ÿWPC« :ýD¿[$b=ðP,AùL¢™ƒyõ;AÍIÇëÉ o±÷€Äðto£=}™8’!=†Sà®Ã›2÷ì8^tœLÌÐ…Bh›£o<­o+¾¯k¿G»—ÉøDFŒÇ‚B…¾ï—èéÜ÷»]ˆ'Z„‘Ða[ ½~‘쬛ϠY!¹‡ øKh¬ðâ_ž„ëÄu{ÔŸª§ÖXxªù}ïõœù^“ÏE|D BpEྉàäÁ/R#SÌ&!Ž·šõí0œ ×AÎÙ;šþЂÃñRÉ語vcHýxÍ؇qI"é‰Ã×è6„“ýþ¶MŸ[Õ¸‡8ª«Pÿ?¿øLeZn¤½é^˜Ü2i𢉢D²Ûì€Upï7æ.H*BC@ÑÌ|ê/É¿àŸÍAßÃ%‘ýöQ,Þ“e¤‰¨¢ŸÞ«Œõj´.öìk[*•yb¨ô19I”RB?Ì!Ú¤Ón/‚ÉÖ4ø ßšèj:ÀÝwâY(3Í>Há™Ó33-á“S-¶mHânÅì±:­©’8|b‚‚ b£L1<姭41äd=¦9˜œYL:sA3!æÁ| ´he-OÒ›ƒ%ÅLL;ÍŸc78Ýîœpÿ%m£U>²¾ð 0µ® 0<c 0YŸ 0_ø 0iW %ÀÆÆ 0ጠ0(m D+• AMÀ À À À  0N 0Æk #Á1 UNò ò M@(DNl^ nwz4~’ m”ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Cox v. Canada, Communication No. 539/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/539/19930. (1994).&19930. (1994)."Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓX Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2Ñ$££Ý ƒ¦i!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xi>XXXÔÔ€Xi>XXXi>ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ž¦i$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XhvXXXÔÔ€XhvXXXhvÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularÂœS) è’.)¶¡ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ¦i!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xi>XXXÔÔ€Xi>XXXi>ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòCox€v.€CanadaóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€539/1993Ð H˜ ÐÌ31€October€1994Ð  d ÐÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/52/D/539/1993*/Ð à 0 ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ ’â  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Keith€Cox€[represented€by€counsel]Ð D”  ÐÌòòVictimóó:€The€authorÐ ` ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€4€January€1993€(initial€submission)Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€3€November€1993óóÐ tÄ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ &v Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð  \ ÐòòÌMeetingóó€on€31€October€1994,Ð Ø( ÐòòÌHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€539/1993€submitted€to€the€HumanÐ ¤ô ÐRights€Committee€by€Keith€Cox€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantÐ Š Ú Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð p!À  ÐòòÌHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,Ð "$r# ÐòòÌAdoptsóó€its:€Ð î%>!% ÐÌÌÓ9Óò òÓ  ÓòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ  (ð#( ÐÓ'ÓÓÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Keith€Cox,€a€citizen€of€the€United€States€of€AmericaÐ R+¢&+ Ðborn€in€1952,€currently€detained€at€a€penitentiary€in€Montreal€and€facing€extradition€to€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐUnited€States.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Canada€of€articles€6,€7,€14€and€26Ð -n(- Ðof€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€author€had€submitted€anÐ ° Ðearlier€communication€which€was€declared€inadmissible€because€of€non„exhaustion€ofÐ –æ Ðdomestic€remedies€on€29€July€1992òò€1óó.€Ð |Ì ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó:Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.1€On€27€February€1991,€the€author€was€arrested€at€Laval,€Qubec,€for€theft,€a€charge€toÐ  d Ðwhich€he€pleaded€guilty.€While€in€custody,€the€judicial€authorities€received€from€the€UnitedÐ ú J ÐStates€a€request€for€his€extradition,€pursuant€to€the€1976€Extradition€Treaty€between€CanadaÐ à 0 Ðand€the€United€States.€The€author€is€wanted€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania€on€two€charges€ofÐ Æ   Ðfirst„degree€murder,€relating€to€an€incident€that€took€place€in€Philadelphia€in€1988.€IfÐ ¬ ü  Ðconvicted,€the€author€could€face€the€death€penalty,€although€the€two€other€accomplices€wereÐ ’â  Ðtried€and€sentenced€to€life€terms.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.2€Pursuant€to€the€extradition€request€of€the€United€States€Government€and€in€accordanceÐ D”  Ðwith€the€Extradition€Treaty,€the€Superior€Court€of€Ô_ÔQuð ðE9Ô_Ôð>ðÔ_ÔbecÔ_Ô,€on€26€July€1991,€ordered€theÐ *z  Ðauthor's€extradition€to€the€United€States€of€America.€Article€6€of€the€Treaty€provides:Ð ` ÐÌ"When€the€offence€for€which€extradition€is€requested€is€punishable€by€death€under€the€lawsÐ Ü, Ðof€the€requesting€State€and€the€laws€of€the€requested€State€do€not€permit€such€punishmentÐ Â Ðfor€that€offence,€extradition€may€be€refused€unless€the€requesting€State€provides€suchÐ ¨ø Ðassurances€as€the€requested€State€considers€sufficient€that€the€death€penalty€shall€not€beÐ ŽÞ Ðimposed€or,€if€imposed,€shall€not€be€executed".Ð tÄ ÐÌCanada€abolished€the€death€penalty€in€1976,€except€in€the€case€of€certain€military€offences.Ð @ ÐÌ2.3€The€power€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed€is€conferred€onÐ  \ Ðthe€Minister€of€Justice€pursuant€to€section€25€of€the€1985€Extradition€Act.Ð òB ÐÌ2.4€Concerning€the€course€of€the€proceedings€against€the€author,€it€is€stated€that€a€ò òhabeasÐ ¾ Ðcorpusó ó€application€was€filed€on€his€behalf€on€13€September€1991;€he€was€represented€by€aÐ ¤ô Ðlegal€aid€representative.€The€application€was€dismissed€by€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec.Ð Š Ú ÐThe€author's€representative€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€Qubec€on€17€October€1991.Ð p!À  ÐOn€25€May€1992,€he€abandoned€his€appeal,€considering€that,€in€the€light€of€the€Court'sÐ V"¦! Ðjurisprudence,€it€was€bound€to€fail.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ2.5€Counsel€requests€the€Committee€to€adopt€interim€measures€of€protection€becauseÐ %X $ Ðextradition€of€the€author€to€the€United€States€would€deprive€the€Committee€of€its€jurisdictionÐ î%>!% Ðto€consider€the€communication,€and€the€author€to€properly€pursue€his€communication.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ3.€The€author€claims€that€the€order€to€extradite€him€violates€articles€6,€14€and€26€of€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCovenant;€he€alleges€that€the€way€death€penalties€are€pronounced€in€the€United€StatesÐ R+¢&+ Ðgenerally€discriminates€against€black€people.€He€further€alleges€a€violation€of€article€7€of€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCovenant,€in€that€he,€Ô_ÔifextraditedÔ_Ô€and€sentenced€to€death,€would€be€exposed€to€"the€death€rowÐ -n(- Ðphenomenon",€i.e.€years€of€detention€under€harsh€conditions,€awaiting€execution.Ð ° ÐÌòòInterim€measuresóó:Ð |Ì ÐÌ4.1€On€12€January€1993€the€Special€Rapporteur€on€New€Communications€requested€the€StateÐ H˜ Ðparty,€pursuant€to€rule€86€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€to€defer€the€author'sÐ . ~ Ðextradition€until€the€Committee€had€Ô_ÔhadÔ_Ô€an€opportunity€to€consider€the€admissibility€of€theÐ  d Ðissues€placed€before€it.Ð ú J ÐÌ4.2€At€its€forty„seventh€session€the€Committee€decided€to€invite€both€the€author€and€the€StateÐ Æ   Ðparty€to€make€further€submissions€on€admissibility.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€observationsóó:Ð xÈ  ÐÌ5.1€The€State€party,€in€its€submission,€dated€26€May€1993,€submits€that€the€communicationÐ D”  Ðshould€be€declared€inadmissible€on€the€grounds€that€extradition€is€beyond€the€scope€of€theÐ *z  ÐCovenant,€or€alternatively€that,€even€if€in€exceptional€circumstances€the€Committee€couldÐ ` Ðexamine€questions€relating€to€extradition,€the€present€communication€is€not€substantiated,Ð öF Ðfor€purposes€of€admissibility.Ð Ü, ÐÌ5.2€With€regard€to€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€explains€that€extradition€is€a€two€stepÐ ¨ø Ðprocess€under€Canadian€law.€The€first€step€involves€a€hearing€at€which€a€judge€examinesÐ ŽÞ Ðwhether€a€factual€and€legal€basis€for€extradition€exists.€The€judge€considers€ò òinter€aliaó ó€theÐ tÄ Ðproper€authentication€of€materials€provided€by€the€requesting€State,€admissibility€andÐ Zª Ðsufficiency€of€evidence,€questions€of€identity€and€whether€the€conduct€for€which€theÐ @ Ðextradition€is€sought€constitutes€a€crime€in€Canada€for€which€extradition€can€be€granted.€InÐ &v Ðthe€case€of€fugitives€wanted€for€trial,€the€judge€must€be€satisfied€that€the€evidence€isÐ  \ Ðsufficient€to€warrant€putting€the€fugitive€on€trial.€The€person€sought€for€extradition€mayÐ òB Ðsubmit€evidence€at€the€judicial€hearing,€after€which€the€judge€decides€whether€the€fugitiveÐ Ø( Ðshould€be€committed€to€await€surrender€to€the€requesting€State.€Ð ¾ ÐÌ5.3€Judicial€review€of€a€warrant€of€committal€to€await€surrender€can€be€sought€by€means€ofÐ Š Ú Ðan€application€for€a€ò òwrit€of€habeas€corpusó ó€in€a€provincial€court.€A€decision€of€the€judge€onÐ p!À  Ðthe€ò òhabeas€corpusó ó€application€can€be€appealed€to€the€provincial€court€of€appeal€and€then,Ð V"¦! Ðwith€leave,€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ5.4€The€second€step€of€the€extradition€process€begins€following€the€exhaustion€of€the€appealsÐ %X $ Ðin€the€judicial€phase.€The€Minister€of€Justice€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€decidingÐ î%>!% Ðwhether€to€surrender€the€person€sought€for€extradition.€The€fugitive€may€make€writtenÐ Ô&$"& Ðsubmissions€to€the€Minister,€and€counsel€for€the€fugitive€may€appear€before€the€Ô_ÔMinister€toÐ º' #' Ðpresent€oral€argument.€In€coming€to€a€decision€on€surrender,€the€Minister€considers€the€caseÐ  (ð#( Ðrecord€from€the€judicial€phase,€together€with€any€written€and€oral€submissions€from€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðfugitive,€the€relevant€treaty€terms€which€pertain€to€the€case€to€be€decided€and€the€law€onÐ l*¼%* Ðextradition.€While€the€Minister's€decision€is€discretionary,€the€discretion€is€circumscribedÐ R+¢&+ Ðby€law.€The€decision€is€based€upon€a€consideration€of€many€factors,€including€Canada'sÐ 8,ˆ', Ðobligations€under€the€applicable€treaty€of€extradition,€facts€particular€to€the€person€and€theÐ -n(- Ðnature€of€the€crime€for€which€extradition€is€sought.€In€addition,€the€Minister€must€considerÐ ° Ðthe€terms€of€the€ò òCanadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedomsó ó€and€the€various€instruments,Ð –æ Ðincluding€the€Covenant,€which€outline€Canada's€international€human€rights€obligations.€AÐ |Ì Ðfugitive,€subject€to€an€extradition€request,€cannot€be€surrendered€unless€the€Minister€ofÐ b² ÐJustice€orders€the€fugitive€surrendered€and,€in€any€case,€not€until€Ô_ÔallavailableÔ_Ô€avenues€forÐ H˜ Ðjudicial€review€of€the€Minister's€decision,€if€pursued,€are€completed.€For€extradition€requestsÐ . ~ Ðbefore€1€December€1992,€including€the€author's€request,€the€Minister's€decision€is€Ô_ÔreviewableÔ_ÔÐ  d Ðeither€by€way€of€an€application€for€a€ò òwrit€of€habeas€corpusó ó€in€a€provincial€court€or€by€wayÐ ú J Ðof€judicial€review€in€the€Federal€Court€pursuant€to€section€18€of€the€ò òFederal€Court€Actó ó.€AsÐ à 0 Ðwith€appeals€against€a€warrant€of€committal,€appeals€against€a€review€of€the€warrant€ofÐ Æ   Ðsurrender€can€be€pursued,€with€leave,€up€to€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ5.5€The€courts€can€review€the€Minister's€decision€on€jurisdictional€grounds,€i.e.€whether€theÐ xÈ  ÐMinister€acted€fairly,€in€an€administrative€law€sense,€and€for€its€consistency€with€theÐ ^®  ÐCanadian€constitution,€in€particular,€whether€the€Minister's€decision€is€consistent€withÐ D”  ÐCanada's€human€rights€obligations.Ð *z  ÐÌ5.6€With€regard€to€the€exercise€of€discretion€in€seeking€assurances€before€extradition,€theÐ öF ÐState€party€explains€that€each€extradition€request€from€the€United€States,€in€which€theÐ Ü, Ðpossibility€exists€that€the€person€sought€may€face€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€mustÐ Â Ðbe€considered€by€the€Minister€of€Justice€and€decided€on€its€own€particular€facts.€"CanadaÐ ¨ø Ðdoes€not€routinely€seek€assurances€with€respect€to€the€non„imposition€of€the€death€penalty.Ð ŽÞ ÐThe€right€to€seek€assurances€is€held€in€reserve€for€use€only€where€exceptional€circumstancesÐ tÄ Ðexist.€This€policy€...€is€in€application€of€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€States€ExtraditionÐ Zª ÐTreaty.€The€Treaty€was€never€intended€to€make€the€seeking€of€assurances€a€routineÐ @ Ðoccurrence.€Rather,€it€was€the€intention€of€the€parties€to€the€Treaty€that€assurances€withÐ &v Ðrespect€to€the€death€penalty€should€only€be€sought€in€circumstances€where€the€particular€factsÐ  \ Ðof€the€case€warrant€a€special€exercise€of€the€discretion.€This€policy€represents€a€balancingÐ òB Ðof€the€rights€of€the€individual€sought€for€extradition€with€the€need€for€the€protection€of€theÐ Ø( Ðpeople€of€Canada.€This€policy€reflects€...€Canada's€understanding€of€and€respect€for€theÐ ¾ Ðcriminal€justice€system€of€the€United€States."Ð ¤ô ÐÌ5.7€Moreover,€the€State€party€refers€to€a€continuing€flow€of€criminal€offenders€from€theÐ p!À  ÐUnited€States€into€Canada€and€a€concern€that,€unless€such€illegal€flow€is€discouraged,Ð V"¦! ÐCanada€could€become€a€safe€haven€for€dangerous€offenders€from€the€United€States,€bearingÐ <#Œ" Ðin€mind€that€Canada€and€the€United€States€share€a€4,800€Ô_ÔkilometreÔ_Ô€unguarded€border.€In€theÐ "$r# Ðlast€twelve€years€there€has€been€an€increasing€number€of€extradition€requests€from€the€UnitedÐ %X $ ÐStates.€In€1980€there€were€29€such€requests;€by€1992€the€number€had€grown€to€88,€includingÐ î%>!% Ðrequests€involving€death€penalty€cases,€which€were€becoming€a€new€and€pressing€problem.Ð Ô&$"& Ð"A€policy€of€routinely€seeking€assurances€under€article€6€of€the€Canada„United€StatesÐ º' #' ÐExtradition€Treaty€would€encourage€even€more€criminal€offenders,€especially€those€guiltyÐ  (ð#( Ðof€the€most€serious€crimes,€to€flee€the€United€States€into€Canada.€Canada€does€not€wish€toÐ †)Ö$) Ðbecome€a€haven€for€the€most€wanted€and€dangerous€criminals€from€the€United€States.€If€theÐ l*¼%* 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 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð6.1€As€to€the€specific€facts€of€the€instant€communication,€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.Ð ° ÐCox€is€a€black€male,€40€years€of€age,€of€sound€mind€and€body,€an€American€citizen€with€noÐ –æ Ðimmigration€status€in€Canada.€He€is€charged€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€with€two€counts€ofÐ |Ì Ðfirst€degree€murder,€one€count€of€robbery€and€one€count€of€criminal€conspiracy€to€commitÐ b² Ðmurder€and€robbery,€going€back€to€an€incident€that€occurred€in€Philadelphia,€PennsylvaniaÐ H˜ Ðin€1988,€where€two€teenage€boys€were€killed€pursuant€to€a€plan€to€commit€robbery€inÐ . ~ Ðconnection€with€illegal€drug€trafficking.€Three€men,€one€of€whom€is€alleged€to€be€Mr.€Cox,Ð  d Ðparticipated€in€the€killings.€In€Pennsylvania,€first€degree€murder€is€punishable€by€death€orÐ ú J Ða€term€of€life€imprisonment.€Lethal€injection€is€the€method€of€execution€mandated€by€law.6.2Ð à 0 ÐWith€regard€to€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.€CoxÐ Æ   Ðwas€ordered€committed€to€await€extradition€by€a€judge€of€the€Quebec€Superior€Court€on€26Ð ¬ ü  ÐJuly€1991.€This€order€was€challenged€by€the€author€in€an€application€for€ò òhabeas€corpusó óÐ ’â  Ðbefore€the€Quebec€Superior€Court.€The€application€was€dismissed€on€13€September€1991.Ð xÈ  ÐMr.€Cox€then€appealed€to€the€Quebec€Court€of€Appeal,€and,€on€18€February€1992,€beforeÐ ^®  Ðexhausting€domestic€remedies€in€Canada,€he€submitted€a€communication€to€the€Committee,Ð D”  Ðwhich€was€registered€under€No.€486/1992.€Since€the€extradition€process€had€not€yetÐ *z  Ðprogressed€to€the€second€stage,€the€communication€was€ruled€inadmissible€by€the€CommitteeÐ ` Ðon€26€July€1992.Ð öF ÐÌ6.3€On€25€May€1992,€Mr.€Cox€withdrew€his€appeal€to€the€Quebec€Court€of€Appeal,€thusÐ Â Ðconcluding€the€judicial€phase€of€the€extradition€process.€The€second€stage,€the€ministerialÐ ¨ø Ðphase,€began.€He€petitioned€the€Minister€of€Justice€asking€that€assurances€be€sought€that€theÐ ŽÞ Ðdeath€penalty€would€not€be€imposed.€In€addition€to€written€submissions,€counsel€for€theÐ tÄ Ðauthor€appeared€before€the€Minister€and€made€oral€representations.€"It€was€alleged€that€theÐ Zª Ðjudicial€system€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€was€inadequate€and€discriminatory.€He€submittedÐ @ Ðmaterials€which€purported€to€show€that€the€Pennsylvania€system€of€justice€as€it€related€toÐ &v Ðdeath€penalty€cases€was€characterized€by€inadequate€legal€representation€of€impoverishedÐ  \ Ðaccused,€a€system€of€assignment€of€judges€which€resulted€in€a€'death€penalty€court',€selectionÐ òB Ðof€jury€members€which€resulted€in€'death€qualified€juries'€and€an€overall€problem€of€racialÐ Ø( Ðdiscrimination.€The€Minister€of€Justice€was€of€the€view€that€the€concerns€based€on€allegedÐ ¾ Ðracial€discrimination€were€premised€largely€on€the€possible€intervention€of€a€specificÐ ¤ô Ðprosecutor€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€who,€according€to€officials€in€that€state,€no€longer€hasÐ Š Ú Ðany€connection€with€his€case.€It€was€alleged€that,€if€returned€to€face€possible€imposition€ofÐ p!À  Ðthe€death€penalty,€Mr.€Cox€would€be€exposed€to€the€'death€row€phenomenon'.€The€MinisterÐ V"¦! Ðof€Justice€was€of€the€view€that€the€submissions€indicated€that€the€conditions€of€incarcerationÐ <#Œ" Ðin€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€met€the€constitutional€standards€of€the€United€States€and€thatÐ "$r# Ðsituations€which€needed€improvement€were€being€addressed€...€it€was€argued€that€assurancesÐ %X $ Ðbe€sought€on€the€basis€that€there€is€a€growing€international€movement€for€the€abolition€of€theÐ î%>!% Ðdeath€penalty...€The€Minister€of€Justice,€in€coming€to€the€decision€to€order€surrender€withoutÐ Ô&$"& Ðassurances,€concluded€that€Mr.€Cox€had€failed€to€show€that€his€rights€would€be€violated€inÐ º' #' Ðthe€state€of€Pennsylvania€in€any€way€particular€to€him,€which€could€not€be€addressed€byÐ  (ð#( Ðjudicial€review€in€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€under€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÐ †)Ö$) ÐStates.€That€is,€the€Minister€determined€that€the€matters€raised€by€Mr.€Cox€could€be€left€toÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€internal€working€of€the€United€States€system€of€justice,€a€system€which€sufficientlyÐ R+¢&+ Ðcorresponds€to€Canadian€concepts€of€justice€and€fairness€to€warrant€entering€into€andÐ 8,ˆ', Ðmaintaining€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty."€On€2€January€1993,€the€Minister,Ð -n(- Ðhaving€determined€that€there€existed€no€exceptional€circumstances€pertaining€to€the€authorÐ ° Ðwhich€necessitated€the€seeking€of€assurances€in€his€case,€ordered€him€surrendered€withoutÐ –æ Ðassurances.Ð |Ì ÐÌ6.4€On€4€January€1993,€author's€counsel€sought€to€reactivate€his€earlier€communication€toÐ H˜ Ðthe€Committee.€He€has€indicated€to€the€Government€of€Canada€that€he€does€not€propose€toÐ . ~ Ðappeal€the€Minister's€decision€in€the€Canadian€courts.€The€State€party,€however,€does€notÐ  d Ðcontest€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€on€this€issue.Ð ú J ÐÌ7.1€As€to€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€contends€that€extradition€ò òper€seó ó€isÐ Æ   Ðbeyond€its€scope€and€refers€to€the€ò òÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôó ó,€showing€that€the€drafters€of€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐCovenant€specifically€considered€and€rejected€a€proposal€to€deal€with€extradition€in€theÐ ’â  ÐCovenant.€"It€was€argued€that€the€inclusion€of€a€provision€on€extradition€in€the€CovenantÐ xÈ  Ðwould€cause€difficulties€regarding€the€relationship€of€the€Covenant€to€existing€treaties€andÐ ^®  Ðbilateral€agreements."€(A/2929,€Ô_ÔChaptÔ_Ô.€VI,€para.€72)€In€the€light€of€the€history€of€negotiationsÐ D”  Ðduring€the€drafting€of€Ô_ÔtheCovenantÔ_Ô,€the€State€party€submits€"that€a€decision€to€extend€theÐ *z  ÐCovenant€to€extradition€treaties€or€to€individual€decisions€pursuant€thereto,€would€stretch€theÐ ` Ðprinciples€governing€the€interpretation€of€the€Covenant,€and€of€human€rights€instruments€inÐ öF Ðgeneral,€in€unreasonable€and€unacceptable€ways.€It€would€be€unreasonable€because€theÐ Ü, Ðprinciples€of€interpretation€which€recognize€that€human€rights€instruments€are€livingÐ Â Ðdocuments€and€that€human€rights€evolve€over€time€cannot€be€employed€in€the€face€of€expressÐ ¨ø Ðlimits€to€the€application€of€a€given€document.€The€absence€of€extradition€from€the€articlesÐ ŽÞ Ðof€the€Covenant€when€read€with€the€intention€of€the€drafters€must€be€taken€as€an€expressÐ tÄ Ðlimitation."Ð Zª ÐÌ7.2€As€to€the€author's€standing€as€a€"victim"€under€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€theÐ &v ÐState€party€concedes€that€he€is€subject€to€Canada's€jurisdiction€during€the€time€he€is€inÐ  \ ÐCanada€in€the€extradition€process.€However,€the€State€party€submits€"that€Cox€is€not€a€victimÐ òB Ðof€any€violation€in€Canada€of€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant€...€because€the€Covenant€doesÐ Ø( Ðnot€set€forth€any€rights€with€respect€to€extradition.€In€the€alternative,€it€contends€that€evenÐ ¾ Ðif€[the]€Covenant€extends€to€extradition,€it€can€only€apply€to€the€treatment€of€the€fugitiveÐ ¤ô Ðsought€for€extradition€with€respect€to€the€operation€of€the€extradition€process€within€the€StateÐ Š Ú ÐParty€to€the€Protocol.€Possible€treatment€of€the€fugitive€in€the€requesting€State€cannot€be€theÐ p!À  Ðsubject€of€a€communication€with€respect€to€the€State€Party€to€the€Protocol€(extraditing€State),Ð V"¦! Ðexcept€perhaps€for€instances€where€there€was€evidence€before€that€extraditing€State€such€thatÐ <#Œ" Ða€violation€of€the€Covenant€in€the€requesting€State€was€reasonably€foreseeable."Ð "$r# ÐÌ7.3€The€State€party€contends€that€the€evidence€submitted€by€author's€counsel€to€theÐ î%>!% ÐCommittee€and€to€the€Minister€of€Justice€in€Canada€does€not€show€that€it€was€reasonablyÐ Ô&$"& Ðforeseeable€that€the€treatment€that€the€author€may€face€in€the€United€States€would€violate€hisÐ º' #' Ðrights€under€the€Covenant.€The€Minister€of€Justice€and€the€Canadian€Courts,€to€the€extentÐ  (ð#( Ðthat€the€author€availed€himself€of€the€opportunities€for€judicial€review,€considered€all€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðevidence€and€argument€submitted€by€counsel€and€concluded€that€Mr.€Cox's€extradition€to€theÐ l*¼%* ÐUnited€States€to€face€the€death€penalty€would€not€violate€his€rights,€either€under€CanadianÐ R+¢&+ Ðlaw€or€under€international€instruments,€including€the€Covenant.€Thus,€the€State€partyÐ 8,ˆ', Ðconcludes€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€because€the€author€has€failed€toÐ -n(- Ðsubstantiate,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€that€the€author€is€a€victim€of€any€violation€inÐ ° ÐCanada€of€rights€set€forth€in€the€Covenant.Ð –æ ÐÌòòCounsel's€submissions€on€admissibilityóó:Ð b² ÐÌ8.1€In€his€submission€of€7€April€1993,€author's€counsel€argues€that€an€attempt€to€furtherÐ . ~ Ðexhaust€domestic€remedies€in€Canada€would€be€futile€in€the€light€of€the€judgment€of€theÐ  d ÐCanadian€Supreme€Court€in€the€cases€of€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô.€"I€chose€to€file€the€communicationÐ ú J Ðand€apply€for€interim€measures€prior€to€discontinuing€the€appeal.€This€move€was€takenÐ à 0 Ðbecause€I€presumed€that€a€discontinuance€in€the€appeal€might€result€in€the€immediateÐ Æ   Ðextradition€of€Mr.€Cox€It€was€more€prudent€to€seize€the€Committee€first,€and€thenÐ ¬ ü  Ðdiscontinue€the€appeal,€and€I€think€this€precaution€was€a€wise€one,€because€Mr.€Cox€is€stillÐ ’â  Ðin€Canada...€Subsequent€to€discontinuation€of€the€appeal,€I€filed€an€application€before€theÐ xÈ  ÐMinister€of€Justice,€Kim€Campbell,€praying€that€she€exercise€her€discretionary€power€underÐ ^®  Ðarticle€6€of€the€Extradition€Act,€and€refuse€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€until€an€assurance€had€beenÐ D”  Ðprovided€by€the€United€States€government€that€if€Mr.€Cox€were€to€be€found€guilty,€the€deathÐ *z  Ðpenalty€would€not€be€applied...€I€was€granted€a€hearing€before€Minister€Campbell,€onÐ ` ÐNovember€13,€1992.€In€reasons€dated€January€2,€1993€Minister€Campbell€refused€to€exerciseÐ öF Ðher€discretion€and€refused€to€seek€assurances€from€the€United€States€government€that€theÐ Ü, Ðdeath€penalty€not€be€employed...€It€is€possible€to€apply€for€judicial€review€of€the€decision€ofÐ Â ÐMinister€Campbell,€on€the€narrow€grounds€of€breach€of€natural€justice€or€other€grossÐ ¨ø Ðirregularity.€Ô_ÔHowever,thereÔ_Ô€is€no€suggestion€of€any€grounds€to€justify€such€recourse,€andÐ ŽÞ Ðconsequently€no€such€dilatory€recourse€has€been€taken€...€all€useful€and€effective€domesticÐ tÄ Ðremedies€to€contest€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€have€been€exhausted."Ð Zª ÐÌ8.2€Counsel€contends€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€would€expose€him€to€the€real€andÐ &v Ðpresent€danger€of:Ð  \ ÐÌ"a.€arbitrary€execution,€in€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant;Ð Ø( ÐÌb.€discriminatory€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€in€violation€of€articles€6€and€26€of€theÐ ¤ô ÐCovenant;Ð Š Ú ÐÌc.€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€breach€of€fundamental€procedural€safeguards,Ð V"¦! Ðspecifically€by€an€impartial€jury€(the€phenomenon€of€'death€qualified'€juries),€in€violation€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðarticles€6€and€14€of€the€Covenant;Ð "$r# ÐÌd.€prolonged€detention€on€'death€row',€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant."Ð î%>!% ÐÌ8.3€With€respect€to€the€system€of€criminal€justice€in€the€United€States,€author's€counsel€refersÐ º' #' Ðto€the€reservations€which€the€United€States€formulated€upon€its€ratification€of€the€Covenant,Ð  (ð#( Ðin€particular€to€article€6:€"The€United€States€reserves€the€right,€subject€to€its€ConstitutionalÐ †)Ö$) Ðconstraints,€to€impose€capital€punishment€on€any€person€(other€than€a€pregnant€woman)€dulyÐ l*¼%* Ðconvicted€under€existing€or€future€laws€permitting€the€imposition€of€capital€punishment,Ð R+¢&+ Ðincluding€such€punishment€for€crimes€committed€by€persons€below€eighteen€years€of€age."Ð 8,ˆ', ÐAuthor's€counsel€argues€that€this€is€"an€enormously€broad€reservation€that€no€doubt€isÐ -n(- Ðinconsistent€with€the€nature€and€purpose€of€the€treaty€but€that€furthermore€...€creates€aÐ ° Ðpresumption€that€the€United€States€does€not€intend€to€respect€article€6€of€the€Covenant."Ð –æ ÐÌ9.1€In€his€comments,€dated€10€June€1993,€on€the€State€party's€submission,€counsel€addressesÐ b² Ðthe€refusal€of€the€Minister€to€seek€assurances€on€the€non„imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€andÐ H˜ Ðrefers€to€the€book€ò òLa€Forest's€Extradition€to€and€from€Canadaó ó,€in€which€it€is€stated€thatÐ . ~ ÐCanada€in€fact€routinely€seeks€such€an€undertaking.€Moreover,€the€author€contests€the€StateÐ  d Ðparty's€interpretation€that€it€was€not€the€intention€of€the€drafters€of€the€extradition€treaty€thatÐ ú J Ðassurances€be€routinely€sought.€"It€is€known€that€the€provision€in€the€extradition€treaty€withÐ à 0 Ðthe€United€States€was€added€at€the€request€of€the€United€States.€Does€Canada€have€anyÐ Æ   Ðevidence€admissible€in€a€court€of€law€to€support€such€a€questionable€claim?€I€refuse€to€acceptÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€suggestion€in€the€absence€of€any€serious€evidence."Ð ’â  ÐÌ9.2€As€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€extradition€is€intended€to€protect€Canadian€society,Ð ^®  Ðauthor's€counsel€challenges€the€State€party's€belief€that€a€policy€of€routinely€seekingÐ D”  Ðguarantees€will€encourage€criminal€law€offenders€to€seek€refuge€in€Canada€and€contends€thatÐ *z  Ðthere€is€no€evidence€to€support€such€a€belief.€Moreover,€with€regard€to€Canada's€concern€thatÐ ` Ðif€the€United€States€does€not€give€assurances,€Canada€would€be€unable€to€extradite€and€haveÐ öF Ðto€keep€the€criminal€without€trial,€author's€counsel€argues€that€"a€state€government€soÐ Ü, Ðdevoted€to€the€death€penalty€as€a€supreme€punishment€for€an€offender€would€surely€preferÐ Â Ðto€obtain€extradition€and€keep€the€offender€in€life€imprisonment€rather€than€to€see€theÐ ¨ø Ðoffender€freed€in€Canada.€I€know€of€two€cases€where€the€guarantee€was€sought€from€theÐ ŽÞ ÐUnited€States,€one€for€extradition€from€the€United€Kingdom€to€the€state€of€Virginia€(Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô)Ð tÄ Ðand€one€for€extradition€from€Canada€to€the€state€of€Florida€(Ô_ÔO'BomsawinÔ_Ô).€In€both€cases€theÐ Zª Ðstates€willingly€gave€the€guarantee.€It€is€pure€demagogy€for€Canada€to€raise€the€Ô_ÔspectreÔ_Ô€ofÐ @ Ð'a€haven€for€many€fugitives€from€the€death€penalty'€in€the€absence€of€evidence."Ð &v ÐÌ9.3€As€to€the€murders€of€which€Mr.€Cox€was€accused,€author's€counsel€indicates€that€"twoÐ òB Ðindividuals€have€pleaded€guilty€to€the€crime€and€are€now€serving€life€prison€terms€inÐ Ø( ÐPennsylvania.€Each€individual€has€alleged€that€the€other€individual€actually€committed€theÐ ¾ Ðmurder,€and€that€Keith€Cox€participated."€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ9.4€With€regard€to€the€scope€of€the€Covenant,€counsel€refers€to€the€ò òÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôó óÐ p!À  Ðof€the€Covenant€and€argues€that€consideration€of€the€issue€of€extradition€must€be€placedÐ V"¦! Ðwithin€the€context€of€the€debate€on€the€right€to€asylum,€and€claims€that€extradition€was€inÐ <#Œ" Ðfact€a€minor€point€in€the€debates.€Moreover,€"nowhere€in€the€summary€records€is€thereÐ "$r# Ðevidence€of€a€suggestion€that€the€Covenant€would€not€apply€to€extradition€requests€whenÐ %X $ Ðtorture€or€cruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€punishment€might€be€imposed...€Germane€to€theÐ î%>!% Ðconstruction€of€the€Covenant,€and€to€Canada's€affirmations€about€the€scope€of€human€rightsÐ Ô&$"& Ðlaw,€is€the€more€recent€Convention€against€Torture€and€Other€Cruel,€Inhuman€or€DegradingÐ º' #' ÐTreatment€or€Punishment,€which€provides,€in€article€3,€that€States€parties€shall€not€extraditeÐ  (ð#( Ða€person€to€another€State€where€there€are€serious€grounds€to€believe€that€the€person€will€beÐ †)Ö$) Ðsubjected€to€torture...€It€is€respectfully€submitted€that€it€is€appropriate€to€construe€articles€7Ð l*¼%* Ðand€10€of€the€Covenant€in€light€of€the€more€detailed€provisions€in€the€Convention€AgainstÐ R+¢&+ ÐTorture.€Both€instruments€were€drafted€by€the€same€organization,€and€are€parts€of€the€sameÐ 8,ˆ', Ðinternational€human€rights€system.€The€Convention€Against€Torture€was€meant€to€give€moreÐ -n(- Ðdetailed€and€specialized€protection;€it€is€an€enrichment€of€the€Covenant."Ð ° ÐÌ9.5€As€to€the€concept€of€victim€under€the€Optional€Protocol,€author's€counsel€contends€thatÐ |Ì Ðthis€is€not€a€matter€for€admissibility€but€for€the€examination€of€the€merits.Ð b² ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó:Ð . ~ ÐÌ10.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ú J ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notÐ à 0 Ðthe€communication€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð Æ   ÐÌ10.2€With€regard€to€the€requirement€of€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€CommitteeÐ ’â  Ðnoted€that€the€author€did€not€complete€the€judicial€phase€of€examination,€since€he€withdrewÐ xÈ  Ðthe€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€after€being€advised€that€it€would€have€no€prospect€ofÐ ^®  Ðsuccess€and,€therefore,€that€legal€aid€would€not€be€provided€for€that€purpose.€With€regard€toÐ D”  Ðthe€ministerial€phase,€the€author€indicated€that€he€did€not€intend€to€appeal€the€Minister'sÐ *z  Ðdecision€to€surrender€Mr.€Cox€without€seeking€assurances,€since,€as€he€asserts,€furtherÐ ` Ðrecourse€to€domestic€remedies€would€have€been€futile€in€the€light€of€the€1991€judgment€ofÐ öF Ðthe€Canadian€Supreme€Court€in€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€òò2óó.€The€Committee€noted€that€the€State€partyÐ Ü, Ðhad€explicitly€stated€that€it€did€not€wish€to€express€a€view€as€to€whether€the€author€hadÐ Â Ðexhausted€domestic€remedies€and€did€not€contest€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€onÐ ¨ø Ðthis€ground.€In€the€circumstances,€basing€itself€on€the€information€before€it,€the€CommitteeÐ ŽÞ Ðconcluded€that€the€requirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€of€the€Covenant€had€been€met.Ð tÄ ÐÌ10.3€Extradition€as€such€is€outside€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant€(communicationÐ @ ÐNo.€117/1981òò€3óó,€paragraph€13.4:€"There€is€no€provision€of€the€Covenant€making€it€unlawfulÐ &v Ðfor€a€State€party€to€seek€extradition€of€a€person€from€another€country").€Extradition€is€anÐ  \ Ðimportant€instrument€of€cooperation€in€the€administration€of€justice,€which€requires€that€safeÐ òB Ðhavens€should€not€be€provided€for€those€who€seek€to€evade€fair€trial€for€criminal€offences,Ð Ø( Ðor€who€escape€after€such€fair€trial€has€occurred.€But€a€State€party's€obligation€in€relation€toÐ ¾ Ða€matter€itself€outside€the€scope€of€the€Covenant€may€still€be€engaged€by€reference€to€otherÐ ¤ô Ðprovisions€of€the€Covenantòò€4óó.€In€the€present€case€the€author€does€not€claim€that€extraditionÐ Š Ú Ðas€such€violates€the€Covenant,€but€rather€that€the€particular€circumstances€related€to€theÐ p!À  Ðeffects€of€his€extradition€would€raise€issues€under€specific€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€TheÐ V"¦! ÐCommittee€finds€that€the€communication€is€thus€not€excluded€from€consideration€ò òÔ_ÔrationeÔ_ÔÐ <#Œ" ÐÔ_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôó ó.Ð "$r# ÐÌ10.4€With€regard€to€the€allegations€that,€if€extradited,€Mr.€Cox€would€be€exposed€to€a€realÐ î%>!% Ðand€present€danger€of€a€violation€of€articles€14€and€26€of€the€Covenant€in€the€United€States,Ð Ô&$"& Ðthe€Committee€observed€that€the€evidence€submitted€did€not€substantiate,€for€purposes€ofÐ º' #' Ðadmissibility,€that€such€violations€would€be€a€foreseeable€and€necessary€consequence€ofÐ  (ð#( Ðextradition.€It€does€not€suffice€to€assert€before€the€Committee€that€the€criminal€justice€systemÐ †)Ö$) Ðin€the€United€States€is€incompatible€with€the€Covenant.€In€this€connection,€the€CommitteeÐ l*¼%* Ðrecalled€its€jurisprudence€that,€under€the€Optional€Protocol€procedure,€it€cannot€examine€ò òinÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔabstractoÔ_Ôó ó€the€compatibility€with€the€Covenant€of€the€laws€and€practice€of€a€State€òò5óó.€ForÐ 8,ˆ', Ðpurposes€of€admissibility,€the€author€has€to€substantiate€that€in€the€specific€circumstancesÐ -n(- Ðof€his€case,€the€Courts€in€Pennsylvania€would€be€likely€to€violate€his€rights€under€articles€14Ð ° Ðand€26,€and€that€he€would€not€have€a€genuine€opportunity€to€challenge€such€violations€inÐ –æ ÐUnited€States€courts.€The€author€has€failed€to€do€so.€This€part€of€the€communication€isÐ |Ì Ðtherefore€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð b² ÐÌ10.5€The€Committee€considered€that€the€remaining€claim,€that€Canada€violated€the€CovenantÐ . ~ Ðby€deciding€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€without€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€wouldÐ  d Ðnot€be€imposed,€or€if€imposed,€would€not€be€carried€out,€may€raise€issues€under€articles€6€andÐ ú J Ð7€of€the€Covenant€which€should€be€examined€on€the€merits.Ð à 0 ÐÌ11.€On€3€November€1993,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€decided€that€the€communicationÐ ¬ ü  Ðwas€admissible€in€so€far€as€it€may€raise€issues€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€TheÐ ’â  ÐCommittee€reiterated€its€request€to€the€State€party,€under€rule€86€of€the€Committee's€rulesÐ xÈ  Ðof€procedure,€that€the€author€not€be€extradited€while€the€Committee€is€examining€the€meritsÐ ^®  Ðof€the€communication.Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party's€request€for€review€of€admissibility€and€submission€on€the€meritsóó:Ð ` ÐÌ12.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€partyÐ Ü, Ðmaintains€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€and€requests€the€Committee€to€review€itsÐ Â Ðdecision€of€3€November€1993.€The€State€party€also€submits€its€response€on€the€merits€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðcommunication.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ12.2€With€regard€to€the€notion€of€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ Zª ÐProtocol,€the€State€Party€indicates€that€Mr.€Keith€Cox€has€not€been€convicted€of€any€crimeÐ @ Ðin€the€United€States,€and€that€the€evidence€submitted€does€not€substantiate,€for€purposes€ofÐ &v Ðadmissibility,€that€violations€of€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€would€be€a€foreseeable€andÐ  \ Ðnecessary€consequence€of€his€extradition.Ð òB ÐÌ12.3€The€State€party€explains€the€extradition€process€in€Canada,€with€specific€reference€toÐ ¾ Ðthe€practice€in€the€context€of€the€Canada„United€States€Extradition€Treaty.€It€elaborates€onÐ ¤ô Ðthe€judicial€phase,€which€includes€a€methodical€and€thorough€evaluation€of€the€facts€of€eachÐ Š Ú Ðcase.€After€the€exhaustion€of€the€appeals€in€the€judicial€phase,€a€second€phase€of€reviewÐ p!À  Ðfollows,€in€which€the€Minister€of€Justice€is€charged€with€the€responsibility€of€decidingÐ V"¦! Ðwhether€to€surrender€the€person€for€extradition,€and€in€capital€cases,€whether€the€facts€of€theÐ <#Œ" Ðparticular€case€justify€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€imposed.Ð "$r# ÐThroughout€this€process€the€fugitive€can€present€his€arguments€against€extradition,€and€hisÐ %X $ Ðcounsel€may€appear€before€the€Minister€to€present€oral€argument€both€on€the€question€ofÐ î%>!% Ðsurrender€and,€where€applicable,€on€the€seeking€of€assurances.€The€Minister's€decision€is€alsoÐ Ô&$"& Ðsubject€to€judicial€review.€In€numerous€cases,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€has€hadÐ º' #' Ðoccasion€to€review€the€exercise€of€the€ministerial€discretion€on€surrender,€and€has€held€thatÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€right€to€life€and€the€right€not€to€be€deprived€thereof€except€in€accordance€with€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðprinciples€of€fundamental€justice,€apply€to€ministerial€decisions€on€extradition.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ12.4€With€regard€to€the€facts€particular€to€Mr.€Keith€Cox,€the€State€party€reviews€hisÐ 8,ˆ', Ðsubmissions€before€the€Canadian€courts,€the€Minister€of€Justice€(see€paras.€6.2€and€6.3Ð -n(- Ðò òsupraó ó)€and€before€the€Committee€and€concludes€that€the€evidence€adduced€fails€to€show€howÐ ° ÐMr.€Cox€satisfies€the€criterion€of€being€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€theÐ –æ ÐOptional€Protocol.€Firstly,€it€has€not€been€alleged€that€the€author€has€already€suffered€anyÐ |Ì Ðviolation€of€his€Covenant€rights;€secondly,€it€is€not€reasonably€foreseeable€that€he€wouldÐ b² Ðbecome€a€victim€after€extradition€to€the€United€States.€The€State€party€cites€statistics€fromÐ H˜ Ðthe€Pennsylvania€District€Attorney's€Office€and€indicates€that€since€1976,€whenÐ . ~ ÐPennsylvania's€current€death€penalty€law€was€enacted,€no€one€has€been€put€to€death;Ð  d Ðmoreover,€the€Pennsylvania€legal€system€allows€for€several€appeals.€But€not€only€has€Mr.Ð ú J ÐCox€not€been€tried,€he€has€not€been€convicted,€nor€sentenced€to€death.€In€this€connection€theÐ à 0 ÐState€party€notes€that€the€two€other€individuals€who€were€alleged€to€have€committed€theÐ Æ   Ðcrimes€together€with€Mr.€Cox€were€not€given€death€sentences€but€are€serving€life€sentences.Ð ¬ ü  ÐMoreover,€the€death€penalty€is€not€sought€in€all€murder€cases.€Even€if€sought,€it€cannot€beÐ ’â  Ðimposed€in€the€absence€of€aggravating€factors€which€must€outweigh€any€mitigating€factors.Ð xÈ  ÐReferring€to€the€Committee's€jurisprudence€in€the€ò òÔ_ÔAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_Ôó ó€case€that€theÐ ^®  Ðalleged€victim's€risk€be€"more€than€a€theoretical€possibility",€the€State€party€states€that€noÐ D”  Ðevidence€has€been€submitted€to€the€Canadian€courts€or€to€the€Committee€which€wouldÐ *z  Ðindicate€a€real€risk€of€his€becoming€a€victim.€The€evidence€submitted€by€Mr.€Cox€is€eitherÐ ` Ðnot€relevant€to€him€or€does€not€support€the€view€that€his€rights€would€be€violated€in€a€wayÐ öF Ðthat€he€could€not€properly€challenge€in€the€courts€of€Pennsylvania€and€of€the€United€States.Ð Ü, ÐThe€State€party€concludes€that€since€Mr.€Cox€has€failed€to€substantiate,€for€purposes€ofÐ Â Ðadmissibility,€his€allegations,€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€underÐ ¨ø Ðarticle€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ13.1€As€to€the€merits€of€the€case,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee's€Views€in€theÐ Zª Ðò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ôó ó€and€ò òÔ_ÔNgÔ_Ôó ó€cases,€which€settled€a€number€of€matters€concerning€the€application€of€theÐ @ ÐCovenant€to€extradition€cases.€Ð &v ÐÌ13.2€As€to€the€application€of€article€6,€the€State€party€relies€on€the€Committee's€view€thatÐ òB Ðparagraph€1€(right€to€life)€must€be€read€together€with€paragraph€2(imposition€of€the€deathÐ Ø( Ðpenalty),€and€that€a€State€party€would€violate€paragraph€6,€paragraph€1,€if€it€extradited€aÐ ¾ Ðperson€to€face€Ô_ÔpossibleimpositionÔ_Ô€of€the€death€penalty€in€a€requesting€State€where€there€wasÐ ¤ô Ða€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€paragraph€6,€paragraph€2.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ13.3€Whereas€Mr.€Cox€alleges€that€he€would€face€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€article€6€of€theÐ V"¦! ÐCovenant€because€the€United€States€"does€not€respect€the€prohibition€on€the€execution€ofÐ <#Œ" Ðminors",€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.€Cox€is€over€40€years€of€age.€As€to€the€otherÐ "$r# Ðrequirements€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€indicates€that€Mr.Ð %X $ ÐCox€is€charged€with€murder,€which€is€a€very€serious€criminal€offence,€and€that€if€the€deathÐ î%>!% Ðsentence€were€to€be€imposed€on€him,€there€is€no€evidence€suggesting€that€it€would€not€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðpursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€a€court.Ð º' #' ÐÌ13.4€As€to€hypothetical€violations€of€Mr.€Cox's€rights€to€a€fair€trial,€the€State€party€recallsÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€the€Committee€declared€the€communication€inadmissible€with€respect€to€articles€14€andÐ l*¼%* Ð26€of€the€Covenant,€since€the€author€had€not€substantiated€his€allegations€for€purposes€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðadmissibility.€Moreover,€Mr.€Cox€has€not€shown€that€he€would€not€have€a€genuineÐ 8,ˆ', Ðopportunity€to€challenge€such€violations€in€the€courts€of€the€United€States.Ð -n(- Ї13.5€As€to€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€first€addresses€the€method€of€judicialÐ ° Ðexecution€in€Pennsylvania,€which€is€by€lethal€injection.€This€method€was€recently€providedÐ –æ Ðfor€by€the€Pennsylvania€legislature,€because€it€was€considered€to€inflict€the€least€suffering.Ð |Ì ÐThe€State€party€further€indicates€that€the€Committee,€in€its€decision€in€the€ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ôó ó€case,Ð b² Ðwhich€similarly€involved€the€possible€judicial€execution€by€lethal€injection€in€Pennsylvania,Ð H˜ Ðfound€no€violation€of€article€7.Ð . ~ ÐÌ13.6€The€State€party€then€addresses€the€submissions€of€counsel€for€Mr.€Cox€with€respect€toÐ ú J Ðalleged€conditions€of€detention€in€Pennsylvania.€It€indicates€that€the€material€submitted€isÐ à 0 Ðout€of€date€and€refers€to€recent€substantial€improvements€in€the€Pennsylvania€prisons,Ð Æ   Ðparticularly€in€the€conditions€of€incarceration€of€inmates€under€sentence€of€death.€At€presentÐ ¬ ü  Ðthese€prisoners€are€housed€in€new€modern€units€where€cells€are€larger€than€cells€in€otherÐ ’â  Ðdivisions,€and€inmates€are€permitted€to€have€radios€and€televisions€in€their€cells,€and€to€haveÐ xÈ  Ðaccess€to€institutional€programs€and€activities€such€as€Ô_ÔcounsellingÔ_Ô,€religious€services,Ð ^®  Ðeducation€programs,€and€access€to€the€library.Ð D”  ÐÌ13.7€With€regard€to€the€so„called€"death€row€phenomenon",€the€State€party€distinguishes€theÐ ` Ðfacts€of€the€Cox€case€from€those€in€the€ò òÔ_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô€v.€United€Kingdomó ó€judgment€of€theÐ öF ÐEuropean€Court€of€Justice.€The€decision€in€ò òÔ_ÔSoeringÔ_Ôó ó€turned€not€only€on€the€admittedly€badÐ Ü, Ðconditions€in€some€prisons€in€the€state€of€Virginia,€but€also€on€the€tenuous€state€of€health€ofÐ Â ÐMr.€Ô_ÔSoeringÔ_Ô.€Mr.€Cox€has€not€been€shown€to€be€in€a€fragile€mental€or€physical€state.€He€isÐ ¨ø Ðneither€a€youth,€nor€elderly.€In€this€connection,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee'sÐ ŽÞ Ðjurisprudence€in€the€ò òÔ_ÔVuolanneÔ_Ô€v.€Finlandó ó€case,€where€it€held€that€"the€assessment€of€whatÐ tÄ Ðconstitutes€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€falling€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€dependsÐ Zª Ðon€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€such€as€the€duration€and€manner€of€the€treatment,€itsÐ @ Ðphysical€or€mental€effects€as€well€as€the€sex,€age€and€state€of€health€of€the€victim."òò6óó€Ð &v ÐÌ13.8€As€to€the€effects€of€prolonged€detention,€the€State€party€refers€to€the€Committee'sÐ òB Ðjurisprudence€that€the€"death€row€phenomenon"€does€not€violate€article€7,€if€it€consists€onlyÐ Ø( Ðof€prolonged€periods€of€delay€on€death€row€while€appellate€remedies€are€pursued.€In€the€caseÐ ¾ Ðof€Mr.€Cox,€it€is€not€at€all€clear€that€he€will€reach€death€row€or€that€he€will€remain€there€forÐ ¤ô Ða€lengthy€period€of€time€pursuing€Ô_Ôappeals.ò òAuthorÔ_Ô's€commentsó ó:Ð Š Ú ÐÌ14.1€In€his€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€counsel€for€Mr.€Cox€stresses€that€theÐ V"¦! Ðstate€of€Pennsylvania€has€stated€in€its€extradition€application€that€the€death€penalty€is€beingÐ <#Œ" Ðsought.€Accordingly,€the€prospect€of€execution€is€not€so€very€remote.Ð "$r# ÐÌ14.2€With€regard€to€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€author's€counsel€contends€that€the€use€of€pleaÐ î%>!% Ðbargaining€in€a€death€penalty€case€meets€the€definition€of€torture.€"What€Canada€is€admittingÐ Ô&$"& Ð...€is€that€Mr.€Cox€will€be€offered€a€term€of€life€imprisonment€instead€of€the€death€penaltyÐ º' #' Ðò òif€he€pleads€guiltyó ó.€In€other€words,€if€he€admits€to€the€crime€he€will€avoid€the€physicalÐ  (ð#( Ðsuffering€which€is€inherent€in€imposition€of€the€death€penalty."Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ14.3€As€to€the€method€of€execution,€author's€counsel€admits€that€no€submissions€had€beenÐ R+¢&+ Ðmade€on€this€subject€in€the€original€communication.€Nevertheless,€he€contends€that€executionÐ 8,ˆ', Ðby€lethal€injection€would€violate€article€7€of€the€Covenant.€He€argues,€on€the€basis€of€aÐ -n(- Ðdeposition€by€Professor€Michael€Ô_ÔRadeletÔ_Ô€of€the€University€of€Florida,€that€there€are€manyÐ ° Ðexamples€of€"botched"€executions€by€lethal€injection.Ð –æ ÐÌ14.4€As€to€the€"death€row€phenomenon",€counsel€for€Mr.€Cox€specifically€requests€that€theÐ b² ÐCommittee€reconsider€its€case€law€and€conclude€that€there€is€a€likely€violation€of€article€7Ð H˜ Ðin€Mr.€Cox's€case,€since€"nobody€has€been€executed€in€Pennsylvania€for€more€than€twentyÐ . ~ Ðyears,€and€there€are€individuals€awaiting€execution€on€death€row€for€as€much€as€fifteenÐ  d Ðyears."Ð ú J ÐÌ14.5€Although€the€Committee€declared€the€communication€inadmissible€as€to€articles€14€andÐ Æ   Ð26€of€the€Covenant,€author's€counsel€contends€that€article€6€of€the€Covenant€would€beÐ ¬ ü  Ðviolated€if€the€death€penalty€were€to€be€imposed€"arbitrarily"€on€Mr.€Cox€because€he€isÐ ’â  Ðblack.€He€claims€that€there€is€systemic€racism€in€the€application€of€the€death€penalty€in€theÐ xÈ  ÐUnited€States.Ð ^®  ÐÌòòMeritsóó:Ð *z  ÐÌ15.€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€State€party's€information€and€arguments€onÐ öF Ðadmissibility,€submitted€after€the€Committee's€decision€of€3€November€1993.€It€observes€thatÐ Ü, Ðno€new€facts€or€arguments€have€been€submitted€that€would€justify€a€reversal€of€theÐ Â ÐCommittee's€decision€on€admissibility.€Therefore,€the€Committee€proceeds€to€theÐ ¨ø Ðexamination€of€the€merits.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ16.1€With€regard€to€a€potential€violation€by€Canada€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€if€it€were€toÐ Zª Ðextradite€Mr.€Cox€to€face€the€possible€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€United€States,Ð @ Ðthe€Committee€refers€to€the€criteria€set€forth€in€its€Views€on€communications€Nos.€470/1991Ð &v Ð(ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó)€and€469/1991€(ò òÔ_ÔChitatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó).€Namely,€for€States€that€haveÐ  \ Ðabolished€capital€punishment€and€are€called€to€extradite€a€person€to€a€country€where€thatÐ òB Ðperson€may€face€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€the€extraditing€State€must€ensure€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€person€is€not€exposed€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€his€rights€under€article€6€in€theÐ ¾ Ðreceiving€State.€In€other€words,€if€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€takes€a€decision€relating€toÐ ¤ô Ða€person€within€its€jurisdiction,€and€the€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€is€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_ÔÐ Š Ú Ðperson's€rights€under€the€Covenant€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€partyÐ p!À  Ðitself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€context,€the€Committee€also€recalls€itsÐ V"¦! ÐGeneral€Comment€on€Article€6€òò7óó,€which€provides€that€while€States€parties€are€not€obliged€toÐ <#Œ" Ðabolish€the€death€penalty,€they€are€obliged€to€limit€its€use.€Ð "$r# ÐÌ16.2€The€Committee€notes€that€article€6,€paragraph€1,€must€be€read€together€with€article€6,Ð î%>!% Ðparagraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€the€most€seriousÐ Ô&$"& Ðcrimes.€Canada,€while€not€itself€imposing€the€death€penalty€on€Mr.€Cox,€is€asked€to€extraditeÐ º' #' Ðhim€to€the€United€States,€where€he€may€face€capital€punishment.€If€Mr.€Cox€were€to€beÐ  (ð#( Ðexposed,€through€extradition€from€Canada,€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€article€6,€paragraphÐ †)Ö$) Ð2,€in€the€United€States,€that€would€entail€a€violation€by€Canada€of€its€obligations€under€articleÐ l*¼%* Ð6,€paragraph€1.€Among€the€requirements€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€is€that€capital€punishmentÐ R+¢&+ Ðbe€imposed€only€for€the€most€serious€crimes,€in€circumstances€not€contrary€to€the€CovenantÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€other€instruments,€and€that€it€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€a€final€judgment€rendered€by€aÐ -n(- Ðcompetent€court.€The€Committee€notes€that€Mr.€Cox€is€to€be€tried€for€complicity€in€twoÐ ° Ðmurders,€undoubtedly€very€serious€crimes.€He€was€over€18€years€of€age€when€the€crimesÐ –æ Ðwere€committed.€The€author€has€not€substantiated€his€claim€before€the€Canadian€courts€orÐ |Ì Ðbefore€the€Committee€that€trial€in€the€Pennsylvania€courts€with€the€possibility€of€appealÐ b² Ðwould€not€be€in€accordance€with€his€right€to€a€fair€hearing€as€required€by€the€Covenant.Ð H˜ ÐÌ16.3€Moreover,€the€Committee€observes€that€the€decision€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€to€the€UnitedÐ  d ÐStates€followed€proceedings€in€the€Canadian€courts€at€which€Mr.€Cox's€counsel€was€able€toÐ ú J Ðpresent€argument.€He€was€also€able€to€present€argument€at€the€ministerial€phase€of€theÐ à 0 Ðproceedings,€which€themselves€were€subject€to€appeal.€In€the€circumstances,€the€CommitteeÐ Æ   Ðfinds€that€the€obligations€arising€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€did€not€require€Canada€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðrefuse€the€author's€extradition€without€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€beÐ ’â  Ðimposed.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ16.4€The€Committee€notes€that€Canada€itself,€save€for€certain€categories€of€military€offences,Ð D”  Ðabolished€capital€punishment;€it€is€not,€however,€a€party€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€toÐ *z  Ðthe€Covenant.€As€to€whether€the€fact€that€Canada€has€generally€abolished€capitalÐ ` Ðpunishment,€taken€together€with€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant,€required€it€to€refuseÐ öF Ðextradition€or€to€seek€the€assurances€it€was€entitled€to€seek€under€the€extradition€treaty,€theÐ Ü, ÐCommittee€observes€that€the€domestic€abolition€of€capital€punishment€does€not€releaseÐ Â ÐCanada€of€its€obligations€under€extradition€treaties.€However,€it€is€in€principle€to€be€expectedÐ ¨ø Ðthat,€when€exercising€a€permitted€discretion€under€an€extradition€treaty€(namely,€whether€orÐ ŽÞ Ðnot€to€seek€assurances€that€capital€punishment€will€not€be€imposed)€a€State€which€has€itselfÐ tÄ Ðabandoned€capital€punishment€would€give€serious€consideration€to€its€own€chosen€policy€inÐ Zª Ðmaking€its€decision.€The€Committee€observes,€however,€that€the€State€party€has€indicatedÐ @ Ðthat€the€possibility€to€seek€assurances€would€normally€be€exercised€where€exceptionalÐ &v Ðcircumstances€existed.€Careful€consideration€was€given€to€this€possibility.€The€CommitteeÐ  \ Ðnotes€the€reasons€given€by€Canada€not€to€seek€assurances€in€Mr.€Cox's€case,€in€particular,Ð òB Ðthe€absence€of€exceptional€circumstances,€the€availability€of€due€process€in€the€state€ofÐ Ø( ÐPennsylvania,€and€the€importance€of€not€providing€a€safe€haven€for€those€accused€of€orÐ ¾ Ðfound€guilty€of€murder.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ16.5€While€States€parties€must€be€mindful€of€the€possibilities€for€the€protection€of€life€whenÐ p!À  Ðexercising€their€discretion€in€the€application€of€extradition€treaties,€the€Committee€finds€thatÐ V"¦! ÐCanada's€decision€to€extradite€without€assurances€was€not€taken€arbitrarily€or€summarily.Ð <#Œ" ÐThe€evidence€before€the€Committee€reveals€that€the€Minister€of€Justice€reached€a€decisionÐ "$r# Ðafter€hearing€argument€in€favor€of€seeking€assurances.€Ð %X $ ÐÌ16.6€The€Committee€notes€that€the€author€claims€that€the€plea€bargaining€procedures,€byÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhich€capital€punishment€could€be€avoided€if€he€were€to€plead€guilty,€further€violates€hisÐ º' #' Ðrights€under€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€finds€this€not€to€be€so€in€the€context€of€theÐ  (ð#( Ðcriminal€justice€system€in€Pennsylvania.Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ16.7€With€regard€to€the€allegations€of€systemic€racial€discrimination€in€the€United€StatesÐ R+¢&+ Ðcriminal€justice€system,€the€Committee€does€not€find,€on€the€basis€of€the€submissions€beforeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðit,€that€Mr.€Cox€would€be€subject€to€a€violation€of€his€rights€by€virtue€of€his€Ô_ÔcolourÔ_Ô.Ð -n(- Ї17.1€The€Committee€has€Ô_ÔfutherÔ_Ô€considered€whether€in€the€specific€circumstances€of€this€case,Ð ° Ðbeing€held€on€death€row€would€constitute€a€violation€of€Mr.€Cox's€rights€under€article€7€ofÐ –æ Ðthe€Covenant.€While€confinement€on€death€row€is€necessarily€stressful,€no€specific€factorsÐ |Ì Ðrelating€to€Mr.€Cox's€mental€condition€have€been€brought€to€the€attention€of€the€Committee.Ð b² ÐThe€Committee€notes€also€that€Canada€has€submitted€specific€information€about€the€currentÐ H˜ Ðstate€of€prisons€in€Pennsylvania,€in€particular€with€regard€to€the€facilities€housing€inmatesÐ . ~ Ðunder€sentence€of€death,€which€would€not€appear€to€violate€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð  d ÐÌ17.2€As€to€the€period€of€detention€on€death€row€in€reference€to€article€7,€the€Committee€notesÐ à 0 Ðthat€Mr.€Cox€has€not€yet€been€convicted€nor€sentenced,€and€that€the€trial€of€the€twoÐ Æ   Ðaccomplices€in€the€murders€of€which€Mr.€Cox€is€also€charged€did€not€end€with€sentences€ofÐ ¬ ü  Ðdeath€but€rather€of€life€imprisonment.€Under€the€jurisprudence€of€the€Committee€òò8óó,€on€theÐ ’â  Ðone€hand,€every€person€confined€to€death€row€must€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€pursue€allÐ xÈ  Ðpossibilities€of€appeal,€and,€on€the€other€hand,€the€State€party€must€ensure€that€theÐ ^®  Ðpossibilities€for€appeal€are€made€available€to€the€condemned€prisoner€within€a€reasonableÐ D”  Ðtime.€Canada€has€submitted€specific€information€showing€that€persons€under€sentence€ofÐ *z  Ðdeath€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€are€given€every€opportunity€to€avail€themselves€of€severalÐ ` Ðappeal€instances,€as€well€as€opportunities€to€seek€pardon€or€clemency.€The€author€has€notÐ öF Ðadduced€evidence€to€show€that€these€procedures€are€not€made€available€within€a€reasonableÐ Ü, Ðtime,€or€that€there€are€unreasonable€delays€which€would€be€imputable€to€the€State.€In€theseÐ Â Ðcircumstances,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€to€the€United€StatesÐ ¨ø Ðwould€not€entail€a€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ17.3€With€regard€to€the€method€of€execution,€the€Committee€has€already€had€the€opportunityÐ Zª Ðof€examining€the€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€case,€in€which€the€potential€judicial€execution€by€lethal€injectionÐ @ Ðwas€not€found€to€be€in€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð &v ÐÌ18.€The€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€finds€thatÐ òB Ðthe€facts€before€it€do€not€sustain€a€finding€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€to€face€trial€for€aÐ Ø( Ðcapital€offence€in€the€United€States€would€constitute€a€violation€by€Canada€of€any€provisionÐ ¾ Ðof€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Ð p!À  ÐSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sÐ V"¦! Ðannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ___________Ð %X $ Ð*/€€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ*/€€€The€texts€of€8€individual€opinions,€signed€by€13€Committee€members,€are€appended€toÐ º' #' Ðthe€present€document.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ1/€€Ô_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/45/D/486/1993.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2/€€The€Supreme€Court€found€that€the€decision€of€the€Minister€to€extradite€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€andÐ 8,ˆ', ÐMr.€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€without€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€or,€ifÐ -n(- Ðimposed,€would€not€be€carried€out,€did€not€violate€their€rights€under€the€Canadian€CharterÐ ° Ðof€Rights€and€Freedoms.Ð –æ ÐÌ3/€€ò òòòM.A.€v.€Italyóóó óÐ b² ÐÌ4/€€See€the€Committee's€decisions€in€communications€Nos.€35/1978€(€òòÔ_ÔAumeeruddyÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCziffraÔ_ÔÐ . ~ Ðet€al.€v.€Mauritiusóó€,€Views€adopted€on€9€April€1981)€and€291/1988€(€òòTorres€v.€Finlandóó,€ViewsÐ  d Ðadopted€on€2€April€1990).Ð ú J ÐÌ5/€€€Views€in€communication€No.€61/1979,€òòLeo€Ô_ÔHertzbergÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€Finlandóó€,€para.€9.3.Ð Æ   ÐÌ6/€€Views€in€communication€No.€265/1987,€òòÔ_ÔVuolanneÔ_Ô€v.€Finlandóó€,€para.€9.2.Ð ’â  ÐÌ7/€€General€Comment€No.€6/16€of€27€July€1982,€para.€6.Ð ^®  ÐÌ8/€€Views€in€communications€Nos.€210/1986€and€225/1987,€òòEarl€Pratt€and€Ivan€Morgan€v.Ð *z  ÐJamaicaóó€,€para.€13.6;€No.€250/1987,€òòCarlton€Reid€v.€Jamaicaóó€,€para.€11.6;€Nos.€270/1988€andÐ ` Ð271/1988,€òòRandolph€Barrett€and€Clyde€Ô_ÔSutcliffeÔ_Ô€v.€Jamaicaóó€,€para.€8.4;€No.€274/1988,€Ô_ÔòòLoxleyÔ_ÔÐ öF ÐGriffith€v.€Jamaicaóó€,€para.€7.4;€No.€317/1988,€òòHoward€Martin€v.€Jamaicaóó€,€para.€12.1;€No.Ð Ü, Ð470/1991,€Ô_ÔòòKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaóó€,€para.€15.2.Ð Â ÐÌÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓòòAppendicesóóó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ²ûÓÓÓÌÌA.€òòINDIVIDUAL€OPINIONS€APPENDED€TO€THE€COMMITTEE'S€DECISION€ONÐ &v ÐADMISSIBILITY€OF€3€NOVEMBER€1993óóÐ  \ ÐÌÌ1.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mrs.€Rosalyn€Higgins,€co„signed€by€Messrs.€Laurel€Francis,€KurtÐ ¾ ÐÔ_ÔHerndlÔ_Ô,€Andreas€Ô_ÔMavrommatisÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔBirameÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNdiayeÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)Ð ¤ô ÐÌWe€believe€that€this€case€should€have€been€declared€inadmissible.€Although€extradition€asÐ p!À  Ðsuch€is€outside€the€scope€of€the€Covenant€(see€ò òM.A.€v.€Italyó ó,€communication€No.€117/1981,Ð V"¦! Ðdecision€of€10€April€1984,€paragraph€13.4),€the€Committee€has€explained,€in€its€decision€onÐ <#Œ" Ðcommunication€No.€470/1991€(ò òJoseph€J.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó,€Views€adopted€on€30€JulyÐ "$r# Ð1993),€that€a€State€party's€obligations€in€relation€to€a€matter€itself€outside€the€scope€of€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant€may€still€be€engaged€by€reference€to€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.Ð î%>!% ÐÌBut€here,€as€elsewhere,€the€admissibility€requirements€under€the€Optional€Protocol€must€beÐ º' #' Ðmet.€In€its€decision€on€ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ôó ó,€the€Committee€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€it€hadÐ  (ð#( Ðjurisdiction,€ò òÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€loció ó,€by€reference€to€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€in€an€extraditionÐ †)Ö$) Ðcase€that€brought€into€play€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.€It€observed€that€"if€a€State€partyÐ l*¼%* Ðtakes€a€decision€relating€to€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction,€and€the€necessary€and€foreseeableÐ R+¢&+ Ðconsequence€is€that€the€person's€rights€under€the€Covenant€will€be€violated€in€anotherÐ 8,ˆ', Ðjurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant"€(paragraph€6.2).Ð -n(- ЇWe€do€not€see€on€what€jurisdictional€basis€the€Committee€proceeds€to€its€finding€that€theÐ ° Ðcommunication€is€admissible€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant.€The€Committee€findsÐ –æ Ðthat€the€communication€is€inadmissible€by€reference€to€article€2€of€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ |Ì Ð(paragraph€10.4)€insofar€as€claims€relating€to€fair€trial€(article€14)€and€discrimination€beforeÐ b² Ðthe€law€(article€26)€are€concerned.€We€agree.€But€this€negative€finding€cannot€form€a€basisÐ H˜ Ðfor€admissibility€in€respect€of€articles€6€and€7.€The€Committee€should€have€applied€the€sameÐ . ~ Ðtest€("foreseeable€and€necessary€consequences")€to€the€claims€made€under€articles€6€and€7,Ð  d Ðbefore€simply€declaring€them€admissible€in€respect€of€those€articles.€It€did€not€do€so€„€andÐ ú J Ðin€our€opinion€could€not€have€found,€in€the€particular€circumstances€of€the€case,€a€properÐ à 0 Ðlegal€basis€for€jurisdiction€had€it€done€so.Ð Æ   ÐÌThe€above€test€is€relevant€also€to€the€admissibility€requirement,€under€article€1€of€theÐ ’â  ÐOptional€Protocol,€that€an€author€be€a€"victim"€of€a€violation€in€respect€of€which€he€bringsÐ xÈ  Ða€claim.€In€other€words,€it€is€not€always€necessary€that€a€violation€already€have€occurred€forÐ ^®  Ðan€action€to€come€within€the€scope€of€article€1.€But€the€violation€that€will€affect€himÐ D”  Ðpersonally€must€be€a€"necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence"€of€the€action€of€the€defendantÐ *z  ÐState.Ð ` ÐÌIt€is€clear€that€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Cox,€unlike€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€this€test€is€not€met.Ð Ü, ÐMr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€had,€at€the€time€of€the€Canadian€decision€to€extradite€him,€been€tried€in€theÐ Â ÐUnited€States€for€murder,€found€guilty€as€charged€and€recommended€to€the€death€sentenceÐ ¨ø Ðby€the€jury.€Mr.€Cox,€by€contrast,€has€not€yet€been€tried€and€ò òa€fortiorió ó€has€not€been€foundÐ ŽÞ Ðguilty€or€recommended€to€the€death€penalty.€Already€it€is€clear€that€his€extradition€would€ò ònotó óÐ tÄ Ðentail€the€possibility€of€a€"necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€of€a€violation€of€his€rights"Ð Zª Ðthat€would€require€examination€on€the€merits.€This€failure€to€meet€the€test€of€"prospectiveÐ @ Ðvictim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€the€Optional€Protocol€is€emphasized€by€the€factÐ &v Ðthat€Mr.€Cox's€two€co„defendants€in€the€case€in€which€he€has€been€charged€have€already€beenÐ  \ Ðtried€in€the€State€of€Pennsylvania,€and€sentenced€not€to€death€but€to€a€term€of€lifeÐ òB Ðimprisonment.€The€fact€that€the€Committee€„€and€rightly€so€in€our€view€„€found€that€ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ôó óÐ Ø( Ðraised€issues€that€needed€to€be€considered€on€their€merits,€and€that€the€admissibility€criteriaÐ ¾ Ðwere€there€met,€does€not€mean€that€every€extradition€case€of€this€nature€is€necessarilyÐ ¤ô Ðadmissible.€In€every€case,€the€tests€relevant€to€articles€1,€2,€3€and€5,€paragraph€2,€of€theÐ Š Ú ÐOptional€Protocol€must€be€applied€to€the€particular€facts€of€the€case.Ð p!À  ÐÌThe€Committee€has€not€at€all€addressed€the€requirements€of€article€1€of€the€OptionalÐ <#Œ" ÐProtocol,€that€is,€whether€Mr.€Cox€may€be€considered€a€"victim"€by€reference€to€his€claimsÐ "$r# Ðunder€articles€14,€26,€6€or€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð %X $ ÐÌWe€therefore€believe€that€Mr.€Cox€was€not€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€1€of€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐOptional€Protocol,€and€that€his€communication€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee€isÐ º' #' Ðinadmissible.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌThe€duty€to€address€carefully€the€requirements€for€admissibility€under€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ l*¼%* Ðis€not€made€the€less€necessary€because€capital€punishment€is€somehow€involved€in€aÐ R+¢&+ Ðcomplaint.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐFor€all€these€reasons,€we€believe€that€the€Committee€should€have€found€the€presentÐ ° Ðcommunication€inadmissible.Ð –æ ÐÌRosalyn€HigginsÐ b² ÐÌLaurel€FrancisÐ . ~ ÐÌKurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_ÔÐ ú J ÐÌAndreas€Ô_ÔMavrommatisÔ_ÔÐ Æ   ÐÌÔ_ÔBirameÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNdiayeÔ_ÔÐ ’â  ÐÌÔ_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_ÔÐ ^®  ÐÌ[Original:€English]Ð *z  ÐÌÌ2.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mrs.€Elizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)Ð Ü, ÐÌFor€his€claim€to€be€admissible,€the€author€must€show€that€he€is€a€victim.€To€do€this€he€mustÐ ¨ø Ðsubmit€facts€which€support€the€conclusion€that€his€extradition€exposed€him€to€a€real€risk€thatÐ ŽÞ Ðhis€rights€under€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€would€be€violated€(in€the€sense€that€theÐ tÄ Ðviolation€is€necessary€and€foreseeable).€The€author€in€the€present€case€has€not€done€so.Ð Zª ÐÌAs€to€article€6,€the€author€is,€of€course,€exposed€by€his€extradition€to€the€risk€of€facing€theÐ &v Ðdeath€penalty€for€the€crime€of€which€he€is€accused.€But€he€has€not€submitted€facts€to€showÐ  \ Ða€real€risk€that€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€would€itself€violate€article€6,€which€doesÐ òB Ðnot€exclude€the€death€penalty€in€certain€limited€circumstances.€Furthermore,€his€accomplicesÐ Ø( Ðin€the€crime€he€is€charged€with€were€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment,€a€factor€which€does€notÐ ¾ Ðsupport€the€contention€that€the€author's€extradition€would€expose€him€to€a€"necessary€andÐ ¤ô Ðforeseeable"€risk€that€the€death€penalty€will€be€imposed.Ð Š Ú ÐÌAs€to€article€7,€the€claim€that€the€author€has€been€exposed€to€a€real€risk€of€a€violation€of€thisÐ V"¦! Ðprovision€by€his€extradition€is€based€on€the€death€row€phenomenon€(paragraph€8.2);€theÐ <#Œ" Ðauthor€has€not,€however,€submitted€facts€which,€in€the€light€of€the€Committee'sÐ "$r# Ðjurisprudence,€show€that€there€is€a€real€risk€of€violation€of€this€article€if€he€is€extradited€toÐ %X $ Ðthe€United€States.€Furthermore,€since,€in€my€opinion,€the€author's€extradition€does€not€exposeÐ î%>!% Ðhim€to€a€real€risk€of€being€sentenced€to€death,€his€extradition€entails€ò òa€fortiorió ó€no€necessaryÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€foreseeable€consequence€of€a€violation€of€his€rights€while€on€death€row.Ð º' #' ÐÌFor€these€reasons€I€am€of€the€view€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€under€articles€1Ð †)Ö$) Ðand€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌElizabeth€Ô_ÔEvattÔ_ÔÐ 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð[Original:€English]€Ð ° ÐÌÌB.€òòINDIVIDUAL€OPINIONS€APPENDED€TO€THE€COMMITTEE'S€VIEWSóóÐ b² ÐÌÌ1.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Messrs.€Kurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_Ô€(concurringóó)Ð  d ÐÌWe€concur€with€the€Committee's€finding€that€the€facts€of€the€instant€case€do€not€reveal€aÐ à 0 Ðviolation€of€either€article€6€or€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð Æ   ÐÌIn€our€opinion,€however,€it€would€have€been€more€consistent€with€the€Committee'sÐ ’â  Ðjurisprudence€to€set€aside€the€decision€on€admissibility€of€3€November€1993€and€to€declareÐ xÈ  Ðthe€communication€inadmissible€under€articles€1€and€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€on€groundsÐ ^®  Ðthat€the€author€does€not€meet€the€"victim"€test€established€by€the€Committee.€Bearing€inÐ D”  Ðmind€that€Mr.€Cox€has€not€been€tried,€let€alone€convicted€or€sentenced€to€death,€theÐ *z  Ðhypothetical€violations€alleged€appear€quite€remote€for€the€purpose€of€considering€thisÐ ` Ðcommunication€admissible.Ð öF ÐÌHowever,€since€the€Committee€has€proceeded€to€an€examination€of€the€merits,€we€would€likeÐ Â Ðto€submit€the€following€considerations€on€the€scope€of€articles€6€and€7€of€the€Covenant€andÐ ¨ø Ðtheir€application€in€the€case€of€Mr.€Keith€Cox.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌò òArticle€6ó óÐ Zª ÐÌAs€a€starting€point,€we€would€note€that€article€6€does€not€expressly€prohibit€extradition€toÐ &v Ðface€capital€punishment.€Nevertheless,€it€is€appropriate€to€consider€whether€a€prohibitionÐ  \ Ðwould€follow€as€a€necessary€implication€of€article€6.€Ð òB ÐÌIn€applying€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€must,€pursuant€to€articleÐ ¾ Ð31€of€the€Vienna€Convention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties,€interpret€this€provision€òòin€good€faithóóÐ ¤ô Ðin€accordance€with€the€ordinary€meaning€to€be€given€to€the€terms€in€their€context.€As€to€theÐ Š Ú Ðordinary€meaning€of€the€words,€a€prohibition€of€extradition€is€not€apparent.€As€to€the€contextÐ p!À  Ðof€the€provision,€we€believe€that€article€6,€paragraph€1,€must€be€read€in€conjunction€withÐ V"¦! Ðarticle€6,€paragraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€for€theÐ <#Œ" Ðmost€serious€crimes;€part€of€the€context€to€be€considered€is€also€the€fact€that€a€large€majorityÐ "$r# Ðof€States€„„€at€the€time€of€the€drafting€of€the€Covenant€and€still€today€„„€retain€the€deathÐ %X $ Ðpenalty.€One€may€not€like€this€objective€context,€it€must€not€be€disregarded.Ð î%>!% ÐÌMoreover,€the€notion€òòin€good€faith€óóentails€that€the€intention€of€the€parties€to€a€treaty€shouldÐ º' #' Ðbe€ascertained€and€carried€out.€There€is€a€general€principle€of€international€law€according€toÐ  (ð#( Ðwhich€no€State€can€be€bound€without€its€consent.€States€parties€to€the€Covenant€gave€consentÐ †)Ö$) Ðto€certain€specific€obligations€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€fact€that€this€provisionÐ l*¼%* Ðdoes€not€address€the€link€between€the€protection€of€the€right€to€life€and€the€establishedÐ R+¢&+ Ðpractice€of€States€in€the€field€of€extradition€is€not€without€significance.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐHad€the€drafters€of€article€6€intended€to€preclude€all€extradition€to€face€the€death€penalty,Ð ° Ðthey€could€have€done€so.€Considering€that€article€6€consists€of€six€paragraphs,€it€is€unlikelyÐ –æ Ðthat€such€an€important€matter€would€have€been€left€for€future€interpretation.€Nevertheless,Ð |Ì Ðan€issue€under€article€6€could€still€arise€if€extradition€were€granted€for€the€imposition€of€theÐ b² Ðdeath€penalty€in€breach€of€article€6,€paragraphs€2€and€5.€While€this€has€been€recognized€byÐ H˜ Ðthe€Committee€in€its€jurisprudence€(see€the€Committee's€Views€in€communication€No.Ð . ~ Ð469/1991€(ò òÔ_ÔNgÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó)€and€No.€470/1990€(ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó)),€the€yardstick€withÐ  d Ðwhich€a€possible€breach€of€article€6,€paragraphs€2€and€5,€has€to€be€measured,€remains€aÐ ú J Ðrestrictive€one.€Thus,€the€extraditing€State€may€be€deemed€to€be€in€violation€of€the€CovenantÐ à 0 Ðonly€if€the€ò ònecessary€and€foreseeable€consequenceó ó€of€its€decision€to€extradite€is€that€theÐ Æ   ÐCovenant€rights€of€the€extradited€person€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌIn€this€context,€reference€may€be€made€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol,€which€similarlyÐ xÈ  Ðdoes€ò ònotó ó€address€the€issue€of€extradition.€This€fact€is€significant€and€lends€further€supportÐ ^®  Ðto€the€proposition€that€under€international€law€extradition€to€face€the€death€penalty€is€notÐ D”  Ðprohibited€under€all€circumstances.€Otherwise€the€drafters€of€this€new€instrument€wouldÐ *z  Ðsurely€have€included€a€provision€reflecting€this€understanding.Ð ` ÐÌAn€obligation€not€to€extradite,€as€a€matter€of€principle,€without€seeking€assurances€is€aÐ Ü, Ðsubstantial€obligation€that€entails€considerable€consequences,€both€domestically€andÐ Â Ðinternationally.€Such€consequences€cannot€be€presumed€without€some€indication€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðparties€intended€them.€If€the€Covenant€does€not€expressly€impose€these€obligations,€StatesÐ ŽÞ Ðcannot€be€deemed€to€have€assumed€them.€Here€reference€should€be€made€to€theÐ tÄ Ðjurisprudence€of€the€International€Court€of€Justice€according€to€which€interpretation€is€notÐ Zª Ða€matter€of€revising€treaties€or€of€reading€into€them€what€they€do€not€expressly€or€byÐ @ Ðnecessary€implication€contain.€òòa/óóÐ &v ÐÌAdmittedly,€since€the€primary€beneficiaries€of€human€rights€treaties€are€not€States€orÐ òB Ðgovernments€but€human€beings,€the€protection€of€human€rights€calls€for€a€more€liberalÐ Ø( Ðapproach€than€that€normally€applicable€in€the€case€of€ambiguous€provisions€of€multilateralÐ ¾ Ðtreaties,€where,€as€a€general€rule,€the€"meaning€is€to€be€preferred€which€is€less€onerous€to€theÐ ¤ô Ðparty€assuming€an€obligation,€or€which€interferes€less€with€the€territorial€and€personalÐ Š Ú Ðsupremacy€of€a€party,€or€involves€less€general€restrictions€upon€the€parties."€òòb/óó€€Nonetheless,Ð p!À  Ðwhen€giving€a€broad€interpretation€to€any€human€rights€treaty,€care€must€be€taken€not€toÐ V"¦! Ðfrustrate€or€circumvent€the€ascertainable€will€of€the€drafters.€Here€the€rules€of€interpretationÐ <#Œ" Ðset€forth€in€article€32€of€the€Vienna€Convention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties€help€us€by€allowingÐ "$r# Ðthe€use€of€the€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprparatoiresÔ_Ôóó.€Indeed,€a€study€of€the€drafting€history€of€the€CovenantÐ %X $ Ðreveals€that€when€the€drafters€discussed€the€issue€of€extradition,€they€decided€not€to€includeÐ î%>!% Ðany€specific€provision€in€the€Covenant,€so€as€to€avoid€conflict€or€undue€delay€in€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðperformance€of€existing€extradition€treaties€(E/CN.4/SR.154,€paras.€26„57).Ð º' #' ÐÌIt€has€been€suggested€that€extraditing€a€person€to€face€the€possible€imposition€of€the€deathÐ †)Ö$) Ðsentence€is€tantamount,€for€a€State€that€has€abolished€capital€punishment,€to€reintroducingÐ l*¼%* Ðit.€While€article€6€of€the€Covenant€is€silent€on€the€issue€of€reintroduction€of€capitalÐ R+¢&+ Ðpunishment,€it€is€worth€recalling,€by€way€of€comparison,€that€an€express€prohibition€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðreintroduction€of€the€death€penalty€is€provided€for€in€article€4(3)€of€the€American€ConventionÐ -n(- Ðon€Human€Rights,€and€that€Protocol€6€to€the€European€Convention€does€not€allow€forÐ ° Ðderogation.€A€commitment€not€to€reintroduce€the€death€penalty€is€a€laudable€one,€and€surelyÐ –æ Ðin€the€spirit€of€article€6,€paragraph€6,€of€the€Covenant.€But€certainly€this€is€a€matter€for€StatesÐ |Ì Ðparties€to€consider€before€they€assume€a€binding€obligation.€Such€obligation€may€be€readÐ b² Ðinto€the€Second€Optional€Protocol,€which€is€not€subject€to€derogation.€But,€as€of€NovemberÐ H˜ Ð1994,€only€22€countries€have€become€parties€„„€Canada€has€not€signed€or€ratified€it.Ð . ~ ÐRegardless,€granting€a€request€to€extradite€a€foreign€national€to€face€capital€punishment€inÐ  d Ðanother€jurisdiction€cannot€be€equated€to€the€reintroduction€of€the€death€penalty.Ð ú J ÐÌMoreover,€we€recall€that€Canada€is€not€itself€imposing€the€death€penalty,€but€merelyÐ Æ   Ðobserving€an€obligation€under€international€law€pursuant€to€a€valid€extradition€treaty.€FailureÐ ¬ ü  Ðto€fulfil€a€treaty€obligation€engages€State€responsibility€for€an€internationally€wrongful€act,Ð ’â  Ðgiving€rise€Ô_ÔtoconsequencesÔ_Ô€in€international€law€for€the€State€in€breach€of€its€obligation.€ByÐ xÈ  Ðextraditing€Mr.€Cox,€with€or€without€assurances,€Canada€is€merely€complying€with€itsÐ ^®  Ðobligation€pursuant€to€the€Canada„U.S.€Extradition€Treaty€of€1976,€which€is,€we€would€note,Ð D”  Ðcompatible€with€the€United€Nations€Model€Extradition€Treaty.Ð *z  ÐÌFinally,€it€has€been€suggested€that€Canada€may€have€restricted€or€derogated€from€article€6Ð öF Ðin€contravention€of€article€5€(2)€of€the€Covenant€(the€"savings€clause",€see€Manfred€Nowak'sÐ Ü, ÐÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô€Commentary,€1993,€pp.€100€et€seq.).€This€is€not€so,€because€the€rights€of€personsÐ Â Ðunder€Canadian€jurisdiction€facing€extradition€to€the€United€States€were€not€necessarilyÐ ¨ø Ðbroader€under€any€norm€of€Canadian€law€than€in€the€Covenant€and€had€not€been€finallyÐ ŽÞ Ðdetermined€until€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€issued€its€1991€judgments€in€the€ò òÔ_ÔKindlerÔ_Ôó ó€andÐ tÄ Ðò òÔ_ÔNgÔ_Ôó ó€cases.€Moreover,€this€determination€was€not€predicated€on€the€Covenant,€but€rather€onÐ Zª Ðthe€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms.Ð @ ÐÌò òArticle€7ó óÐ  \ ÐÌThe€Committee€has€pronounced€itself€in€numerous€cases€on€the€issue€of€the€"death€rowÐ Ø( Ðphenomenon"€and€has€held€that€"prolonged€judicial€proceedings€do€not€ò òper€seó ó€constituteÐ ¾ Ðcruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment,€even€if€they€can€be€a€source€of€mental€strain€for€theÐ ¤ô Ðconvicted€persons."€òòc/óó€€We€concur€with€the€Committee's€reaffirmation€and€elaboration€of€thisÐ Š Ú Ðholding€in€the€instant€decision.€Furthermore€we€consider€that€prolonged€imprisonment€underÐ p!À  Ðsentence€of€death€could€raise€an€issue€under€article€7€of€the€Covenant€if€the€prolongationÐ V"¦! Ðwere€unreasonable€and€attributable€primarily€to€the€State,€as€when€the€State€is€responsibleÐ <#Œ" Ðfor€delays€in€the€handling€of€the€appeals€or€fails€to€issue€necessary€documents€or€writtenÐ "$r# Ðjudgments.€However,€in€the€specific€circumstances€of€the€Cox€case,€we€agree€that€the€authorÐ %X $ Ðhas€not€shown€that,€if€he€were€sentenced€to€death,€his€detention€on€death€row€would€beÐ î%>!% Ðunreasonably€prolonged€for€reasons€imputable€to€the€State.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌWe€further€believe€that€imposing€rigid€time€limits€for€the€conclusion€of€all€appeals€andÐ  (ð#( Ðrequests€for€clemency€is€dangerous€and€may€actually€work€against€the€person€on€death€rowÐ †)Ö$) Ðby€accelerating€the€execution€of€the€sentence€of€death.€It€is€generally€in€the€interest€of€theÐ l*¼%* Ðpetitioner€to€remain€alive€for€as€long€as€possible.€Indeed,€while€avenues€of€appeal€remainÐ R+¢&+ Ðopen,€there€is€hope,€and€most€petitioners€will€avail€themselves€of€these€possibilities,€even€ifÐ 8,ˆ', Ðdoing€so€entails€continued€uncertainty.€This€is€a€dilemma€inherent€in€the€administration€ofÐ -n(- Ðjustice€within€all€those€societies€that€have€not€yet€abolished€capital€punishment.Ð ° ÐÌKurt€Ô_ÔHerndlÔ_ÔÐ |Ì ÐÌÔ_ÔWaleedÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSadiÔ_ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌòòNotesóó:Ð  d ÐÌa/€€Oppenheim,€International€Law€,€1992€edition,€Vol.€1,€p.€1271.Ð à 0 ÐÌb/€€This€corresponds€to€the€principle€of€interpretation€known€as€in€Ô_ÔdubioÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmitiusÔ_Ô€.€Ibid.,€p.Ð ¬ ü  Ð1278.€Ð ’â  ÐÌc/€€Views€on€communications€Nos.€210/1986€and€225/1987€(€òòEarl€Pratt€and€Ivan€Morgan€v.Ð ^®  ÐJamaicaóó€)€adopted€on€6€April€1989,€paragraph€13.6.€This€holding€has€been€reaffirmed€inÐ D”  Ðsome€ten€subsequent€cases,€including€Nos.€270/1988€and€271/1988€(€òòRandolph€Barrett€&Ð *z  ÐClyde€Ô_ÔSutcliffeÔ_Ô€v.€Jamaicaóó€),€adopted€on€30€March€1992,€paragraph€8.4,€and€No.€470/1991Ð ` Ð(€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canada€),€adopted€on€30€July€1993,€paragraph€15.2.Ð öF ÐÌ[Original:€English]€Ð  ÐÌÌ2.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔTamarÔ_Ô€Ban€(partly€concurring,€partly€dissentingóó)Ð tÄ ÐÌI€share€the€Committee's€conclusion€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€by€Canada€to€the€UnitedÐ @ ÐStates€to€face€the€possible€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€under€the€specific€circumstancesÐ &v Ðof€this€case,€would€not€constitute€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€and€that€judicialÐ  \ Ðexecution€by€lethal€injection€would€not€ò òper€seó ó€constitute€a€violation€of€article€7.Ð òB ÐÌI€cannot€accept€the€Committee's€position,€however,€that€the€prospects€for€Mr.€Cox€being€heldÐ ¾ Ðfor€a€long€period€of€time€on€death€row,€if€sentenced€to€death,€would€not€amount€to€a€violationÐ ¤ô Ðof€his€rights€under€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð Š Ú ÐÌThe€Committee€based€its€finding€of€non€violation€of€article€7,€regarding€the€"death€rowÐ V"¦! Ðphenomenon"€on€the€following€arguments:€(1)€prison€conditions€in€the€state€of€PennsylvaniaÐ <#Œ" Ðhave€been€considerably€improved€in€recent€times;€(2)€Mr.€Cox€has€not€yet€been€convictedÐ "$r# Ðnor€sentenced,€the€trial€of€his€two€accomplices€did€not€end€with€sentence€of€death;€(3)€noÐ %X $ Ðevidence€has€been€adduced€to€show€that€all€possibilities€for€appeal€would€not€be€availableÐ î%>!% Ðwithin€a€reasonable€time,€or€that€there€would€be€unreasonable€delays€which€would€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðimputable€to€the€state€(ò òsupraó ó,€paragraphs€17.1€and€17.2).Ð º' #' ÐÌConcerning€the€prison€conditions€in€Pennsylvania,€the€State€party,€Canada,€has€in€fact€shownÐ †)Ö$) Ðthat€substantial€improvements€in€the€condition€of€incarceration€of€inmates€under€deathÐ l*¼%* Ðsentence€have€taken€place€in€that€state€(paragraph€13.6).€The€measures€taken€are€said€toÐ R+¢&+ Ðconsist€mainly€of€the€improvement€of€the€physical€conditions€of€the€inmates.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- ÐAlthough€I€accept€the€notion€that€physical€conditions€play€an€important€role€when€assessingÐ ° Ðthe€overall€situation€of€prison€inmates€on€death€row,€my€conviction€is€that€the€decisive€factorÐ –æ Ðis€rather€ò òpsychologicaló ó€than€physical;€a€long€period€spent€in€awaiting€execution€or€theÐ |Ì Ðgranting€of€pardon€or€clemency€necessarily€entails€a€permanent€stress,€an€ever€increasingÐ b² Ðfear€which€gradually€fills€the€mind€of€the€sentenced€individual,€and€which,€by€the€very€natureÐ H˜ Ðof€this€situation,€amounts€„€depending€on€the€length€of€time€spent€on€death€row€„€to€cruel,Ð . ~ Ðinhuman€and€degrading€treatment,€in€spite€of€every€measure€taken€to€improve€the€physicalÐ  d Ðconditions€of€the€confinement.Ð ú J ÐÌTurning€now€to€the€second€argument,€that€Mr.€Cox€has€not€yet€been€convicted€nor€sentenced,Ð Æ   Ðand€that€he€therefore€has€no€claim€under€article€7€(since€only€ò òde€factoó ó€sentenced„to„deathÐ ¬ ü  Ðconvicts€are€in€a€situation€to€assert€a€violation€of€their€rights€not€to€be€exposed€to€torture,Ð ’â  Ðcruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment),€I€believe€this€argument€is€irrelevant€when€lookingÐ xÈ  Ðinto€the€merits€of€the€case.€It€could€have€been€raised,€and€indeed,€the€State€party€did€raise€itÐ ^®  Ðduring€the€admissibility€procedure,€but€it€was€not€Ô_ÔhonouredÔ_Ô€by€the€Committee.€I€would€likeÐ D”  Ðto€note€that€the€Committee€has€taken€a€clear€stand€in€its€earlier€jurisprudence€on€theÐ *z  Ðresponsibility€of€States€parties€for€their€otherwise€lawful€decisions€to€send€an€individualÐ ` Ðwithin€their€jurisdiction€into€another€jurisdiction,€where€that€person's€rights€would€beÐ öF Ðviolated€as€a€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€of€the€decision€(e.g.€Committee's€ViewsÐ Ü, Ðin€the€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€case,€paragraph€6.2).€I€will€try€to€show€below,€discussing€the€third€argument,Ð Â Ðthat€in€the€present€case€the€violation€of€Mr.€Cox's€rights€following€his€extradition€isÐ ¨ø Ðnecessary€and€foreseeable.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌConcerning€the€third€argument,€the€Committee€held€that€the€author€adduced€no€evidence€toÐ Zª Ðshow€that€all€possibilities€for€appeal€against€the€death€sentence€would€not€be€available€in€theÐ @ Ðstate€of€Pennsylvania€within€a€reasonable€time,€or€that€there€would€be€unreasonable€delaysÐ &v Ðimputable€to€that€state,€as€a€result€of€which€Mr.€Cox€could€be€exposed€at€length€to€the€"deathÐ  \ Ðrow€phenomenon".Ð òB ÐÌI€contest€this€finding€of€the€Committee.€In€his€submission€of€18€September€1994,€counsel€forÐ ¾ ÐMr.€Cox€contended€that€"nobody€has€been€executed€in€Pennsylvania€for€more€than€twentyÐ ¤ô Ðyears,€and€there€are€individuals€awaiting€execution€on€death€row€for€as€much€as€fifteenÐ Š Ú Ðyears."Ð p!À  ÐÌIn€its€submission€of€21€October€1994,€the€State€party€„€commenting€on€several€statementsÐ <#Œ" Ðmade€by€counsel€in€his€above€mentioned€submission€of€18€September€„€remained€silent€onÐ "$r# Ðthis€point.€In€other€words,€it€did€not€challenge€or€contest€it€in€any€way.€In€my€opinion€thisÐ %X $ Ðlack€of€response€testifies€that€the€author€has€adduced€sufficient€evidence€to€show€that€appealÐ î%>!% Ðprocedures€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€can€last€such€a€long€time,€which€cannot€beÐ Ô&$"& Ðconsidered€as€reasonable.Ð º' #' ÐÌWhile€fully€accepting€the€Committee's€jurisprudence€to€the€effect€that€every€personÐ †)Ö$) Ðsentenced€to€death€must€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€pursue€all€possibilities€of€appeal€inÐ l*¼%* Ðconformity€with€article€6,€paragraph€4€„€a€right€the€exercise€of€which,€in€capital€cases,Ð R+¢&+ Ðnecessarily€entails€a€shorter€or€longer€stay€on€death€row€„€I€believe€that€in€such€cases€StatesÐ 8,ˆ', Ðparties€must€strike€a€sound€balance€between€two€requirements:€on€the€one€hand€all€existingÐ -n(- Ðremedies€must€be€made€available,€but€on€the€other€hand€„€with€due€regard€to€article€14,Ð ° Ðparagraph€3(c)€„€effective€measures€must€be€taken€to€the€effect€that€the€final€decision€beÐ –æ Ðmade€within€a€reasonable€time€to€avoid€the€violation€of€the€sentenced€person's€rights€underÐ |Ì Ðarticle€7.Ð b² ÐÌBearing€in€mind€that€in€the€state€of€Pennsylvania€inmates€face€the€prospect€of€spending€aÐ . ~ Ðvery€long€time€„€sometimes€15€years€„€on€death€row,€the€violation€of€Mr.€Cox's€rights€can€beÐ  d Ðregarded€as€a€foreseeable€and€necessary€consequence€of€his€extradition.€For€this€reason€I€amÐ ú J Ðof€the€opinion€that€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€by€Canada€to€the€United€States€withoutÐ à 0 Ðreasonable€guarantees€would€amount€to€a€violation€of€his€rights€under€article€7€of€theÐ Æ   ÐCovenant.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌI€would€like€to€make€it€clear€that€my€position€is€strongly€motivated€by€the€fact€that€by€Mr.Ð xÈ  ÐCox's€surrender€to€the€United€States,€the€Committee€would€lose€control€over€an€individualÐ ^®  Ðat€present€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð D”  ÐÌÔ_ÔTamarÔ_Ô€BanÐ ` ÐÌ[Original:€English]€Ð Ü, ÐÌÌ3.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Messrs.€Francisco€Ô_ÔJosÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAguilarÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔUrbinaÔ_Ô€and€Fausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_ÔÐ ŽÞ Ð(dissentingóó)Ð tÄ ÐÌWe€cannot€agree€with€the€finding€of€the€Committee€that€in€the€present€case,€there€has€beenÐ @ Ðno€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€question€whether€the€fact€that€Canada€hadÐ &v Ðabolished€capital€punishment€except€for€certain€military€offences€required€its€authorities€toÐ  \ Ðrequest€assurances€from€the€United€States€to€the€effect€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€beÐ òB Ðimposed€on€Mr.€Keith€Cox€and€to€refuse€extradition€unless€clear€assurances€to€this€effect€areÐ Ø( Ðgiven,€must€in€our€view€receive€an€affirmative€answer.Ð ¾ ÐÌRegarding€the€death€penalty,€it€must€be€recalled€that,€although€article€6€of€the€Covenant€doesÐ Š Ú Ðnot€prescribe€categorically€the€abolition€of€capital€punishment,€it€imposes€a€set€of€obligationsÐ p!À  Ðon€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolished€it.€As€the€Committee€pointed€out€in€its€GeneralÐ V"¦! ÐComment€6(16),€"the€article€also€refers€generally€to€abolition€in€terms€which€stronglyÐ <#Œ" Ðsuggest€that€abolition€is€desirable".€Furthermore,€the€wording€of€paragraphs€2€and€6€clearlyÐ "$r# Ðindicates€that€article€6€tolerates€„€within€certain€limits€and€in€view€of€future€abolition€„€theÐ %X $ Ðexistence€of€capital€punishment€in€States€parties€that€have€not€yet€abolished€it,€but€may€byÐ î%>!% Ðno€means€be€interpreted€as€implying€for€any€State€party€an€authorization€to€delay€itsÐ Ô&$"& Ðabolition€or,€ò òa€fortiorió ó,€to€enlarge€its€scope€or€to€introduce€or€reintroduce€it.€Accordingly,Ð º' #' Ða€State€party€that€has€abolished€the€death€penalty€is€in€our€view€under€the€legal€obligation,Ð  (ð#( Ðunder€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€not€to€reintroduce€it.€This€obligation€must€referÐ †)Ö$) Ðboth€to€a€direct€reintroduction€within€the€State€party's€jurisdiction,€as€well€as€to€an€indirectÐ l*¼%* Ðone,€as€is€the€case€when€the€State€acts€„€through€extradition,€expulsion€or€compulsory€return€„Ð R+¢&+ Ðin€such€a€way€that€an€individual€within€is€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€may€beÐ 8,ˆ', Ðexposed€to€capital€punishment€in€another€State.€We€therefore€conclude€that€in€the€presentÐ -n(- Ðcase€there€has€been€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.Ð ° ÐÌRegarding€the€claim€under€article€7,€we€cannot€agree€with€the€Committee€that€there€has€notÐ |Ì Ðbeen€a€violation€of€the€Covenant.€As€the€Committee€observed€in€its€Views€onÐ b² Ðcommunication€No.€469/1991€(ò òCharles€Ô_ÔChitatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNgÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó),€"by€definition,€everyÐ H˜ Ðexecution€of€a€sentence€of€death€may€be€considered€to€constitute€cruel€and€inhumanÐ . ~ Ðtreatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant",€unless€the€execution€is€permittedÐ  d Ðunder€article€6,€paragraph€2.€Consequently,€a€violation€of€the€provisions€of€article€6€that€mayÐ ú J Ðmake€such€treatment,€in€certain€circumstances,€permissible,€entails€necessarily,€andÐ à 0 Ðirrespective€of€the€way€in€which€the€execution€may€be€carried€out,€a€violation€of€article€7€ofÐ Æ   Ðthe€Covenant.€It€is€for€these€reasons€that€we€conclude€in€the€present€case€there€has€been€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðviolation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.Ð ’â  ÐÌFrancisco€Ô_ÔJosÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔAguilarÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔUrbinaÔ_ÔÐ ^®  ÐÌFausto€Ô_ÔPocarÔ_ÔÐ *z  ÐÌ[Original:€English]€Ð öF ÐÌÌ4.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)Ð ¨ø ÐÌComme€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔcasÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô,€pour€Ô_ÔrpondreÔ_Ô€aux€questions€relatives€€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô,€leÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔComitÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔafinÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔconclureÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€non„violation€par€le€Canada€de€Ô_ÔsesÔ_Ô€obligations€au€titre€de€Ô_ÔcetÔ_ÔÐ Zª Ðarticle,€est€Ô_ÔcontraintÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔanalyseÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔconjointeÔ_Ô€des€Ô_ÔparagraphesÔ_Ô€1€et€2€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô.Ð @ ÐÌÔ_ÔRienÔ_Ô€ne€Ô_ÔpermetÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'affirmerÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôqu'ilÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôs'agitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'uneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinterprtationÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcorrecteÔ_Ô€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6.€En€Ô_ÔeffetÔ_Ô,Ð  \ ÐÔ_ÔchaqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€des€articles€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdoitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpouvoirÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôs'interprterÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔisolmentÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔsaufÔ_Ô€indicationÐ òB Ðcontraire€Ô_ÔexpressmentÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmentionneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€le€texte€Ô_ÔluiÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔmmeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€se€Ô_ÔdduisantÔ_Ô€de€la€Ô_ÔrdactionÔ_ÔÐ Ø( Ðde€Ô_ÔceluiÔ_Ô„ci.Ð ¾ ÐÌTel€Ô_Ôn'estÔ_Ô€pas€le€Ô_ÔcasÔ_Ô€en€Ô_Ôl'espceÔ_Ô.Ð Š Ú ÐÌLa€Ô_ÔncessitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlaquelleÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôs'estÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtrouvÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔprendreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€deux€Ô_ÔparagraphesÔ_Ô€€Ô_Ôl'appuiÔ_ÔÐ V"¦! Ðde€son€argumentation€Ô_ÔmontreÔ_Ô€€Ô_Ôl'videnceÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔchaqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€pris€Ô_ÔisolmentÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔconduisaitÔ_ÔÐ <#Œ" ЀÔ_ÔuneÔ_Ô€conclusion€contraire,€c'est„„dire€la€constatation€Ô_Ôd'uneÔ_Ô€violation.Ð "$r# ÐÌÔ_ÔSelonÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€1€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6,€Ô_ÔnulÔ_Ô€ne€Ô_ÔpeutÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔarbitrairementÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprivÔ_Ô€du€droit€€la€vie;€Ô_ÔceÔ_ÔÐ î%>!% ÐÔ_ÔprincipeÔ_Ô€est€Ô_ÔabsoluÔ_Ô€et€ne€Ô_ÔsouffreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔaucuneÔ_Ô€exception.Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌLe€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€2€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€commence€par€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtermesÔ_Ô€"Ô_ÔDansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€pays€Ô_ÔoÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_ÔÐ  (ð#( ÐÔ_Ôn'aÔ_Ô€pas€Ô_ÔtÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔabolieÔ_Ô..."€Ô_ÔCetteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔformuleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔappelleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsrieÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔremarquesÔ_Ô:Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ„€Ô_ÔElleÔ_Ô€est€Ô_ÔngativeÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔelleÔ_Ô€ne€vise€pas€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€pays€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesquelsÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔexisteÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔmaisÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔceuxÔ_ÔÐ R+¢&+ ÐÔ_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesquelsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔelleÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôn'aÔ_Ô€pas€Ô_ÔtÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔabolieÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔL'abolitionÔ_Ô€est€la€Ô_ÔrgleÔ_Ô,€le€Ô_ÔmaintienÔ_Ô€de€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcapitaleÔ_Ô,Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÔ_Ôl'exceptionÔ_Ô.Ð -n(- Ї„€Le€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€2€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€ne€Ô_ÔconcerneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€pays€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesquelsÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôn'aÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðpas€Ô_ÔtÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔabolieÔ_Ô€et€ò òÔ_ÔexclutÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔainsiÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôl'applicationÔ_Ô€du€texte€aux€pays€qui€Ô_ÔontÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔaboliÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€deÐ –æ ÐÔ_ÔmortÔ_Ôó ó.Ð |Ì ÐÌ„€Ô_ÔEnfinÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsrieÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'obligationsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsontÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔimposesÔ_Ô€par€le€texte€€Ô_ÔcesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô.Ð H˜ ÐÌÔ_ÔDsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlorsÔ_Ô,€en€se€Ô_ÔlivrantÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinterprtationÔ_Ô€"Ô_ÔconjointeÔ_Ô"€des€deux€premiers€Ô_ÔparagraphesÔ_Ô€deÐ  d ÐÔ_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô,€le€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcommetÔ_Ô,€€mon€sens,€trois€Ô_ÔerreursÔ_Ô€de€droit:Ð ú J ÐÌ„€Ô_ÔUneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔerreurÔ_Ô,€Ô_Ôlorsqu'ilÔ_Ô€applique€€un€pays€qui€a€Ô_ÔaboliÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô,€le€Canada,€un€texteÐ Æ   ÐÔ_ÔexclusivementÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔrservÔ_Ô€par€le€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô,€et€Ô_ÔceÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmanireÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔexpresseÔ_Ô€et€Ô_ÔdpourvueÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'ambiguð5ðtsÔ_Ô,€auxÐ ¬ ü  ÐÔ_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô€non€Ô_ÔabolitionnistesÔ_Ô.Ð ’â  ÐÌ„€La€Ô_ÔdeuximeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔerreurÔ_Ô,€en€Ô_ÔconsidrantÔ_Ô€comme€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔautorisationÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔrtablirÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_ÔÐ ^®  ÐÔ_ÔdansÔ_Ô€un€pays€qui€Ô_Ôl'auraitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔabolieÔ_Ô,€la€simple€reconnaissance€Ô_ÔimpliciteÔ_Ô€de€son€existence.€Il€Ô_Ôs'agitÔ_ÔÐ D”  ÐÔ_ÔlÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'uneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinterprtationÔ_Ô€extensive€qui€se€Ô_ÔheurteÔ_Ô€au€Ô_ÔdmentiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔapportÔ_Ô€par€le€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€6€deÐ *z  ÐÔ_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6€en€vertu€Ô_ÔduquelÔ_Ô€"Ô_ÔaucuneÔ_Ô€disposition€du€Ô_ÔprsentÔ_Ô€article€ne€Ô_ÔpeutÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinvoqueÔ_ԀР` ÐÔ_Ôl'encontreÔ_Ô€de€Ô_Ôl'abolitionÔ_Ô€de€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcapitaleÔ_Ô".€Ô_ÔCetteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinterprtationÔ_Ô,€restrictive€de€droits,€seÐ öF ÐÔ_ÔheurteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔgalementÔ_Ô€aux€dispositions€de€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€5,€Ô_ÔparagrapheÔ_Ô€2,€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔselonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlequelÔ_Ô€"Il€neÐ Ü, ÐÔ_ÔpeutÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔadmisÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔaucuneÔ_Ô€restriction€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdrogationÔ_Ô€aux€droits€Ô_ÔfondamentauxÔ_Ô€de€Ô_Ôl'hommeÔ_ÔÐ Â ÐÔ_ÔreconnusÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€en€Ô_ÔvigueurÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€tout€Ô_ÔEtatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpartieÔ_Ô€au€Ô_ÔprsentÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô,€en€application€de€Ô_ÔloisÔ_Ô,€deÐ ¨ø Ðconventions,€de€Ô_ÔrglementsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔcoutumesÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔsousÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprtexteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔprsentÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€ne€Ô_ÔlesÔ_ÔÐ ŽÞ ÐÔ_Ôreconnað3ðtÔ_Ô€pas€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôreconnað3ðtÔ_Ô€€un€Ô_ÔmoindreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdegrÔ_Ô".€Ô_ÔL'ensembleÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔcesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtextesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔinterditÔ_Ô€€unÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔEtatÔ_Ô€de€se€Ô_ÔlivrerÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€application€Ô_ÔdistributivedeÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔRienÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€neÐ Zª ÐÔ_ÔcontraintÔ_Ô€un€Ô_ÔEtatÔ_Ô€€Ô_Ôl'abolitionÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔmaisÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôs'ilÔ_Ô€a€Ô_ÔchoisiÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'abolirÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcapitaleÔ_Ô,€le€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔluiÔ_Ô€faitÐ @ Ðinterdiction€de€la€Ô_ÔrtablirÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmanireÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔarbitraireÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔfðEðtÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔceÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔindirectementÔ_Ô.Ð &v ÐÌ„€La€Ô_ÔtroisimeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔerreurÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcommiseÔ_Ô€par€le€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔdcisionÔ_Ô€est€la€Ô_ÔconsquenceÔ_Ô€des€deuxÐ òB ÐÔ_ÔpremiresÔ_Ô.€En€Ô_ÔeffetÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔconsidrantÔ_Ô€le€Canada€comme€Ô_ÔimplicitementÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔautorisÔ_Ô€par€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6(2)Ð Ø( Ðdu€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€,€Ô_Ôd'uneÔ_Ô€part,€Ô_ÔrtablirÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcapitaleÔ_Ô€et,€Ô_Ôd'autreÔ_Ô€part,€€Ô_Ôl'appliquerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcertainsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcasÔ_Ô,Ð ¾ Ðle€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô,€comme€Ô_Ôs'ilÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôs'agissaitÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'unÔ_Ô€pays€non€Ô_ÔabolitionnisteÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔsoumetÔ_Ô€le€Canada€€laÐ ¤ô ÐÔ_ÔvrificationÔ_Ô€des€obligations€Ô_ÔimposesÔ_Ô€aux€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô€non€Ô_ÔabolitionnistesÔ_Ô:€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€applicable€auxÐ Š Ú Ðcrimes€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€plus€graves,€Ô_ÔjugementÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprononcÔ_Ô€au€Ô_ÔtermeÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'unÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔprocsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔquitableÔ_Ô,€etc...Ð p!À  ÐÌÔ_ÔCetteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔanalyseÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmontreÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔselonÔ_Ô€le€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô,€en€Ô_ÔextradantÔ_Ô€M.€Cox€vers€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔUnisÔ_Ô,€leÐ <#Œ" ÐCanada€qui€a€Ô_ÔaboliÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€sur€son€Ô_ÔterritoireÔ_Ô,€Ô_Ôl'aÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔrtablieÔ_Ô€"par€procuration"€€Ô_Ôl'gardÔ_ÔÐ "$r# Ðde€Ô_ÔpersonnesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔplacesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsousÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔjuridictionÔ_Ô.Ð %X $ ÐÌJe€Ô_ÔpartageÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcetteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔanalyseÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmaisÔ_Ô,€€la€Ô_ÔdiffrenceÔ_Ô€du€Ô_ÔComitÔ_Ô,€Ô_Ôj'estimeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔceÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcomportementÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôn'estÔ_ÔÐ Ô&$"& Ðpas€Ô_ÔautorisÔ_Ô€par€le€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô.Ð º' #' ÐÌDe€plus,€Ô_ÔaprsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔavoirÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔainsiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔrtabliÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€par€procuration,€le€Canada€Ô_ÔlimiteÔ_Ô€sonÐ †)Ö$) Ðapplication€€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcertaineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcatgorieÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔpersonnesÔ_Ô:€Ô_ÔcellesÔ_Ô€qui€Ô_ÔsontÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔextradablesÔ_Ô€vers€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô„Ð l*¼%* ÐÔ_ÔUnisÔ_Ô.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌLe€Canada€Ô_Ôreconnað3ðtÔ_Ô€son€intention€de€Ô_ÔpratiquerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔainsiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔafinÔ_Ô€de€ne€pas€Ô_ÔconstituerÔ_Ô€un€refuge€pourÐ -n(- ÐÔ_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdlinquantsÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔvenantÔ_Ô€des€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔUnisÔ_Ô.€Son€intention€se€Ô_ÔmanifesteÔ_Ô€par€son€abstention€Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔsolliciterÔ_Ô€des€assurances€Ô_ÔselonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔlesquellesÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€ne€Ô_ÔseraitÔ_Ô€pas€Ô_ÔexcuteÔ_Ô€en€Ô_ÔcasÔ_ÔÐ –æ ÐÔ_Ôd'extraditionÔ_Ô€vers€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEtatsÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔUnisÔ_Ô,€comme€le€Ô_ÔluiÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpermetÔ_Ô€son€Ô_ÔtraitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔbilatralÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'extraditionÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔavecÔ_ÔÐ |Ì ÐÔ_ÔceÔ_Ô€pays.Ð b² ÐÌC'est€Ô_ÔdoncÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdlibrmentÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôlorsqu'ilÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔextradeÔ_Ô€des€Ô_ÔpersonnesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€la€situation€de€M.€Cox,€leÐ . ~ ÐCanada€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€expose€€Ô_Ôl'applicationÔ_Ô€de€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔcapitaleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdansÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôl'EtatÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔrequrantÔ_Ô.Ð  d ÐÌEn€Ô_ÔagissantÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔainsiÔ_Ô,€le€Ô_ÔchoixÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔoprÔ_Ô€par€le€Canada€€Ô_Ôl'gardÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'uneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpersonneÔ_Ô€relevant€de€Ô_ÔsaÔ_ÔÐ à 0 ÐÔ_ÔjuridictionÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔselonÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôqu'elleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsoitÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔextradableÔ_Ô€vers€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔEtasÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔUnisÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€non,€Ô_ÔconstitueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔuneÔ_ÔÐ Æ   Ðdiscrimination€en€violation€des€articles€2(1)€et€26€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô.Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌUn€tel€Ô_ÔchoixÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔportantÔ_Ô€sur€le€droit€€la€vie€et€Ô_ÔlaissantÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔceluiÔ_Ô„ci€"in€fine"€entre€Ô_ÔlesÔ_Ô€mains€duÐ xÈ  ÐÔ_ÔgouvernementÔ_Ô€qui€pour€des€raisons€de€Ô_ÔpolitiqueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpnaleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdcideÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔouÔ_Ô€non€de€Ô_ÔsolliciterÔ_Ô€desÐ ^®  Ðassurances€Ô_ÔqueÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔpeineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔmortÔ_Ô€ne€sera€pas€Ô_ÔexcuteÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔconstitueÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€privation€Ô_ÔarbitraireÔ_Ô€duÐ D”  Ðdroit€€la€vie€Ô_ÔinterditeÔ_Ô€par€Ô_Ôl'articleÔ_Ô€6(1)€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô€et€en€Ô_ÔconsquenceÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔuneÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmconnaissanceÔ_Ô€parÐ *z  Ðle€Canada€de€Ô_ÔsesÔ_Ô€engagements€au€titre€de€Ô_ÔcetÔ_Ô€article€du€Ô_ÔPacteÔ_Ô.Ð ` ÐÌChristine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_ÔÐ Ü, ÐÌ[Original:€French]€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌ5.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)Ð Zª ÐÌBy€declining€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€on€Mr.€Cox€or,Ð &v Ðif€imposed,€would€not€be€carried€out,€Canada€violates,€in€my€opinion,€its€obligations€underÐ  \ Ðarticle€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€read€in€conjunction€with€articles€2,€5€and€26.€TheÐ òB Ðreasons€which€lead€me€to€this€conclusion€were€elaborated€in€my€individual€opinion€on€theÐ Ø( ÐViews€in€the€case€of€ò òJoseph€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canadaó ó€(Communication€No.€470/1991).Ð ¾ ÐÌI€would€add€one€further€observation.€The€fact€that€Mr.€Cox€has€not€yet€been€tried€andÐ Š Ú Ðsentenced€to€death,€as€Mr.€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€had€been€when€the€Committee€adopted€its€Views€on€hisÐ p!À  Ðcase,€makes€no€material€difference.€It€suffices€that€the€offence€for€which€Mr.€Cox€faces€trialÐ V"¦! Ðin€the€United€States€carries€in€principle€capital€punishment€as€a€sentence€he€faces€under€theÐ <#Œ" Ðlaw€of€the€United€States.€He€therefore€faces€a€charge€under€which€his€life€is€in€jeopardy.Ð "$r# ÐÌÔ_ÔRajsoomerÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLallahÔ_ÔÐ î%>!% ÐÌ[Original:€English]€Ð º' #' ÐÌÌ6.€òòIndividual€opinion€by€Mr.€Ô_ÔBertilÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWennergrenÔ_Ô€(dissentingóó)Ð l*¼%* ÐÌI€do€not€share€the€Committee's€Views€about€a€non„violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant,€asÐ 8,ˆ', Ðset€out€in€paragraph€16.2€and€16.3€of€the€Views.€On€grounds€which€I€developed€in€detail€inÐ -n(- Ðmy€individual€opinion€concerning€the€Committee's€Views€on€communication€470/1991Ð ° Ð(ò òJoseph€John€Ô_ÔKindlerÔ_Ô€v.€Canada)ó ó,€Canada€did,€in€my€opinion,€violate€article€6,€paragraphÐ –æ Ð1,€of€the€Covenant;€it€did€so€when,€after€the€decision€to€extradite€Mr.€Cox€to€the€UnitedÐ |Ì ÐStates€had€been€taken,€the€Minister€of€Justice€ordered€him€surrendered€without€assurancesÐ b² Ðthat€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€or,€if€imposed,€would€not€be€carried€out.Ð H˜ ÐÌAs€to€whether€the€extradition€of€Mr.€Cox€to€the€United€States€would€entail€a€violation€ofÐ  d Ðarticle€7€of€the€Covenant€because€of€the€so„called€"death€row€phenomenon"€associated€withÐ ú J Ðthe€imposition€of€a€capital€sentence€in€the€case,€I€wish€to€add€the€following€observations€toÐ à 0 Ðthe€Committee's€Views€in€paragraphs€17.1€and€17.2.€The€Committee€has€been€informed€thatÐ Æ   Ðno€individual€has€been€executed€in€Pennsylvania€for€over€twenty€years.€According€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðinformation€available€to€the€Committee,€condemned€prisoners€are€held€segregated€from€otherÐ ’â  Ðprisoners.€While€they€may€enjoy€some€particular€facilities,€such€as€bigger€cells,€access€toÐ xÈ  Ðradio€and€television€sets€of€their€own,€they€are€nonetheless€confined€to€death€row€awaitingÐ ^®  Ðexecution€for€years.€And€this€ò ònotó ó€because€they€avail€themselves€of€all€types€of€judicialÐ D”  Ðappellate€remedies,€but€because€the€State€party€does€not€consider€it€appropriate,€for€the€timeÐ *z  Ðbeing,€to€proceed€with€the€execution.€If€the€State€party€considers€it€necessary,€for€policyÐ ` Ðreasons,€to€have€resort€to€the€death€penalty€as€such€but€not€necessary€and€not€even€opportuneÐ öF Ðto€carry€out€capital€sentences,€a€condemned€person's€confinement€to€death€row€should,€in€myÐ Ü, Ðopinion,€last€for€as€short€a€period€as€possible,€with€commutation€of€the€death€sentence€to€lifeÐ Â Ðimprisonment€taking€place€as€early€as€possible.€A€stay€for€a€prolonged€and€indefinite€periodÐ ¨ø Ðof€time€on€death€row,€in€conditions€of€particular€isolation€and€under€the€threat€of€executionÐ ŽÞ Ðwhich€might€by€unforeseeable€changes€in€policy€become€real,€is€not,€in€my€opinion,Ð tÄ Ðcompatible€with€the€requirements€of€article€7,€because€of€the€unreasonable€mental€stress€thatÐ Zª Ðthis€implies.Ð @ ÐÌThus,€the€extradition€of€Ô_ÔMr.CoxÔ_Ô€might€also€be€in€violation€of€article€7.€However,€there€is€notÐ  \ Ðenough€information€in€this€case€about€the€current€practice€of€the€Pennsylvania€criminalÐ òB Ðjustice€and€penitentiary€system€to€allow€any€conclusion€along€the€lines€indicated€above.Ð Ø( ÐWhat€has€been€developed€above€remains€hypothetical€and€in€the€nature€of€principles.Ð ¾ ÐÌÔ_ÔBertilÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWennergrenÔ_ÔÐ Š Ú ÐÌ[Original:€English]€Ð V"¦! ÐÓöûÓ