’WPC  O¢+)ĢܶģŃŗ,5N˜ ‰)½œQ"YżiŃ<­;;ū$©!`ä§5ŚįĪt ņü€^£'’Ą”k÷1ܾ „óP*ŸpP!‚£ĒaHėū¶;Ū9zXōńs„*c7Š'ü€ktͤgōŽ vMŚŹ6 nIŖ&$”ĆMšŹ Ō‘$‡“m ģłÆļVBąāĀ"äå¹Řf9±ĪT+ģ,Ļ5öŽ„¬t©ų¾XĢ^5™’ņ$ć(RvwŲ°æ|12&£PHµeųJ04Xg’ē—ū-?ō>ĶCRæźł|šĢš¦.Ŗ„w­sĻ ˆ¶×œx)āŌĪØŲ¹xBFäSw 'U«TŹiÕG¼¼Ię³`YÖ /żä^¶żŌÆXx—G·€+æéEäsv ¶łcæżĻ]%é+SĖ&}I*Ē4›D„°ŒØKH¹VāNÖÓĆQ¬M8…e¬“ŒęŁ«gIÅ;`\īp<0 ņ¶Žģ1¶Ęz" Źż=¾;ą²ĮŲĪØÉś0€ ƒ=Gų{=Ćŗ„0‹&čÕf€lÖo?½·{ėŻWŠīģøžŠm³'įĖȜsĖä³SNÕ)ˆčb-ƌIģ'ižł¢ĶĢ=sXƒ&[ż)¹U>BĢ€ 0nL 0iŗ 0Y# 0_| 0&ŪU6  7 0ĘG #Į UNĪ % M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv ō\  `‹&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <’’:Default ParaŌ€ōōōŌŌ€XXXŌ< ’’:Normal (Web)Ō S ŌÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ6’’4HyperlinkóóņņŌ ’ ŌóóŌ  Ō<’’:FollowedHypeóóņņŌ  ŌóóŌ  Ō<qy’’:HTML TypewriŌ€ōōōŌŌK€<ž6X9`(‹Courier NewKŌŌ  ŌŌ€XXXŌŌS€ō\  `‹&Times New RomanSŌŌ  Ō<ž6X9`(‹Courier New#|x(žew$””ŅܰŅŅܰŅŌ..ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌÓ  ÓŌ€ X}`XX XŌŌ€X}`XX X}`ŌŌԘHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ČhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Xhvō* Äpģ*€Į ’U‹’ĄĄĄŻ ƒ ew!ŻŅܰŅŅܰŅŌ..ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌÓ  ÓŌ€ Xf XX XŌŌ€Xf XX Xf ŌŌŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEŠ ° ŠĢŌ_ŌņņStewartŌ_Ō€v.€CanadaóóŠ |Ģ ŠĢCommunication€No.€538/1993Š H˜ ŠĢ1€November€1996Š  d ŠĢŌ_ŌCCPRŌ_Ō/C/58/D/538/1993Š ą 0 ŠĢĢVIEWSó óŠ ’ā  ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€Charles€E.€Stewart€[represented€by€counsel]€Š D”  ŠĢņņVictimóó:€The€author€Š ` ŠĢņņState€partyóó:€Canada€Š Ü, ŠĢņņDate€of€communicationóó:€18€February€1993€(initial€submission)€Š Øų ŠĢņņDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€18€March€1994€óóŠ tÄ ŠĢĢņņÓ  ÓÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantŠ &v Šon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Š  \ ŠĢņņMeetingóó€on€1€November€1996,€Š Ų( ŠĢņņHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€538/1993€submitted€to€the€HumanŠ ¤ō ŠRights€Committee€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Charles€E.€Stewart€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€theŠ Š Ś ŠInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Š p!Ą  ŠĢņņHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theŠ <#Œ" Šcommunication,€his€counsel€and€the€State€party,€Š "$r# ŠĢņņAdoptsóó€the€following:€Š ī%>!% ŠĢĢÓuÓņņņ ņViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óóóŠ  (š#( ŠÓÓĢĢ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Charles€Edward€Stewart,€a€British€citizen€born€inŠ R+¢&+ Š1960.€He€has€resided€in€Ontario,€Canada,€since€the€age€of€seven,€and€currently€facesŠ 8,ˆ', Šdeportation€from€Canada.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Canada€of€articles€7,€9,Š -n(- Š12,€13,€17€and€23€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€He€isŠ ° Šrepresented€by€counsel.€Š –ę ŠĢņņThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróó€Š b² ŠĢ2.1€The€author€was€born€in€Scotland€in€December€1960.€At€the€age€of€seven,€he€emigratedŠ . ~ Što€Canada€with€his€mother;€his€father€and€older€brother€were€already,€at€the€time,€living€inŠ  d ŠCanada.€The€author's€parents€have€since€separated,€and€the€author€lives€together€with€hisŠ ś J Šmother€and€with€his€younger€brother.€His€mother€is€in€poor€health,€and€his€brother€isŠ ą 0 Šmentally€disabled€and€suffers€from€chronic€epilepsy.€His€older€brother€was€deported€to€theŠ Ę   ŠUnited€Kingdom€in€1992,€because€of€a€previous€criminal€record.€This€brother€apart,€all€ofŠ ¬ ü  Šthe€author's€relatives€reside€in€Canada;€the€author€himself€has€two€young€twin€children,€whoŠ ’ā  Šlive€with€their€mother,€from€whom€the€author€divorced€in€1989.€Š xČ  ŠĢ2.2€The€author€claims€that€for€most€of€his€life,€he€considered€himself€to€be€a€CanadianŠ D”  Šcitizen.€He€claims€that€it€was€only€when€he€was€contacted€by€immigration€officials€becauseŠ *z  Šof€a€criminal€conviction€that€he€realized€that,€legally,€he€was€only€a€permanent€resident,€asŠ ` Šhis€parents€had€never€requested€Canadian€citizenship€for€him€during€his€youth.€It€is€statedŠ öF Šthat€between€September€1978€and€May€1991,€the€author€was€convicted€on€42€occasions,Š Ü, Šmostly€for€petty€offences€and€traffic€offences.€Two€convictions€were€for€possession€ofŠ Ā Šmarijuana€seeds€and€of€a€prohibited€martial€arts€weapon.€One€conviction€was€for€assault€withŠ Øų Šbodily€harm,€committed€in€September€1984,€on€the€author's€former€girlfriend.€CounselŠ ŽŽ Šindicates€that€most€of€her€client's€convictions€are€attributable€to€her€client's€substance€abuseŠ tÄ Šproblems,€in€particular€alcoholism.€Since€his€release€on€mandatory€supervision€in€SeptemberŠ ZŖ Š1990,€the€author€has€participated€in€several€drug€and€alcohol€rehabilitation€Ō_ŌprogrammesŌ_Ō.€HeŠ @ Šhas€further€received€medical€advice€to€control€his€alcohol€abuse€and,€with€the€exception€ofŠ &v Šone€relapse,€has€remained€alcohol„free.€Š  \ ŠĢ2.3€It€is€stated€that€although€the€author€cannot€contribute€much€financially€to€the€subsistenceŠ Ų( Šof€his€family,€he€does€so€whenever€he€is€able€to€and€helps€his€ailing€mother€and€retardedŠ ¾ Šbrother€around€the€home.€Š ¤ō ŠĢ2.4€In€1990,€an€immigration€enquiry€was€initiated€against€the€author€pursuant€to€Section€27,Š p!Ą  Šparagraph€1,€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€Under€this€provision,€a€permanent€resident€in€CanadaŠ V"¦! Šmust€be€ordered€deported€from€Canada€if€an€adjudicator€in€an€immigration€enquiry€isŠ <#Œ" Šsatisfied€that€the€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€certain€specified€offences€under€theŠ "$r# ŠņņImmigration€Actóó.€On€20€August€1990,€the€author€was€ordered€deported€on€account€of€hisŠ %X $ Šcriminal€convictions.€He€appealed€the€order€to€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division.€The€BoardŠ ī%>!% Šof€the€Appeal€Division€heard€the€appeal€on€15€May€1992,€dismissing€it€by€judgment€of€21Š Ō&$"& ŠAugust€1992,€which€was€communicated€to€the€author€on€1€September€1992.€Š ŗ' #' ŠĢ2.5€On€30€October€1992,€the€author€complained€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€for€anŠ †)Ö$) Šextension€of€the€time€limit€for€applying€for€leave€to€appeal.€The€Court€first€granted€theŠ l*¼%* Šrequest€but€subsequently€dismissed€the€application€for€leave€to€appeal.€There€is€no€furtherŠ R+¢&+ Šappeal€or€application€for€leave€to€appeal€from€the€Federal€Court€of€Appeal€to€the€SupremeŠ 8,ˆ', ŠCourt€of€Canada,€or€to€any€other€domestic€tribunal.€Thus,€no€further€effective€domesticŠ -n(- Šremedy€is€said€to€be€available.€Š ° ŠĢ2.6€If€the€author€is€deported,€he€would€not€be€able€to€return€to€Canada€without€the€expressŠ |Ģ Šconsent€of€the€Canadian€Minister€of€Employment€and€Immigration,€under€the€terms€ofŠ b² ŠSections€19(1)(Ō_ŌiŌ_Ō)€and€55€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó.€A€re„application€for€emigration€to€CanadaŠ H˜ Šwould€not€only€require€ministerial€consent€but€also€that€the€author€fulfil€all€the€otherŠ . ~ Šstatutory€admissibility€criteria€for€immigrants.€Furthermore,€because€of€his€convictions,€theŠ  d Šauthor€would€be€barred€from€readmission€to€Canada€under€Section€19(2)(a)€of€the€Act.€Š ś J ŠĢ2.7€As€the€deportation€order€against€the€author€could€now€be€enforced€at€any€point€in€time,Š Ę   Šcounsel€requests€the€Committee€to€seek€from€the€State€party€interim€measures€of€protection,Š ¬ ü  Špursuant€to€rule€86€of€the€rules€of€procedure.€Š ’ā  ŠĢņņThe€complaintóó€Š ^®  ŠĢ3.1€The€author€claims€that€the€above€facts€reveal€violations€of€articles€7,€9,€12,€13,€17€andŠ *z  Š23€of€the€Covenant.€He€claims€that€in€respect€of€article€23,€the€State€party€has€failed€toŠ ` Šprovide€for€clear€legislative€recognition€of€the€protection€of€the€family.€In€the€absence€ofŠ öF Šsuch€legislation€which€ensures€that€family€interests€would€be€given€due€weight€inŠ Ü, Šadministrative€proceedings€such€as,€for€example,€those€before€the€Immigration€and€RefugeeŠ Ā ŠBoard,€he€claims,€there€is€a€ņņprima€facieóó€issue€as€to€whether€Canadian€law€is€compatible€withŠ Øų Šthe€requirement€of€protection€of€the€family.€Š ŽŽ ŠĢ3.2€The€author€also€refers€to€the€Committee's€General€Comment€on€article€17,€according€toŠ ZŖ Šwhich€"interference€[with€home€and€privacy]€can€only€take€place€on€the€basis€of€law,€whichŠ @ Šitself€must€be€compatible€with€the€provisions,€aims€and€objectives€of€the€Covenant".€HeŠ &v Šasserts€that€there€is€no€law€which€ensures€that€his€legitimate€family€interests€or€those€of€theŠ  \ Šmembers€of€his€family€would€be€addressed€in€deciding€on€his€deportation€from€Canada;€thereŠ ņB Šis€only€the€vague€and€general€discretion€given€to€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€toŠ Ų( Šconsider€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€which€is€said€to€be€insufficient€to€ensure€aŠ ¾ Šbalancing€of€his€family€interests€and€other€legitimate€State€aims.€In€its€decision,€theŠ ¤ō ŠImmigration€Appeal€Division€allegedly€did€not€give€any€weight€to€the€disabilities€of€theŠ Š Ś Šauthor's€mother€and€brother;€instead,€it€ruled€that€"taking€into€account€that€the€appellant€doesŠ p!Ą  Šnot€have€anyone€depending€on€him€and€there€being€no€real€attachment€to€and€no€real€supportŠ V"¦! Šfrom€anyone,€the€Appeal€Division€sees€insufficient€circumstances€to€justify€the€appellant'sŠ <#Œ" Špresence€in€this€country".€Š "$r# ŠĢ3.3€According€to€the€author,€the€term€"home"€should€be€interpreted€broadly,€encompassingŠ ī%>!% Šthe€(entire)€community€of€which€an€individual€is€a€part.€In€this€sense,€his€"home"€is€said€toŠ Ō&$"& Šbe€Canada.€It€is€further€submitted€that€the€author's€privacy€must€include€the€fact€of€being€ableŠ ŗ' #' Što€live€within€this€community€without€arbitrary€or€unlawful€interference.€To€the€extent€thatŠ  (š#( ŠCanadian€law€does€not€protect€aliens€against€such€interference,€the€author€claims€a€violationŠ †)Ö$) Šof€article€17.€Š l*¼%* ŠĢ3.4€The€author€submits€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€applicable€to€his€situation€since,€forŠ 8,ˆ', Šall€practical€purposes,€Canada€is€his€own€country.€His€deportation€from€Canada€would€resultŠ -n(- Šin€an€absolute€statutory€bar€from€reentering€Canada.€It€is€noted€in€this€context€that€articleŠ ° Š12(4)€does€not€indicate€that€everyone€has€the€right€to€enter€his€country€of€nationality€or€ofŠ –ę Šbirth€but€only€"his€own€country".€Counsel€argues€that€the€U.K.€is€no€longer€the€author's€"ownŠ |Ģ Šcountry",€since€he€left€it€at€the€age€of€seven€and€his€entire€life€is€now€Ō_ŌcentredŌ_Ō€upon€his€familyŠ b² Šin€Canada€„€thus,€although€not€Canadian€in€a€formal€sense,€he€must€be€considered€ņņde€factoóóŠ H˜ Ša€Canadian€citizen.€Š . ~ ŠĢ3.5€The€author€affirms€that€his€allegations€under€articles€17€and€23€should€also€be€examinedŠ ś J Šin€the€light€of€other€provisions,€especially€articles€9€and€12.€While€article€9€addressesŠ ą 0 Šdeprivation€of€liberty,€there€is€no€indication€that€the€ņņonlyóó€concept€of€liberty€is€one€of€physicalŠ Ę   Šfreedom.€Article€12€recognizes€liberty€in€a€broader€sense:€the€author€believes€that€hisŠ ¬ ü  Šdeportation€from€Canada€would€violate€"his€liberty€of€movement€within€Canada€and€withinŠ ’ā  Šhis€community",€and€that€it€would€not€be€necessary€for€one€of€the€legitimate€objectivesŠ xČ  Šenumerated€in€article€12,€paragraph€3.€Š ^®  ŠĢ3.6€The€author€contends€that€the€enforcement€of€the€deportation€order€would€amount€toŠ *z  Šcruel,€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.€HeŠ ` Šconcedes€that€the€Committee€has€not€yet€decided€whether€the€permanent€separation€of€anŠ öF Šindividual€from€his/her€family€and/or€close€relatives€and€the€effective€banishment€of€a€personŠ Ü, Šfrom€the€only€country€he€ever€knew€and€in€which€he€grew€up€may€amount€to€cruel,€inhumanŠ Ā Šand€degrading€treatment;€he€submits€that€this€is€an€issue€to€be€determined€on€its€merits.€Š Øų ŠĢ3.7€In€this€connection,€the€author€recalls€that€(a)€he€has€resided€in€Canada€since€the€age€ofŠ tÄ Šseven;€(b)€at€the€time€of€issue€of€the€deportation€order€all€members€of€his€immediate€familyŠ ZŖ Šresided€in€Canada;€(c)€while€his€criminal€record€is€extensive,€it€does€by€no€means€reveal€thatŠ @ Šhe€is€a€danger€to€public€safety;€(d)€he€has€taken€voluntary€steps€to€control€his€substance„Š &v Šabuse€problems;€(e)€deportation€from€Canada€would€effectively€and€permanently€sever€allŠ  \ Šhis€ties€in€Canada;€and€(f)€the€prison€terms€served€for€various€convictions€already€constituteŠ ņB Šadequate€punishment€and€the€reasoning€of€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division,€by€emphasizingŠ Ų( Šhis€criminal€record,€amounts€to€the€imposition€of€additional€punishment.€Š ¾ ŠĢņņThe€Special€Rapporteur's€request€for€interim€measures€of€protection€and€State€party'sŠ Š Ś Šreactionóó€Š p!Ą  ŠĢ4.1€On€26€April€1993,€the€Special€Rapporteur€on€New€Communications€transmitted€theŠ <#Œ" Šcommunication€to€the€State€party,€requesting€it,€under€rule€91€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€toŠ "$r# Šprovide€information€and€observations€on€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€Under€ruleŠ %X $ Š86€of€the€rules€of€procedure,€the€State€party€was€requested€not€to€deport€the€author€to€theŠ ī%>!% ŠUnited€Kingdom€while€his€communication€was€under€consideration€by€the€Committee.€Š Ō&$"& ŠĢ4.2€In€a€submission€dated€9€July€1993€in€reply€to€the€request€for€interim€measures€ofŠ  (š#( Šprotection,€the€State€party€indicates€that€although€the€author€would€undoubtedly€sufferŠ †)Ö$) Špersonal€inconvenience€should€he€be€deported€to€the€United€Kingdom,€there€are€no€specialŠ l*¼%* Šor€compelling€circumstances€in€the€case€that€would€appear€to€cause€irreparable€harm.€In€thisŠ R+¢&+ Šcontext,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€is€not€being€returned€to€a€country€where€hisŠ 8,ˆ', Šsafety€or€life€would€be€in€jeopardy;€furthermore,€he€would€not€be€barred€once€and€for€allŠ -n(- Šfrom€readmission€to€Canada.€Secondly,€the€State€party€notes€that€although€the€author's€socialŠ ° Šties€with€his€family€may€be€affected,€his€complaint€makes€it€clear€that€his€family€has€noŠ –ę Šfinancial€or€other€objective€dependence€on€him:€the€author€does€not€contribute€financiallyŠ |Ģ Što€his€brother,€has€not€maintained€contact€with€his€father€for€seven€or€eight€years€and,€afterŠ b² Šthe€divorce€from€his€wife€in€1989,€apparently€has€not€maintained€any€contact€with€his€wifeŠ H˜ Šor€children.€Š . ~ ŠĢ4.3€The€State€party€submits€that€the€application€of€rule€86€should€ņņnotóó€impose€a€general€ruleŠ ś J Šon€States€parties€to€suspend€measures€or€decisions€at€a€domestic€level€unless€there€are€specialŠ ą 0 Šcircumstances€where€such€a€measure€or€decision€might€conflict€with€the€effective€exerciseŠ Ę   Šof€the€author's€right€of€petition.€The€fact€that€a€complaint€has€been€filed€with€the€CommitteeŠ ¬ ü  Šshould€not€automatically€imply€that€the€State€party€is€restricted€in€its€power€to€implement€aŠ ’ā  Šdeportation€decision.€The€State€party€argues€that€considerations€of€state€security€and€publicŠ xČ  Špolicy€must€be€considered€prior€to€imposing€restraints€on€a€State€party€to€implement€aŠ ^®  Šdecision€lawfully€taken.€It€therefore€requests€the€Committee€to€clarify€the€criteria€at€the€basisŠ D”  Šof€the€Special€Rapporteur's€decision€to€call€for€interim€measures€of€protection€and€toŠ *z  Šconsider€withdrawing€the€request€for€interim€protection€under€rule€86.€Š ` ŠĢ4.4€In€her€comments,€dated€15€September€1993,€counsel€challenges€the€State€party'sŠ Ü, Šarguments€related€to€the€application€of€rule€86.€She€contends€that€deportation€would€indeedŠ Ā Šbar€the€author's€readmission€to€Canada€forever.€Furthermore,€the€test€of€what€may€constituteŠ Øų Š"irreparable€harm"€to€the€petitioner€should€not€be€considered€by€reference€to€the€criteriaŠ ŽŽ Šdeveloped€by€the€Canadian€courts€where,€it€is€submitted,€the€test€for€irreparable€harm€inŠ tÄ Šrelation€to€family€has€become€one€of€almost€exclusive€financial€dependency,€but€byŠ ZŖ Šreference€to€the€Committee's€own€criteria.€Š @ ŠĢ4.5€Counsel€submits€that€the€communication€was€filed€precisely€ņņbecauseóó€Canadian€courts,Š  \ Šincluding€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division,€do€not€recognize€family€interests€beyondŠ ņB Šfinancial€dependency€of€family€members.€She€adds€that€it€is€the€very€test€applied€by€theŠ Ų( ŠImmigration€Appeal€Division€and€the€Federal€Court€which€is€at€issue€before€the€HumanŠ ¾ ŠRights€Committee:€it€would€defeat€the€effectiveness€of€any€order€the€Committee€might€makeŠ ¤ō Šin€the€author's€Ō_ŌfavourŌ_Ō€in€the€future€if€the€rule€86€request€were€to€be€cancelled€now.€Finally,Š Š Ś Šcounsel€contends€that€it€would€be€unjustified€to€apply€a€"balance€of€convenience"€test€inŠ p!Ą  Šdetermining€whether€or€not€to€invoke€rule€86,€as€this€test€is€inappropriate€where€fundamentalŠ V"¦! Šhuman€rights€are€at€issue.€Š <#Œ" ŠĢņņState€party's€admissibility€observations€and€counsel's€commentsóó€Š %X $ ŠĢ5.1€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€14€December€1993,€the€State€party€contends€thatŠ Ō&$"& Šthe€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€allegations€of€violations€of€articles€7,€9,€12€and€13Š ŗ' #' Šof€the€Covenant.€It€recalls€that€international€and€domestic€human€rights€law€clearly€statesŠ  (š#( Šthat€the€right€to€remain€in€a€country€and€not€to€be€expelled€from€it€is€confined€to€nationalsŠ †)Ö$) Šof€that€state.€These€laws€recognize€that€any€such€rights€possessed€by€non„nationals€areŠ l*¼%* Šavailable€only€in€certain€circumstances€and€are€more€limited€than€those€possessed€byŠ R+¢&+ Šnationals.€Article€13€of€the€Covenant€"delineates€the€scope€of€that€instrument's€applicationŠ 8,ˆ', Šin€regard€to€the€right€of€an€alien€to€remain€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party....€Article€13Š -n(- Šdirectly€regulates€only€the€procedure€and€not€the€substantive€grounds€for€expulsion.€ItsŠ ° Špurpose€is€clearly€to€prevent€ņņarbitraryóó€expulsions.€[The€provision]€aims€to€ensure€that€theŠ –ę Šņņprocessóó€of€expelling€such€a€person€complies€with€what€is€laid€down€in€the€State's€domesticŠ |Ģ Šlaw€and€that€it€is€not€tainted€by€bad€faith€or€the€abuse€of€power".€Reference€is€made€to€theŠ b² ŠCommittee's€Views€in€case€No.€58/1979,€ņņŌ_ŌMaroufidouŌ_Ō€v.€Swedenóó.€Š H˜ ŠĢ5.2€The€State€party€submits€that€the€application€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€in€the€instant€caseŠ  d Šsatisfied€the€requirements€of€article€13.€In€particular,€the€author€was€represented€by€counselŠ ś J Šduring€the€inquiry€before€the€immigration€adjudicator,€was€given€the€opportunity€to€presentŠ ą 0 Ševidence€as€to€whether€he€should€be€permitted€to€remain€in€Canada,€and€to€cross„examineŠ Ę   Šwitnesses.€Based€on€evidence€adduced€during€the€inquiry,€the€adjudicator€issued€aŠ ¬ ü  Šdeportation€order€against€the€author.€The€State€party€explains€that€the€Immigration€AppealŠ ’ā  ŠBoard€to€which€the€author€complained€is€an€independent€and€impartial€tribunal€withŠ xČ  Šjurisdiction€to€consider€any€ground€of€appeal€that€involved€a€question€of€law€or€fact,€orŠ ^®  Šmixed€law€and€fact.€It€also€has€jurisdiction€to€consider€an€appeal€on€humanitarian€groundsŠ D”  Šthat€an€individual€should€not€be€removed€from€Canada.€The€Board€is€said€to€have€carefullyŠ *z  Šconsidered€and€weighed€all€the€evidence€presented€to€it,€as€well€as€the€circumstances€of€theŠ ` Šauthor's€case.€Š öF ŠĢ5.3€While€the€State€party€concedes€that€the€right€to€remain€in€a€country€might€exceptionallyŠ Ā Šfall€within€the€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant,€it€is€submitted€that€there€are€no€suchŠ Øų Šcircumstances€in€the€case:€the€decision€to€deport€Mr.€Stewart€is€said€to€be€"justified€by€theŠ ŽŽ Šfacts€of€the€case€and€by€Canada's€duty€to€enforce€public€interest€statutes€and€protect€society.Š tÄ ŠCanadian€courts€have€held€that€the€most€important€objective€for€a€government€is€to€protectŠ ZŖ Šthe€security€of€its€nationals.€This€is€consistent€with€the€view€expressed€by€the€Supreme€CourtŠ @ Šof€Canada€that€the€executive€arm€of€government€is€pre„eminent€in€matters€concerning€theŠ &v Šsecurity€of€its€citizens€...€and€that€the€most€fundamental€principle€of€immigration€law€is€thatŠ  \ Šnon„citizens€do€not€have€an€unqualified€right€to€enter€or€remain€in€the€country".€Š ņB ŠĢ5.4€The€State€party€argues€that€both€the€decision€to€deport€Mr.€Stewart€and€to€uphold€theŠ ¾ Šdeportation€order€met€with€the€requirements€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó,€and€that€these€decisionsŠ ¤ō Šwere€in€accordance€with€international€standards;€there€are€no€special€circumstances€whichŠ Š Ś Šwould€"trigger€the€application€of€the€Covenant€to€justify€the€complainant's€stay€in€Canada".Š p!Ą  ŠFurthermore,€there€is€no€evidence€of€abuse€of€power€by€Canadian€authorities€and€in€theŠ V"¦! Šabsence€of€such€an€abuse,€"it€is€inappropriate€for€the€Committee€to€evaluate€the€interpretationŠ <#Œ" Šand€application€by€those€authorities€of€Canadian€law".€Š "$r# ŠĢ5.5€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€arguesŠ ī%>!% Šthat€its€immigration€laws,€regulations€and€policies€are€compatible€with€the€requirements€ofŠ Ō&$"& Šthese€provisions.€In€particular,€Section€114(2)€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€allows€for€theŠ ŗ' #' Šexemption€of€persons€from€ņņanyóó€regulations€made€under€the€Act€or€the€admission€into€CanadaŠ  (š#( Šof€persons€where€there€exist€compassionate€or€humanitarian€considerations.€SuchŠ †)Ö$) Šconsiderations€include€the€existence€of€family€in€Canada€and€the€potential€harm€that€wouldŠ l*¼%* Šresult€if€a€member€of€the€family€were€removed€from€Canada.€Š R+¢&+ ŠĢ5.6€A€general€principle€of€Canadian€immigration€programs€and€policies€is€that€dependantsŠ -n(- Šof€immigrants€into€Canada€are€eligible€to€be€granted€permanent€residence€at€the€same€timeŠ ° Šas€the€principal€applicant.€Furthermore,€where€family€members€remain€outside€Canada,€theŠ –ę ŠņņImmigration€Actóó€and€ancillary€regulations€facilitate€reunification€through€family€class€andŠ |Ģ Šassisted€relative€sponsorships:€"[Ō_Ōr]eunificationŌ_Ō€in€fact€occurs€as€a€result€of€such€sponsorshipsŠ b² Šin€almost€all€cases".€Š H˜ ŠĢ5.7€In€the€light€of€the€above,€the€State€party€submits€that€any€effects€which€a€deportation€mayŠ  d Šhave€on€the€author's€family€in€Canada€would€occur€further€to€the€application€of€legislationŠ ś J Šthat€is€compatible€with€the€provisions,€aims€and€objectives€of€the€Covenant:€"In€the€case€atŠ ą 0 Šhand,€humanitarian€and€compassionate€grounds,€which€included€family€considerations,€wereŠ Ę   Štaken€into€account€during€the€proceedings€before€the€immigration€authorities€and€wereŠ ¬ ü  Šbalanced€against€Canada's€duty€and€responsibility€to€protect€society€and€to€properly€enforceŠ ’ā  Špublic€interest€statutes".€Š xČ  ŠĢ5.8€In€conclusion,€the€State€party€affirms€that€Mr.€Stewart€has€failed€to€substantiateŠ D”  Šviolations€of€rights€protected€under€the€Covenant€and€is€in€fact€claiming€a€right€to€remain€inŠ *z  ŠCanada.€He€is€said€to€be€in€fact€seeking€to€establish€an€avenue€under€the€Covenant€to€claimŠ ` Šthe€right€not€to€be€deported€from€Canada:€this€claim€is€incompatible€ņņŌ_ŌrationeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌmateriaeŌ_Ōóó€withŠ öF Šthe€provisions€of€the€Covenant€and€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Š Ü, ŠĢ6.1€In€her€comments,€counsel€notes€that€the€State€party€wrongly€conveys€the€impression€thatŠ Øų Šthe€author€had€two€full€hearings€before€the€immigration€authorities,€which€took€into€accountŠ ŽŽ Šall€the€specific€factors€in€his€case.€She€observes€that€the€immigration€adjudicator€conductingŠ tÄ Šthe€inquiry€"has€no€equitable€jurisdiction".€Once€he€is€satisfied€that€the€person€is€the€oneŠ ZŖ Šdescribed€in€the€initial€report,€that€this€person€is€a€permanent€resident€of€Canada,€and€thatŠ @ Šhe€has€been€convicted€of€a€criminal€offence,€a€removal€order€is€mandatory.€Counsel€contendsŠ &v Šthat€the€adjudicator€"may€not€take€into€account€any€other€factors€and€has€no€statutory€powerŠ  \ Šof€discretion€to€relieve€against€any€hardship€caused€by€the€issuance€of€the€removal€order".€Š ņB ŠĢ6.2€As€to€the€discretionary€power,€under€Section€114(2)€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó,€to€exemptŠ ¾ Špersons€from€regulatory€requirements€and€to€facilitate€admission€on€humanitarian€grounds,Š ¤ō Šcounsel€notes€that€this€power€is€ņņnotóó€used€to€relieve€the€hardship€of€a€person€and€his/herŠ Š Ś Šfamily€caused€by€the€removal€of€a€permanent€resident€from€Canada:€"[Ō_ŌT]heŌ_Ō€ImmigrationŠ p!Ą  ŠAppeal€Division€exercises€a€quasi„judicial€statutory€power€of€discretion€after€a€full€hearing,Š V"¦! Šand€it€has€been€seen€as€inappropriate€for€the€Minister€or€his€officials€to€in€fact€'overturn'€aŠ <#Œ" Šnegative€decision€...€by€this€body".€Š "$r# ŠĢ6.3€Counsel€affirms€that€the€humanitarian€and€compassionate€discretion€delegated€to€theŠ ī%>!% ŠMinister€by€the€ņņImmigration€Regulationsóó€can€in€any€event€hardly€be€said€to€provide€anŠ Ō&$"& Šeffective€mechanism€to€ensure€that€family€interests€are€balanced€against€other€interests.€InŠ ŗ' #' Šrecent€years,€Canada€is€said€to€have€routinely€separated€families€or€attempted€to€separateŠ  (š#( Šfamilies€where€the€interests€of€young€children€were€at€stake:€thus,€"the€best€interests€ofŠ †)Ö$) Šchildren€are€not€taken€into€account€in€this€administrative€process".€Š l*¼%* ŠĢ6.4€Counsel€submits€that€Canada€ambiguously€conveys€the€impression€that€family€class€andŠ 8,ˆ', Šassisted€relative€sponsorships€are€almost€always€successful.€This,€according€to€her,€may€beŠ -n(- Štrue€of€family€class€sponsorships,€but€it€is€clearly€not€the€case€for€assisted€relativeŠ ° Šsponsorships,€since€assisted€relative€applicants€must€meet€all€the€selection€criteria€forŠ –ę Šindependent€applicants.€Counsel€further€dismisses€as€"patently€wrong"€the€State€party'sŠ |Ģ Šargument€that€the€Court,€upon€application€for€judicial€review€of€a€deportation€order,€mayŠ b² Šbalance€the€hardship€caused€by€removal€against€the€public€interest.€The€Court,€as€it€hasŠ H˜ Šarticulated€repeatedly,€cannot€balance€these€interests,€is€limited€to€strict€judicial€review,€andŠ . ~ Šcannot€substitute€its€own€decision€for€that€of€the€decision€maker(s),€even€if€it€would€haveŠ  d Šreached€a€different€conclusion€on€the€facts:€it€is€limited€to€quashing€a€decision€because€ofŠ ś J Šjurisdictional€error,€a€breach€of€natural€justice€or€fairness,€an€error€of€law,€or€an€erroneousŠ ą 0 Šfinding€of€fact€made€in€a€perverse€or€in€a€capricious€manner€(Sec.€18(1)€ņņFederal€Court€Actóó).€Š Ę   ŠĢ6.5€As€to€the€compatibility€of€the€author's€claims€with€the€Covenant,€counsel€notes€that€Mr.Š ’ā  ŠStewart€is€not€claiming€an€absolute€right€to€remain€in€Canada.€She€concedes€that€theŠ xČ  ŠCovenant€does€not€ņņper€seóó€recognize€a€right€of€non„nationals€to€enter€or€remain€in€a€state.Š ^®  ŠNonetheless,€it€is€submitted€that€the€Covenant's€provisions€cannot€be€read€in€isolation€but€areŠ D”  Šinter„related:€accordingly,€article€13€must€be€read€in€the€light€of€other€provisions.€Š *z  ŠĢ6.6€Counsel€acknowledges€that€the€Committee€has€held€that€article€13€provides€forŠ öF Šprocedural€and€not€for€substantive€protection;€however,€procedural€protection€cannot€beŠ Ü, Šinterpreted€in€isolation€from€the€protection€provided€under€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant.Š Ā ŠThus,€legislation€governing€expulsion€cannot€discriminate€on€any€of€the€grounds€listed€inŠ Øų Šarticle€26;€nor€can€it€arbitrarily€or€unlawfully€interfere€with€family,€privacy€and€home€(articleŠ ŽŽ Š17).€Š tÄ ŠĢ6.7€As€to€the€claim€under€article€17,€counsel€notes€that€the€State€party€has€only€set€out€theŠ @ Šprovisions€of€the€ņņImmigration€Actóó€which€provide€for€family€reunification€„€provisions€whichŠ &v Šshe€considers€inapplicable€to€the€author's€case.€She€adds€that€article€17€imposes€positiveŠ  \ Šduties€upon€States€parties,€and€that€there€is€no€law€in€Canada€which€would€recognize€family,Š ņB Šprivacy,€or€home€interests€in€the€context€raised€in€the€author's€case.€Furthermore,€while€sheŠ Ų( Šrecognizes€that€there€is€a€process€provided€by€law€which€grants€to€the€Immigration€AppealŠ ¾ ŠDivision€a€general€discretion€to€consider€the€personal€circumstances€of€a€permanent€residentŠ ¤ō Šunder€order€of€deportation,€this€discretion€does€not€recognize€or€encompass€considerationŠ Š Ś Šof€fundamental€interests€such€as€integrity€of€the€family.€Counsel€refers€to€the€case€ofŠ p!Ą  ŠņņSutherlandóó€as€an€other€example€of€the€failure€to€recognize€that€integrity€of€the€family€is€anŠ V"¦! Šimportant€and€protected€interest.€For€counsel,€there€"can€be€no€balancing€of€interests€if€...Š <#Œ" Šfamily€...€interests€are€not€recognized€as€fundamental€interests€for€the€purpose€of€balancing.Š "$r# ŠThe€primary€interest€in€Canadian€law€and€jurisprudence€is€the€protection€of€the€public...".€Š %X $ ŠĢ6.8€Concerning€the€State€party's€contention€that€a€"right€to€remain"€may€only€come€withinŠ Ō&$"& Šthe€scope€of€application€of€the€Covenant€under€exceptional€circumstances,€counsel€claimsŠ ŗ' #' Šthat€the€process€whereby€the€author's€deportation€was€decided€and€confirmed€proceededŠ  (š#( Šwithout€recognition€or€cognizance€of€the€author's€rights€under€articles€7,€9,€12,€13,€17€or€23.Š †)Ö$) ŠWhile€it€is€true€that€Canada€has€a€duty€to€ensure€that€society€is€protected,€this€legitimateŠ l*¼%* Šinterest€must€be€balanced€against€other€protected€individual€rights.€Š R+¢&+ ŠĢ6.9€Counsel€concedes€that€Mr.€Stewart€was€given€an€opportunity,€before€the€ImmigrationŠ -n(- ŠAppeal€Division,€to€present€all€the€circumstances€of€his€case.€She€concludes,€however,€thatŠ ° Šdomestic€legislation€and€jurisprudence€do€not€recognize€that€her€client€will€be€subjected€toŠ –ę Ša€breach€of€his€fundamental€rights€if€he€were€deported.€This€is€because€such€rights€are€notŠ |Ģ Šand€need€not€be€considered€given€the€way€immigration€legislation€is€drafted.€Concepts€suchŠ b² Šas€home,€privacy,€family€or€residence€in€one's€own€country,€which€are€protected€under€theŠ H˜ ŠCovenant,€are€foreign€to€Canadian€law€ņņin€the€immigration€contextóó.€The€overriding€concernŠ . ~ Šin€view€of€removal€of€a€permanent€resident,€without€distinguishing€long„term€residents€fromŠ  d Šrecently€arrived€immigrants,€is€national€security.€Š ś J ŠĢņņThe€Committee's€admissibility€decisionóó€Š Ę   ŠĢ7.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsŠ ’ā  ŠCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€notŠ xČ  Šit€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Š ^®  ŠĢ7.2€The€Committee€noted€that€it€was€uncontested€that€there€were€no€further€domesticŠ *z  Šremedies€for€the€author€to€exhaust,€and€that€the€requirements€of€article€5,€paragraph€2(b),€ofŠ ` Šthe€Optional€Protocol€had€been€met.€Š öF ŠĢ7.3€In€as€much€as€the€author's€claims€under€articles€7€and€9€of€the€Covenant€are€concerned,Š Ā Šthe€Committee€examined€whether€the€conditions€of€articles€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€ProtocolŠ Øų Šwere€met.€In€respect€of€articles€7€and€9,€the€Committee€did€not€find,€on€the€basis€of€theŠ ŽŽ Šmaterial€before€it,€that€the€author€had€substantiated,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€his€claimŠ tÄ Šthat€deportation€to€the€United€Kingdom€and€separation€from€his€family€would€amount€toŠ ZŖ Šcruel€or€inhuman€treatment€within€the€meaning€of€article€7,€or€that€it€would€violate€his€rightŠ @ Što€liberty€and€security€of€person€within€the€meaning€of€article€9,€paragraph€1.€In€this€respect,Š &v Štherefore,€the€Committee€decided€that€the€author€had€no€claim€under€the€Covenant,€withinŠ  \ Šthe€meaning€of€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Š ņB ŠĢ7.4€As€to€article€13,€the€Committee€noted€that€the€author's€deportation€was€ordered€pursuantŠ ¾ Što€a€decision€adopted€in€accordance€with€the€law,€and€that€the€State€party€had€invokedŠ ¤ō Šarguments€of€protection€of€society€and€national€security.€It€was€not€apparent€that€thisŠ Š Ś Šassessment€was€reached€arbitrarily.€In€this€respect,€the€Committee€found€that€the€author€hadŠ p!Ą  Šfailed€to€substantiate€his€claim,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€and€that€this€part€of€theŠ V"¦! Šcommunication€was€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Š <#Œ" ŠĢ7.5€Concerning€the€claim€under€article€12,€the€Committee€noted€the€State€party's€contentionŠ %X $ Šthat€no€substantiation€in€support€of€this€claim€had€been€adduced,€as€well€as€counsel'sŠ ī%>!% Šcontention€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€was€applicable€to€Mr.€Stewart's€case.€The€CommitteeŠ Ō&$"& Šnoted€that€the€determination€of€whether€article€12,€paragraph€4,€was€applicable€to€theŠ ŗ' #' Šauthor's€situation€required€a€careful€analysis€of€whether€Canada€could€be€regarded€as€theŠ  (š#( Šauthor's€country"€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€and,€if€so,€whether€the€author'sŠ †)Ö$) Šdeportation€to€the€United€Kingdom€would€bar€him€from€reentering€"his€own€country",€and,Š l*¼%* Šin€the€affirmative,€whether€this€would€be€done€arbitrarily.€The€Committee€considered€thatŠ R+¢&+ Šthere€was€no€ņņa€priorióó€indication€that€the€author's€situation€could€ņņnotóó€be€subsumed€underŠ 8,ˆ', Šarticle€12,€paragraph€4,€and€therefore€concluded€that€this€issue€should€be€considered€on€itsŠ -n(- Šmerits.€Š ° ŠĢ7.6€As€to€the€claims€under€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€observed€thatŠ |Ģ Šthe€issue€whether€a€State€was€precluded,€by€reference€to€articles€17€and€23,€from€exercisingŠ b² Ša€right€to€deport€an€alien€otherwise€consistent€with€article€13€of€the€Covenant,€should€beŠ H˜ Šexamined€on€the€merits.€Š . ~ ŠĢ7.7€The€Committee€noted€the€State€party's€request€for€clarifications€of€the€criteria€thatŠ ś J Šformed€the€basis€of€the€Special€Rapporteur's€request€for€interim€protection€under€rule€86€ofŠ ą 0 Šthe€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€as€well€as€the€State€party's€request€that€the€CommitteeŠ Ę   Šwithdraw€its€request€under€rule€86.€The€Committee€observed€that€what€may€constituteŠ ¬ ü  Š"irreparable€damage"€to€the€victim€within€the€meaning€of€rule€86€cannot€be€determinedŠ ’ā  Šgenerally.€The€essential€criterion€is€indeed€the€irreversibility€of€the€consequences,€in€theŠ xČ  Šsense€of€the€inability€of€the€author€to€secure€his€rights,€should€there€later€be€a€finding€of€aŠ ^®  Šviolation€of€the€Covenant€on€the€merits.€The€Committee€may€decide,€in€any€given€case,€notŠ D”  Što€issue€a€request€under€rule€86€where€it€believes€that€compensation€would€be€an€adequateŠ *z  Šremedy.€Applying€these€criteria€to€deportation€cases,€the€Committee€would€require€to€knowŠ ` Šthat€an€author€would€be€able€to€return,€should€there€be€a€finding€in€his€Ō_ŌfavourŌ_Ō€on€the€merits.€Š öF ŠĢ8.€On€18€March€1994€the€Committee€declared€the€communication€admissible€in€so€far€as€itŠ Ā Šmight€raise€issues€under€articles€12,€paragraph€4,€17,€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š Øų ŠĢņņState€party's€observations€and€author's€commentsóó€Š tÄ ŠĢ9.1€In€its€submission€of€24€February€1995,€the€State€party€argues€that€Mr.€Stewart€has€neverŠ @ Šacquired€an€unconditional€right€to€remain€in€Canada€as€his€country".€Moreover,€hisŠ &v Šdeportation€will€not€operate€as€an€absolute€bar€to€his€reentry€to€Canada.€A€humanitarianŠ  \ Šreview€in€the€context€of€a€future€application€to€reenter€Canada€as€an€immigrant€is€a€viableŠ ņB Šadministrative€procedure€that€does€not€entail€a€reconsideration€of€the€judicial€decision€of€theŠ Ų( ŠImmigration€Appeal€Board.€Š ¾ ŠĢ9.2€Articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant€cannot€be€interpreted€as€being€incompatible€with€aŠ Š Ś ŠState€party's€right€to€deport€an€alien,€provided€that€the€conditions€of€article€13€of€theŠ p!Ą  ŠCovenant€are€observed.€Under€Canadian€law€everyone€is€protected€against€arbitrary€orŠ V"¦! Šunlawful€interference€with€privacy,€family€and€home€as€required€by€article€17.€The€StateŠ <#Œ" Šparty€submits€that€when€a€decision€to€deport€an€alien€is€taken€after€a€full€and€fair€procedureŠ "$r# Šin€accordance€with€law€and€policy,€which€are€not€themselves€inconsistent€with€the€Covenant,Š %X $ Šand€in€which€the€demonstrably€important€and€valid€interests€of€the€State€are€balanced€withŠ ī%>!% Šthe€Covenant€rights€of€the€individual,€such€a€decision€cannot€be€found€to€be€arbitrary.€In€thisŠ Ō&$"& Šcontext€the€State€party€submits€that€the€conditions€established€by€law€on€the€continuedŠ ŗ' #' Šresidency€of€non„citizens€in€Canada€are€reasonable€and€objective€and€the€application€of€theŠ  (š#( Šlaw€by€Canadian€authorities€is€consistent€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€read€as€aŠ †)Ö$) Šwhole.€Š l*¼%* ŠĢ9.3€The€State€party€points€out€that€the€proposed€deportation€of€Mr.€Stewart€is€not€the€resultŠ 8,ˆ', Šof€a€summary€decision€by€Canadian€authorities,€but€rather€of€careful€deliberation€of€allŠ -n(- Šfactors€concerned,€pursuant€to€full€and€fair€procedures€compatible€with€article€13€of€theŠ ° ŠCovenant,€in€which€Mr.€Stewart€was€represented€by€counsel€and€submitted€extensiveŠ –ę Šargument€in€support€of€his€claim€that€deportation€would€unduly€interfere€with€his€privacyŠ |Ģ Šand€family€life.€The€competent€Canadian€tribunals€considered€Mr.€Stewart's€interests€andŠ b² Šweighed€them€against€the€State's€interest€in€protecting€the€public.€In€this€context€the€StateŠ H˜ Šparty€refers€to€the€Convention€relating€to€the€Status€of€Refugees,€which€gives€explicitŠ . ~ Šrecognition€to€the€protection€of€the€public€against€criminals€and€those€who€are€security€risks;Š  d Šit€is€submitted€that€these€considerations€are€equally€relevant€in€interpreting€the€Covenant.Š ś J ŠMoreover,€Canada€refers€to€the€Committee's€General€Comment€No.€15€on€"The€position€ofŠ ą 0 Šaliens€under€the€Covenant",€which€provides€that€"It€is€for€the€competent€authorities€of€theŠ Ę   ŠState€party,€in€good€faith€and€in€the€exercise€of€their€powers,€to€apply€and€interpret€theŠ ¬ ü  Šdomestic€law,€observing,€however,€such€requirements€under€the€Covenant€as€equality€beforeŠ ’ā  Šthe€law".€It€also€refers€to€the€Committee's€Views€in€communication€No.€58/1979,Š xČ  ŠņņŌ_ŌMaroufidouŌ_Ō€v.€Swedenóó,€in€which€the€Committee€held€that€the€deportation€of€Ms€Ō_ŌMaroufidouŌ_ŌŠ ^®  Šdid€not€entail€a€violation€of€the€Covenant,€because€she€was€expelled€in€accordance€with€theŠ D”  Šprocedure€laid€down€by€the€State's€domestic€law€and€there€had€been€no€evidence€of€bad€faithŠ *z  Šor€abuse€of€power.€The€Committee€held€that€in€such€circumstances,€it€was€not€within€itsŠ ` Šcompetence€to€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€to€examine€whether€the€competent€authorities€ofŠ öF Šthe€State€had€correctly€interpreted€and€applied€its€law,€unless€it€was€manifest€that€they€hadŠ Ü, Šacted€in€bad€faith€or€had€abused€their€power.€In€this€communication€there€has€been€noŠ Ā Šsuggestion€of€bad€faith€or€abuse€of€Ō_Ōpower.€It€is€therefore€submitted€that€the€CommitteeŠ Øų Šshould€not€substitute€its€own€findings€without€some€objective€reason€to€think€that€theŠ ŽŽ Šfindings€of€fact€and€credibility€by€Canadian€decision„makers€were€flawed€by€bias,€bad€faithŠ tÄ Šor€other€factors€which€might€justify€the€Committee's€intervention€in€matters€that€are€withinŠ ZŖ Šthe€purview€of€domestic€tribunals.€Š @ ŠĢ9.4€As€to€Canada's€obligation€under€article€23€of€the€Covenant€to€protect€the€family,Š  \ Šreference€is€made€to€relevant€legislation€and€practice,€including€the€Canadian€ConstitutionŠ ņB Šand€the€Canadian€Charter€on€Human€Rights.€Canadian€law€provides€protection€for€the€familyŠ Ų( Šwhich€is€compatible€with€the€requirements€of€article€23.€The€protection€required€by€articleŠ ¾ Š23,€paragraph€1,€however,€is€not€absolute.€In€considering€his€removal,€the€competentŠ ¤ō ŠCanadian€courts€gave€appropriate€weight€to€the€impact€of€deportation€on€his€family€inŠ Š Ś Šbalancing€these€against€the€legitimate€State€interests€to€protect€society€and€to€regulateŠ p!Ą  Šimmigration.€In€this€context€the€State€party€submits€that€the€specific€facts€particular€to€hisŠ V"¦! Šcase,€including€his€age€and€lack€of€dependents,€suggest€that€the€nature€and€quality€of€hisŠ <#Œ" Šfamily€relationships€could€be€adequately€maintained€through€correspondence,€telephone€callsŠ "$r# Šand€visits€to€Canada,€which€he€would€be€at€liberty€to€make€pursuant€to€CanadianŠ %X $ Šimmigration€laws.€Š ī%>!% ŠĢ9.5€The€State€party€concludes€that€deportation€would€not€entail€a€violation€by€Canada€of€anyŠ ŗ' #' Šof€Mr.€Stewart's€rights€under€the€Covenant.€Š  (š#( ŠĢ10.1€In€her€submission€dated€16€June€1995,€counsel€for€Mr.€Stewart€argues€that€by€virtue€ofŠ l*¼%* Šhis€long€residence€in€Canada,€Mr.€Stewart€is€entitled€to€consider€Canada€to€be€"his€ownŠ R+¢&+ Šcountry"€for€purposes€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant.€It€is€argued€that€thisŠ 8,ˆ', Šprovision€should€not€be€subject€to€any€restrictions€and€that€the€denial€of€entry€to€a€person€inŠ -n(- ŠMr.€Stewart's€case€would€be€tantamount€to€exile.€Counsel€reviews€and€criticizes€relevantŠ ° ŠCanadian€case€law,€including€the€1992€judgment€in€ņņŌ_ŌChiarelliŌ_Ō€v€Ō_ŌM.E.IŌ_Ōóó,€in€which€the€loss€ofŠ –ę Špermanent€residence€was€likened€to€a€breach€of€contract;€once€the€contract€is€breached,Š |Ģ Šremoval€can€be€effected.€Counsel€maintains€that€permanent€residence€in€a€country€and€familyŠ b² Šties€should€not€be€dealt€with€as€in€the€context€of€commercial€law.€Š H˜ ŠĢ10.2€As€to€Mr.€Stewart's€ability€to€return€to€Canada€following€deportation,€author's€counselŠ  d Špoints€out€that€because€of€his€criminal€record,€he€would€face€serious€obstacles€in€gainingŠ ś J Šreadmission€to€Canada€as€a€permanent€resident€and€would€have€to€meet€the€selectionŠ ą 0 Šstandards€for€admission€to€qualify€as€an€independent€immigrant,€taking€into€account€hisŠ Ę   Šoccupational€skills,€education€and€experience.€As€to€the€immigration€regulations,€he€wouldŠ ¬ ü  Šrequire€a€pardon€from€his€prior€criminal€convictions,€otherwise€he€would€be€barred€fromŠ ’ā  Šreadmission€as€a€permanent€resident.€Š xČ  ŠĢ10.3€With€regard€to€persons€seeking€permanent€resident€status€in€Canada,€counsel€refers€toŠ D”  Šdecisions€of€the€Canadian€immigration€authorities€that€have€allegedly€not€given€sufficientŠ *z  Šweight€to€extenuating€circumstances.€Counsel€further€complains€that€the€exercise€ofŠ ` Šdiscretion€by€judges€is€not€subject€to€review€on€appeal.€Š öF ŠĢ10.4€As€to€a€violation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€author's€counsel€points€out€thatŠ Ā Šfamily,€privacy€and€home€are€not€concepts€incorporated€into€the€provisions€of€theŠ Øų ŠImmigration€Act.€Therefore,€although€the€immigration€authorities€can€take€into€accountŠ ŽŽ Šfamily€and€other€factors,€they€are€not€obliged€by€law€to€do€so.€Moreover,€considerations€ofŠ tÄ Šdependency€have€been€limited€to€the€aspect€of€financial€dependency,€as€illustrated€inŠ ZŖ Šdecisions€in€the€ņņŌ_ŌLangnerŌ_Ō€v.€Ō_ŌM.E.I.Ō_Ōóó,€ņņŌ_ŌTothŌ_Ō€v.€Ō_ŌM.E.I.Ō_Ōóó€and€ņņRobinson€v.€Ō_ŌM.E.I.Ō_Ōóó€cases.€Š @ ŠĢ10.5€It€is€argued€that€the€Canadian€authorities€did€not€sufficiently€take€into€account€Mr.Š  \ ŠStewart's€family€situation€in€their€decisions.€In€particular,€counsel€objects€to€the€evaluationŠ ņB Šby€Canadian€courts€that€Mr.€Stewart's€family€bonds€were€tenuous,€and€refers€to€the€unofficialŠ Ų( Štranscript€of€the€deportation€hearings,€in€which€Mr.€Stewart€stressed€the€emotionallyŠ ¾ Šsupportive€relationship€that€he€had€with€his€mother€and€brother.€Mr.€Stewart's€motherŠ ¤ō Šconfirmed€that€he€helped€her€in€caring€for€her€youngest€son.€Counsel€further€criticizes€theŠ Š Ś Šreasoning€of€the€Immigration€Appeal€Division€in€the€Stewart€decision,€which€allegedly€putŠ p!Ą  Štoo€much€emphasis€on€financial€dependency:€"The€appellant€has€a€good€relationship€with€hisŠ V"¦! Šmother€who€has€written€in€support€of€him.€But€the€appellant's€mother€has€always€livedŠ <#Œ" Šindependently€of€him€and€has€never€been€supported€by€him.€The€appellant's€younger€brotherŠ "$r# Šis€in€a€program€for€the€disabled€and€is€therefore€taken€care€of€by€social€services.€As€a€matterŠ %X $ Šof€fact,€there€is€no€one€depending€on€the€appellant€for€sustenance€and€support...".€CounselŠ ī%>!% Šargues€that€emphasis€on€the€financial€aspect€of€the€relationship€does€not€take€into€accountŠ Ō&$"& Šthe€emotional€family€bond€and€submits€in€support€of€her€argument€the€report€of€Dr.€IrwinŠ ŗ' #' ŠSilverman,€a€psychologist,€summarizing€the€complexity€of€human€relationships.€MoreoverŠ  (š#( Šcounsel€cites€from€a€book€by€Ō_ŌJohathanŌ_Ō€Bloom„Ō_ŌFesbachŌ_Ō,€ņņThe€Psychology€of€Separation€andŠ †)Ö$) ŠLossóó,€outlining€the€long„term€effects€of€breaking€the€family€bond.€Š l*¼%* ŠĢ10.6€Counsel€rejects€the€State€party's€argument€that€proper€balancing€has€taken€placeŠ 8,ˆ', Šbetween€State€interests€and€individual€human€rights.€Š -n(- ЇņņIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó€Š ° ŠĢ11.1€This€communication€was€declared€admissible€in€so€far€as€it€might€raise€issues€underŠ |Ģ Šarticles€12,€paragraph€4,€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š b² ŠĢ11.2€The€Committee€has€considered€the€communication€in€the€light€of€all€the€informationŠ . ~ Šmade€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€the€OptionalŠ  d ŠProtocol.€Š ś J ŠĢ12.1€The€question€to€be€decided€in€this€case€is€whether€the€expulsion€of€Mr.€Stewart€violatesŠ Ę   Šthe€obligations€Canada€has€assumed€under€articles€12,€paragraph€4,€17€and€23€of€theŠ ¬ ü  ŠCovenant.€Š ’ā  ŠĢ12.2€Article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€provides:€"No€one€shall€be€arbitrarily€deprivedŠ ^®  Šof€the€right€to€enter€his€own€country".€This€article€does€not€refer€directly€to€expulsion€orŠ D”  Šdeportation€of€a€person.€It€may,€of€course,€be€argued€that€the€duty€of€a€State€party€to€refrainŠ *z  Šfrom€deporting€persons€is€a€direct€function€of€this€provision€and€that€a€State€party€that€isŠ ` Šunder€an€obligation€to€allow€entry€of€a€person€is€also€prohibited€from€deporting€that€person.Š öF ŠGiven€its€conclusion€regarding€article€12,€paragraph€4,€that€will€be€explained€below,€theŠ Ü, ŠCommittee€does€not€have€to€rule€on€that€argument€in€the€present€case.€It€will€merely€assumeŠ Ā Šthat€if€article€12,€paragraph€4,€were€to€apply€to€the€author,€the€State€party€would€be€precludedŠ Øų Šfrom€deporting€him.€Š ŽŽ ŠĢ12.3€It€must€now€be€asked€whether€Canada€qualifies€as€being€Mr.€Stewart's€country".€InŠ ZŖ Šinterpreting€article€12,€paragraph€4,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€scope€of€the€phrase€"hisŠ @ Šown€country"€is€broader€than€the€concept€"country€of€his€nationality",€which€it€embraces€andŠ &v Šwhich€some€regional€human€rights€treaties€use€in€guaranteeing€the€right€to€enter€a€country.Š  \ ŠMoreover,€in€seeking€to€understand€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€account€mustŠ ņB Šalso€be€had€of€the€language€of€article€13€of€the€Covenant.€That€provision€speaks€of€"an€alienŠ Ų( Šlawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party"€in€limiting€the€rights€of€States€to€expel€an€individualŠ ¾ Šcategorized€as€an€"alien".€It€would€thus€appear€that€"his€own€country"€as€a€concept€appliesŠ ¤ō Što€individuals€who€are€nationals€and€to€certain€categories€of€individuals€who,€while€notŠ Š Ś Šnationals€in€a€formal€sense,€are€also€not€"aliens"€within€the€meaning€of€article€13,€althoughŠ p!Ą  Šthey€may€be€considered€as€aliens€for€other€purposes.€Š V"¦! ŠĢ12.4€What€is€less€clear€is€who,€in€addition€to€nationals,€is€protected€by€the€provisions€ofŠ "$r# Šarticle€12,€paragraph€4.€Since€the€concept€"his€own€country"€is€not€limited€to€nationality€inŠ %X $ Ša€formal€sense,€that€is,€nationality€acquired€on€birth€or€by€conferral,€it€embraces,€at€the€veryŠ ī%>!% Šleast,€an€individual€who,€because€of€his€special€ties€to€or€claims€in€relation€to€a€given€countryŠ Ō&$"& Šcannot€there€be€considered€to€be€a€mere€alien.€This€would€be€the€case,€for€example,€ofŠ ŗ' #' Šnationals€of€a€country€who€have€there€been€stripped€of€their€nationality€in€violation€ofŠ  (š#( Šinternational€law€and€of€individuals€whose€country€of€nationality€has€been€incorporated€intoŠ †)Ö$) Šor€transferred€to€another€national€entity€whose€nationality€is€being€denied€them.€In€short,Š l*¼%* Šwhile€these€individuals€may€not€be€nationals€in€the€formal€sense,€neither€are€they€aliensŠ R+¢&+ Šwithin€the€meaning€of€article€13.€The€language€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€permits€a€broaderŠ 8,ˆ', Šinterpretation,€moreover,€that€might€embrace€other€categories€of€long„term€residents,Š -n(- Šparticularly€stateless€persons€arbitrarily€deprived€of€the€right€to€acquire€the€nationality€of€theŠ ° Šcountry€of€such€residence.€Š –ę ŠĢ12.5€The€question€in€the€present€case€is€whether€a€person€who€enters€a€given€State€under€thatŠ b² ŠState's€immigration€laws,€and€subject€to€the€conditions€of€those€laws,€can€regard€that€StateŠ H˜ Šas€his€own€country€when€he€has€not€acquired€its€nationality€and€continues€to€retain€theŠ . ~ Šnationality€of€his€country€of€origin.€The€answer€could€possibly€be€positive€were€the€countryŠ  d Šof€immigration€to€place€unreasonable€impediments€on€the€acquiring€of€nationality€by€newŠ ś J Šimmigrants.€But€when,€as€in€the€present€case,€the€country€of€immigration€facilitatesŠ ą 0 Šacquiring€its€nationality,€and€the€immigrant€refrains€from€doing€so,€either€by€choice€or€byŠ Ę   Šcommitting€acts€that€will€disqualify€him€from€acquiring€that€nationality,€the€country€ofŠ ¬ ü  Šimmigration€does€not€become€"his€own€country"€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraphŠ ’ā  Š4,€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€regard€it€is€to€be€noted€that€while€in€the€drafting€of€article€12,Š xČ  Šparagraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€the€term€"country€of€nationality"€was€rejected,€so€was€theŠ ^®  Šsuggestion€to€refer€to€the€country€of€one's€permanent€home.€Š D”  ŠĢ12.6€Mr.€Stewart€is€a€British€national€both€by€birth€and€by€virtue€of€the€nationality€of€hisŠ ` Šparents.€While€he€has€lived€in€Canada€for€most€of€his€life€he€never€applied€for€CanadianŠ öF Šnationality.€It€is€true€that€his€criminal€record€might€have€kept€him€from€acquiring€CanadianŠ Ü, Šnationality€by€the€time€he€was€old€enough€to€do€so€on€his€own.€The€fact€is,€however,€that€heŠ Ā Šnever€attempted€to€acquire€such€nationality.€Furthermore,€even€had€he€applied€and€beenŠ Øų Šdenied€nationality€because€of€his€criminal€record,€this€disability€was€of€his€own€making.€ItŠ ŽŽ Šcannot€be€said€that€Canada's€immigration€legislation€is€arbitrary€or€unreasonable€in€denyingŠ tÄ ŠCanadian€nationality€to€individuals€who€have€criminal€records.€Š ZŖ ŠĢ12.7€This€case€would€not€raise€the€obvious€human€problems€Mr.€Stewart's€deportation€fromŠ &v ŠCanada€presents€were€it€not€for€the€fact€that€he€was€not€deported€much€earlier.€Were€theŠ  \ ŠCommittee€to€rely€on€this€argument€to€prevent€Canada€from€now€deporting€him,€it€wouldŠ ņB Šestablish€a€principle€that€might€adversely€affect€immigrants€all€over€the€world€whose€firstŠ Ų( Šbrush€with€the€law€would€trigger€their€deportation€lest€their€continued€residence€in€theŠ ¾ Šcountry€convert€them€into€individuals€entitled€to€the€protection€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ¤ō ŠĢ12.8€Countries€like€Canada,€which€enable€immigrants€to€become€nationals€after€a€reasonableŠ p!Ą  Šperiod€of€residence,€have€a€right€to€expect€that€such€immigrants€will€in€due€course€acquireŠ V"¦! Šall€the€rights€and€assume€all€the€obligations€that€nationality€entails.€Individuals€who€do€notŠ <#Œ" Štake€advantage€of€this€opportunity€and€thus€escape€the€obligations€nationality€imposes€canŠ "$r# Šbe€deemed€to€have€opted€to€remain€aliens€in€Canada.€They€have€every€right€to€do€so,€butŠ %X $ Šmust€also€bear€the€consequences.€The€fact€that€Mr.€Stewart's€criminal€record€disqualified€himŠ ī%>!% Šfrom€becoming€a€Canadian€national€cannot€confer€on€him€greater€rights€than€would€beŠ Ō&$"& Šenjoyed€by€any€other€alien€who,€for€whatever€reasons,€opted€not€to€become€a€CanadianŠ ŗ' #' Šnational.€Individuals€in€these€situations€must€be€distinguished€from€the€categories€of€personsŠ  (š#( Šdescribed€in€paragraph€12.4€above.€Š †)Ö$) ŠĢ12.9€The€Committee€concludes€that€as€Canada€cannot€be€regarded€as€Mr.€Stewart's€country",Š R+¢&+ Šfor€the€purposes€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant,€there€could€not€have€been€aŠ 8,ˆ', Šviolation€of€that€article€by€the€State€party.€Š -n(- Ї12.10€The€deportation€of€Mr.€Stewart€will€undoubtedly€interfere€with€his€family€relations€inŠ ° ŠCanada.€The€question€is,€however,€whether€the€said€interference€can€be€considered€eitherŠ –ę Šunlawful€or€arbitrary.€Canada's€Immigration€Law€expressly€provides€that€the€permanentŠ |Ģ Šresidency€status€of€a€non„national€may€be€revoked€and€that€Ō_ŌthatŌ_Ō€person€may€then€be€expelledŠ b² Šfrom€Canada€if€he€or€she€is€convicted€of€serious€offences.€In€the€appeal€process€theŠ H˜ ŠImmigration€Appeal€Division€is€empowered€to€revoke€the€deportation€order€"having€regardŠ . ~ Što€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case".€In€the€deportation€proceedings€in€the€present€case,€Mr.Š  d ŠStewart€was€given€ample€opportunity€to€present€evidence€of€his€family€connections€to€theŠ ś J ŠImmigration€Appeal€Division.€In€its€reasoned€decision€the€Immigration€Appeal€DivisionŠ ą 0 Šconsidered€the€evidence€presented€but€it€came€to€the€conclusion€that€Mr.€Stewart's€familyŠ Ę   Šconnections€in€Canada€did€not€justify€revoking€the€deportation€order.€The€Committee€is€ofŠ ¬ ü  Šthe€opinion€that€the€interference€with€Mr.€Stewart's€family€relations€that€will€be€theŠ ’ā  Šinevitable€outcome€of€his€deportation€cannot€be€regarded€as€either€unlawful€or€arbitraryŠ xČ  Šwhen€the€deportation€order€was€made€under€law€in€furtherance€of€a€legitimate€state€interestŠ ^®  Šand€due€consideration€was€given€in€the€deportation€proceedings€to€the€deportee's€familyŠ D”  Šconnections.€There€is€therefore€no€violation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š *z  ŠĢ13.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalŠ öF ŠProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theŠ Ü, Šfacts€before€the€Committee€do€not€disclose€a€violation€of€any€of€the€provisions€of€theŠ Ā ŠInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Š Øų ŠĢ*€The€text€of€five€individual€opinions,€signed€by€eight€Committee€members,€is€appended€toŠ tÄ Šthe€present€document.€Š ZŖ ŠĢ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.Š &v ŠSubsequently€to€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee'sŠ  \ Šannual€report€to€the€General€Assembly.]€Š ņB ŠĢĢĢÓāÓÓ  Óņ ņņņAPPENDIXóóó óŠ Š Ś ŠÓóķÓÓÓĢĢA.€ņņIndividual€opinion€by€Ō_ŌEckartŌ_Ō€Kleinóó€ņņ(concurring)óó€Š <#Œ" ŠĢBeing€in€full€agreement€with€the€finding€of€the€Committee€that€the€facts€of€the€case€discloseŠ %X $ Šneither€a€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€nor€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant,€forŠ ī%>!% Šthe€reasons€given€in€the€view,€I€cannot€accept€the€way€how€the€relationship€between€articleŠ Ō&$"& Š12,€paragraph€4,€and€article€13€has€been€determined.€Although€this€issue€is€not€decisive€forŠ ŗ' #' Šthe€outcome€of€the€present€case,€it€could€become€relevant€for€the€consideration€of€otherŠ  (š#( Šcommunications,€and€I€therefore€feel€obliged€to€clarify€this€point.€Š †)Ö$) ŠĢThe€view€suggests€that€there€is€a€category€of€persons€who€are€not€"nationals€in€the€formalŠ R+¢&+ Šsense",€but€are€also€not€"aliens€within€the€meaning€of€article€13"€(paragraph€12.4).€While€IŠ 8,ˆ', Šclearly€accept€that€the€scope€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€not€entirely€restricted€to€nationalsŠ -n(- Šbut€may€embrace€other€persons€as€pointed€out€in€the€view,€I€nevertheless€think€that€thisŠ ° Šcategory€of€persons€„€not€being€nationals,€but€still€covered€by€article€12,€paragraph€4€„€mayŠ –ę Šbe€deemed€to€be€"aliens"€in€the€sense€of€article€13.€I€do€not€believe€that€article€13€deals€onlyŠ |Ģ Šwith€ņņsomeóó€aliens.€The€wording€of€the€article€is€clear€and€provides€for€no€exceptions,€andŠ b² Šaliens€are€all€non„nationals.€The€relationship€between€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€article€13Š H˜ Šis€not€exclusive.€Both€provisions€may€come€into€play€together.€Š . ~ ŠĢI€therefore€hold€that€article€13€applies€in€all€cases€where€an€alien€is€to€be€expelled.€ArticleŠ ś J Š13€deals€with€the€procedure€of€expelling€aliens,€while€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and,€underŠ ą 0 Šcertain€circumstances,€also€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant€may€bar€deportation€forŠ Ę   Šsubstantive€reasons.€Thus,€article€12,€paragraph€4,€may€apply€even€though€it€concerns€aŠ ¬ ü  Šperson€who€is€an€"alien".€Š ’ā  ŠĢŌ_ŌEckartŌ_Ō€Klein€[signed]€Š ^®  ŠĢ[Original:€English]€Š *z  ŠĢĢB.€ņņIndividual€opinion€by€Laurel€B.€Francisóó€ņņ(concurring)óó€Š Ü, ŠĢThis€opinion€is€given€against€the€background€of€my€recorded€views€during€the€Committee'sŠ Øų Špreliminary€consideration€of€this€case€quite€early€in€the€session€when€I€stated€ņņinter€aliaóó€thatŠ ŽŽ Š(a)€Mr.€Stewart€was€an€"own€country"€resident€under€article€12€of€the€Covenant€and€(b)€hisŠ tÄ Šexpulsion€under€article€13€was€ņņnotóó€in€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ZŖ ŠĢI€will€as€far€as€possible€avoid€a€discursive€format€in€relation€to€the€Committee's€decisionŠ &v Šadopted€on€November€1€with€respect€to€the€question€whether€the€expulsion€of€Mr.€StewartŠ  \ Šfrom€Canada€(under€article€13€of€the€Covenant)€violates€the€State€party's€obligation€underŠ ņB Šarticles€12,€paragraph€4,€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š Ų( ŠĢI€should€like€to€submit€that:€Š ¤ō ŠĢ1.€Firstly,€I€concur€with€the€reasons€given€by€the€Committee€at€paragraph€12.10€and€theŠ p!Ą  Šdecision€taken€that€there€was€no€violation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š V"¦! ŠĢ2.€But,€secondly,€I€do€not€agree€with€the€Committee's€restricted€application€of€his€"ownŠ "$r# Šcountry"€concept€at€the€fourth€sentence€of€paragraph€12.3€of€the€Committee's€decision€underŠ %X $ Šreference€("That€provision€speaks€of€an€'alien€lawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party'€inŠ ī%>!% Šlimiting€the€rights€of€States€to€expel€an€individual€categorized€as€an€'alien'.")€Does€it€precludeŠ Ō&$"& Šthe€expulsion€of€ņņunlawfulóó€aliens?€Of€course€not€„falling€as€they€do€under€another€legalŠ ŗ' #' Šregime.€I€have€made€this€point€in€order€to€suggest€that€the€legal€significance€in€relation€toŠ  (š#( Š"an€alien€lawfully€in€the€territory€of€a€State€party"€as€appears€in€the€first€line€of€article€13€ofŠ †)Ö$) Šthe€Covenant,€is€related€to€the€first€line€of€article€12:€"everyone€lawfully€in€the€territory€ofŠ l*¼%* Ša€State",€which€includes€aliens€but,€it€may€be€borne€in€mind€that€in€respect€of€a€compatriotŠ R+¢&+ Šof€Mr.€Stewart€lawfully€in€Canada€on€a€visitor's€visa€(not€being€a€permanent€resident€ofŠ 8,ˆ', ŠCanada)€he€would€not€normally€have€acquired€"own€country"€status€as€Mr.€Stewart€had,€andŠ -n(- Šwould€be€indifferent€to€the€application€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€But€Mr.€Stewart€wouldŠ ° Šcertainly€be€concerned€as€indeed€he€has€been.€Š –ę ŠĢ3.€Thirdly,€were€it€intended€to€restrict€the€application€of€article€13€to€exclude€aliens€lawfullyŠ b² Šin€the€territory€of€a€State€party€who€had€acquired€"own€country"€status,€such€exclusion€wouldŠ H˜ Šhave€been€specifically€provided€in€article€13€itself€and€not€left€to€the€interpretation€of€theŠ . ~ Šscope€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€which€incontestably€applies€to€nationals€and€other€personsŠ  d Šcontemplated€in€the€Committee's€text.€Š ś J ŠĢ4.€In€regard€to€"own€country"€status€in€its€submission€of€24€February€1995€the€State€partyŠ Ę   Šargues€that€"Mr.€Stewart€has€never€acquired€an€ņņunconditionalóó€/€Emphasis€mine€(see€9.1)./Š ¬ ü  Šright€to€remain€in€Canada€as€his€'own€country'.€Moreover€his€deportation€will€not€operate€asŠ ’ā  Šan€absolute€bar€to€his€re„entry€to€Canada.€A€humanitarian€review€in€the€context€of€the€futureŠ xČ  Šapplication€to€re„enter€Canada€as€an€immigrant€is€a€viable€administrative€procedure€that€doesŠ ^®  Šnot€entail€reconsideration€of€the€judicial€decision€of€the€Immigration€Appeal€Board"€(see€9.1)Š D”  Š/€See€also€paragraph€4.2€statements€attributable€to€the€State€party,€including€the€followingŠ *z  Š"...€furthermore,€he€would€not€be€barred€once€and€for€all€from€re„admission€to€Canada".€Š ` ŠĢImplicit€in€the€foregoing€is€the€admission€that€the€State€party€recognizes€Mr.€Stewart's€statusŠ Ü, Šas€a€permanent€resident€in€Canada€as€his€"own€country".€It€is€that€ņņqualifiedóó€right€applicableŠ Ā Što€such€status€which€facilitated€the€decision€to€expel€Mr.€Stewart.€Š Øų ŠĢBut€for€the€foregoing€statement€attributable€to€the€State€party€we€could€have€concluded€thatŠ tÄ Šthe€decision€taken€to€expel€Mr.€Stewart€terminated€his€"own€country"€status€in€regard€toŠ ZŖ ŠCanada€but€in€light€of€such€statement€the€"own€country"€status€remains€only€suspended€atŠ @ Šthe€pleasure€of€the€State€party.€Š &v ŠĢOn€the€basis€of€the€foregoing€analysis,€I€am€unable€to€support€the€decision€of€the€CommitteeŠ ņB Šthat€Mr.€Stewart€had€at€no€time€acquired€"own€country"€status€in€Canada.€Š Ų( ŠĢLaurel€B.€Francis€[signed]€Š ¤ō ŠĢ[Original:€English]€Š p!Ą  ŠĢĢC.€ņņIndividual€opinion€by€Elizabeth€Ō_ŌEvattŌ_Ō€and€Cecilia€Medina€Ō_ŌQuirogaŌ_Ō,€co„signed€byŠ "$r# ŠFrancisco€Ō_ŌJosŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌAguilarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌUrbinaŌ_Ōóó€ņņ(dissenting)óó€Š %X $ ŠĢ1.€We€are€unable€to€agree€with€the€Committee's€conclusion€that€the€author€cannot€claim€theŠ Ō&$"& Šprotection€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ŗ' #' ŠĢ2.€A€preliminary€issue€is€whether€the€arbitrary€deportation€of€a€person€from€his/her€ownŠ †)Ö$) Šcountry€should€be€equated€with€arbitrary€deprivation€of€the€right€to€enter€that€country,€inŠ l*¼%* Šcircumstances€where€there€has€as€yet€been€no€attempt€to€enter€or€re„enter€the€country.€TheŠ R+¢&+ ŠCommittee€does€not€reach€a€conclusion€on€this€issue;€it€merely€assumes€that€if€article€12,Š 8,ˆ', Šparagraph€4,€were€to€apply€to€the€author,€the€State€would€be€precluded€from€deporting€himŠ -n(- Š(paragraph€12.2).€The€effect€of€the€various€proceedings€taken€by€Canada,€and€the€ordersŠ ° Šmade,€is€that€the€author's€right€of€residence€has€been€taken€away€and€his€deportation€ordered.Š –ę ŠHe€can€no€longer€enter€Canada€as€of€right,€and€the€prospects€of€his€ever€being€able€to€secureŠ |Ģ Špermission€to€enter€for€more€than€a€short€period,€if€at€all,€seem€remote.€In€our€view,€the€rightŠ b² Što€enter€a€country€is€as€much€a€prospective€as€a€present€right,€and€the€deprivation€of€that€rightŠ H˜ Šcan€occur,€as€in€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€whether€or€not€there€has€been€any€actualŠ . ~ Šrefusal€of€entry.€If€a€State€party€is€under€an€obligation€to€allow€entry€of€a€person€it€isŠ  d Šprohibited€from€deporting€that€person.€In€our€opinion€the€author€has€been€deprived€of€theŠ ś J Šright€to€enter€Canada,€whether€he€remains€in€Canada€awaiting€deportation€or€whether€he€hasŠ ą 0 Šalready€been€deported.€Š Ę   ŠĢ3.€The€author's€communication€under€article€13€was€found€inadmissible,€and€no€issue€arisesŠ ’ā  Šfor€consideration€under€that€provision.€The€Committee's€view€is,€however,€that€article€12,Š xČ  Šparagraph€4€applies€only€to€persons€who€are€nationals,€or€who,€while€not€nationals€in€aŠ ^®  Šformal€sense€are€also€not€aliens€within€the€meaning€of€article€13€(paragraph€12.3).€TwoŠ D”  Šconsequences€appear€to€follow€from€this€view.€The€first€one€is€that€the€relationship€betweenŠ *z  Šan€individual€and€a€State€may€be€not€only€that€of€national€or€alien€(including€stateless)€butŠ ` Šmay€also€fall€into€a€further,€undefined,€category.€We€do€not€think€this€is€supported€either€byŠ öF Šarticle€12€of€the€Covenant€or€by€general€international€law.€As€a€consequence€of€theŠ Ü, ŠCommittee's€view€it€would€also€appear€to€follow€that€a€person€could€not€claim€the€protectionŠ Ā Šof€both€article€13€and€12,€paragraph€4.€We€do€not€agree.€In€our€view€article€13€provides€aŠ Øų Šminimum€level€of€protection€in€respect€of€expulsion€for€any€alien,€that€is€any€non„national,Š ŽŽ Šlawfully€in€a€State.€Furthermore,€there€is€nothing€in€the€language€of€article€13€which€suggestsŠ tÄ Šthat€it€is€intended€to€be€the€exclusive€source€of€rights€for€aliens,€or€that€an€alien€who€isŠ ZŖ Šlawfully€within€the€territory€of€a€State€may€not€also€claim€the€protection€of€article€12,Š @ Šparagraph€4,€if€he€or€she€can€establish€that€it€is€his/her€own€country.€Each€provision€shouldŠ &v Šbe€given€its€full€meaning.€Š  \ ŠĢ4.€The€Committee€attempts€to€identify€the€further€category€of€individuals€who€could€makeŠ Ų( Šuse€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€by€stating€that€a€person€cannot€claim€that€a€State€is€his€or€herŠ ¾ Šown€country,€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€unless€that€person€is€a€nationalŠ ¤ō Šof€that€State,€or€has€been€stripped€of€his€or€her€nationality,€or€denied€nationality€by€that€StateŠ Š Ś Šin€the€circumstances€described€(paragraph€12.4).€The€Committee€is€also€of€the€view€thatŠ p!Ą  Šunless€unreasonable€impediments€have€been€placed€in€the€way€of€an€immigrant€acquiringŠ V"¦! Šnationality,€a€person€who€enters€a€given€State€under€its€immigration€laws,€and€who€had€theŠ <#Œ" Šopportunity€to€acquire€its€nationality,€cannot€regard€that€State€as€his€own€country€when€heŠ "$r# Šhas€failed€to€acquire€its€nationality€(paragraph€12.5).€Š %X $ ŠĢ5.€In€our€opinion,€the€Committee€has€taken€too€narrow€a€view€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€andŠ Ō&$"& Šhas€not€considered€the€raison€Ō_Ōd'treŌ_Ō€of€its€formulation.€Individuals€cannot€be€deprived€of€theŠ ŗ' #' Šright€to€enter€"their€own€country"€because€it€is€deemed€unacceptable€to€deprive€any€personŠ  (š#( Šof€close€contact€with€his€family,€or€his€friends€or,€put€in€general€terms,€with€the€web€ofŠ †)Ö$) Šrelationships€that€form€his€or€her€social€environment.€This€is€the€reason€why€this€right€is€setŠ l*¼%* Šforth€in€article€12,€which€addresses€individuals€lawfully€within€the€territory€of€a€State,€notŠ R+¢&+ Šthose€who€have€formal€links€to€that€State.€For€the€rights€set€forth€in€article€12,€the€existenceŠ 8,ˆ', Šof€a€formal€link€to€the€State€is€irrelevant;€the€Covenant€is€here€concerned€with€the€strongŠ -n(- Špersonal€and€emotional€links€an€individual€may€have€with€the€territory€where€he€lives€andŠ ° Šwith€the€social€circumstances€obtaining€in€it.€This€is€what€article€12,€paragraph€4,€protects.€Š –ę ŠĢ6.€The€object€and€purpose€of€the€right€set€forth€in€article€12,€paragraph€4,€are€reaffirmed€byŠ b² Šits€wording.€Nothing€in€it€or€in€article€12€generally€suggests€that€its€application€should€beŠ H˜ Šrestricted€in€the€manner€suggested€by€the€Committee.€While€a€person's€'own€country'€wouldŠ . ~ Šcertainly€include€the€country€of€nationality,€there€are€factors€other€than€nationality€whichŠ  d Šmay€establish€close€and€enduring€connections€between€a€person€and€a€country,€connectionsŠ ś J Šwhich€may€be€stronger€than€those€of€nationality.€After€all,€a€person€may€have€severalŠ ą 0 Šnationalities,€and€yet€have€only€the€slightest€or€no€actual€connections€of€home€and€familyŠ Ę   Šwith€one€or€more€of€the€States€in€question.€The€words€'his€own€country'€on€the€face€of€itŠ ¬ ü  Šinvite€consideration€of€such€matters€as€long€standing€residence,€close€personal€and€familyŠ ’ā  Šties€and€intentions€to€remain€(as€well€as€to€the€absence€of€such€ties€elsewhere).€Where€aŠ xČ  Šperson€is€not€a€citizen€of€the€country€in€question,€the€connections€would€need€to€be€strongŠ ^®  Što€support€a€finding€that€it€is€his€"own€country".€Nevertheless€our€view€is€that€it€is€open€toŠ D”  Šan€alien€to€show€that€there€are€such€well€established€links€with€a€State€that€he€or€she€isŠ *z  Šentitled€to€claim€the€protection€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ` ŠĢ7.€The€circumstances€relied€on€by€the€author€to€establish€that€Canada€is€his€own€country€areŠ Ü, Šthat€he€had€lived€in€Canada€for€over€thirty€years,€was€brought€up€in€Canada€from€the€age€ofŠ Ā Šseven,€had€married€and€divorced€there.€His€children,€mother,€handicapped€brother€continueŠ Øų Što€reside€there.€He€had€no€ties€with€any€other€country,€other€than€that€he€was€a€citizen€of€theŠ ŽŽ ŠUK;€his€elder€brother€had€been€deported€to€the€UK€some€years€before.€The€circumstancesŠ tÄ Šof€his€offences€are€set€out€in€paragraph€2.2;€as€a€result€of€these€offences€it€is€not€clear€if€theŠ ZŖ Šauthor€was€ever€entitled€to€apply€for€citizenship.€Underlying€the€connections€mentioned€isŠ @ Šthe€fact€that€the€author€and€his€family€were€accepted€by€Canada€as€immigrants€when€he€wasŠ &v Ša€child€and€that€he€became€in€practical€terms€a€member€of€the€Canadian€community.€HeŠ  \ Šknows€no€other€country.€In€all€the€circumstances,€our€view€is€that€the€author€has€establishedŠ ņB Šthat€Canada€is€his€own€country.€Š Ų( ŠĢ8.€Was€the€deprivation€of€the€author's€right€to€enter€Canada€arbitrary?€In€another€context,€theŠ ¤ō ŠCommittee€has€taken€the€view€that€"arbitrary"€means€unreasonable€in€the€particularŠ Š Ś Šcircumstances,€or€contrary€to€the€aims€and€objectives€of€the€Covenant€(General€CommentŠ p!Ą  Šon€article€17).€That€approach€also€appears€to€be€appropriate€in€the€context€of€article€12,Š V"¦! Šparagraph€4.€In€the€case€of€citizens,€there€are€likely€to€be€few€if€any€situations€whenŠ <#Œ" Šdeportation€would€not€be€considered€arbitrary€in€the€sense€outlined.€In€the€case€of€an€alienŠ "$r# Šsuch€as€the€author,€deportation€could€be€considered€arbitrary€if€the€grounds€relied€on€toŠ %X $ Šdeprive€him€of€his€right€to€enter€and€remain€in€the€country€were,€in€the€circumstances,Š ī%>!% Šunreasonable,€when€weighed€against€the€circumstances€which€make€that€country€his€"ownŠ Ō&$"& Šcountry".€Š ŗ' #' ŠĢ9.€The€grounds€relied€on€by€the€State€party€to€justify€the€expulsion€of€the€author€are€hisŠ †)Ö$) Šcriminal€activities.€It€must€be€doubted€whether€the€commission€of€criminal€offences€aloneŠ l*¼%* Šcould€justify€the€expulsion€of€a€person€from€his€own€country,€unless€the€State€could€showŠ R+¢&+ Šthat€there€are€compelling€reasons€of€national€security€or€public€order€which€require€such€aŠ 8,ˆ', Šcourse.€The€nature€of€the€offences€committed€by€the€author€do€not€lead€readily€to€thatŠ -n(- Šconclusion.€In€any€event,€Canada€can€hardly€claim€that€these€grounds€were€compelling€in€theŠ ° Šcase€of€the€author€when€it€has€in€another€context€argued€that€the€author€might€well€beŠ –ę Šgranted€an€entry€visa€for€a€short€period€to€enable€him€to€visit€his€family.€Furthermore,€whileŠ |Ģ Šthe€deportation€proceedings€were€not€unfair€in€procedural€terms,€the€issue€which€arose€forŠ b² Šdetermination€in€those€proceedings€was€whether€the€author€could€show€reasons€against€hisŠ H˜ Šdeportation,€not€whether€there€were€grounds€for€taking€away€his€right€to€enter€"his€ownŠ . ~ Šcountry".€The€onus€was€put€on€the€author€rather€than€on€the€State.€In€these€circumstances,Š  d Šwe€conclude€that€the€decision€to€deport€the€author€was€arbitrary,€and€thus€a€violation€of€hisŠ ś J Šrights€under€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ą 0 ŠĢ10.€We€agree€with€the€Committee€that€the€deportation€of€the€author€will€undoubtedlyŠ ¬ ü  Šinterfere€with€his€family€relations€in€Canada€(paragraph€12.10),€but€we€cannot€agree€that€thisŠ ’ā  Šinterference€is€not€arbitrary,€since€we€have€come€to€the€conclusion€that€the€decision€to€deportŠ xČ  Šthe€author€„€which€is€the€cause€of€the€interference€with€the€family€„€was€arbitrary.€We€haveŠ ^®  Što€conclude,€therefore,€that€Canada€has€also€violated€the€author's€rights€under€articles€17€andŠ D”  Š23.€Š *z  ŠĢElizabeth€Ō_ŌEvattŌ_Ō€[signed]€Š öF ŠĢCecilia€Medina€Ō_ŌQuirogaŌ_Ō€[signed]€Š Ā ŠĢFrancisco€Ō_ŌJosŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌAguilarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌUrbinaŌ_Ō€[signed]€Š ŽŽ ŠĢ[Original:€English]€Š ZŖ ŠĢĢD.€ņņIndividual€opinion€by€Christine€Ō_ŌChanetŌ_Ō,€co„signed€by€Julio€Prado€Vallejoóó€Š  \ ŠĢ(ņņdissentingóó)€Š Ų( ŠĢI€do€not€share€the€Committee's€position€with€regard€to€the€Stewart€case,€in€which€it€concludesŠ ¤ō Šthat,€"as€Canada€cannot€be€regarded€as€Mr.€Stewart's€'own€country'",€there€has€been€noŠ Š Ś Šviolation€by€Canada€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant.€Š p!Ą  ŠĢMy€criticism€concerns€the€approach€taken€to€the€case€on€this€point:€Š <#Œ" ŠĢ„€assuming€that€wrongful€acts€disqualified€the€author€from€acquiring€nationality€and€that,€asŠ %X $ Ša€consequence,€Canada€may€consider€that€it€is€not€his€own€country,€that€conclusion€shouldŠ ī%>!% Šhave€led€the€Committee€to€reject€the€communication€at€the€admissibility€stage,€since€itsŠ Ō&$"& Šawareness€of€that€impediment€should€have€precluded€any€application€of€article€12,€paragraphŠ ŗ' #' Š4,€of€the€Covenant.€Š  (š#( ŠĢ„€there€is€nothing€either€in€the€Covenant€itself€or€in€the€Ō_ŌtravauxŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌprparatoiresŌ_Ō€about€the€"ownŠ l*¼%* Šcountry"€concept;€the€Committee€must,€therefore,€either€decide€the€question€on€a€case„by„Š R+¢&+ Šcase€basis€or€establish€criteria€and€make€them€known€to€States€and€authors,€thus€avoidingŠ 8,ˆ', Šany€Ō_ŌcontraditionŌ_Ō€with€admissibility€decisions;€if€a€person€is€unable€to€acquire€the€nationalityŠ -n(- Šof€a€country€owing€to€legal€impediments,€then€regardless€of€any€other€criteria€or€factualŠ ° Šcircumstances,€the€communication€should€not€be€declared€admissible€under€article€12,Š –ę Šparagraph€4,€of€the€Covenant.€Š |Ģ ŠĢI€agree€with€the€substance€of€the€individual€opinion€formulated€by€Ms.€Ō_ŌEvattŌ_Ō€and€Ms.Š H˜ ŠMedina€Ō_ŌQuirogaŌ_Ō.€Š . ~ ŠĢChristine€Ō_ŌChanetŌ_Ō€[signed]€Š ś J ŠĢJulio€Prado€Vallejo€[signed]€Š Ę   ŠĢ[Original:€French]€Š ’ā  ŠĢĢŌ_ŌE.Ō_Ō€ņņIndividual€opinion€by€Ō_ŌPrafullachandraŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌBhagwatiŌ_Ōóó€ņņ(dissenting)óó€Š D”  ŠĢI€entirely€agree€with€the€separate€opinion€prepared€by€Mrs.€Elizabeth€Ō_ŌEvattŌ_Ō€and€Mrs.€CeciliaŠ ` ŠMedina€Ō_ŌQuirogaŌ_Ō,€but€having€regard€to€the€importance€of€the€issues€involved€in€the€case,€I€amŠ öF Šwriting€a€separate€opinion.€This€separate€opinion€may€be€read€as€supplementary€to€theŠ Ü, Šopinion€of€Mrs.€Ō_ŌEvattŌ_Ō€and€Mrs.€Medina€Ō_ŌQuirogaŌ_Ō€with€which€I€find€myself€wholly€inŠ Ā Šagreement.€Š Øų ŠĢThis€is€not€a€case€of€one€single€individual.€Its€decision€will€have€an€impact€on€the€lives€ofŠ tÄ Štens€of€thousands€of€immigrants€and€refugees.€This€case€has€therefore€caused€me€immenseŠ ZŖ Šanxiety.€If€the€view€taken€by€the€majority€of€the€Committee€is€right,€people€who€have€forgedŠ @ Šclose€links€with€a€country€not€only€through€long€residence€but€having€regard€to€various€otherŠ &v Šfactors,€who€have€adopted€a€country€as€their€own,€who€have€come€to€regard€a€country€asŠ  \ Štheir€home€country,€would€be€left€without€any€protection.€The€question€is:€are€we€going€toŠ ņB Šread€human€rights€in€a€generous€and€purposive€manner€or€in€a€narrow€and€constrictedŠ Ų( Šmanner?€Let€us€not€forget€that€basically,€human€rights€in€the€International€Covenant€areŠ ¾ Šrights€of€the€individual€against€the€State;€they€are€protections€against€the€State€and€they€mustŠ ¤ō Štherefore€be€construed€broadly€and€liberally.€This€backdrop€must€be€kept€in€mind€when€weŠ Š Ś Šare€interpreting€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š p!Ą  ŠĢFirst€let€me€dispose€of€the€argument€with€regard€to€article€13.€The€Committee€has€declaredŠ <#Œ" Šthe€communication€under€article€13€inadmissible€and€therefore€it€does€not€call€forŠ "$r# Šconsideration.€Coming€to€article€12,€paragraph€4,€it€raises€three€issues.€The€first€is€whetherŠ %X $ Šarticle€12,€paragraph€4,€covers€a€case€of€deportation€or€is€it€confined€only€to€right€of€entry;Š ī%>!% Šthe€second€is€as€to€what€is€the€meaning€and€connotation€of€the€words€"his€own€country"€andŠ Ō&$"& Šwhether€Canada€could€be€said€to€be€the€author's€own€country;€and€the€third€is€what€are€theŠ ŗ' #' Šcriteria€for€determining€whether€an€action€alleged€to€be€Ō_ŌviolativeŌ_Ō€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,Š  (š#( Šis€arbitrary€and€whether€the€action€of€Canada€in€deporting€the€author€was€arbitrary.€I€mayŠ †)Ö$) Špoint€out€at€the€outset€that€if€the€action€of€Canada€was,€on€the€facts,€not€arbitrary,€thereŠ l*¼%* Šwould€be€no€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€even€if€the€other€two€elements€wereŠ R+¢&+ Šsatisfied,€namely,€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€covers€deportation€and€Canada€was€theŠ 8,ˆ', Šauthor's€own€country€within€the€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€it€would€in€thatŠ -n(- Ševent€not€be€necessary€to€consider€whether€or€not€these€two€elements€were€satisfied.€ButŠ ° Šsince€the€majority€of€the€members€of€the€Committee€have€rested€their€opinion€on€theŠ –ę Šinterpretation€of€the€words€"his€own€country"€and€taken€the€view,€in€my€opinion€wrongly,Š |Ģ Šthat€Canada€could€not€be€said€to€be€the€author's€own€country,€I€think€it€necessary€to€considerŠ b² Šall€the€three€elements€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š H˜ ŠĢI€am€of€the€view€that€on€a€proper€interpretation,€article€12,€paragraph€4,€protects€everyoneŠ  d Šagainst€arbitrary€deportation€from€his€own€country.€There€are€two€reasons€in€support€of€thisŠ ś J Šview.€In€the€first€place,€unless€article€12,€paragraph€4,€is€read€as€covering€a€case€ofŠ ą 0 Šdeportation,€a€national€of€a€State€would€have€no€protection€against€expulsion€or€deportationŠ Ę   Šunder€the€Covenant.€Suppose€the€domestic€law€of€a€State€empowers€the€State€to€expel€orŠ ¬ ü  Šdeport€a€national€for€certain€specific€reasons€which€may€be€totally€irrelevant,€fanciful€orŠ ’ā  Šwhimsical.€Can€it€be€suggested€for€a€moment€that€the€Covenant€does€not€provide€protectionŠ xČ  Što€a€national€against€expulsion€or€deportation€under€such€domestic€law?€The€only€article€ofŠ ^®  Šthe€Covenant€in€which€this€protection€can€be€found€is€article€12,€paragraph€4.€It€may€be€thatŠ D”  Šunder€international€law,€a€national€cannot€be€expelled€from€his€country€of€nationality.€I€amŠ *z  Šnot€familiar€with€all€aspects€of€international€law€and€I€am€therefore€not€in€a€position€to€affirmŠ ` Šor€Ō_ŌdisaffirmŌ_Ō€this€proposition.€But,€be€as€it€may,€a€law€can€be€made€by€a€State€providing€forŠ öF Šexpulsion€of€a€national.€It€may€conflict€with€a€principle€of€international€law,€but€that€wouldŠ Ü, Šnot€invalidate€the€domestic€law.€The€principle€of€international€law€would€not€affordŠ Ā Šprotection€to€the€person€concerned€against€domestic€law.€The€only€protection€such€a€personŠ Øų Šwould€have€is€under€article€12,€paragraph€4.€We€should€not€read€article€12,€paragraph€4,€inŠ ŽŽ Ša€manner€which€would€leave€a€national€unprotected€against€expulsion€under€domestic€law.Š tÄ ŠIn€fact,€there€are€countries€where€there€is€domestic€law€providing€for€expulsion€even€ofŠ ZŖ Šnationals€and€article€12,€paragraph€4,€properly€read,€provides€protection€against€arbitraryŠ @ Šexpulsion€of€a€national.€The€same€reasoning€would€apply€also€in€a€case€where€a€non„nationalŠ &v Šis€involved.€Article€12,€paragraph€4,€must€therefore€be€read€as€covering€expulsion€orŠ  \ Šdeportation.€Š ņB ŠĢMoreover,€it€is€obvious€that€if€a€person€has€a€right€to€enter€his€own€country€and€he/sheŠ ¾ Šcannot€be€ņņarbitrarilyóó€prevented€from€entering€his/her€own€country,€but€he/she€can€beŠ ¤ō Šarbitrarily€expelled,€it€would€make€non„sense€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Suppose€a€personŠ Š Ś Šis€expelled€from€his€own€country€arbitrarily€because€he/she€has€no€protection€under€articleŠ p!Ą  Š12,€paragraph€4,€and€immediately€after€expulsion,€he/she€seeks€to€enter€the€country.Š V"¦! ŠObviously€he/she€cannot€be€prevented€because€article€12,€paragraph€4,€protects€his/her€entry.Š <#Œ" ŠThen€what€is€the€sense€of€expelling€him?€We€must€therefore€read€article€12,€paragraph€4,€asŠ "$r# Šembodying,€by€necessary€implication,€protection€against€arbitrary€expulsion€from€one's€ownŠ %X $ Šcountry.€Š ī%>!% ŠĢThat€takes€me€to€the€second€issue.€What€is€the€scope€and€ambit€of€"his€own€country"?€ThereŠ ŗ' #' Šis€a€general€acceptance€that€"his€own€country"€cannot€be€equated€with€"country€ofŠ  (š#( Šnationality"€and€I€will€not€therefore€spend€any€time€on€it.€It€is€obvious€that€the€expressionŠ †)Ö$) Š"his€own€country"€is€wider€than€"country€of€nationality"€and€that€is€conceded€by€the€majorityŠ l*¼%* Šview.€"His€own€country"€includes€"country€of€nationality€and€something€more".€What€is€thatŠ R+¢&+ Š"something€more"?€The€majority€view€accepts€that€the€concept€"his€own€country"€embraces,Š 8,ˆ', Šat€the€very€least,€"an€individual€who,€because€of€his€special€ties€to€or€claims€in€relation€to€aŠ -n(- Šgiven€country€cannot€there€be€considered€to€be€a€mere€alien".€I€am€in€full€agreement€withŠ ° Šthis€view.€But€then,€the€majority€proceeds€to€delimit€this€concept€by€confining€it€to€theŠ –ę Šfollowing€three€illustrative€cases:€Š |Ģ ŠĢ(1)€where€nationals€of€a€country€have€been€stripped€of€their€nationality€in€violation€ofŠ H˜ Šinternational€law,€Š . ~ ŠĢ(2)€where€the€country€of€nationality€of€individuals€has€been€incorporated€into€or€transferredŠ ś J Što€another€national€entity€whose€nationality€is€being€denied€to€them€and€Š ą 0 ŠĢ(3)€stateless€persons€arbitrarily€deprived€of€their€right€to€acquire€the€nationality€of€theŠ ¬ ü  Šcountry€of€their€residence.€Š ’ā  ŠĢIt€is€the€view€of€the€majority€that€"while€these€individuals€may€not€be€nationals€in€the€formalŠ ^®  Šsense,€neither€are€they€aliens€within€the€meaning€of€article€13"€and€they€fall€within€articleŠ D”  Š12,€paragraph€4.€Š *z  ŠĢThere€are€two€observations€I€would€like€to€make€in€connection€with€this€view€of€theŠ öF Šmajority.€The€majority€view€argues€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€13€are€mutuallyŠ Ü, Šexclusive.€It€is€observed€by€the€majority€in€the€view€of€the€Committee€that€"'his€own€country'Š Ā Šas€a€concept€applies€to€individuals€who€are€nationals€and€to€certain€categories€of€individualsŠ Øų Šwho,€while€not€nationals€in€a€formal€sense,€are€also€not€'aliens'€within€the€meaning€of€articleŠ ŽŽ Š13,€though€they€may€be€considered€as€aliens€for€other€purposes".€Thus,€according€to€theŠ tÄ Šmajority€view,€an€individual€falling€within€article€12,€paragraph€4,€would€not€be€an€"alien"Š ZŖ Šwithin€the€meaning€of€article€13.€I€too€subscribe€to€the€same€view.€But€there€my€agreementŠ @ Šwith€the€view€of€the€majority€ends.€The€question€is:€who€is€protected€by€article€12,€paragraphŠ &v Š4?€Who€falls€within€its€protective€wing?€I€may€again€repeat,€in€agreement€with€the€majorityŠ  \ Šview,€that€article€12,€paragraph€4,€embraces,€at€the€very€least,€an€individual€who,€because€ofŠ ņB Šhis€special€ties€to€or€claims€in€relation€to€a€given€country€cannot€there€be€considered€to€beŠ Ų( Šan€alien.€This€is€a€correct€test€but€I€fail€to€understand€why€its€application€should€be€limitedŠ ¾ Što€the€three€kinds€of€cases€referred€to€by€the€majority.€These€three€kinds€of€cases€wouldŠ ¤ō Šcertainly€be€covered€by€this€test€but€there€may€be€many€more€which€would€also€answer€thisŠ Š Ś Štest.€I€do€not€see€any€valid€reason€why€they€should€be€excluded€except€a€predeterminationŠ p!Ą  Šby€the€majority€that€they€should€not€be€regarded€as€fulfilling€this€test,€because€that€wouldŠ V"¦! Šaffect€the€immigration€policies€of€the€developed€countries.€Take€for€example,€a€large€numberŠ <#Œ" Šof€Africans€or€Latin€Americans€or€Indians€who€are€settled€in€U.K.,€but€who€have€notŠ "$r# Šacquired€U.K.€citizenship.€Their€children,€born€and€brought€up€in€U.K.€would€not€have€evenŠ %X $ Švisited€their€country€of€nationality.€If€you€ask€them:€"which€is€your€own€country?",€theyŠ ī%>!% Šwould€unhesitatingly€say:€"U.K.".€Can€you€say€that€only€India€or€some€country€in€Africa€ofŠ Ō&$"& ŠLatin€America€which€they€have€never€visited€and€with€which€they€have€no€links€at€all€is€theŠ ŗ' #' Šonly€country€which€they€can€call€their€own€country?€I€agree€that€mere€length€of€residenceŠ  (š#( Šwould€not€be€a€determinative€test€but€length€of€residence€may€be€a€factor€coupled€with€otherŠ †)Ö$) Šfactors.€The€totality€of€factors€would€have€to€be€taken€into€account€for€the€purpose€ofŠ l*¼%* Šdetermining€whether€the€country€in€question€is€a€country€which€the€person€concerned€hasŠ R+¢&+ Šadopted€as€his€own€country€or€is€a€country€with€which€he€has€special€ties€or€the€mostŠ 8,ˆ', Šintimate€connection€or€link€in€order€to€be€regarded€as€"his€own€country"€within€the€meaningŠ -n(- Šof€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Š ° ŠĢBefore€I€part€with€the€discussion€of€this€point,€I€must€refer€to€one€other€illogicality€in€whichŠ |Ģ Šthe€majority€appears€to€have€fallen.€The€majority€seems€to€suggest€that€where€the€countryŠ b² Šof€immigration€places€unreasonable€impediments€on€the€acquiring€of€nationality€by€a€newŠ H˜ Šimmigrant,€it€might€be€possible€to€say€that€for€the€new€immigrant€who€has€not€acquired€theŠ . ~ Šnationality€of€the€country€of€immigration€and€continues€to€retain€the€nationality€of€hisŠ  d Šcountry€of€origin,€the€country€of€immigration€may€be€regarded€as€"his€own€country".€ThereŠ ś J Šare€at€least€two€objections€against€the€validity€of€this€view.€In€the€first€place,€it€is€theŠ ą 0 Šsovereign€right€of€a€State€to€determine€under€what€conditions€it€will€grant€nationality€to€aŠ Ę   Šnon„national.€It€is€not€for€the€Committee€to€pass€judgment€whether€the€conditions€areŠ ¬ ü  Šreasonable€or€not€and€whether€the€conditions€are€such€as€to€impose€unreasonableŠ ’ā  Šimpediments€on€the€acquisition€of€nationality€by€a€new€immigrant€nor€is€the€CommitteeŠ xČ  Šcompetent€to€enquire€whether€the€action€of€the€State€in€rejecting€the€application€of€a€newŠ ^®  Šimmigrant€for€nationality€is€reasonable€or€not.€Secondly,€I€fail€to€see€what€is€the€differenceŠ D”  Šbetween€the€two€situations:€one,€where€an€application€for€nationality€is€made€and€isŠ *z  Šunreasonably€refused€and€the€other,€where€an€application€for€nationality€is€not€made€at€all.Š ` ŠIn€both€cases,€the€new€immigrant€would€continue€to€be€a€non„national€and€if€in€one€case,Š öF Šspecial€ties€or€intimate€connection€or€link€with€the€country€of€immigration€would€render€suchŠ Ü, Šcountry€"his€own€country",€there€is€no€logical€or€relevant€reason€why€it€should€not€have€theŠ Ā Šsame€consequence€or€effect€in€the€other€case.€Š Øų ŠĢI€fail€to€understand€what€is€the€basis€on€which€the€majority€states€that€countries€like€CanadaŠ tÄ Šhave€a€ņņrightóó€to€expect€that€immigrants€within€due€course€acquire€all€the€rights€and€assumeŠ ZŖ Šall€the€obligations€that€nationality€entails.€I€agree€that€individuals€who€do€not€take€advantageŠ @ Šof€the€opportunity€to€apply€for€nationality,€must€bear€the€consequences€of€not€beingŠ &v Šnationals.€But€the€question€is:€what€are€these€consequences?€Do€they€entail€exclusion€fromŠ  \ Šthe€benefit€of€article€12,€paragraph€4?€That€is€the€question€which€has€to€be€answered€and€itŠ ņB Šcannot€be€ņņassumedóó,€as€the€majority€seems€to€have€done,€that€the€consequence€is€exclusionŠ Ų( Šfrom€the€benefit€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€Throughout€the€decision€of€the€Committee,€I€findŠ ¾ Šthat€the€majority€starts€with€the€predetermination€that€in€the€case€of€the€author,€CanadaŠ ¤ō Šcannot€be€regarded€as€"his€own€country"€even€though€he€has€special€ties€and€most€intimateŠ Š Ś Šconnection€and€link€with€Canada€and€he€has€always€regarded€Canada€as€his€own€country,Š p!Ą  Šand€then€tries€to€justify€this€conclusion€by€holding€that€there€were€no€unreasonableŠ V"¦! Šimpediments€in€the€way€of€the€author€acquiring€Canadian€nationality€but€the€author€did€notŠ <#Œ" Štake€advantage€of€the€opportunity€to€apply€for€Canadian€nationality€and€must€therefore€bearŠ "$r# Šthe€consequence€of€Canada€not€being€regarded€as€his€own€country€and€therefore€of€beingŠ %X $ Šdeprived€of€the€benefit€of€article€12,€paragraph€4.€If€I€may€repeat,€the€fact€that€the€author€didŠ ī%>!% Šnot€apply€for€Canadian€nationality€in€a€situation€where€there€were€no€unreasonableŠ Ō&$"& Šimpediments€in€such€acquisition,€cannot€have€any€bearing€on€the€question€whether€CanadaŠ ŗ' #' Šcould€or€could€not€be€regarded€as€"his€own€country".€It€is€because€the€author€is€not€aŠ  (š#( ŠCanadian€national€that€the€question€has€arisen€and€it€is€begging€the€question€to€say€thatŠ †)Ö$) ŠCanada€could€not€be€regarded€as€"his€own€country"€because€he€did€not€or€could€not€acquireŠ l*¼%* ŠCanadian€nationality.€Š R+¢&+ ŠĢIt€is€undoubtedly€true€that€on€this€view,€both€U.K.€and€Canada€would€be€"his€own€country"Š -n(- Šfor€the€author.€One€would€be€the€country€of€nationality€while€the€other€would€be,€what€I€mayŠ ° Šcall,€the€country€of€adoption.€It€is€quite€conceivable€that€an€individual€may€have€twoŠ –ę Šcountries€which€he€can€call€his€own:€one€may€be€a€country€of€his€nationality€and€the€other,Š |Ģ Ša€country€adopted€by€him€as€his€own€country.€I€am€therefore€inclined€to€take€the€view,€onŠ b² Šthe€facts€as€set€out€in€the€communication,€that€Canada€was€the€author's€own€country€withinŠ H˜ Šthe€meaning€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,€and€he€could€not€be€arbitrarily€expelled€or€deportedŠ . ~ Šfrom€Canada€by€the€Government€of€Canada.€Š  d ŠĢThat€leaves€the€question€whether€the€expulsion€or€deportation€of€the€author€could€be€said€toŠ ą 0 Šbe€arbitrary.€On€this€question,€I€recall€the€Committee's€jurisprudence€that€the€concept€ofŠ Ę   Šarbitrariness€must€not€be€confined€to€procedural€arbitrariness€but€must€include€substantiveŠ ¬ ü  Šarbitrariness€as€well€and€it€must€not€be€equated€with€"against€the€law"€but€must€beŠ ’ā  Šinterpreted€broadly€to€include€such€elements€as€inappropriateness€or€excessiveness€orŠ xČ  Šdisproportionateness.€Where€an€action€taken€by€the€State€party€against€a€person€is€excessiveŠ ^®  Šor€disproportionate€to€the€harm€sought€to€be€prevented,€it€would€be€unreasonable€andŠ D”  Šarbitrary.€Here,€in€the€present€case,€the€author€is€sought€to€be€expelled€on€account€of€hisŠ *z  Šrecidivist€tendency.€He€has€committed€around€40€offences€including€theft€and€robbery€forŠ ` Šwhich€he€has€been€punished.€The€question€is€whether€it€is€ņņnecessaryóó,€in€all€the€circumstancesŠ öF Šof€the€case,€to€expel€or€deport€him€in€order€to€protect€the€society€from€his€criminalŠ Ü, Špropensity€or€whether€this€object€can€be€achieved€by€taking€a€lesser€action€than€expulsionŠ Ā Šor€deportation.€The€element€of€proportionality€must€be€taken€into€account.€I€think€that€if€thisŠ Øų Štest€is€applied,€the€action€of€Canada€in€seeking€to€expel€or€deport€the€author€would€appearŠ ŽŽ Što€be€arbitrary,€particularly€in€the€light€of€the€fact€that€the€author€has€succeeded€in€controllingŠ tÄ Šalcohol€abuse€and€no€offence€appears€to€have€been€committed€by€him€since€May€1991.€If€theŠ ZŖ Šauthor€commits€any€more€offences,€he€can€be€adequately€punished€and€imprisoned€and€if,Š @ Šhaving€regard€to€his€past€criminal€record,€a€sufficiently€heavy€sentence€of€imprisonment€isŠ &v Špassed€against€him,€it€would€act€as€a€deterrent€against€any€further€criminal€activity€on€hisŠ  \ Špart€and€in€any€event,€he€would€be€put€out€of€action€during€the€time€that€he€is€in€prison.€ThisŠ ņB Šis€the€kind€of€action€which€would€be€taken€against€a€national€in€order€to€protect€the€societyŠ Ų( Šand€ņņquaóó€a€national,€it€would€be€regarded€as€adequate.€I€do€not€see€why€it€should€not€beŠ ¾ Šregarded€as€adequate€ņņquaóó€a€person€who€is€not€a€national€but€who€has€adopted€Canada€as€hisŠ ¤ō Šown€country€or€come€to€regard€Canada€as€his€own€country.€I€am€of€the€view€that€the€actionŠ Š Ś Šof€expulsion€or€deportation€of€the€author€from€Canada€resulting€in€completely€uprooting€himŠ p!Ą  Šfrom€his€home,€family€and€moorings,€would€be€excessive€and€disproportionate€to€the€harmŠ V"¦! Šsought€to€be€prevented€and€hence€must€be€regarded€as€arbitrary.€Š <#Œ" ŠĢI€would€therefore€hold€that€in€the€present€case,€there€is€violation€of€article€12,€paragraph€4,Š %X $ Šof€the€Covenant.€On€this€view,€it€becomes€unnecessary€to€consider€whether€there€is€alsoŠ ī%>!% Šviolation€of€articles€17€and€23€of€the€Covenant.€Š Ō&$"& ŠĢŌ_ŌPrafullachandraŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌBhagwatiŌ_Ō:€[signed]€Š  (š#( ŠĢ[Original:€English]€Š l*¼%* ŠņņNotesóóŠ R+¢&+ ŠÓ8īÓ