€the€uncertainty€of€his€fate,€the€possibility€of€beingÐ †)Ö$) Ðsurrendered€to€California€to€face€capital€charges,€the€likelihood€that€he€would€be€"facing€anÐ l*¼%* Ðextremely€hostile€and€high€security€reception€by€California€law€enforcement€agencies",€andÐ R+¢&+ Ðthat€he€must€therefore€be€considered€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ 8,ˆ', ÐProtocol.€In€this€context,€the€author€submits€that€he€was€aware€"that€the€California€SupremeÐ -n(- ÐCourt€had,€since€1990,€become€perhaps€the€most€rigid€court€in€the€country€in€rejectingÐ ° Ðappeals€from€capital€defendants".Ð –æ ÐÌ11.7€The€author€refers€to€the€Committee's€decision€of€28€October€1992€and€submits€that,€inÐ b² Ðthe€circumstances€of€his€case,€the€very€purpose€of€his€extradition€without€seeking€assurancesÐ H˜ Ðwas€to€foreseeably€expose€him€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€and€consequently€toÐ . ~ Ðthe€death€row€phenomenon.€In€this€connection,€counsel€submits€that€the€author's€extraditionÐ  d Ðwas€sought€upon€charges€which€carry€the€death€penalty,€and€that€the€prosecution€inÐ ú J ÐCalifornia€never€left€any€doubt€that€it€would€indeed€seek€the€death€penalty.€He€quotes€theÐ à 0 ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€in€San€Francisco€as€saying€that:€"there€is€sufficient€evidence€toÐ Æ   Ðconvict€and€send€Ng€to€the€gas€chamber€if€he€is€extradited...".Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ11.8€In€this€context,€counsel€quotes€from€the€judgment€of€the€European€Court€of€HumanÐ xÈ  ÐRights€in€the€ò òSoeringó ó€case:€"In€the€independent€exercise€of€his€discretion,€theÐ ^®  ÐCommonwealth's€attorney€has€himself€decided€to€seek€and€persist€in€seeking€the€deathÐ D”  Ðpenalty€because€the€evidence,€in€his€determination,€supports€such€action.€If€the€nationalÐ *z  Ðauthority€with€responsibility€for€prosecuting€the€offence€takes€such€a€firm€stance,€it€is€hardlyÐ ` Ðopen€to€the€court€to€hold€that€there€are€no€substantial€grounds€for€believing€that€the€applicantÐ öF Ðfaces€a€real€risk€of€being€sentenced€to€death€and€hence€experiencing€the€'death€rowÐ Ü, Ðphenomenon'."€Counsel€submits€that,€at€the€time€of€extradition,€it€was€foreseeable€that€theÐ Â Ðauthor€would€be€sentenced€to€death€in€California€and€therefore€be€exposed€to€violations€ofÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Covenant.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ11.9€Counsel€refers€to€several€resolutions€adopted€by€the€General€Assembly€of€the€UnitedÐ Zª ÐNations€òò12óó€in€which€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€was€considered€desirable.€He€furtherÐ @ Ðrefers€to€Protocol€6€of€the€European€Convention€on€Human€Rights€and€to€the€SecondÐ &v ÐOptional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights:€"[O]ver€theÐ  \ Ðlast€fifty€years€there€has€been€a€progressive€and€increasingly€rapid€evolution€away€from€theÐ òB Ðdeath€penalty.€That€evolution€has€led€almost€all€Western€democracies€to€abandon€it".€HeÐ Ø( Ðargues€that€this€development€should€be€taken€into€account€when€interpreting€the€Covenant.Ð ¾ ÐÌ11.10€As€to€the€method€of€execution€in€California,€cyanide€gas€asphyxiation,€counsel€arguesÐ Š Ú Ðthat€it€constitutes€inhuman€and€degrading€punishment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€of€theÐ p!À  ÐCovenant.€He€notes€that€asphyxiation€may€take€up€to€twelve€minutes,€during€whichÐ V"¦! Ðcondemned€persons€remain€conscious,€experience€obvious€pain€and€agony,€drool€andÐ <#Œ" Ðconvulse€and€often€soil€themselves€(reference€is€made€to€the€execution€of€Robert€F.€HarrisÐ "$r# Ðat€San€Quentin€Prison€in€April€1992).€Counsel€further€argues€that,€given€the€cruel€characterÐ %X $ Ðof€this€method€of€execution,€a€decision€of€Canada€not€to€extradite€without€assurances€wouldÐ î%>!% Ðnot€constitute€a€breach€of€its€Treaty€obligations€with€the€United€States€or€undue€interferenceÐ Ô&$"& Ðwith€the€latter's€internal€law€and€practices.€Furthermore,€counsel€notes€that€cyanide€gasÐ º' #' Ðexecution€is€the€sole€method€of€execution€in€only€three€States€in€the€United€States€(Arizona,Ð  (ð#( ÐMaryland€and€California)€and€that€there€is€no€evidence€tosuggest€that€it€is€an€approvedÐ †)Ö$) Ðmeans€of€carrying€out€judicially€mandated€executions€elsewhere€in€the€internationalÐ l*¼%* Ðcommunity.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ11.11€As€to€the€death€row€phenomenon,€the€author€emphasizes€that€he€intends€to€make€fullÐ -n(- Ðuse€of€all€avenues€of€appeal€and€review€in€the€United€States,€and€that€his€intention€was€clearÐ ° Ðto€the€Canadian€authorities€during€the€extradition€proceedings.€As€to€the€delay€in€criminalÐ –æ Ðproceedings€in€California,€counsel€refers€to€estimates€that€it€would€require€the€CalifornianÐ |Ì ÐSupreme€Court€16€years€to€clear€the€present€backlog€in€hearing€capital€appeals.€The€authorÐ b² Ðreiterates€that€the€judgments€of€the€Supreme€Court€in€Canada€did€not€in€any€detail€discussÐ H˜ Ðevidence€pertaining€to€capital€procedures€in€California,€conditions€on€death€row€at€SanÐ . ~ ÐQuentin€Prison€or€execution€by€cyanide€gas,€although€he€presented€evidence€relating€to€theseÐ  d Ðissues€to€the€Court.€He€refers€to€his€ò òFactumó ó€to€the€Supreme€Court,€in€which€it€was€stated:Ð ú J Ð"At€present,€there€are€approximately€two€hundred€and€eighty€inmates€on€death€row€at€SanÐ à 0 ÐQuentin.€The€cells€in€which€inmates€are€housed€afford€little€room€for€movement.€ExerciseÐ Æ   Ðis€virtually€impossible.€When€a€condemned€inmate€approaches€within€three€days€of€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðexecution€date,€he€is€placed€under€twenty„four€hour€guard€in€a€range€of€three€stripped€cells.Ð ’â  ÐThis€can€occur€numerous€times€during€the€review€and€appeal€process....€Opportunity€forÐ xÈ  Ðexercise€is€very€limited€in€a€small€and€crowded€yard.€Tension€is€consistently€high€and€canÐ ^®  Ðescalate€as€execution€dates€approach.€Secondary€tension€and€anguish€is€experienced€by€someÐ D”  Ðas€appeal€and€execution€dates€approach€for€others.€There€is€little€opportunity€to€relieveÐ *z  Ðtension.€Programs€are€extremely€limited.€There€are€no€educational€programs.€The€prisonÐ ` Ðdoes€little€more€than€warehouse€the€condemned€for€years€pending€execution....€Death€rowÐ öF Ðinmates€have€few€visitors,€and€few€financial€resources,€increasing€their€sense€of€isolation€andÐ Ü, Ðhopelessness.€Suicides€occur€and€are€attributable€to€the€conditions,€lack€of€programs,Ð Â Ðextremely€inadequate€psychiatric€and€physiological€care€and€the€tension,€apprehension,Ð ¨ø Ðdepression€and€despair€which€permeate€death€row".Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ11.12€Finally,€the€author€describes€the€circumstances€of€his€present€custodial€regime€atÐ Zª ÐFolsom€Prison,€California,€conditions€which€he€submits€would€be€similar€if€convicted.€HeÐ @ Ðsubmits€that€whereas€the€other€detainees,€all€convicted€criminals,€have€a€proven€track€recordÐ &v Ðof€prison€violence€and€gang€affiliation,€he,€as€a€pre„trial€detainee,€is€subjected€to€far€moreÐ  \ Ðsevere€custodial€restraints€than€any€of€them.€Thus,€when€moving€around€in€the€prison,€he€isÐ òB Ðalways€put€in€full€shackles€(hand,€waist€and€legs);€forced€to€keep€leg€irons€when€showering;Ð Ø( Ðnot€allowed€any€social€interaction€with€the€other€detainees;€given€less€than€five€hours€perÐ ¾ Ðweek€of€yard€exercise;€and€continuously€facing€hostility€from€the€prison€staff,€in€spite€ofÐ ¤ô Ðgood€behaviour.€Mr.€Ng€adds€that€unusual€and€very€onerous€conditions€have€been€imposedÐ Š Ú Ðon€visits€from€his€lawyers€and€others€working€on€his€case;€direct€face„to„face€conversationsÐ p!À  Ðwith€investigators€have€been€made€impossible,€and€conversations€with€them,€conducted€overÐ V"¦! Ðthe€telephone€or€through€a€glass€window,€may€be€overheard€by€prison€staff.€TheseÐ <#Œ" Ðrestrictions€are€said€to€seriously€undermine€the€preparation€of€his€trial€defence.€Moreover,Ð "$r# Ðhis€appearances€in€Calaveras€County€Court€are€accompanied€by€exceptional€securityÐ %X $ Ðmeasures:€for€example,€during€every€court€recess,the€author€is€taken€from€the€courtroom€toÐ î%>!% Ðan€adjacent€jury€room€and€placed,€still€shackled,€into€a€three€foot€by€four€foot€cage,€speciallyÐ Ô&$"& Ðbuilt€for€the€case.€The€author€contends€that€no€pre„trial€detainee€has€ever€been€subjected€toÐ º' #' Ðsuch€drastic€security€measures€in€California.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ11.13€The€author€concludes€that€the€conditions€of€confinement€have€taken€a€heavy€toll€onÐ l*¼%* Ðhim,€physically€and€mentally.€He€has€lost€much€weight,€suffers€from€sleeplessness,€anxiety,Ð R+¢&+ Ðand€other€nervous€disorders.€This€situation,€he€emphasizes,€has€foreclosed€"progress€towardÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpreparation€of€a€reasonably€adequate€defence".Ð -n(- ЇòòFurther€submission€from€the€author€and€State€party's€reaction€thereto:óóÐ ° ÐÌ12.1€In€an€affidavit€dated€5€June€1993,€signed€by€Mr.€Ng€and€submitted€by€his€counsel,€theÐ |Ì Ðauthor€provides€detailed€information€about€the€conditions€of€his€confinement€in€CanadaÐ b² Ðbetween€1985€and€his€extradition€in€September€1991.€He€notes€that€following€his€arrest€onÐ H˜ Ð6€July€1985,€he€was€kept€at€the€Calgary€Remand€Center€in€solitary€confinement€under€a€so„Ð . ~ Ðcalled€"suicide€watch",€which€meant€24€hour€camera€supervision€and€the€placement€of€aÐ  d Ðguard€outside€the€bars€of€the€cell.€He€was€only€allowed€one€hour€of€exercise€each€day€in€theÐ ú J ÐCenter's€"mini„yard",€on€"walk€alone€status"€and€accompanied€by€two€guards.€As€theÐ à 0 Ðextradition€process€unfolded€in€Canada,€the€author€was€transferred€to€a€prison€in€Edmonton;Ð Æ   Ðhe€complains€about€"drastically€more€severe€custodial€restrictions"€from€February€1987€toÐ ¬ ü  ÐSeptember€1991,€which€he€links€to€the€constant€and€escalating€media€coverage€of€the€case.Ð ’â  ÐPrison€guards€allegedly€began€to€tout€him,€he€was€kept€in€total€isolation,€and€contact€withÐ xÈ  Ðvisitors€was€restricted.Ð ^®  ÐÌ12.2€Throughout€the€period€1987„1991,€the€author€was€kept€informed€about€progress€in€theÐ *z  Ðextradition€process;€his€lawyers€informed€him€about€the€"formidable€problems"€he€wouldÐ ` Ðface€if€returned€to€California€for€prosecution,€as€well€as€about€the€"increasingly€hostileÐ öF Ðpolitical€and€judicial€climate€in€California€towards€capital€defendants€generally".€As€a€result,Ð Ü, Ðhe€experienced€extreme€stress,€sleeplessness€and€anxiety,€all€of€which€were€heightened€asÐ Â Ðthe€dates€of€judicial€decisions€in€the€extradition€process€approached.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ12.3€Finally,€the€author€complains€about€the€deceptions€committed€by€Canadian€prisonÐ tÄ Ðauthorities€following€the€release€of€the€decision€of€the€Canadian€Supreme€Court€on€26Ð Zª ÐSeptember€1991.€Thus,€instead€of€being€allowed€to€contact€counsel€after€the€release€of€theÐ @ Ðdecision€and€to€obtain€advice€about€the€availability€of€any€remedies,€as€agreed€betweenÐ &v Ðcounsel€and€a€prison€warden,€he€claims€that€he€was€lured€from€his€cell,€in€the€belief€that€heÐ  \ Ðwould€be€allowed€to€contact€counsel,€and€thereafter€told€that€he€was€being€transferred€to€theÐ òB Ðcustody€of€United€States€marshals.Ð Ø( ÐÌ12.4€The€State€party€objects€to€these€new€allegations€as€they€"are€separate€from€theÐ ¤ô Ðcomplainant's€original€submission€and€can€only€serve€to€delay€consideration€of€the€originalÐ Š Ú Ðcommunication€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee".€It€accordingly€requests€the€CommitteeÐ p!À  Ðnot€to€takethese€claims€into€consideration.Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòReview€of€admissibility€and€consideration€of€meritsóó:Ð "$r# ÐÌ13.1€In€his€initial€submission,€author's€counsel€alleged€that€Mr.€Ng€was€a€victim€of€violationsÐ î%>!% Ðof€articles€6,€7,€9,€10,€14,€and€26€of€the€Covenant.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ13.2€When€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€during€its€46thÐ  (ð#( Ðsession€and€adopted€a€decision€relating€thereto€(decision€of€28€October€1992),€it€noted€thatÐ †)Ö$) Ðthe€communication€raised€complex€issues€with€regard€to€the€compatibility€with€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCovenant,€ò òratione€materiaeó ó,€of€extradition€to€face€capital€punishment,€in€particular€withÐ R+¢&+ Ðregard€to€the€scope€of€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€to€such€situations€and€their€applicationÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€the€author's€case.€It€noted€however€that€questions€about€the€issue€of€whether€the€authorÐ -n(- Ðcould€be€deemed€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ ° Ðremained,€but€considered€that€only€consideration€on€the€merits€of€all€the€circumstances€underÐ –æ Ðwhich€the€extradition€procedure,€and€all€its€effects,€occurred,€would€enable€the€CommitteeÐ |Ì Ðto€determine€whether€Mr.€Ng€was€indeed€a€victim€within€the€meaning€of€article€1.€The€StateÐ b² Ðparty€has€made€extensive€new€submissions€on€both€admissibility€and€merits€and€reaffirmedÐ H˜ Ðthat€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€"the€evidence€shows€that€Ng€is€not€theÐ . ~ Ðvictim€of€any€violation€in€Canada€of€rights€set€out€in€the€Covenant".€Counsel,€in€turn,€hasÐ  d Ðfiled€detailed€objections€to€the€State€party's€affirmations.Ð ú J ÐÌ13.3€In€reviewing€the€question€of€admissibility,€the€Committee€takes€note€of€the€contentionsÐ Æ   Ðof€the€State€party€and€of€counsel's€arguments.€It€notes€that€counsel,€in€submissions€madeÐ ¬ ü  Ðafter€the€decision€of€28€October€1992,€has€introduced€entirely€new€issues€which€were€notÐ ’â  Ðraised€in€the€original€communication,€and€which€relate€to€Mr.€Ng's€conditions€of€detentionÐ xÈ  Ðin€Canadian€penitentiaries,€the€stress€to€which€he€was€exposed€as€the€extradition€processÐ ^®  Ðproceeded,€and€alleged€deceptive€manoeuvres€by€Canadian€prison€authorities.€Ð D”  ÐÌ13.4€These€fresh€allegations,€if€corroborated,€would€raise€issues€under€articles€7€and€10€ofÐ ` Ðthe€Covenant,€and€bring€the€author€within€the€ambit€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð öF ÐWhile€the€wording€of€the€decision€of€28€October€1992€would€not€have€precluded€counselÐ Ü, Ðfrom€introducing€them€at€this€stage€of€the€procedure,€the€Committee,€in€the€circumstancesÐ Â Ðof€the€case,€finds€that€it€need€not€address€the€new€claims,€as€domestic€remedies€before€theÐ ¨ø ÐCanadian€courts€were€not€exhausted€in€respect€of€them.€It€transpires€from€the€material€beforeÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€Committee€that€complaints€about€the€conditions€of€the€author's€detention€in€Canada€orÐ tÄ Ðabout€alleged€irregularities€committed€by€Canadian€prison€authorities€were€not€raised€eitherÐ Zª Ðduring€the€committal€or€the€surrender€phase€of€the€extradition€proceedings.€Had€it€beenÐ @ Ðargued€that€an€effective€remedy€for€the€determination€of€these€claims€is€no€longer€available,Ð &v Ðthe€Committee€finds€that€it€was€incumbent€upon€counsel€to€raise€them€before€the€competentÐ  \ Ðcourts,€provincial€orfederal,€at€the€material€time.€This€part€of€the€author's€allegations€isÐ òB Ðtherefore€declared€inadmissible€under€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð Ø( ÐÌ13.5€It€remains€for€the€Committee€to€examine€the€author's€claim€that€he€is€a€"victim"€withinÐ ¤ô Ðthe€meaning€of€the€Optional€Protocol€because€he€was€extradited€to€California€ò òon€capitalÐ Š Ú Ðcharges€pending€trialó ó,€without€the€assurances€provided€for€in€Article€6€of€the€ExtraditionÐ p!À  ÐTreaty€between€Canada€and€the€United€States.€In€this€connection,€it€is€to€be€recalled€that€(a)Ð V"¦! ÐCalifornia€had€sought€the€author's€extradition€on€charges€which,€if€proven,€carry€the€deathÐ <#Œ" Ðpenalty;€(b)€the€United€States€requested€NG's€extradition€ò òon€those€capital€chargesó ó;€(c)€theÐ "$r# Ðextradition€warrant€documents€the€existence€of€a€ò òprima€facieó ó€case€against€the€author;€(d)Ð %X $ ÐUnited€States€prosecutors€involved€in€the€case€have€stated€that€they€would€ask€for€the€deathÐ î%>!% Ðpenalty€to€be€imposed;€and€(e)€the€State€of€California,€when€intervening€before€the€SupremeÐ Ô&$"& ÐCourt€of€Canada,€did€not€disavow€the€prosecutors'€position.€The€Committee€considers€thatÐ º' #' Ðthese€facts€raise€questions€with€regard€to€the€scope€of€articles€6€and€7,€in€relation€to€which,Ð  (ð#( Ðon€issues€of€admissibility€alone,€the€Committee's€jurisprudence€is€not€dispositive.€AsÐ †)Ö$) Ðindicated€in€the€case€of€ò òKindler€v.€Canadaó ó€òò13óó,€only€an€examination€on€the€merits€of€theÐ l*¼%* Ðclaims€will€enable€the€Committee€to€pronounce€itself€on€the€scope€of€these€articles€and€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðclarify€the€applicability€of€the€Covenant€and€Optional€Protocol€to€cases€concerningÐ 8,ˆ', Ðextradition€to€face€the€death€penalty.Ð -n(- Ї14.1€Before€addressing€the€merits€of€the€communication,€the€Committee€observes€that€whatÐ ° Ðis€at€issue€is€not€whether€Mr.€Ng's€rights€have€been€or€are€likely€to€be€violated€by€the€UnitedÐ –æ ÐStates,€which€is€not€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€but€whether€by€extraditing€Mr.Ð |Ì ÐNg€to€the€United€States,€Canada€exposed€him€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€his€rights€underÐ b² Ðthe€Covenant.€States€parties€to€the€Covenant€will€also€frequently€be€parties€to€bilateral€treatyÐ H˜ Ðobligations,€including€those€under€extradition€treaties.€A€State€party€to€the€Covenant€mustÐ . ~ Ðensure€that€it€carries€out€all€its€other€legal€commitments€in€a€manner€consistent€with€theÐ  d ÐCovenant.€The€starting€point€for€consideration€of€this€issue€must€be€the€State€party'sÐ ú J Ðobligation,€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€namely,€to€ensure€to€all€individualsÐ à 0 Ðwithin€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant.€TheÐ Æ   Ðright€to€life€is€the€most€essential€of€these€rights.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ14.2€If€a€State€party€extradites€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction€in€such€circumstances€that€asÐ xÈ  Ða€result€there€is€a€real€risk€that€his€or€her€rights€under€the€Covenant€will€be€violated€inÐ ^®  Ðanother€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.€Ð D”  ÐÌ15.1€With€regard€to€a€possible€violation€by€Canada€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€by€itsÐ ` Ðdecision€to€extradite€Mr.€Ng,€two€related€questionsarise:Ð öF ÐÌ(a)€Did€the€requirement€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€to€protect€the€right€to€life€prohibitÐ Â ÐCanada€from€exposing€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction€to€the€real€risk€(i.e.€a€necessary€andÐ ¨ø Ðforeseeable€consequence)€of€being€sentenced€to€death€and€losing€his€life€in€circumstancesÐ ŽÞ Ðincompatible€with€article€6€of€the€Covenant€as€a€consequence€of€extradition€to€the€UnitedÐ tÄ ÐStates?Ð Zª ÐÌ(b)€Did€the€fact€that€Canada€had€abolished€capital€punishment€except€for€certain€militaryÐ &v Ðoffences€require€Canada€to€refuse€extradition€or€request€assurances€from€the€United€States,Ð  \ Ðas€it€was€entitled€to€do€under€article€6€of€the€Extradition€Treaty,€that€the€death€penalty€wouldÐ òB Ðnot€be€imposed€against€Mr.€Ng?Ð Ø( ÐÌ15.2€Counsel€claims€that€capital€punishment€must€be€viewed€as€a€violation€of€article€6€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐCovenant€"in€all€but€the€most€horrendous€cases€of€heinous€crime;€it€can€no€longer€beÐ Š Ú Ðaccepted€as€the€standard€penalty€for€murder."€Counsel,€however,€does€not€substantiate€thisÐ p!À  Ðstatement€or€link€it€to€the€specific€circumstances€of€the€present€case.€In€reviewing€the€factsÐ V"¦! Ðsubmitted€by€author's€counsel€and€by€the€State€party,€the€Committee€notes€that€Mr.€Ng€wasÐ <#Œ" Ðconvicted€of€committing€murder€under€aggravating€circumstances;€this€would€appear€toÐ "$r# Ðbring€the€case€within€the€scope€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€connectionÐ %X $ Ðthe€Committee€recalls€that€it€is€not€a€"fourth€instance"€and€that€it€is€not€within€its€competenceÐ î%>!% Ðunder€the€Optional€Protocol€to€review€sentences€of€the€courts€of€States.€This€limitation€ofÐ Ô&$"& Ðcompetence€applies€ò òa€fortiorió ó€where€the€proceedings€take€place€in€a€State€that€is€not€partyÐ º' #' Ðto€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ15.3€The€Committee€notes€that€article€6,€paragraph€1,€must€be€read€together€with€article€6,Ð l*¼%* Ðparagraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€most€seriousÐ R+¢&+ Ðcrimes.€Canada€did€not€itself€charge€Mr.€Ng€with€capital€offences,€but€extradited€him€to€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐUnited€States,€where€he€faces€capital€charges€and€the€possible€ò ò[ó óand€foreseeableò ò]ó ó€impositionÐ -n(- Ðof€the€death€penalty.€If€Mr.€Ng€had€been€exposed,€through€extradition€from€Canada,€to€a€realÐ ° Ðrisk€of€a€violation€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€in€the€United€States,€this€would€have€entailed€aÐ –æ Ðviolation€by€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€article€6,€paragraph€1.€Among€the€requirementsÐ |Ì Ðof€article€6,€paragraph€2,€is€that€capital€punishment€be€imposed€only€for€the€most€seriousÐ b² Ðcrimes,€under€circumstances€not€contrary€to€the€Covenant€and€other€instruments,€and€that€itÐ H˜ Ðbe€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€a€competent€court.€The€CommitteeÐ . ~ Ðnotes€that€Mr.€Ng€was€extradited€to€stand€trial€on€19€criminal€charges,€including€12€countsÐ  d Ðof€murder.€If€sentenced€to€death,€that€sentence,€based€on€the€information€which€theÐ ú J ÐCommittee€has€before€it,€would€be€based€on€a€conviction€of€guilt€in€respect€of€very€seriousÐ à 0 Ðcrimes.€He€was€over€eighteen€years€when€the€crimes€of€which€he€stands€accused€wereÐ Æ   Ðcommitted.€Finally,€while€the€author€has€claimed€before€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðbefore€the€Committee€that€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€would€not€be€guaranteed€in€the€judicialÐ ’â  Ðprocess€in€California,€because€of€racial€bias€in€the€jury€selection€process€and€in€theÐ xÈ  Ðimposition€of€the€death€penalty,€theseclaims€have€been€advanced€in€respect€of€purelyÐ ^®  Ðhypothetical€events,€and€nothing€in€the€file€supports€the€contention€that€the€author's€trial€inÐ D”  Ðthe€Calaveras€County€Court€would€not€meet€the€requirements€of€article€14€of€the€Covenant.Ð *z  ÐÌ15.4€Moreover,€the€Committee€observes€that€Mr.€Ng€was€extradited€to€the€United€States€afterÐ öF Ðextensive€proceedings€in€the€Canadian€courts,€which€reviewed€all€the€charges€and€theÐ Ü, Ðevidence€available€against€the€author.€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€concludes€thatÐ Â ÐCanada's€obligations€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€did€not€require€it€to€refuse€Mr.€Ng'sÐ ¨ø Ðextradition.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ15.5€The€Committee€notes€that€Canada€has€itself,€except€for€certain€categories€of€militaryÐ Zª Ðoffences,€abolished€capital€punishment;€it€is€not,€however,€a€party€to€the€Second€OptionalÐ @ ÐProtocol€to€the€Covenant.€As€to€issue€(b)€in€paragraph€15.1€above,€namely€whether€the€factÐ &v Ðthat€Canada€has€generally€abolished€capital€punishment,€taken€together€with€its€obligationsÐ  \ Ðunder€the€Covenant,€required€it€to€refuse€extradition€or€to€seek€the€assurances€it€was€entitledÐ òB Ðto€seek€under€the€Extradition€Treaty,€the€Committee€observes€that€abolition€of€capitalÐ Ø( Ðpunishment€does€not€release€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€extradition€treaties.€However,Ð ¾ Ðit€should€be€expected€that,€when€exercising€a€permitted€discretion€under€an€extradition€treatyÐ ¤ô Ð(namely,€whether€or€not€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed)€aÐ Š Ú ÐState€party€which€itself€abandoned€capital€punishment€gives€serious€consideration€to€its€ownÐ p!À  Ðchosen€policy.€The€Committee€notes,€however,€that€Canada€has€indicated€that€the€possibilityÐ V"¦! Ðto€seek€assurances€would€normally€be€exercised€where€special€circumstances€existed;€in€theÐ <#Œ" Ðpresent€case,€this€possibility€was€considered€and€rejected.Ð "$r# ÐÌ15.6€While€States€must€be€mindful€of€their€obligation€to€protect€the€right€to€life€whenÐ î%>!% Ðexercising€their€discretion€in€the€application€of€extradition€treaties,€the€Committee€does€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðfind€that€the€terms€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€necessarily€require€Canada€to€refuse€toÐ º' #' Ðextradite€or€to€seek€assurances.€The€Committee€notes€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Ng€wouldÐ  (ð#( Ðhave€violated€Canada's€obligations€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€if€the€decision€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðextradite€without€assurances€had€been€taken€summarily€or€arbitrarily.€The€evidence€beforeÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€Committee€reveals,€however,€that€the€Minister€of€Justice€reached€his€decision€afterÐ R+¢&+ Ðhearing€extensive€arguments€in€favour€of€seeking€assurances.€The€Committee€further€takesÐ 8,ˆ', Ðnote€of€the€reasons€advanced€by€the€Minister€of€Justice,€in€his€letter€dated€26€October€1989Ð -n(- Ðaddressed€to€Mr.€Ng's€counsel,€in€particular,€the€absence€of€exceptional€circumstances,€theÐ ° Ðavailability€of€due€process€and€of€appeal€against€conviction,€and€the€importance€of€notÐ –æ Ðproviding€a€safe€haven€for€those€accused€of€murder.Ð |Ì ÐÌ15.7€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€Committee€concludes€that€Mr.€Ng€is€not€a€victim€of€aÐ H˜ Ðviolation€by€Canada€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.Ð . ~ ÐÌ16.1€In€determining€whether,€in€a€particular€case,€the€imposition€of€capital€punishmentÐ ú J Ðconstitutes€a€violation€of€article€7,€the€Committee€will€have€regard€to€the€relevant€personalÐ à 0 Ðfactors€regarding€the€author,the€specific€conditions€of€detention€on€death€row,€and€whetherÐ Æ   Ðthe€proposed€method€of€execution€is€particularly€abhorrent.€In€the€instant€case,€it€is€contentedÐ ¬ ü  Ðthat€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€is€contrary€to€internationally€accepted€standards€ofÐ ’â  Ðhumane€treatment,€and€that€it€amounts€to€treatment€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð xÈ  ÐThe€Committee€begins€by€noting€that€whereas€article€6,€paragraph€2,€allows€for€theÐ ^®  Ðimposition€of€the€death€penalty€under€certain€limited€circumstances,€any€method€ofÐ D”  Ðexecution€provided€for€by€law€must€be€designed€in€such€a€way€as€to€avoid€conflict€withÐ *z  Ðarticle€7.Ð ` ÐÌ16.2€The€Committee€is€aware€that,€by€definition,€every€execution€of€a€sentence€of€death€mayÐ Ü, Ðbe€considered€to€constitute€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€ofÐ Â Ðthe€Covenant;€on€the€other€hand,€article€6,€paragraph€2,€permits€the€imposition€of€capitalÐ ¨ø Ðpunishment€for€the€most€serious€crimes.€Nonetheless,€the€Committee€reaffirms,€as€it€did€inÐ ŽÞ Ðits€General€Comment€20[44]€on€article€7€of€the€Covenant€(CCPR/C/21/Add.3,€paragraph€6)Ð tÄ Ðthat,€when€imposing€capital€punishment,€the€execution€of€the€sentence€"...€must€be€carriedÐ Zª Ðout€in€such€a€way€as€to€cause€the€least€possible€physical€and€mental€suffering".Ð @ ÐÌ16.3€In€the€present€case,€the€author€has€provided€detailed€information€that€execution€by€gasÐ  \ Ðasphyxiation€may€cause€prolonged€suffering€and€agony€and€does€not€result€in€death€asÐ òB Ðswiftly€as€possible,€as€asphyxiation€by€cyanide€gas€may€take€over€10€minutes.€The€StateÐ Ø( Ðparty€had€the€opportunity€to€refute€these€allegations€on€the€facts;€it€has€failed€to€do€so.Ð ¾ ÐRather,€the€State€party€has€confined€itself€to€arguing€that€in€the€absence€of€a€norm€ofÐ ¤ô Ðinternational€law€which€expressly€prohibits€asphyxiation€by€cyanide€gas,€"it€would€beÐ Š Ú Ðinterfering€to€an€unwarranted€degree€with€the€internal€laws€and€practices€of€the€Unites€StatesÐ p!À  Ðto€refuse€to€extradite€a€fugitive€to€face€the€possible€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€byÐ V"¦! Ðcyanide€gas€asphyxiation".Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ16.4€In€the€instant€case€and€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€the€CommitteeÐ %X $ Ðconcludes€that€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation,€should€the€death€penalty€be€imposed€on€theÐ î%>!% Ðauthor,€would€not€meet€the€test€of€"least€possible€physical€and€mental€suffering",€andÐ Ô&$"& Ðconstitutes€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment,€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð º' #' ÐAccordingly,€Canada,€which€could€reasonably€foresee€that€Mr.€Ng,€if€sentenced€to€death,Ð  (ð#( Ðwould€be€executed€in€a€way€that€amounts€to€a€violation€of€article€7,€failed€to€comply€withÐ †)Ö$) Ðits€obligations€under€the€Covenant,€by€extraditing€Mr.€Ng€without€having€sought€andÐ l*¼%* Ðreceived€assurances€that€he€would€not€be€executed.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ16.5€The€Committee€need€not€to€pronounce€itself€on€the€compatibility,€with€article€7,€ofÐ -n(- Ðmethods€of€execution€other€than€that€which€is€at€issue€in€this€case.Ð ° ÐÌ17.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€InternationalÐ |Ì ÐCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€as€found€by€theÐ b² ÐCommittee€reveal€a€violation€by€Canada€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð H˜ ÐÌ18.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€requests€the€State€party€to€make€such€representations€asÐ  d Ðmight€still€be€possible€to€avoid€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€and€appeals€to€the€StateÐ ú J Ðparty€to€ensure€that€a€similar€situation€does€not€arise€in€the€future.Ð à 0 ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð ¬ ü  ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ ’â  Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð xÈ  ÐÌÌòòFootnotesóóÐ *z  ÐÌ*€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.Ð öF ÐÌ*/€The€texts€of€8€individual€opinions,€signed€by€9€Committee€members,€are€appended€to€theÐ Â Ðpresent€document.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ1/€€Leo€Ô_ÔHertzbergÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Finland€,€Views€adopted€on€2€April€1982,€paragraph€9.3.Ð tÄ ÐÌ2/€€Ô_ÔH.v.d.P.Ô_Ô€v.€the€Netherlands€,€declared€inadmissible€on€8€April€1987,€paragraph€3.2.Ð @ ÐÌ3/€€M.A.€v.€Italy€,€declared€inadmissible€on€10€April€1984,€paragraph€13.4.Ð  \ ÐÌ4/€€Eighth€United€Nations€Congress€on€the€Prevention€of€Crime€and€the€Treatment€ofÐ Ø( ÐOffenders,€Havana,€1990;€see€General€Assembly€resolution€45/116,€annex.Ð ¾ ÐÌ5/€€S.€Ô_ÔAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Mauritius€,€Views€adopted€on€9€April€1981,€paragraphÐ Š Ú Ð9.2.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ6/€€Antonio€Ô_ÔVianaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAcostaÔ_Ô€v.€Uruguay€,€Views€adopted€on€29€March€1984,€paragraph€6.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ7/€€Ô_ÔAlmeidaÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔQuinterosÔ_Ô€v.€Uruguay€,€Views€adopted€on€21€July€1983,€paragraph€14.Ð %X $ ÐÌ8/€€Communication€No.€117/1981€(€M.A.€v.€Italy€),€paragraph€13.4:€"There€is€no€provisionÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€the€Covenant€making€it€unlawful€for€a€State€party€to€seek€extradition€of€a€person€fromÐ º' #' Ðanother€country".€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ9/€€Ô_ÔAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Mauritius€(No.€35/1978,€Views€adopted€on€9€April€1981)Ð l*¼%* Ðand€Torres€v.€Finland€(No.€291/1988,€Views€adopted€on€2€April€1990).Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ10/€€See€communication€No.€470/1991,€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canada€,€Views€adopted€on€30€July€1993.€Ð -n(- Ї11/€€Communications€Nos.€210/1986€and€225/1987€(Earl€Pratt€and€Ivan€Morgan€v.€Jamaica),Ð ° ÐViews€adopted€on€6€April€1989;€and€Nos.€270/1988€and€271/1988€(€Randolph€Barrett€andÐ –æ ÐClyde€Ô_ÔSutcliffeÔ_Ô€v.€Jamaica€),€Views€adopted€on€30€March€1992.Ð |Ì ÐÌ12/€€GA€Res.€2857(XXVI),€GA€Res.€32/61,€GA€Res.€37/192.Ð H˜ ÐÌ13/€€See€communication€470/1991,€Views€adopted€on€30€July€1993,€paragraph€12.3.Ð  d ÐÌÌÓ;Óò òÓ  ÓòòAPPENDIXóóó óÐ Æ   ÐÓ¦8ÓÓÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinions€under€rule€94,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee's€rules€ofÐ xÈ  Ðprocedure,€concerning€the€Committee's€Views€on€communication€No.€469/1991€(CharlesÐ ^®  ÐChitat€Ng€v.€Canada)óóÐ D”  ÐÌÌA.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Fausto€Pocar€(partly€dissenting,€partly€concurring€andÐ öF Ðelaboratingóó)Ð Ü, ÐÌI€cannot€agree€with€the€finding€of€the€Committee€that€in€the€present€case,€there€has€been€noÐ ¨ø Ðviolation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€question€whether€the€fact€that€Canada€hadÐ ŽÞ Ðabolished€capital€punishment€except€for€certain€military€offences€required€its€authorities€toÐ tÄ Ðrefuse€extradition€or€request€assurances€from€the€United€States€to€the€effect€that€the€deathÐ Zª Ðpenalty€would€not€be€imposed€on€Mr.€Charles€Chitat€Ng,€must€in€my€view€receive€anÐ @ Ðaffirmative€answer.Ð &v ÐÌRegarding€the€death€penalty,€it€must€be€recalled€that,€although€article€6€of€the€Covenant€doesÐ òB Ðnot€prescribe€categorically€the€abolition€of€capital€punishment,€it€imposes€a€set€of€obligationsÐ Ø( Ðon€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolished€it.€As€the€Committee€pointed€out€in€its€GeneralÐ ¾ ÐComment€6(16),€"the€article€also€refers€generally€to€abolition€in€terms€which€stronglyÐ ¤ô Ðsuggest€that€abolition€is€desirable".€Furthermore,€the€wording€of€paragraphs€2€and€6€clearlyÐ Š Ú Ðindicates€that€article€6€tolerates€„€within€certain€limits€and€in€view€of€future€abolition€„€theÐ p!À  Ðexistence€of€capital€punishment€in€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolished€it,€but€may€byÐ V"¦! Ðno€means€be€interpreted€as€implying€for€any€State€party€an€authorization€to€delay€itsÐ <#Œ" Ðabolition€or,€ò òa€fortiorió ó,€to€enlarge€its€scope€or€to€introduce€or€reintroduce€it.€Accordingly,Ð "$r# Ða€State€party€that€has€abolished€the€death€penalty€is€in€my€view€under€the€legal€obligation,Ð %X $ Ðunder€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€not€to€reintroduce€it.€This€obligation€must€refer€both€to€aÐ î%>!% Ðdirect€reintroduction€within€the€State€party's€jurisdiction,€as€well€as€to€an€indirect€one,€as€isÐ Ô&$"& Ðthe€case€when€the€State€acts€„through€extradition,€expulsion€or€compulsory€return€„€in€suchÐ º' #' Ða€way€that€an€individual€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€may€be€exposed€toÐ  (ð#( Ðcapital€punishment€in€another€State.€I€therefore€conclude€that€in€the€present€case€there€hasÐ †)Ö$) Ðbeen€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌRegarding€the€claim€under€article€7,€I€agree€with€the€Committee€that€there€has€been€aÐ 8,ˆ', Ðviolation€of€the€Covenant,€but€on€different€grounds.€I€subscribe€to€the€observation€of€theÐ -n(- ÐCommittee€that€"by€definition,€every€execution€of€a€sentence€of€death€may€be€considered€toÐ ° Ðconstitute€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant".Ð –æ ÐConsequently,€a€violation€of€the€provisions€of€article€6€that€may€make€such€treatment,€inÐ |Ì Ðcertain€circumstances,€permissible,€entails€necessarily,€and€irrespective€of€the€way€in€whichÐ b² Ðthe€execution€may€be€carried€out,€a€violation€of€article€7€of€theCovenant.€It€is€for€theseÐ H˜ Ðreasons€that€I€conclude€in€the€present€case€there€has€been€a€violation€of€article€7€of€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant.Ð  d ÐÌFausto€PocarÐ à 0 ÐÌ[English€original]€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌÌB.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Messrs.€A.€Mavrommatis€and€W.€Sadi€(dissentingóó)Ð ^®  ÐÌWe€do€not€believe€that,€on€the€basis€of€the€material€before€us,€execution€by€gas€asphyxiationÐ *z  Ðcould€constitute€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€of€theÐ ` ÐCovenant.€A€method€of€execution€such€as€death€by€stoning,€which€is€intended€to€and€actuallyÐ öF Ðinflicts€prolonged€pain€and€suffering,€is€contrary€to€article€7.Ð Ü, ÐÌEvery€known€method€of€judicial€execution€in€use€today,€including€execution€by€lethalÐ ¨ø Ðinjection,€has€come€under€criticism€for€causing€prolonged€pain€or€the€necessity€to€have€theÐ ŽÞ Ðprocess€repeated.€We€do€not€believe€that€the€Committee€should€look€into€such€details€inÐ tÄ Ðrespect€of€execution€such€as€whether€acute€pain€of€limited€duration€or€less€pain€of€longerÐ Zª Ðduration€is€preferable€and€could€be€a€criterion€for€a€finding€of€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð @ ÐÌA.€MavrommatisÐ  \ ÐÌW.€SadiÐ Ø( ÐÌ[English€original]€Ð ¤ô ÐÌÌC.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Rajsoomer€Lallah€(dissentingóó)Ð V"¦! ÐÌFor€the€reasons€I€have€already€given€in€my€separate€opinion€in€the€case€of€ò òJ.€J.€Kindler€v.Ð "$r# ÐCanadaó ó€(communication€No.€470/1991)€with€regard€to€the€obligations€of€Canada€under€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant,€I€would€conclude€that€there€has€been€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€IfÐ î%>!% Ðonly€for€that€reason€alone,€article€7€has€also,€in€my€opinion,€been€violated.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌEven€at€this€stage,€Canada€should€use€its€best€efforts€to€provide€a€remedy€by€makingÐ  (ð#( Ðappropriate€representations,€so€as€to€ensure€that,€if€convicted€and€sentenced€to€death,€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðauthor€would€not€be€executed.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌRajsoomer€LallahÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð[English€original]€Ð ° ÐÌÌD.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Bertil€Wennergren€(partly€dissenting,€partly€concurringóó)Ð b² ÐÌI€do€not€share€the€Committee's€Views€with€respect€to€a€non„violation€of€article€6€of€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant,€as€expressed€in€paragraphs€15.6€and€15.7€of€the€Views.€On€grounds€that€I€haveÐ  d Ðdeveloped€in€detail€in€my€individual€opinion€concerning€the€Committee's€Views€onÐ ú J Ðcommunication€No.470/1991€(ò òJoseph€John€Kindler€v.€Canadaó ó)€Canada€did,€in€my€view,Ð à 0 Ðviolate€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€by€consenting€to€extradite€Mr.€Ng€to€theÐ Æ   ÐUnited€States€without€having€secured€assurances€that€he€would€not,€if€convicted€andÐ ¬ ü  Ðsentenced€to€death,€be€subjected€to€the€execution€of€the€death€sentence.Ð ’â  ÐÌI€do€share€the€Committee's€Views,€formulated€in€paragraphs€16.1€to€16.5,€that€Canada€failedÐ ^®  Ðto€comply€with€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant€by€extraditing€Mr.€Ng€to€the€United€StatesÐ D”  Ðwhere,€if€sentenced€to€death,€he€would€be€executed€by€means€of€a€method€that€amounts€toÐ *z  Ða€violation€of€article€7.€In€my€view,€article€2€of€the€Covenant€obliged€Canada€not€merely€toÐ ` Ðseek€assurances€that€Mr.€Ng€would€not€be€subjected€to€the€execution€of€a€death€sentence€butÐ öF Ðalso,€if€it€decided€nonetheless€to€extradite€Mr.€Ng€without€such€assurances,€as€was€the€case,Ð Ü, Ðto€at€least€secure€assurances€that€he€would€not€be€subjected€to€the€execution€of€the€deathÐ Â Ðsentence€by€cyanide€gas€asphyxiation.Ð ¨ø ÐÌArticle€6,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant€permits€courts€in€countries€which€have€not€abolishedÐ tÄ Ðthe€death€penalty€to€impose€the€death€sentence€on€an€individual€if€that€individual€has€beenÐ Zª Ðfound€guilty€of€a€most€serious€crime,€and€to€carry€out€the€death€sentence€by€execution.€ThisÐ @ Ðexception€from€the€rule€of€article€6,€paragraph€1,€applies€only€vis„„vis€the€State€party€inÐ &v Ðquestion,€not€vis„„vis€other€States€parties€to€the€Covenant.€It€therefore€did€not€apply€toÐ  \ ÐCanada€as€it€concerned€an€execution€to€be€carried€out€in€the€United€States.Ð òB ÐÌBy€definition,€every€type€of€deprivation€of€an€individual's€life€is€inhuman.€In€practice,Ð ¾ Ðhowever,€some€methods€have€by€common€agreement€been€considered€as€acceptable€methodsÐ ¤ô Ðof€execution.€Asphyxiation€by€gas€is€definitely€not€to€be€found€among€them.€There€remain,Ð Š Ú Ðhowever,€divergent€opinions€on€this€subject.€On€21€April€1992,€the€Supreme€Court€of€theÐ p!À  ÐUnited€States€denied€an€individual€a€stay€of€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€in€California€byÐ V"¦! Ða€7:2€vote.€One€of€the€dissenting€justices,€Justice€John€Paul€Stevens,€wrote:€"The€barbaricÐ <#Œ" Ðuse€of€cyanide€gas€in€the€Holocaust,€the€development€of€cyanide€agents€as€chemicalÐ "$r# Ðweapons,€our€contemporary€understanding€of€execution€by€lethal€gas,€and€the€developmentÐ %X $ Ðof€less€cruel€methods€of€execution€all€demonstrate€that€execution€by€cyanide€gas€isÐ î%>!% Ðunnecessarily€cruel.€In€light€of€all€we€know€about€the€extreme€and€unnecessary€pain€inflictedÐ Ô&$"& Ðby€execution€by€cyanide€gas",€Justice€Stevens€found€that€the€individual's€claim€had€merit.Ð º' #' ÐÌIn€my€view,€the€above€summarizes€in€a€very€convincing€way€why€gas€asphyxiation€must€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðconsidered€as€a€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€that€amounts€to€a€violation€of€article€7.€WhatÐ l*¼%* Ðis€more,€the€State€of€California,€in€August€1992,€enacted€a€statute€law€that€enablesÐ R+¢&+ Ðanindividual€under€sentence€of€death€to€choose€lethal€injection€as€the€method€of€execution,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðin€lieu€of€the€gas€chamber.€The€statute€law€went€into€effect€on€1€January€1993.€TwoÐ -n(- Ðexecutions€by€lethal€gas€had€taken€place€during€1992,€approximately€one€year€after€theÐ ° Ðextradition€of€Mr.€Ng.€By€amending€its€legislation€in€the€way€described€above,€the€State€ofÐ –æ ÐCalifornia€joined€22€other€states€in€the€United€States.€The€purpose€of€the€legislativeÐ |Ì Ðamendment€was€not,€however,€to€eliminate€an€allegedly€cruel€and€unusual€punishment,€butÐ b² Ðto€forestall€last„minute€appeals€by€condemned€prisoners€who€might€argue€that€execution€byÐ H˜ Ðlethal€gas€constitutes€such€punishment.€Not€that€I€consider€execution€by€lethal€injectionÐ . ~ Ðacceptable€either€from€a€point€of€view€of€humanity,€but€„€at€least€„€it€does€not€stand€out€asÐ  d Ðan€unnecessarily€cruel€and€inhumane€method€of€execution,€as€does€gas€asphyxiation.€CanadaÐ ú J Ðfailed€to€fulfil€its€obligation€to€protect€Mr.€Ng€against€cruel€and€inhuman€punishment€byÐ à 0 Ðextraditing€him€to€the€United€States€(the€State€of€California),€where€he€might€be€subjectedÐ Æ   Ðto€such€punishment.€And€Canada€did€so€without€seeking€and€obtaining€assurances€of€his€non„Ð ¬ ü  Ðexecution€by€means€of€the€only€method€of€execution€that€existed€in€the€State€of€CaliforniaÐ ’â  Ðat€the€material€time€of€extradition.Ð xÈ  ÐÌBertil€WennergrenÐ D”  ÐÌ[English€original]€Ð ` ÐÌÌE.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Kurt€Herndl€(dissentingóó)Ð Â ÐÌ1.€While€I€do€agree€with€the€Committee's€finding€that€there€is€no€violation€of€article€6€of€theÐ ŽÞ ÐCovenant€in€the€present€case,€I€do€not€share€the€majority's€findings€as€to€a€possible€violationÐ tÄ Ðof€article€7.€In€fact,€I€completely€disagree€with€the€conclusion€that€Canada€which€„€as€theÐ Zª ÐCommittee's€majority€argue€in€paragraph€16.4€of€the€Views€„"could€reasonably€foresee€thatÐ @ ÐMr.€Ng,€if€sentenced€to€death,€would€be€executed€in€a€way€that€amounts€to€a€violation€ofÐ &v Ðarticle€7",€has€thus€"failed€to€comply€with€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant€by€extraditingÐ  \ ÐMr.€Ng€without€having€sought€and€received€guarantees€that€he€would€not€be€executed".Ð òB ÐÌ2.€The€following€are€the€reasons€for€my€dissent:Ð ¾ ÐÌI.€òòMr.€Ng€cannot€be€regarded€as€victim€in€the€sense€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocolóó.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ3.€The€issue€of€whether€Mr.€Ng€can€or€cannot€be€regarded€as€a€victim€was€left€open€in€theÐ V"¦! Ðdecision€on€admissibility€(decision€of€28€October€1992).€There€the€Committee€observed€thatÐ <#Œ" Ðpursuant€to€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol€it€may€only€receive€and€considerÐ "$r# Ðcommunications€from€individuals€subject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€a€State€party€to€the€CovenantÐ %X $ Ðand€to€the€Optional€Protocol€"who€claim€to€be€victims€of€a€violation€by€that€State€party€ofÐ î%>!% Ðany€of€their€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant".€In€the€present€case,€the€Committee€concludedÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€only€the€consideration€on€the€merits€of€the€circumstances€under€which€the€extraditionÐ º' #' Ðprocedure,€and€all€its€effects,€occurred,€would€enable€it€to€determine€whether€the€author€wasÐ  (ð#( Ða€victim€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Accordingly€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐCommittee€decided€to€join€the€question€of€whether€the€author€is€a€victim€to€the€considerationÐ l*¼%* Ðof€the€merits.€So€far€so€good.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ4.€In€its€Views,€however,€the€Committee€does€no€longer€address€the€issue€of€whether€Mr.€NgÐ -n(- Ðis€a€victim.€In€this€connection€the€following€reasoning€has€to€be€made.Ð ° ÐÌ5.€As€to€the€concept€of€victim,€the€Committee€has€in€recent€decisions€recalled€its€establishedÐ |Ì Ðjurisprudence,€based€on€the€admissibility€decision€in€the€case€of€ò òE.W.€òòet€al.óó€v.€theÐ b² ÐNetherlandsó ó€(case€No.€429/1990)€where€the€Committee€declared€the€relevantÐ H˜ Ðcommunication€ò òinadmissibleó ó€under€the€Optional€Protocol.€In€the€case€mentioned€theÐ . ~ ÐCommittee€held€that€"for€a€person€to€claim€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€a€right€protectedÐ  d Ðby€the€Covenant,€he€or€she€must€show€either€that€an€act€or€an€omission€of€a€State€party€hasÐ ú J Ðalready€adversely€affected€his€or€her€enjoyment€of€such€right,€or€that€such€an€effect€isÐ à 0 Ðimminent".Ð Æ   ÐÌ6.€In€the€Kindler€case€(No.€470/1991)€the€Committee€has,€in€its€admissibility€decisionÐ ’â  Ð(decision€of€31€July€1992),€somewhat€expandedon€the€notion€of€victim€by€stating€that€whileÐ xÈ  Ða€State€party€clearly€is€ò ònotó ó€required€to€guarantee€the€rights€of€persons€within€anotherÐ ^®  Ðjurisdiction,€if€such€a€State€party€takes€a€decision€relating€to€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction,Ð D”  Ðand€the€ò ònecessary€and€foreseeable€consequenceó ó€is€that€this€person's€rights€under€theÐ *z  ÐCovenant€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€ò òmayó ó€be€in€violationÐ ` Ðof€the€Covenant.€To€illustrate€this€the€Committee€referred€to€the€"handing€over€of€a€personÐ öF Ðto€another€State€...€where€treatment€contrary€to€the€Covenant€is€ò òcertainó ó€or€is€ò òthe€veryÐ Ü, Ðpurpose€of€the€handing€overó ó"€(paragraph€6.4).€In€the€subsequent€decision€on€the€merits€ofÐ Â Ðthe€Kindler€case€(decision€of€30€July€1993)€the€Committee€introduced€the€concept€of€"realÐ ¨ø Ðrisk".€The€Committee€stated€that€"if€a€State€party€extradites€a€person€within€its€jurisdictionÐ ŽÞ Ðin€circumstances€such€that€as€a€result€there€is€a€ò òreal€riskó ó€that€his€or€her€rights€under€theÐ tÄ ÐCovenant€ò òwilló ó€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€ò òmayó ó€be€in€violation€of€theÐ Zª ÐCovenant"€(paragraph€13.2).Ð @ ÐÌ7.€The€case€of€Mr.€Ng€apparently€meets€none€of€these€tests:€neither€can€it€be€argued€thatÐ  \ Ðtorture€or€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€or€punishment€(in€the€sense€of€article€7€ofÐ òB Ðthe€Covenant)€in€the€receiving€state€is€the€ò ònecessary€and€foreseeableó ó€consequence€of€Mr.Ð Ø( ÐNg's€extradition,€nor€can€it€be€maintained€that€there€would€be€a€ò òreal€riskó ó€of€such€a€treatment.Ð ¾ ÐÌ8.€Mr.€Ng€is€charged€in€California€with€19€criminal€counts,€including€kidnapping€and€12Ð Š Ú Ðmurders,€committed€in€1984€and€1985.€However,€he€has€so€far€ò ònotó ó€been€tried,€convicted€orÐ p!À  Ðsentenced.€If€he€were€convicted,€he€would€still€have€various€opportunities€to€appeal€hisÐ V"¦! Ðconviction€and€sentence€through€state€and€federal€appeals€instances,€up€to€the€Supreme€CourtÐ <#Œ" Ðof€the€United€States.€Furthermore,€given€the€nature€of€the€crimes€allegedly€committed€by€Mr.Ð "$r# ÐNg€it€is€completely€open€at€this€stage€whether€or€not€the€death€penalty€will€be€imposed,€asÐ %X $ Ða€plea€of€insanity€could€be€entered€and€might€be€successful.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ9.€In€their€joint€individual€opinion€on€the€admissibility€of€a€similar€case€(not€yet€madeÐ º' #' Ðpublic)€several€members€of€the€Committee,€including€myself,€have€again€emphasized€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€violation€that€would€affect€the€author€personally€in€another€jurisdiction€must€be€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðò ònecessary€and€foreseeableó ó€consequence€of€the€action€of€the€defendant€State.€As€the€authorÐ l*¼%* Ðin€that€case€had€ò ònotó ó€been€tried€and,€ò òa€fortiorió ó,€had€not€been€found€guilty€or€recommendedÐ R+¢&+ Ðto€the€death€penalty,€the€dissenting€members€of€the€Committee€were€of€the€view€that€the€testÐ 8,ˆ', Ðhad€ò ònotó ó€been€met.Ð -n(- Ї10.€In€view€of€what€is€explained€in€the€preceding€paragraphs€the€same€consideration€wouldÐ ° Ðhold€true€for€the€case€of€Mr.€Ng€who€thus€ò òcannot€be€regarded€as€victim€in€the€sense€ofÐ –æ Ðarticle€1€of€the€Optional€Protocoló ó.Ð |Ì ÐÌII.€òòThere€are€no€secured€elements€to€determine€that€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€would€inÐ H˜ Ðitself€constitute€a€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenantóó.Ð . ~ ÐÌ11.€The€Committee's€majority€is€of€the€view€that€judicial€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation,Ð ú J Ðshould€the€death€penalty€be€imposed€on€Mr.€Ng,€would€not€meet€the€test€of€the€"leastÐ à 0 Ðpossible€physical€and€mental€suffering",€and€thus€would€constitute€cruel€and€inhumanÐ Æ   Ðtreatment€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant€(paragraph€16.4).€The€Committee'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðmajority€thus€attempts€to€make€a€distinction€between€various€methods€of€execution.Ð ’â  ÐÌ12.€The€reasons€for€the€assumption€that€the€specific€method€of€execution€currently€appliedÐ ^®  Ðin€California€would€not€meet€the€above€mentioned€test€of€the€"least€possible€physical€andÐ D”  Ðmental€suffering"€„€this€being€the€ò òonlyó ó€reason€given€to€substantiate€the€finding€of€a€violationÐ *z  Ðof€article€7€„€is€that€"execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€ò òmayó ó€cause€prolonged€suffering€andÐ ` Ðagony€and€does€not€result€in€death€as€swiftly€as€possible,€as€asphyxiation€by€cyanide€gasÐ öF Ðò òmayó ó€take€over€10€minutes"€(paragraph€16.3).Ð Ü, ÐÌ13.€No€scientific€or€other€evidence€is€quoted€in€support€of€this€dictum.€Rather,€the€onus€ofÐ ¨ø Ðproof€is€placed€on€the€defendant€State€which,€in€the€majority's€view,€had€the€opportunity€toÐ ŽÞ Ðrefute€the€allegations€of€the€author€on€the€facts,€but€failed€to€do€so.€This€view€is€simplyÐ tÄ Ðincorrect.Ð Zª ÐÌ14.€As€the€fact€sheets€of€the€case€show,€the€remarks€by€the€Government€of€Canada€on€theÐ &v Ðsub„issue€"Death€Penalty€as€a€Violation€of€Article€7"€total€two€and€a€half€pages.€In€thoseÐ  \ Ðremarks€the€Government€of€Canada€states€i.a.€the€following:Ð òB ÐÌ"While€it€may€be€that€some€methods€of€execution€would€clearly€violate€the€Covenant,€it€isÐ ¾ Ðfar€from€clear€from€a€review€of€the€wording€of€the€Covenant€and€the€comments€andÐ ¤ô Ðjurisprudence€of€the€Committee,€what€point€on€the€spectrum€separates€those€methods€ofÐ Š Ú Ðjudicial€execution€which€violate€article€7€and€those€which€do€not".Ð p!À  ÐÌ15.€This€argument€is€in€line€with€the€view€of€Prof.€Cherif€Bassiouni€who,€in€his€analysis€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðwhat€treatment€could€constitute€"cruel€and€unusual€punishment",€comes€to€the€followingÐ "$r# Ðconclusion:Ð %X $ ÐÌ"The€wide€divergence€in€pennological€theories€and€standards€of€treatment€of€offendersÐ Ô&$"& Ðbetween€countries€is€such€that€ò òno€uniform€standard€existsó ó€...€the€prohibition€against€cruelÐ º' #' Ðand€unusual€punishment€can€be€said€to€constitute€a€general€principle€of€international€lawÐ  (ð#( Ðbecause€it€is€so€regarded€by€the€legal€system€of€civilized€nations,€but€that€alone€ò òdoes€not€giveÐ †)Ö$) Ðit€a€sufficiently€defined€content€bearing€on€identifiable€applications€capable€of€moreÐ l*¼%* Ðthan€general€recognitionó ó"€(Cherif€Bassiouni,€International€Extradition€and€World€PublicÐ R+¢&+ ÐOrder:€Leyden„Dobbs€Ferry,€1974,€p.€465).Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐÔ_Ô16.€In€its€submission€the€Government€of€Canada€furthermore€stressed€that€"none€of€theÐ ° Ðmethods€currently€in€use€in€the€United€States€is€of€such€a€nature€as€to€constitute€a€violationÐ –æ Ðof€the€Covenant€or€any€other€norm€of€international€law.€In€particular,€there€is€no€indicationÐ |Ì Ðthat€cyanide€gas€asphyxiation,€which€is€the€method€of€judicial€execution€in€the€State€ofÐ b² ÐCalifornia,€is€contrary€to€the€Covenant€or€international€law".€Finally,€the€Government€ofÐ H˜ ÐCanada€stated€that€it€had€examined€"the€method€of€execution€for€its€possible€effect€on€NgÐ . ~ Ðon€facts€specified€to€him"€and€that€it€came€to€the€conclusion€that€"there€are€no€facts€withÐ  d Ðrespect€to€Ng€which€take€him€out€of€the€general€application€outlined".€In€this€context€theÐ ú J ÐGovernment€made€explicit€reference€to€the€"Safeguards€Guaranteeing€Protection€of€ThoseÐ à 0 ÐFacing€the€Death€Penalty"€adopted€by€the€Economic€and€Social€Council€in€resolutionÐ Æ   Ð1984/50€and€endorsed€by€the€General€Assembly€in€resolution€39/118.€The€Government€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐCanada€has€thus€clearly€taken€into€account€a€number€of€important€elements€in€its€assessmentÐ ’â  Ðof€whether€the€method€of€execution€in€California€might€constitute€inhuman€or€degradingÐ xÈ  Ðtreatment.Ð ^®  ÐÌ17.€It€is€also€evident€from€the€foregoing€that€the€defendant€State€has€examined€the€wholeÐ *z  Ðissue€in€depth€and€did€not€deal€with€it€in€the€cursory€manner€suggested€in€paragraph€16.3€ofÐ ` Ðthe€Committee's€Views.€The€author€and€his€counsel€were€perfectly€aware€of€this.€AlreadyÐ öF Ðin€his€letter€of€26€October€1989€addressed€to€the€author's€counsel€the€Minister€of€Justice€ofÐ Ü, ÐCanada€stated€as€follows:Ð Â ÐÌ"You€have€argued€that€the€method€employed€to€carry€out€capital€punishment€in€CaliforniaÐ ŽÞ Ðis€cruel€and€inhuman,€in€itself.€I€have€given€consideration€to€this€issue.€The€method€used€byÐ tÄ ÐCalifornia€has€been€in€place€for€a€number€of€years€and€ò òhas€found€acceptance€in€the€courtsÐ Zª Ðof€the€United€Statesó ó".Ð @ ÐÌ18.€Apart€from€the€above€considerations€which€in€my€view€demonstrate€that€there€is€noÐ  \ Ðagreed€or€scientifically€proven€standard€to€determine€that€judicial€execution€by€gasÐ òB Ðasphyxiation€is€more€cruel€and€inhuman€than€other€methods€of€judicial€execution,€the€pleaÐ Ø( Ðof€the€author's€counsel€contained€in€his€submission€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€(priorÐ ¾ Ðto€Ng's€extradition)€which€was€made€available€to€the€Committee,€in€favour€of€"lethalÐ ¤ô Ðinjection"€(as€opposed€to€"lethal€gas")€speaks€for€itself.19.€The€Committee€observes€in€theÐ Š Ú Ðpresent€Views€(paragraph€15.3)€„€and€it€has€also€held€in€the€Kindler€case€(paragraph€6.4)€„Ð p!À  Ðthat€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€(although,€if€I€may€add€my€personal€view€on€thisÐ V"¦! Ðmatter,€capital€punishment€is€in€itself€regrettable€under€any€point€of€view€and€is€obviouslyÐ <#Œ" Ðnot€in€line€with€fundamental€moral€and€ethic€principles€prevailing€throughout€Europe€andÐ "$r# Ðother€parts€of€the€world)€is€still€ò òlegallyó ó€permissible€under€the€Covenant.€Logically,€therefore,Ð %X $ Ðthere€must€be€methods€of€execution€that€are€compatible€with€the€Covenant.€Although€anyÐ î%>!% Ðjudicial€execution€must€be€carried€out€in€such€a€way€as€to€cause€the€least€possible€physicalÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€mental€suffering€(see€the€Committee's€General€Comment€20(44)€on€article€7€of€theÐ º' #' ÐCovenant),€physical€and€mental€suffering€will€inevitably€be€one€of€the€consequences€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðimposition€of€the€death€penalty€and€its€execution.€To€attempt€to€establish€categories€ofÐ †)Ö$) Ðmethods€of€judicial€executions,€as€long€as€such€methods€are€not€manifestly€arbitrary€andÐ l*¼%* Ðgrossly€contrary€to€the€moral€values€of€a€democratic€society,€and€as€long€as€such€methodsÐ R+¢&+ Ðare€based€on€a€uniformly€applicable€legislation€adopted€by€democratic€processes,€is€futile,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðas€it€is€futile€to€attempt€to€quantify€the€pain€and€suffering€of€any€human€being€subjected€toÐ -n(- Ðcapital€punishment.€In€this€connection€I€should€also€like€to€refer€to€the€considerationsÐ ° Ðadvanced€in€paragraph€9€of€the€joint€individual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Waleed€Sadi€andÐ –æ Ðmyself€in€the€Kindler€case€(decision€of€30€July€1993,€Appendix).Ð |Ì ÐÌ20.€It€is€therefore€only€logical€that€I€also€agree€with€the€individual€opinion€expressed€by€aÐ H˜ Ðnumber€of€members€of€the€Committee€and€attached€to€the€present€Views.€Those€membersÐ . ~ Ðconclude€that€the€Committee€should€not€go€into€details€in€respect€of€executions€as€to€whetherÐ  d Ðacute€pain€of€limited€duration€or€less€pain€of€longer€duration€is€preferable€and€could€be€aÐ ú J Ðcriterion€for€the€finding€of€a€violation.Ð à 0 ÐÌ21.€The€Committee's€finding€that€the€specific€method€of€judicial€execution€applied€inÐ ¬ ü  ÐCalifornia€is€tantamount€to€cruel€and€inhuman€treatment€and€that€accordingly€CanadaÐ ’â  Ðviolated€article€7€of€the€Covenant€by€extraditing€Mr.€Ng€to€the€United€States,€is€therefore€inÐ xÈ  Ðmy€view€without€a€proper€basis.Ð ^®  ÐÌIII.€òòIn€the€present€case€the€defendant€State,€Canada,€has€done€its€level€best€to€respect€itsÐ *z  Ðobligations€under€the€Covenantóó.Ð ` ÐÌ22.€A€final€word€ought€to€be€said€as€far€as€Canada's€obligations€under€the€Covenant€areÐ Ü, Ðconcerned.Ð Â ÐÌ23.€While€recent€developments€in€the€jurisprudence€of€international€organs€entrusted€withÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€responsibility€of€ensuring€that€individuals'€human€rights€are€fully€respected€by€stateÐ tÄ Ðauthorities,€suggest€an€expansion€of€their€monitoring€role€(see€e.g.€the€judgment€of€theÐ Zª ÐEuropean€Court€of€Human€Rights€in€the€Soering€case,€paragraph€85;€see€in€this€context€alsoÐ @ Ðthe€remarks€on€the€expanded€notion€of€"victim",€paragraph€6€ò òsupraó ó),€the€issue€of€the€extentÐ &v Ðto€which€in€the€area€of€extradition€a€State€party€to€an€international€human€rights€treaty€mustÐ  \ Ðtake€into€account€the€situation€in€a€receiving€state,€still€remains€an€open€question.€I€should,Ð òB Ðtherefore,€like€to€repeat€what€I€statedtogether€with€Mr.€Waleed€Sadi€in€the€joint€individualÐ Ø( Ðopinion€in€the€Kindler€case€(decision€of€30€July€1993,€Appendix).€The€same€considerationsÐ ¾ Ðare€applicable€in€the€present€case.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ24.€We€observed€in€paragraph€5€of€the€joint€individual€opinion€that€as€the€allegations€of€theÐ p!À  Ðauthor€concerned€hypothetical€violations€of€his€rights€in€the€United€States€(after€the€legalityÐ V"¦! Ðof€the€extradition€had€been€tested€in€Canadian€Courts,€including€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ <#Œ" ÐCanada),€and€ò òunreasonable€responsibilityó ó€was€being€placed€on€Canada€by€requiring€it€toÐ "$r# Ðdefend,€explain€or€justify€before€the€Committee€the€United€States€system€of€administrationÐ %X $ Ðof€justice.€I€continue€to€believe€that€such€is€indeed€unreasonable.€Both€at€the€level€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðjudiciary€as€well€as€at€the€level€of€administrative€proceedings,€Canada€has€given€ò òalló ó€aspectsÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€Mr.€Ng's€case€the€consideration€they€deserve€in€the€light€of€its€obligations€under€theÐ º' #' ÐCovenant.€It€has€done€what€can€reasonably€and€in€good€faith€be€expected€from€a€State€party.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌKurt€HerndlÐ l*¼%* ÐÌ[English€original]€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ЇF.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Nisuke€Ando€(dissentingóó)Ð ° ÐÌI€am€unable€to€concur€with€the€views€of€the€Committee€that€"execution€by€gas€asphyxiationÐ |Ì Ð...€would€not€meet€the€test€of€'least€possible€physical€and€mental€suffering'€and€constitutesÐ b² Ðcruel€and€inhuman€[punishment]€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant"€(paragraph€16.4).Ð H˜ ÐIn€the€view€of€the€Committee€"the€author€has€provided€detailed€information€that€executionÐ . ~ Ðby€gas€asphyxiation€may€cause€prolonged€suffering€and€agony€and€does€not€result€in€deathÐ  d Ðas€swiftly€as€possible,€as€asphyxiation€by€cyanide€gas€may€take€over€ten€minutes"€(paragraphÐ ú J Ð16.3).€Thus,€the€swiftness€of€death€seems€to€be€the€very€criterion€by€which€the€CommitteeÐ à 0 Ðhas€concluded€that€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€violates€article€7.Ð Æ   ÐÌIn€many€of€the€States€parties€to€the€Covenant€where€death€penalty€has€not€been€abolished,Ð ’â  Ðother€methods€of€execution€such€as€hanging,€shooting,€electrocution€or€injection€of€certainÐ xÈ  Ðmaterials€are€used.€Some€of€them€may€take€longer€time€and€others€shorter€than€gasÐ ^®  Ðasphyxiation,€but€I€wonder€if,€irrespective€of€the€kind€and€degree€of€suffering€inflicted€onÐ D”  Ðthe€executed,€all€those€methods€that€may€take€over€ten€minutes€are€in€violation€of€article€7Ð *z  Ðand€all€others€that€take€less€are€in€conformity€with€it.€In€other€words€I€consider€that€theÐ ` Ðcriteria€of€permissible€suffering€under€article€7€should€not€solely€depend€on€the€swiftness€ofÐ öF Ðdeath.Ð Ü, ÐÌThe€phrase€"least€possible€physical€and€mental€suffering"€comes€from€the€Committee'sÐ ¨ø ÐGeneral€Comment€20€on€article€7,€which€states€that€the€death€penalty€must€be€carried€out€inÐ ŽÞ Ðsuch€a€way€as€to€cause€the€least€possible€physical€and€mental€suffering.€This€statement,€inÐ tÄ Ðfact,€implies€that€there€is€no€method€of€execution€which€does€not€cause€any€physical€orÐ Zª Ðmental€suffering€and€that€every€method€of€execution€is€bound€to€cause€some€suffering.Ð @ ÐÌHowever,€I€must€admit€that€it€is€impossible€for€me€to€specify€which€kind€of€suffering€isÐ  \ Ðpermitted€under€article€7€and€what€degree€of€suffering€is€not€permitted€under€the€sameÐ òB Ðarticle.€I€am€totally€incapable€of€indicating€any€absolute€criterion€as€to€the€scope€of€sufferingÐ Ø( Ðpermissible€under€article€7.€What€I€can€say€is€that€article€7€prohibits€any€method€of€executionÐ ¾ Ðwhich€is€ò òintended€foró ó€prolonging€suffering€of€the€executed€or€causing€unnecessary€pain€toÐ ¤ô Ðhim€or€her.€As€I€do€not€believe€that€gas€asphyxiation€is€so€intended,€I€cannot€concur€with€theÐ Š Ú ÐCommittee's€view€that€execution€by€gas€asphyxiation€violates€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð p!À  ÐÌNisuke€AndoÐ <#Œ" ÐÌ[English€original]€Ð %X $ ÐÌÌG.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Francisco€Jos€AGUILAR€URBINA€(dissentingóó)Ð º' #' ÐÌI.€òòExtradition€and€the€protection€afforded€by€the€CovenantóóÐ †)Ö$) ÐÌ1.€In€analysing€the€relationship€between€the€Covenant€and€ò òextraditionó ó,€I€cannot€agree€withÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€Committee€that€"extradition€as€such€is€outside€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant"Ð 8,ˆ', Ð[€Views,€para.€6.1.]€.€I€consider€that€it€is€remiss€„€and€even€dangerous,€as€far€as€the€fullÐ -n(- Ðenjoyment€of€the€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant€is€concerned€„€to€make€such€a€statement.Ð ° ÐIn€order€to€do€so,€the€Committee€relies€on€the€pronouncement€in€the€Kindler€case€to€theÐ –æ Ðeffect€that€since€"it€is€clear€from€the€travaux€prparatoires€that€it€was€not€intended€that€articleÐ |Ì Ð13€of€the€Covenant,€which€provides€ò òspecific€rights€relating€to€the€expulsion€of€aliensÐ b² Ðlawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€partyó ó,€should€detract€from€normal€extraditionÐ H˜ Ðarrangements",€[€Views€on€communication€No.€470/1991,€Joseph€John€Kindler€v.€Canada,Ð . ~ Ðpara.€6.6€(emphasis€added).]€extradition€would€remain€outside€the€scope€of€the€Covenant.Ð  d ÐIn€the€first€place,€we€have€to€note€that€extradition,€even€though€in€the€broad€sense€it€wouldÐ ú J Ðamount€to€expulsion,€in€a€narrow€sense€would€be€included€within€the€procedures€regulatedÐ à 0 Ðby€article€14€of€the€Covenant.€Although€the€procedures€for€ordering€the€extradition€of€aÐ Æ   Ðperson€to€the€requesting€State€vary€from€country€to€country,€they€can€roughly€be€groupedÐ ¬ ü  Ðinto€three€general€categories:€(1)€a€purely€judicial€procedure,€(2)€an€exclusivelyÐ ’â  Ðadministrative€procedure,€or€(3)€a€mixed€procedure€involving€action€by€the€authorities€of€twoÐ xÈ  Ðbranches€of€the€State,€the€judiciary€and€the€executive.€This€last€procedure€is€the€one€followedÐ ^®  Ðin€Canada.€The€important€point,€however,€is€that€the€authorities€dealing€with€the€extraditionÐ D”  Ðproceedings€constitute,€for€this€specific€case€at€least,€a€"tribunal"€that€applies€a€procedureÐ *z  Ðwhich€must€conform€to€the€provisions€of€article€14€of€the€Covenant.Ð ` ÐÌ2.1.€The€fact€that€the€drafters€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€didÐ Ü, Ðnot€include€extradition€in€article€13€is€quite€logical,€but€on€that€account€alone€it€cannot€beÐ Â Ðaffirmed€that€their€intention€was€to€leave€extradition€proceedings€outside€the€protectionÐ ¨ø Ðafforded€by€the€Covenant.€The€fact€is,€rather,€that€extradition€does€not€fit€in€with€the€legalÐ ŽÞ Ðsituation€defined€in€article€13.€The€essential€difference€lies,€in€my€opinion,€in€the€fact€thatÐ tÄ Ðthis€rule€refers€exclusively€to€the€expulsion€of€"an€alien€lawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€StateÐ Zª Ðparty".€[€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€art.€13.]€Ð @ ÐÌ2.2.€Extradition€is€a€kind€of€"expulsion"€that€goes€beyond€what€is€contemplated€in€the€rule.Ð  \ ÐFirstly,€extradition€is€a€specific€procedure,€whereas€the€rule€laid€down€in€article€13€is€of€aÐ òB Ðgeneralnature;€however€article€13€merely€stipulates€that€expulsion€must€give€rise€to€aÐ Ø( Ðdecision€in€accordance€with€law,€and€even€„€in€cases€where€there€are€compelling€reasons€ofÐ ¾ Ðnational€security€„€it€is€permissible€for€the€alien€not€to€be€heard€by€the€competent€authorityÐ ¤ô Ðor€to€have€his€case€reviewed.€Secondly,€whereas€expulsion€constitutes€a€unilateral€decisionÐ Š Ú Ðby€a€State,€grounded€on€reasons€that€lie€exclusively€within€the€competence€of€that€State€„Ð p!À  Ðprovided€that€they€do€not€violate€the€State's€international€obligations,€such€as€those€under€theÐ V"¦! ÐCovenant€„extradition€constitutes€an€act€based€upon€a€request€by€another€State.€Thirdly,€theÐ <#Œ" Ðrule€in€article€13€relates€exclusively€to€aliens€who€are€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party€to€theÐ "$r# ÐCovenant,€whereas€extradition€may€relate€both€to€aliens€and€to€nationals;€indeed,€on€the€basisÐ %X $ Ðof€its€discussions€the€Committee€has€considered€the€practice€of€expelling€nationals€(forÐ î%>!% Ðexample,€exile)€in€general€(other€than€under€extradition€proceedings)€to€be€contrary€to€articleÐ Ô&$"& Ð12.€[€In€this€connection,€see€the€summary€records€of€the€Committee's€recent€discussionsÐ º' #' Ðregarding€Zaire€and€Burundi,€in€relation€to€the€expulsion€of€nationals,€and€Venezuela€inÐ  (ð#( Ðrelation€to€the€continuing€existence,€in€criminal€law,€of€exile€as€a€penalty2.]€Fourthly,€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðrule€in€article€13€relates€to€persons€who€are€lawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€country;€in€the€caseÐ l*¼%* Ðof€extradition,€the€individuals€against€whom€the€proceedings€are€initiated€are€not€necessarilyÐ R+¢&+ Ðlawfully€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€country;€on€the€contrary€„€and€especially€if€it€is€borneÐ 8,ˆ', Ðin€mind€that€article€13€leaves€the€question€of€the€lawfulness€of€the€alien's€presence€toÐ -n(- Ðnational€law€„€in€a€great€many€instances€persons€who€are€subject€to€extradition€proceedingsÐ ° Ðhave€entered€the€territory€of€the€requested€State€illegally,€as€in€the€case€of€the€author€of€theÐ –æ Ðcommunication.Ð |Ì ÐÌ3.€Although€extradition€cannot€be€considered€to€be€a€kind€of€expulsion€within€the€meaningÐ H˜ Ðof€article€13€of€the€Covenant,€this€does€not€imply€that€it€is€excluded€from€the€scope€of€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant.€Extradition€must€be€strictly€adapted€in€all€cases€to€the€rules€laid€down€in€theÐ  d ÐCovenant.€Thus€the€extradition€proceedings€must€follow€the€rules€of€due€process€as€requiredÐ ú J Ðby€article€14€and,€furthermore,€their€consequences€must€not€entail€a€violation€of€any€otherÐ à 0 Ðprovision.€Therefore,€a€State€cannot€allege€that€extradition€is€not€covered€by€the€CovenantÐ Æ   Ðin€order€to€evade€the€responsibility€that€would€devolve€upon€it€for€the€possible€absence€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðprotection€of€the€possible€victim€in€a€foreign€jurisdiction.Ð ’â  ÐÌII.€òòThe€extradition€of€the€author€to€the€United€States€of€AmericaóóÐ ^®  ÐÌ4.€In€this€particular€case,€Canada€extradited€the€author€of€the€communication€to€the€UnitedÐ *z  ÐStates€of€America,€where€he€was€to€stand€trial€on€19€criminal€counts,€including€12€murders.Ð ` ÐIt€will€have€to€be€seen€„€as€the€Committee€stated€in€its€decision€on€the€admissibility€of€theÐ öF Ðcommunication€„€whether€Canada,€in€granting€Mr.€Ng's€extradition,€exposed€him,€necessarilyÐ Ü, Ðand€foreseeably,€to€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.Ð Â ÐÌ5.€The€same€State€party€argued€that€"the€author€cannot€be€considered€a€victim€within€theÐ ŽÞ Ðmeaning€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€since€his€allegations€are€derived€from€assumptions€aboutÐ tÄ Ðò òpossible€future€events,€which€may€not€materialize€and€which€are€dependent€on€the€lawÐ Zª Ðand€actions€of€the€authorities€of€the€United€Statesó ó".€[€Views,€para.€4.2€(emphasis€added).]Ð @ ÐAlthough€it€is€impossible€to€predict€a€future€event,€it€must€be€understood€that€whether€or€notÐ &v Ða€person€is€a€victim€depends€on€whether€that€event€is€foreseeable€„€or,€in€other€words,€onÐ  \ Ðwhether,€according€to€common€sense,€it€may€happen,€in€the€absence€of€exceptional€eventsÐ òB Ðthat€prevent€it€from€occurring€„€or€necessary€„€in€other€words,€it€will€inevitably€occur,€unlessÐ Ø( Ðexceptional€events€prevent€it€from€happening.€The€Committee€itself,€in€concluding€thatÐ ¾ ÐCanada€had€violated€article€7,€[€Views,€para.€17.]€found€that€the€author€of€the€communicationÐ ¤ô Ðwould€necessarily€and€foreseeably€be€executed.€For€that€reason,€I€shall€not€discuss€the€issueÐ Š Ú Ðof€foreseeability€and€necessity€except€to€say€that€I€agree€with€the€views€of€the€majority.Ð p!À  ÐÌ6.€Now,€with€regard€to€the€ò òexceptional€circumstancesó ó€mentioned€by€the€State€party,€[Ð <#Œ" ÐViews,€para.€4.4.]€the€most€important€aspect€is€that,€according€to€the€assertions€of€the€StateÐ "$r# Ðparty€itself,€they€refer€to€the€application€of€the€death€penalty.€In€my€opinion,€the€vital€pointÐ %X $ Ðis€the€link€between€the€application€of€the€death€penalty€and€the€protection€given€to€the€livesÐ î%>!% Ðof€persons€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Canadian€State.€For€those€persons,€the€death€penaltyÐ Ô&$"& Ðconstitutes€in€itself€a€special€circumstance.€For€that€reason€„€and€in€so€far€as€the€death€penaltyÐ º' #' Ðcan€be€considered€as€being€necessarily€and€foreseeably€applicable€„€Canada€had€a€duty€toÐ  (ð#( Ðseek€assurances€that€Charles€Chitat€Ng€would€not€be€executed.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ7.€The€problem€that€arises€with€the€extradition€of€the€author€of€the€communication€to€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐUnited€States€without€any€assurances€having€been€requested€is€that€he€was€deprived€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', Ðenjoyment€of€his€rights€under€the€Covenant.€Article€6,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant,Ð -n(- Ðalthough€it€does€not€prohibit€the€death€penalty,€cannot€be€understood€as€an€unrestrictedÐ ° Ðauthorization€for€it.€In€the€first€place,€it€has€to€be€viewed€in€the€light€of€paragraph€1,€whichÐ –æ Ðdeclares€that€every€human€being€has€the€inherent€right€to€life.€It€is€an€unconditional€rightÐ |Ì Ðadmitting€of€no€exception.€In€the€second€place,€it€constitutes€„€for€those€States€which€haveÐ b² Ðnot€abolished€the€death€penalty€„€a€limitation€on€its€application,€in€so€far€as€it€may€beÐ H˜ Ðimposed€only€for€the€most€serious€crimes.€For€those€States€which€have€abolished€the€deathÐ . ~ Ðpenalty€it€represents€an€insurmountable€barrier.€The€spirit€of€this€article€is€to€eliminate€theÐ  d Ðdeath€penalty€as€a€punishment,€and€the€limitations€which€it€imposes€are€of€an€absoluteÐ ú J Ðnature.Ð à 0 ÐÌ8.€In€this€connection,€when€Mr.€Ng€entered€Canadian€territory€healready€enjoyed€anÐ ¬ ü  Ðunrestricted€right€to€life.€By€extraditing€him€without€having€requested€assurances€that€heÐ ’â  Ðwould€not€be€executed,€Canada€denied€him€the€protection€which€he€enjoyed€and€exposed€himÐ xÈ  Ðò ònecessarilyó ó€and€ò òforeseeablyó ó€to€being€executed€in€the€opinion€of€the€majority€of€theÐ ^®  ÐCommittee,€which€I€share€in€this€regard.€Canada€has€therefore€violated€article€6€of€theÐ D”  ÐCovenant.Ð *z  ÐÌ9.€Further,€Canada's€misinterpretation€of€the€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€2,€of€theÐ öF ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€raises€the€question€of€whether€it€has€alsoÐ Ü, Ðviolated€article€5,€specifically€paragraph€2€thereof.€The€Canadian€Government€hasÐ Â Ðinterpreted€article€6,€paragraph€2,€as€authorizing€the€death€penalty.€For€that€reason€it€hasÐ ¨ø Ðfound€that€Mr.€Charles€Chitat€Ng's€extradition,€even€though€he€will€necessarily€be€sentencedÐ ŽÞ Ðto€death€and€will€foreseeably€be€executed,€would€not€be€prohibited€by€the€Covenant,€sinceÐ tÄ Ðthe€latter€would€authorize€the€application€of€the€death€penalty.€In€making€such€aÐ Zª Ðmisinterpretation€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€asserts€that€the€extradition€of€the€authorÐ @ Ðof€the€communication€would€not€be€contrary€to€the€Covenant.€In€this€connection,€Canada€hasÐ &v Ðdenied€Mr.€Charles€Chitat€Ng€a€right€which€he€enjoyed€under€its€jurisdiction,€adducing€thatÐ  \ Ðthe€Covenant€would€give€a€lesser€protection€than€internal€law€in€other€words,€that€theÐ òB ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€would€recognize€the€right€to€life€in€aÐ Ø( Ðlesser€degree€than€Canadian€legislation.€In€so€far€as€the€misinterpretation€of€article€6,Ð ¾ Ðparagraph€2,€has€led€Canada€to€consider€that€the€Covenant€recognizes€the€right€to€life€in€aÐ ¤ô Ðlesser€degree€than€its€domestic€legislation€and€has€used€that€as€a€pretext€to€extradite€theÐ Š Ú Ðauthor€to€a€jurisdiction€where€he€will€certainly€be€executed,€Canada€has€also€violated€articleÐ p!À  Ð5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ10.€I€have€to€insist€that€Canada€has€misinterpreted€article€6,€paragraph€2,€and€that,€when€itÐ "$r# Ðabolished€the€death€penalty,€it€became€impossible€for€it€to€apply€that€penalty€directly€in€itsÐ %X $ Ðterritory,€except€for€the€military€offences€for€which€it€is€still€in€force,€or€indirectly€throughÐ î%>!% Ðthe€handing€over€to€another€State€of€a€person€who€runs€the€risk€of€being€executed€or€who€willÐ Ô&$"& Ðbe€executed.€Since€it€abolished€the€death€penalty,€Canada€has€to€guarantee€the€right€to€lifeÐ º' #' Ðof€all€persons