’WPC¦  ?Ø]ݰ䯸ŪPŽ…jƒ ćž"¹«Šˆ=«÷Ąa„¤ĶŲ~äHĪ6{Ą|4ą+rŻŽDÕ|Ģ ƒć:ÖŃĢĄgŚ`qŽ”“@ć Ś=wƒK „«vƞąäiC} ÷=ź÷ģżRvŖÄæĮ2ńj£“µł”XÕµmv<<¼åG’‚ĀÆļ± ó LꗝōQ ŖK8Ś[‰H)#ń=]žŚ¦D/s¼Tm„ąŗŅ –W}0­Ō Lœ“’āē Sq­E_,©ņv„Ō'ąÅ¬¹Öź1øN³”vbžÄŠtæŌŖ•ćų;©sÅērGFѫ؛™kÖFYĒO’ų¶čKÜA^\d$ØIŖj¼ųĄšx2E“ vp×0Błx³¼7” æ#Ö(OC¼™ōDżõhŹ2H*|Thō-1 ½µ„`±" ڤ8×¾×/ X0Óó-?_ĆPv·{¹z ®÷żč9ßŲ6[ĶvĮaJGĘ £į°åy³†*?Įņ³j;ŚÓHѰaÅŹļ~¾€Č@£dФ²’R’€ńI~|8#^§ļąü܎ęE|Ō¾8ˆręā^°š•ŻĶķŃ9†–é{}™īHµ9!“‘¼olĆōŻóģg·¹{ĢŽ”¹yüū†et×Z#ĮģUN­ %ū 0: ^ ; wG 4K _ n mp E‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ B‰ ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ūœ$””ŌUKUS.,Ōļrō* Äpģ*bk1謝3|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄ dŻ ƒūœ!ŻŌUKUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEŠ ° ŠĢŌ_ŌņņŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_ŌStewartŌ_Ō€v.€CanadaóóŠ ą ŠĢCommunication€No.€538/1993Š pĄ ŠĢ18€March€1994Š P   ŠĢŌ_ŌCCPRŌ_Ō/C/50/D/538/1993*Š 0 € ŠĢĢADMISSIBILITYó óŠ P  ŠÓ  ÓĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€€Charles€Edward€Stewart€[represented€by€council]Š Š  ŠĢņņAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorŠ ° ŠĢņņState€partyóó:€€CanadaŠ ą ŠĢņņDate€of€communicationóó:€€18€February€1993€(initial€submission)Š pĄ Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąĢņņDocumentation€referencesóó:€€Prior€decisions:€„€Special€Rapporteurššs€combined€rule€86/€rule€91Š P  Šdecision,€dated€24€April€1993€(not€issued€in€document€form)Š @ ŠĢņņDate€of€present€decisionóó:€€18€March€1994óóŠ  p ŠĢĢņņThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€acting€through€its€Working€Group€pursuant€to€rule€87,€paragraph€2,Š š@ Šof€the€Committeeššs€rules€of€procedure,€adopts€the€following€decision€on€admissibility.Š ą0 ŠĢĢņņÓ  Óņ ņDecision€on€admissibilityó óóóŠ °"  ŠÓGÓĢĢ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Charles€Edward€Stewart,€a€British€citizen€born€in€1960.€€HeŠ €%Š # Šhas€resided€in€Ontario,€Canada,€since€the€age€of€seven,€and€currently€faces€deportation€from€Canada.€Š p&Ą!$ ŠHe€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Canada€of€articles€7,€9,€12,€13,€17€and€23€of€theŠ `'°"% ŠInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€€He€is€represented€by€counsel.Š P( #& ŠĢņņThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróóŠ 0*€%( ŠĢ2.1€€The€author€was€born€in€Scotland€in€December€1960.€€At€the€age€of€seven,€he€emigrated€toŠ ,`'* ŠCanada€with€his€mother;€his€father€and€older€brother€were€already,€at€the€time,€living€in€Canada.€€TheŠ -P(+ Šauthorššs€parents€have€since€separated,€and€the€author€lives€together€with€is€mother€and€with€hisŠ š-@), Šyounger€brother.€€His€mother€is€in€poor€health,€having€suffered€a€recent€heart€attack,€and€his€brotherŠ ° Šis€mentally€disabled€and€suffers€from€chronic€epilepsy.€€His€older€brother€was€deported€to€the€UnitedŠ  š ŠKingdom€in€1992,€because€of€a€previous€criminal€record.€€This€brother€apart,€all€of€the€authorššsŠ ą Šrelatives€reside€in€Canada;€the€author€himself€has€two€young€twin€children,€who€live€with€theirŠ €Š Šmother,€from€whom€the€author€divorced€in€1989.Š pĄ ŠĢ2.2€€For€most€of€his€life,€the€author€considered€himself€to€be€a€Canadian€citizen.€€It€was€only€whenŠ P   Šhe€was€contacted€by€immigration€officials€because€of€a€criminal€conviction€that€he€realized,€legally,Š @  Šhe€was€only€a€permanent€resident,€as€his€parents€had€never€requested€Canadian€citizenship€for€himŠ 0 € Šduring€his€youth.€€It€is€stated€that€between€September€1978€and€May€1991,€the€author€was€convictedŠ  p  Šon€42€occasions,€mostly€for€petty€offences€and€traffic€offences.€€Two€convictions€were€for€possessionŠ `  Šof€marijuana€seeds€and€of€a€prohibited€martial€arts€weapon.€€One€conviction€was€for€assault€withŠ P  Šbodily€harm,€committed€in€September€1984,€on€the€authorššs€former€girlfriend.€€Counsel€indicates€thatŠ š@  Šmost€of€her€clientššs€convictions€are€attributable€to€her€clientššs€substance€abuse€problems,€inŠ ą0  Šparticular€alcoholism.€€Since€his€release€on€mandatory€supervision€in€September€1990,€the€authorŠ Š  Šhas€participated€in€several€drug€and€alcohol€rehabilitation€programmes.€€He€has€further€receivedŠ Ą Šmedical€advice€to€control€his€alcohol€abuse€and,€with€the€exception€of€one€relapse,€has€remainedŠ ° Šalcohol„free.Š  š ŠĢ2.3€€It€is€stated€that€although€the€author€cannot€contribute€much€financially€to€the€subsistence€of€hisŠ €Š Šfamily,€he€does€so€whenever€he€is€able€to€and€helps€his€ailing€mother€and€retarded€brother€aroundŠ pĄ Šthe€home.Š `° ŠĢ2.4€€In€1990,€an€immigration€enquiry€was€initiated€against€the€author€to€Section€27,€paragraph€1,€ofŠ @ Šthe€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€€Under€this€provision,€a€permanent€resident€in€Canada€must€be€orderedŠ 0€ Šdeported€from€Canada€if€an€adjudicator€in€an€immigration€enquiry€is€satisfied€that€the€defendant€hasŠ  p Šbeen€convicted€of€certain€specified€offences€under€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€€On€20€August€1990,€theŠ ` Šauthor€was€ordered€deported€on€account€of€his€criminal€convictions.€€He€appealed€the€order€to€theŠ P ŠImmigration€Appeal€Division.€€The€Board€of€the€Appeal€Division€heard€the€appeal€on€15€May€1992,Š š@ Šdismissing€it€by€judgment€of€21€August€1992,€which€was€communicated€to€the€author€on€1Š ą0 ŠSeptember€1992.Š Š  ŠĢ2.5€€On€30€October€1992,€the€author€complained€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€for€an€extension€ofŠ °"  Šthe€time€limit€for€applying€for€leave€to€appeal.€€The€Court€first€granted€the€request€but€subsequentlyŠ  #š! Šdismissed€the€application€for€leave€to€appeal.€€There€is€no€further€appeal€or€application€for€leave€toŠ $ą" Šappeal€from€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada,€or€to€any€other€domesticŠ €%Š # Štribunal.€€This€is€expressly€prohibited€under€Section€83,€paragraph€2,€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€€Thus,Š p&Ą!$ Šno€further€effective€domestic€remedy€is€said€to€be€available.Š `'°"% ŠĢ2.6€€If€the€author€is€deported,€he€would€not€be€able€to€return€to€Canada€without€the€express€consentŠ @)$' Šof€the€Canadian€Minister€of€Employment€and€Immigration,€under€the€terms€of€Sections€19(1)(Ō_ŌiŌ_Ō)€andŠ 0*€%( Š55€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€€A€re„application€for€emigration€to€Canada€would€not€only€requireŠ  +p&) Šministerial€consent€but€also€that€the€author€fulfill€all€the€other€statutory€admissibility€criteria€forŠ ,`'* Šimmigrants.€€Furthermore,€because€of€his€convictions,€the€author€would€be€barred€from€readmissionŠ -P(+ Što€Canada€under€Section€19(2)(a)€of€the€Act.Š š-@), Ї2.7€€As€the€deportation€order€against€the€author€could€now€be€enforced€at€any€point€in€time,€counselŠ ° Šrequests€the€Committee€to€seek€from€the€State€party€interim€measures€of€protection,€pursuant€to€ruleŠ  š Š86€of€the€rules€of€procedure.Š ą ŠĢņņThe€complaintóóŠ pĄ ŠĢ3.1€€The€author€claims€that€the€above€facts€reveal€violations€of€articles€7,€9,€12,€13,€17,€and€23€of€theŠ P   ŠCovenant.€€He€claims€that€in€respect€of€article€23,€the€State€party€has€failed€to€provide€for€clearŠ @  Šlegislative€recognition€of€the€protection€of€the€family.€€In€the€absence€of€such€legislation€whichŠ 0 € Šensures€that€family€interests€would€be€given€due€weight€in€administrative€proceedings€such€as,€forŠ  p  Šexample,€those€before€the€Immigration€and€Refugee€Board,€he€claims,€there€is€a€ņņprima€facieóó€issueŠ `  Šas€to€whether€Canadian€law€is€compatible€with€the€requirement€of€protection€of€the€family.Š P  ŠĢ3.2€€The€author€also€refers€to€the€Committeeššs€General€Comment€on€article€17,€according€to€whichŠ ą0  Šš šinterference€[with€home€and€privacy]€can€only€take€place€on€the€basis€of€law,€which€itself€must€beŠ Š  Šcompatible€with€the€provisions,€aims€and€objectives€of€the€Covenantšš.€€He€asserts€that€there€is€noŠ Ą Šlaw€which€ensures€that€his€legitimate€family€interests€or€those€of€the€members€of€his€family€wouldŠ ° Šbe€addressed€in€deciding€on€his€deportation€from€Canada;€there€is€only€the€vague€and€generalŠ  š Šdiscretion€given€to€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€to€consider€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,Š ą Šwhich€is€said€to€be€insufficient€to€ensure€a€balancing€of€his€family€interests€and€other€legitimate€StateŠ €Š Šaims.€€In€its€decision,€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€allegedly€did€not€give€any€weight€to€theŠ pĄ Šdisabilities€of€the€authorššs€mother€and€brother;€instead,€it€ruled€that€š štaking€into€account€that€theŠ `° Šappellant€does€not€have€anyone€depending€on€him€and€there€being€no€real€attachment€to€and€no€realŠ P  Šsupport€from€anyone,€the€Appeal€Division€sees€insufficient€circumstances€to€justify€the€appellantššsŠ @ Špresence€in€this€countryšš.Š 0€ ŠĢ3.3€€According€to€the€author,€the€term€š šhomešš€should€be€interpreted€broadly,€encompassing€theŠ ` Š(entire)€community€of€which€an€individual€is€a€part.€€In€this€sense,€his€š šhomešš€is€said€to€be€Canada.€Š P ŠIt€is€further€submitted€that€the€authorššs€privacy€must€include€the€fact€of€being€able€to€live€within€thisŠ š@ Šcommunity€without€arbitrary€or€unlawful€interference.€€To€the€extent€that€Canadian€law€does€notŠ ą0 Šprotect€aliens€against€such€interference,€the€author€claims€a€violation€of€article€17.Š Š  ŠĢ3.4€€The€author€submits€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€applicable€to€his€situation€since,€for€allŠ °"  Špractical€purposes,€Canada€is€his€own€country.€€His€deportation€from€Canada€would€result€in€anŠ  #š! Šabsolute€statutory€bar€from€reentering€Canada.€€It€is€noted€that€in€this€context€that€article€12(4)€doesŠ $ą" Šnot€indicate€that€everyone€has€the€right€to€enter€his€country€of€nationality€or€of€birth€but€only€š šhisŠ €%Š # Šown€countryšš.€€Counsel€argues€that€the€Ō_ŌU.K.Ō_Ō€is€no€longer€the€authorššs€š šown€countryšš,€since€he€leftŠ p&Ą!$ Šit€at€the€age€of€seven€and€his€entire€life€is€now€centred€upon€his€family€in€Canada€„€thus,€althoughŠ `'°"% Šnot€Canadian€in€a€formal€sense,€he€must€be€considered€ņņde€factoóó€a€Canadian€citizen.€€Finally,€it€isŠ P( #& Šnoted€that€although€the€Committee€has€never€addressed€this€issue€it€might,€by€analogy,€draw€uponŠ @)$' Ša€recent€judgment€of€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights€in€which€similar€issues€had€beenŠ 0*€%( Šexamined.Š  +p&) ŠĢ3.5€€The€author€claims€that€his€allegations€under€articles€17€and€23€should€also€be€examined€in€theŠ -P(+ Šlight€of€other€provisions,€especially€articles€9€and€12.€€He€refers€to€the€Committeeššs€Views€inŠ š-@), ŠņņŌ_ŌAumeeruddyŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌCziffraŌ_Ōóó€(Communication€No.€35/1978),€where€it€was€held€that€there€are€implicit€limitsŠ ° Šin€article€23,€in€the€light€of€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€€While€article€9€addresses€deprivationŠ  š Šof€liberty,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€ņņonlyóó€concept€of€liberty€is€one€of€physical€freedom.€€ArticleŠ ą Š12€recognizes€liberty€in€a€broader€sense:€the€author€believes€that€his€deportation€from€Canada€wouldŠ €Š Šviolate€š šhis€liberty€of€movement€within€Canada€and€within€his€communityšš,€and€that€it€would€notŠ pĄ Šbe€necessary€for€one€of€the€legitimate€objectives€enumerated€in€article€12,€paragraph€3.Š ` ° ŠĢ3.7€€In€this€connection,€the€author€recalls€that€(a)€he€has€resided€in€Canada€since€the€age€of€seven;Š @  Š(b)€at€the€time€of€issue€of€the€deportation€order€all€members€of€his€immediate€family€resided€inŠ 0 € ŠCanada;€(c)€while€his€criminal€record€is€extensive,€it€does€by€no€means€reveal€that€he€is€a€danger€toŠ  p  Špublic€safety;€(d)€he€has€taken€voluntary€steps€to€control€his€substance„abuse€problems;€(e)Š `  Šdeportation€from€Canada€would€effectively€and€permanently€sever€all€his€ties€in€Canada;€and€(f)€theŠ P  Šprison€terms€served€for€various€convictions€already€constitute€adequate€punishment€and€theŠ š@  Šreasoning€of€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division,€by€emphasizing€his€criminal€record,€amounts€to€theŠ ą0  Šimposition€of€additional€punishment.Š Š  ŠĢņņThe€Special€Rapporteurššs€request€for€interim€measures€op€protection€and€State€partyššs€reactionóóŠ ° ŠĢ4.1€€On€26€April€1993,€the€Special€Rapporteur€on€New€Communications€transmitted€theŠ ą Šcommunication€to€the€State€party,€requesting€it,€under€rule€91€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€to€provideŠ €Š Šinformation€and€observations€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€€Under€rule€86€of€the€rulesŠ pĄ Šof€procedure,€the€State€party€was€requested€not€to€deport€the€author€to€the€United€Kingdom€whileŠ `° Šhis€communication€was€under€consideration€by€the€Committee.Š P  ŠĢ4.2€€In€a€submission€dated€9€July€1993€in€reply€to€the€request€for€interim€measures€of€protection,€theŠ 0€ ŠState€party€indicates€that€although€the€author€would€undoubtedly€suffer€personal€inconvenienceŠ  p Šshould€he€be€deported€to€Scotland,€there€are€no€special€or€compelling€circumstances€in€the€case€thatŠ ` Šwould€appear€to€cause€irreparable€harm.€€In€this€context,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€is€notŠ P Šbeing€returned€to€a€country€where€his€safety€or€life€would€be€in€jeopardy;€furthermore,€he€would€notŠ š@ Šbe€barred€once€and€for€all€from€readmission€to€Canada.€€Secondly,€the€State€party€notes€that€althoughŠ ą0 Šthe€authorššs€social€ties€with€his€family€may€be€affected,€his€complaint€makes€it€clear€that€his€familyŠ Š  Šhas€no€financial€or€other€objective€dependence€on€him:€the€author€does€not€contribute€financially€toŠ Ą! Šhis€brother,€has€not€maintained€contact€with€his€father€for€seven€to€eight€years€and,€after€the€divorceŠ °"  Šfrom€his€wife€in€1989,€apparently€has€not€maintained€any€contact€with€his€wife€or€children.Š  #š! ŠĢ4.3€€The€State€party€submits€that€the€application€of€rule€86€should€ņņnotóó€impose€a€general€rule€on€StatesŠ €%Š # Šparties€to€suspend€measures€or€decisions€at€a€domestic€level€unless€there€are€special€circumstancesŠ p&Ą!$ Šwhere€such€a€measure€or€decision€might€conflict€with€the€effective€exercise€of€the€authorššs€right€toŠ `'°"% Špetition.€€The€fact€that€a€complaint€has€been€filed€with€the€Committee€should€not€automatically€implyŠ P( #& Šthat€the€State€party€is€restricted€in€its€power€to€implement€a€deportation€decision.€€The€State€partyŠ @)$' Šargues€that€considerations€of€state€security€and€public€policy€must€be€considered€prior€to€imposingŠ 0*€%( Šrestraints€on€a€State€party€to€implement€a€decision€lawfully€taken.€€It€therefore€requests€theŠ  +p&) ŠCommittee€to€clarify€the€criteria€at€the€basis€of€the€Special€Rapporteurššs€decision€to€call€for€interimŠ ,`'* Šmeasures€of€protection€and€to€consider€withdrawing€the€request€for€interim€protection€under€rule€86.Š -P(+ ŠŠ š-@), Š4.4€€In€her€comments,€dated€15€September€1993,€counsel€challenges€the€State€partyššs€argumentsŠ ° Šrelated€to€the€application€of€rule€86.€€She€contends€that€deportation€would€indeed€bar€the€authorššsŠ  š Šreadmission€to€Canada€forever.€€Furthermore,€the€test€of€what€may€constitute€š širreparable€harmšš€toŠ ą Šthe€petitioner€should€not€be€considered€by€reference€to€the€criteria€developed€by€the€Canadian€courtsŠ €Š Šwhere,€it€is€submitted,€the€test€for€irreparable€harm€in€relation€to€family€has€become€one€of€almostŠ pĄ Šexclusive€financial€dependency,€but€by€reference€to€the€Committeeššs€own€criteria.Š ` ° ŠĢ4.5€€Counsel€submits€that€the€communication€was€filed€precisely€ņņbecauseóó€Canadian€courts,€includingŠ @  Šthe€Immigration€Appeal€Division,€do€not€recognize€family€interests€beyond€financial€dependencyŠ 0 € Šof€family€members.€€She€adds€that€it€is€the€very€test€applied€by€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€andŠ  p  Šthe€Federal€Court€which€is€at€issue€before€the€Human€Rights€Committee:€it€would€defeat€theŠ `  Šeffectiveness€of€any€order€the€Committee€might€make€in€the€authorššs€favour€in€the€future€if€the€ruleŠ P  Š86€request€were€to€be€cancelled€now.€€Finally,€counsel€contends€that€it€would€be€unjustified€to€applyŠ š@  Ša€š šbalance€of€conveniencešš€test€in€determining€whether€or€not€to€invoke€rule€86,€as€this€test€isŠ ą0  Šinappropriate€where€fundamental€human€rights€are€at€issue.Š Š  ŠĢņņState€partyššs€admissibility€observations€and€counselššs€commentsóóŠ ° ŠĢ5.1€€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€14€December€1993,€the€State€party€contends€that€theŠ ą Šauthor€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€allegations€of€violations€of€articles€7,€9,€12,€and€13€of€theŠ €Š ŠCovenant.€€It€recalls€that€international€and€domestic€human€rights€law€clearly€states€that€the€right€toŠ pĄ Šremain€in€a€country€and€not€to€be€expelled€from€it€is€confined€to€nationals€of€that€state.€€These€lawsŠ `° Šrecognize€that€any€such€rights€possessed€by€non„nationals€are€available€only€in€certain€circumstancesŠ P  Šand€are€more€limited€than€those€possessed€by€nationals.€€Article€13€of€the€Covenant€š šdelineates€theŠ @ Šscope€of€that€instrumentššs€application€in€regard€to€the€right€of€an€alien€to€remain€in€the€territory€ofŠ 0€ Ša€State€party€...€Article€13€directly€regulates€only€the€procedure€and€not€the€substantive€grounds€forŠ  p Šexpulsion.€€Its€purpose€os€clearly€to€prevent€ņņarbitraryóó€expulsions.€[The€provision]€aims€to€ensure€thatŠ ` Šthe€ņņprocessóó€of€expelling€such€a€person€complies€with€what€is€laid€down€in€the€Stateššs€domestic€lawŠ P Šand€that€it€is€not€tainted€by€bad€faith€or€the€abuse€of€poweršš.€€Reference€is€made€to€the€CommitteeššsŠ š@ ŠViews€in€case€No.€58/1979,€ņņŌ_ŌMaroufidouŌ_Ō€v.€Swedenóó.Š ą0 ŠĢ5.2€€The€State€party€submits€that€the€application€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€in€the€instant€case€satisfiedŠ Ą! Šthe€requirements€of€article€13.€€In€particular,€the€author€was€represented€by€counsel€during€the€injuryŠ °"  Šbefore€the€immigration€adjudicator,€was€given€the€opportunity€to€present€evidence€as€to€whether€heŠ  #š! Šshould€be€permitted€to€remain€in€Canada,€and€to€cross„examine€witnesses.€€Based€on€evidenceŠ $ą" Šadduced€during€the€inquiry,€the€adjudicator€issued€a€deportation€order€against€the€author.€€The€StateŠ €%Š # Šparty€explains€that€the€Immigration€Appeal€Board€to€which€the€author€complained€is€an€independentŠ p&Ą!$ Šand€impartial€tribunal€with€jurisdiction€to€consider€any€ground€of€appeal€that€involved€a€question€ofŠ `'°"% Šlaw€or€fact,€or€mixed€law€and€fact.€€It€also€has€jurisdiction€to€consider€an€appeal€on€humanitarianŠ P( #& Šgrounds€that€an€individual€should€not€be€removed€from€Canada.€€The€Board€is€said€to€have€carefullyŠ @)$' Šconsidered€and€weighed€all€the€evidence€presented€it,€as€well€as€the€circumstances€of€the€authorššsŠ 0*€%( Šcase.Š  +p&) ŠĢ5.3€€While€the€State€party€concedes€that€the€right€to€remain€in€a€country€might€exceptionally€fallŠ -P(+ Šwithin€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant,€it€is€submitted€that€there€are€no€such€circumstancesŠ š-@), Šin€the€case:€the€decision€to€deport€Mr.€Stewart€is€said€to€be€š šjustified€by€the€facts€of€the€case€and€byŠ ° ŠCanadaššs€duty€to€enforce€public€interest€statutes€and€protect€society.€€Canadian€courts€have€held€thatŠ  š Šthe€most€important€objective€for€a€government€is€to€protect€the€security€of€its€nationals.€€This€isŠ ą Šconsistent€with€the€view€[of]€...€the€Supreme€Court€that€the€executive€arm€of€government€is€pre„Š €Š Šeminent€in€matters€concerning€the€security€of€its€citizens€...€and€that€the€most€fundamental€principleŠ pĄ Šof€immigration€law€is€that€non„citizens€do€not€have€an€unqualified€right€to€enter€or€remain€in€theŠ ` ° Šcountryšš.Š P   ŠĢ5.4€€The€State€party€argues€that€both€the€decision€to€deport€Mr.€Stewart€and€to€uphold€the€deportationŠ 0 € Šorder€met€with€requirements€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó,€and€that€these€decisions€were€in€accordanceŠ  p  Šwith€international€standards;€there€are€no€special€circumstances€which€would€š štrigger€the€applicationŠ `  Šof€the€Covenant€to€justify€the€complainantššs€stay€in€Canadašš.€€Furthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€ofŠ P  Šabuse€of€power€by€Canadian€authorities€and€in€the€absence€of€such€an€abuse,€š šit€is€inappropriate€forŠ š@  Šthe€Committee€to€evaluate€the€interpretation€and€application€by€those€authorities€of€Canadian€lawšš.Š ą0  ŠĢ5.5€€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€argues€that€itsŠ Ą Šimmigration€laws,€regulations€and€policies€are€compatible€with€the€requirements€of€these€provisions.€Š ° ŠIn€particular,€Section€114(2)€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€allows€for€the€exemption€of€persons€from€ņņanyóóŠ  š Šregulations€made€under€the€Act€or€the€admission€into€Canada€of€persons€where€there€existŠ ą Šcompassionate€or€humanitarian€considerationsšš.€€Such€considerations€include€the€existence€of€familyŠ €Š Šin€Canada€and€the€potential€harm€that€would€result€if€a€member€of€the€family€were€removed€fromŠ pĄ ŠCanada.Š `° ŠĢ5.6€€A€general€principle€of€Canadian€immigration€programs€and€policies€is€that€dependants€ofŠ @ Šimmigrants€into€Canada€are€eligible€to€be€granted€permanent€residence€at€the€same€time€as€theŠ 0€ Šprincipal€applicant.€€Furthermore,€where€family€members€remain€outside€Canada,€the€ņņImmigrationŠ  p ŠActóó€and€ancillary€regulations€facilitate€reunification€through€family€class€and€assisted€relativeŠ ` Šsponsorships:€š š[Ō_Ōr]eunificationŌ_Ō€in€fact€occurs€as€a€result€of€such€sponsorships€in€almost€all€casesšš.Š P ŠĢ5.7€€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€State€party€submits€that€any€effects€which€a€deportation€may€haveŠ ą0 Šon€the€authorššs€family€in€Canada€would€occur€further€to€the€application€of€legislation€that€isŠ Š  Šcompatible€with€the€provisions,€aims€and€objectives€of€the€Covenant:€š šIn€the€case€at€hand,Š Ą! Šhumanitarian€and€compassionate€grounds,€which€included€family€considerations,€were€taken€intoŠ °"  Šaccount€during€the€proceedings€before€the€immigration€authorities€and€were€balanced€againstŠ  #š! ŠCanadaššs€duty€and€responsibility€to€protect€society€and€to€properly€enforce€public€interest€statutesšš.Š $ą" ŠĢ5.8€€In€conclusion,€the€State€party€affirms€that€Mr.€Stewart€has€failed€to€substantiate€violations€ofŠ p&Ą!$ Šrights€protected€under€the€Covenant€and€is€in€fact€claiming€a€right€to€remain€in€Canada.€€He€is€saidŠ `'°"% Što€in€fact€be€seeking€to€establish€an€avenue€under€the€Covenant€to€claim€the€right€not€to€be€deportedŠ P( #& Šfrom€Canada:€this€claim€is€incompatible€ņņŌ_ŌrationeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌmateriaeŌ_Ōóó€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€andŠ @)$' Šinadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Š 0*€%( ŠĢ6.1€€In€her€comments,€counsel€notes€that€the€State€party€wrongly€conveys€the€impression€that€theŠ ,`'* Šauthor€had€two€full€hearings€before€the€immigration€authorities,€which€took€into€account€all€theŠ -P(+ Šspecific€factors€in€his€case.€€She€observes€that€the€immigration€adjudicator€conducting€the€inquiryŠ š-@), Šš šhas€no€equitable€jurisdictionšš.€€Once€he€is€satisfied€that€the€person€is€the€one€described€in€the€initialŠ ° Šreport,€that€this€person€is€a€permanent€resident€of€Canada,€and€that€he€has€been€convicted€of€aŠ  š Šcriminal€offence,€a€removal€order€is€mandatory.€€Counsel€contends€that€the€adjudicator€š šmay€not€takeŠ ą Šinto€account€any€other€factors€and€has€no€statutory€power€of€discretion€to€relieve€against€anyŠ €Š Šhardship€caused€by€the€issuance€of€the€removal€orderšš.Š pĄ ŠĢ6.2€€As€to€the€discretionary€power,€under€Section€114(2)€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó,€to€exempt€personsŠ P   Šfrom€regulatory€requirements€and€to€facilitate€admission€on€humanitarian€grounds,€counsel€notes€thatŠ @  Šthis€power€is€ņņnotóó€used€to€relieve€against€the€hardship€to€a€person€and€his/her€family€caused€by€theŠ 0 € Šremoval€of€a€permanent€resident€from€Canada:€[Ō_ŌT]heŌ_Ō€Immigration€Appeal€Division€exercises€a€quasi„Š  p  Šjudicial€statutory€power€of€discretion€after€a€full€hearing,€and€it€has€been€seen€as€inappropriate€forŠ `  Šthe€Minister€or€his€officials€to€in€fact€ššoverturnšš€a€negative€decision€...€by€this€bodyšš.Š P  ŠĢ6.3€€Counsel€affirms€that€the€humanitarian€and€compassionate€discretion€delegated€to€the€MinisterŠ ą0  Šby€the€ņņImmigration€Regulationsóó€can€in€any€event€hardly€be€said€to€provide€an€effective€mechanismŠ Š  Što€ensure€that€family€interests€are€balanced€against€other€interests.€€In€recent€years,€Canada€is€saidŠ Ą Što€have€routinely€separated€families€or€attempted€to€separate€families€where€the€interests€of€youngŠ ° Šchildren€were€at€stake:€thus,€š šthe€best€interests€of€children€are€not€taken€into€account€in€thisŠ  š Šadministrative€processšš.Š ą ŠĢ6.4€€Counsel€submits€that€Canada€ambiguously€conveys€the€impression€that€family€class€and€assistedŠ pĄ Šrelative€sponsorships€are€almost€always€successful.€€This,€according€to€her,€may€be€true€of€familyŠ `° Šclass€sponsorships,€but€it€is€clearly€not€the€case€for€assisted€relative€sponsorships,€since€assistedŠ P  Šrelative€applicants€must€meet€all€the€selection€criteria€for€independent€applicants.€€Counsel€furtherŠ @ Šdismisses€as€š špatently€wrongšš€the€State€partyššs€argument€that€the€Court,€upon€application€for€judicialŠ 0€ Šreview€of€a€deportation€order,€may€balance€the€hardship€caused€by€removal€against€the€publicŠ  p Šinterest.€€The€Court,€as€it€has€articulated€repeatedly,€cannot€balance€these€interests,€is€limited€to€strictŠ ` Šjudicial€review,€and€cannot€substitute€its€own€decision€for€that€of€the€decision€maker(s),€even€if€itŠ P Šwould€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€on€the€facts:€it€is€limited€to€quashing€a€decision€becauseŠ š@ Šof€jurisdictional€error,€a€breach€of€natural€justice€or€fairness,€an€error€of€law,€or€an€erroneous€findingŠ ą0 Šof€fact€made€in€a€perverse€or€in€a€capricious€manner€(Sec.€18(1)€ņņFederal€Court€Actóó).Š Š  ŠĢ6.5€€As€to€the€compatibility€of€the€authorššs€claims€with€the€Covenant,€counsel€notes€that€Mr.€StewartŠ °"  Šis€not€claiming€an€absolute€right€to€remain€in€Canada.€€She€concedes€that€the€Covenant€does€not€ņņperŠ  #š! Šseóó€recognize€a€right€of€non„nationals€to€enter€or€remain€in€a€state.€€Nonetheless,€it€is€submitted€thatŠ $ą" Šthe€Covenantššs€provisions€cannot€be€read€in€isolation€but€are€inter„related:€accordingly,€article€13Š €%Š # Šmust€be€read€in€the€light€of€other€provisions.Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ6.6€€Counsel€acknowledges€that€the€Committee€has€held€that€article€13€provides€for€procedural€andŠ P( #& Šnot€substantive€protection;€however,€procedural€protection€cannot€be€interpreted€in€isolation€fromŠ @)$' Šthe€protection€provided€under€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€€Thus,€legislation€governingŠ 0*€%( Šexpulsion€cannot€discriminate€on€any€of€the€grounds€listed€in€article€26;€nor€can€it€arbitrarily€orŠ  +p&) Šunlawfully€interfere€with€family,€privacy€and€home€(article€17).Š ,`'* ŠĢ6.7€€As€to€the€claim€under€article€17,€counsel€notes€that€the€State€party€has€only€set€out€the€provisionsŠ š-@), Šof€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€which€provide€for€family€reunification€„€provisions€which€she€considersŠ ° Šinapplicable€to€the€authorššs€case.€€She€adds€that€article€17€imposes€positive€duties€upon€StatesŠ  š Šparties,€and€that€there€is€no€law€in€Canada€which€would€recognize€family,€privacy,€or€home€interestsŠ ą Šin€the€context€raised€in€the€authorššs€case.€€Furthermore,€while€she€recognizes€that€there€is€a€processŠ €Š Šprovided€by€law€which€grants€to€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€a€general€discretion€to€considerŠ pĄ Šthe€personal€circumstances€of€a€permanent€resident€under€order€of€deportation,€this€discretion€doesŠ ` ° Šnot€recognize€or€encompass€consideration€of€fundamental€interests€such€as€integrity€of€the€family.€Š P   ŠCounsel€refers€to€the€case€of€ņņSutherlandóó€as€another€example€of€the€failure€to€recognize€that€integrityŠ @  Šof€the€family€is€an€important€and€protected€interest.€€For€counsel,€there€š šcan€be€no€balancing€ofŠ 0 € Šinterests€if€...€family€...€interests€are€not€recognized€as€fundamental€interests€for€the€purpose€ofŠ  p  Šbalancing.€€The€primary€interest€in€Canadian€law€and€jurisprudence€in€the€protection€of€the€public...šš.Š `  ŠĢ6.8€€Concerning€the€State€partyššs€contention€that€a€š šright€to€remainšš€may€only€come€within€the€scopeŠ š@  Šof€application€of€the€Covenant€under€exceptional€circumstances,€counsel€claims€that€the€processŠ ą0  Šwhereby€the€authorššs€deportation€was€decided€and€confirmed€proceeded€without€recognition€orŠ Š  Šcognizance€of€the€authorššs€rights€under€articles€7,€9,€12,€13,€17€or€23.€€While€it€is€true€that€CanadaŠ Ą Šhas€a€duty€to€ensure€that€society€is€protected,€this€legitimate€interest€must€be€balanced€against€otherŠ ° Šprotected€individual€rights.Š  š ŠĢ6.9€€Counsel€concedes€that€Mr.€Stewart€was€given€an€opportunity,€before€the€Immigration€AppealŠ €Š ŠDivision,€to€present€all€the€circumstances€of€his€case.€€She€concludes,€however,€that€domesticŠ pĄ Šlegislation€and€jurisprudence€do€not€recognize€that€her€client€will€be€subjected€to€a€breach€of€hisŠ `° Šfundamental€rights€if€he€were€deported.€€This€is€because€such€rights€are€not€and€need€not€beŠ P  Šconsidered€given€the€way€immigration€legislation€is€drafted.€€Concepts€such€as€home,€privacy,€familyŠ @ Šor€residence€in€oneššs€own€country,€which€are€protected€under€the€Covenant,€are€foreign€to€CanadianŠ 0€ Šlaw€ņņin€the€immigration€contextóó.€€The€overriding€concern€in€view€of€removal€of€a€permanent€resident,Š  p Šwithout€distinguishing€long„term€residents€from€recently€arrived€immigrants,€is€national€security.Š ` ŠĢņņIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€CommitteeóóŠ š@ ŠĢ7.1€€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeŠ Š  Šmust,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissible€underŠ Ą! Šthe€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Š °"  ŠĢ7.2€€The€Committee€notes€that€it€is€uncontested€that€there€are€no€further€domestic€remedies€for€theŠ $ą" Šauthor€to€exhaust,€and€that€the€requirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Optional€ProtocolŠ €%Š # Šhave€been€met.Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ7.3€€In€as€much€as€the€authorššs€claims€under€articles€7€and€9€of€the€Covenant€are€concerned,€theŠ P( #& ŠCommittee€has€examined€whether€the€conditions€of€articles€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€are€met.€Š @)$' ŠIn€respect€of€articles€7€and€9,€the€Committee€does€not€find,€on€the€basis€of€the€material€before€it,€thatŠ 0*€%( Šthe€author€has€substantiated€his€claim€that€deportation€to€the€United€Kingdom€and€separation€fromŠ  +p&) Šhis€family€would€amount€to€cruel€or€inhuman€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7,€or€that€itŠ ,`'* Šwould€violate€his€right€to€liberty€and€security€of€person€within€the€meaning€of€article€9,€paragraphŠ -P(+ Š1.€€In€this€respect,€therefore,€the€author€has€no€claim€under€the€Covenant,€within€the€meaning€ofŠ š-@), Šarticle€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Š ° ŠĢ7.4€€As€to€article€13,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€authorššs€deportation€was€ordered€pursuant€to€aŠ ą Šdecision€adopted€in€accordance€with€the€law,€and€that€the€State€party€has€invoked€arguments€ofŠ €Š Šprotection€of€society€and€national€security.€€It€is€not€apparent€that€this€assessment€was€reachedŠ pĄ Šarbitrarily.€€In€this€respect,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€claim,Š ` ° Šfor€purposes€of€admissibility,€and€that€this€part€of€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€articleŠ P   Š2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Š @  ŠĢ7.5€€Concerning€the€claim€under€article€12,€the€Committee€has€noted€the€State€partyššs€contention€thatŠ  p  Šno€substantiation€in€support€of€this€claim€has€been€adduced,€as€well€as€counselššs€contention€thatŠ `  Šarticle€12,€paragraph€4,€is€applicable€to€Mr.€Stewartššs€case.€€The€Committee€notes€that€theŠ P  Šdetermination€of€whether€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€applicable€to€the€authorššs€situation€requires€aŠ š@  Šcareful€analysis€of€whether€Canada€can€be€regarded€as€the€authorššs€š šown€countryšš€within€theŠ ą0  Šmeaning€of€article€12,€and,€if€so,€whether€the€authorššs€deportation€to€the€United€Kingdom€would€barŠ Š  Šhim€from€reentering€š šhis€own€countryšš,€and,€in€the€affirmative,€whether€this€would€be€doneŠ Ą Šarbitrarily.€€The€Committee€considers€that€there€is€no€ņņa€priorióó€indication€that€the€authorššs€situationŠ ° Šcan€ņņnotóó€be€subsumed€under€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€therefore€concludes€that€this€issue€should€beŠ  š Šconsidered€on€its€merits.Š ą ŠĢ7.6€€As€to€the€claims€under€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€observes€that€the€issueŠ pĄ Šwhether€a€State€is€precluded,€by€reference€to€articles€17€and€23,€from€exercising€a€right€to€deport€anŠ `° Šalien€otherwise€consistent€with€article€13€of€the€Covenant,€should€be€examined€on€the€merits.Š P  ŠĢ7.7€€The€Committee€has€noted€the€State€partyššs€request€for€clarifications€of€the€criteria€that€formedŠ 0€ Šthe€basis€of€the€Special€Rapporteurššs€request€for€interim€protection€under€rule€86€of€the€CommitteeššsŠ  p Šrules€of€procedure,€as€well€as€the€State€partyššs€request€that€the€Committee€withdraw€its€request€underŠ ` Šrule€86.€€The€Committee€observes€that€what€may€constitute€š širreparable€damagešš€to€the€victim€withinŠ P Šthe€meaning€of€rule€86€cannot€be€determined€generally.€€The€essential€criterion€is€indeed€theŠ š@ Širreversibility€of€the€consequences,€in€the€sense€of€the€inability€of€the€author€to€secure€his€rights,Š ą0 Šshould€there€later€be€a€finding€of€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€on€the€merits.€€The€Committee€mayŠ Š  Šdecide,€in€any€given€case,€not€to€issue€a€request€under€rule€86€where€it€believes€that€compensationŠ Ą! Šwould€be€an€adequate€remedy.€€Applying€these€criteria€to€deportation€cases,€the€Committee€wouldŠ °"  Šrequire€to€know€that€an€author€would€be€able€to€return,€should€there€be€a€finding€in€his€favour€on€theŠ  #š! Šmerits.€€Accordingly,€the€Committee€would€wish€to€know€from€the€Government€of€Canada€whetherŠ $ą" Šit€is€able€to€offer€that€guarantee.Š €%Š # ŠĢ7.8€€The€Committee€notes€that€both€parties€have€already,€at€this€stage€of€the€procedure,€madeŠ `'°"% Šextensive€submissions€which€would€enable€the€Committee€to€pronounce€on€the€merits€of€the€matterŠ P( #& Šunder€consideration.€€At€this€stage,€the€Committee€must,€however,€limit€itself€to€the€proceduralŠ @)$' Šrequirement€of€deciding€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€€Should€the€State€party€wish€toŠ 0*€%( Šmake€a€further€submission€on€the€merits€of€the€complaint,€it€should€do€so€within€six€months€of€theŠ  +p&) Štransmittal€to€it€of€the€present€decision.€€Authorššs€counsel€will€be€given€an€opportunity€to€commentŠ ,`'* Šthereon.€€If€no€further€explanations€or€statements€are€received€from€the€State€party€under€article€4,Š -P(+ Šparagraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€Committee€will€proceed€to€adopt€its€Views€on€the€basisŠ š-@), Šof€the€written€information€already€submitted.Š ° ŠĢ8.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Š ą ŠĢ(a)€€the€communication€is€admissible€in€so€far€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€articles€12,€paragraph€4,Š pĄ Š17,€and€23€of€the€Covenant;Š ` ° ŠĢ(b)€€that€any€further€explanations€or€statements€which€the€State€party€may€wish€to€make€to€clarifyŠ @  Šthe€matter€and€the€measures€taken€by€it€should,€in€accordance€with€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€theŠ 0 € ŠOptional€Protocol,€reach€the€Committee€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€transmittal€to€it€of€thisŠ  p  Šdecision.€€Should€the€State€party€not€intend€to€make€a€further€submission,€it€is€requested€to€so€informŠ `  Šthe€Committee€as€soon€as€possible€to€permit€an€early€disposition€of€the€matter;Š P  ŠĢ(c)€€that€any€further€explanations€or€statements€received€from€the€State€party€shall€be€communicatedŠ ą0  Šby€the€Secretary„General€pursuant€to€rule€93,€paragraph€3,€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€to€the€authorŠ Š  Šand€his€counsel,€with€the€request€that€any€comment€which€they€wish€to€make€thereon€should€reachŠ Ą Šthe€Committee€within€six€weeks€of€the€date€of€the€transmittal;Š ° ŠĢ(d)€€that€the€State€party€is€requested€to€provide€the€Committee€with€the€information€referred€to€inŠ ą Šparagraph€7.7€above;Š €Š ŠĢ(e)€€that€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party,€to€the€author€and€to€his€counsel.Š `° ŠĢĢĢ______________________Š  p ŠņņßA€Y )¬“,ŒdE¬“,ŒAßą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąĢą  ą*óó/€€All€persons€handling€this€document€are€requested€to€respect€and€observe€its€confidentialŠ P Šnature.