WPC  ;*tS]ZȄSЋ*#B]w ڎغfX]/ F9DVg(d&L4ELѥ0t.Ib ]zZZ lq`髈^^@r.R 3\Ƭxl`#{)#Yb@y~>7\rOwNE}WT0t 0o{({ԇN}J_x'`\ҕB3 ]P=cDt<\q5[獞m B\Va:#CBd lt.;Cn0Xm/t~] /Fw|nr^Qs jVJ(!51N"r|r{NqCbyހ"]U%<ǃ4xs3TbtxQGɌ=C[Ùq؈ed)428QXE`Ro3.W#UN % 0:M 0 0 0 0< 0 0 0H 0 0: 0 0 0U] D+ 0U 0( 0U  AQuU> 0U 0CYYY 0Ny^ {w4 m( BHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard0&d9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(\$CEUS.,6NA4heading 4     UK XXX      US   XXX6aW4heading 7     UK     XXX      US       XXX6KA4heading 8     UK XXX      US   XXX<:Default Para0XX.header    HHXh!$ UK XXX   US   HHXh!$XXX0XX.footer    HHXh!$ UK XXX   US   HHXh!$XXX<:footnote ref  <;;:footnote tex     UK XXX   US   XXX:8page number6;;4Body Text     UK XXX   US   XXX:GG8Body Text 2    X  UK XXX    US   XXX(-2$ \!CEUS.,  'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2$ \!CEUS.,  ($(-2$ \!CEUS.,  C<< c\  `&Times New Roman(-2$ \!CEUS.,  ($    (2$ \!CEUS.,  XT XXXXT XXXT HH  0  dO- :PB-.tmpp3|xU d \!CEUS.,  _  HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE    Rileyet.al.v.Canada    CommunicationNo.1048/2002 UKCE., p  21March2002  P   _CCPR_/C/74/D/1048/2002  0  CE.,UK.,UKCE., ADMISSIBILITY  P  XLXXXSubmittedby:Mr.KennethRileyetal.   #XLXXXL#XLXXXL  #XLXXXL[#Statepartyconcerned:Canada  Dateofregisteredcommunication:8February2001  TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil P andPoliticalRights, @ Meetingon21March2002  p Adoptsthefollowing: P   Decisiononadmissibility    J1.Theauthorsofthecommunication,dated8February2001,areKennethRiley,HowardStacey "  Davis,andKirsten_Margrethe_Ԁ_Mansbridge_,allCanadiannationals,whoclaimtobevictimsof #! violationsofarticles2,paragraphs1and3,9,paragraph1,18,23,paragraphs3and4,and26ofthe $" InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthorsarenotrepresentedbycounsel. % #  Factsaspresentedbytheauthors  `'"% 2.1In1990,theCanadiangovernmentrevisedtheRoyalCanadianMountedPolice( RCMP) @)$' regulationsallowingtheCommissioner,undersection64(2)oftheseregulations,to exemptany 0*%( memberfromwearinganyitemofthesignificantuniform...onthebasisofthemembersreligious  +p&) beliefs.Subsequently,one_Khalsa_ԀSikhofficerwasauthorisedtosubstituteturbansforthe ,`'* traditionalwidebrimmed _mountie__stetson_Ԁandforagecap. -P(+  -@), 2.2RileyandDavisarebothretiredfromtheRoyalCanadianMountedPolice( RCMP)andare  membersofanorganisationwhosegoalistomaintaintraditionwithintheRCMP.Theauthors  soughtanorderfromtheFederalCourtofCanada(TrialDivision),thattheCommissionerofthe  RCMPbeprohibitedfromallowingthewearingofreligioussymbolsaspartoftheRCMPuniform.  Inparticular,theyclaimedthattheCommissionersdecisiontoallowthewearingofthe_Khalsa_ԀSikh p turbaninsteadofthe_stetson_Ԁisunconstitutional.On8July1994,theFederalCourtdismissedthe `  authorsclaimdecidingthattherewasnoviolationoftheCanadianCharter. P  2.3TheauthorsappealedtheircasetotheFederalCourtofCanada(AppealsDivision).On31May 0  1995,theAppealsDivisionaffirmedtheTrialDivisionsdecision.Theauthorsapplicationforleave  p  toappealthisdecisionwassubsequentlydismissedbytheSupremeCourt,whichdidnotprovideany `  reasonsforitsdecision. P  2.4Theauthorsstatethattounderstandhowtheyarepersonallyaffectedbysection64(2)ofthe 0  RCMPregulationsonemustunderstandthattheRCMPismorethanafederalpoliceforceandthat   its20,000officerspermeatealllevelsoflawenforcementinCanadaandthattheRCMPisan  integralpartoftheredailylives.Theyalsostatethatthe_actio_Ԁ_popularis_strategyoftheauthorsaction  intheFederalCourtcorrespondstotheindividualobligationsentrustedbythePreambletothe  Covenant.Asthepreamblestipulates theindividual,havingdutiestootherindividualsandtothe  communitytowhichhebelongs,isunderaresponsibilitytostriveforthepromotionandobservance  oftherightsrecognisedinthepresentCovenant,theauthorsbelieve,thattheydohavestanding p beforetheHumanRightsCommittee. `  Complaint  @ CE.,UK.,USCE.,     UKUS.,XLXXXL        ݌̌  US.,UK.,  XLXXXL  3.1Theauthorsclaimthatthedisplayof_Khalsa_ԀSikhsymbolsbyCanadasnationalpoliceimputes  p RCMPStateendorsementoftheexclusivelymale soldiersaint_Khalsa_ԀSikhorder,contraryto ` article3oftheCovenant. P 3.2Theyalsoclaimthatarticle9,paragraph1,embodiestheprincipleoffundamentaljusticefree 0 ofanyapprehensionofbias.TheyclaimthatpoliceofficersoftheStateshouldnotonlyactinan   impartialmannerbutexhibitanappearanceofimpartialitywhenexercisinglawenforcementpowers. ! Accordingtotheauthors,thereisoverwhelmingevidencetosuggestthatthedisplayofreligious "  beliefsbyapoliceofficerwouldraiseanapprehensionofbiasinmanyCanadians. #! 3.3Furthermore,theauthorsclaimthatinordertoprotecttheirrightsunderarticle18ofthe % # CovenanttheStateshouldremainsecularandthatsection64(2)oftheRCMPregulationsviolates p&!$ theirrightsunderthisarticleoftheCovenantasitintroducesadenominationalfacetothemost `'"% visibleStateagency. P(#& 3.4Inaddition,theauthorsclaimaviolationofarticle23,paragraphs3and4,asthe_Khalsa_ԀSikh 0*%( religiousbeliefsupholdthepracticeofarrangedmarriagesinCanada.ItisarguedthatRCMP  +p&) affiliationwiththatOrderreflectsStateendorsementofthispractice. ,`'* 3.5Finally,theauthorsclaimaviolationofarticles26and2,paragraph1,astheauthorsrights(at -@), leastoneofwhomisaRomanCatholic)toequalprotectionandequalbenefitofthelawisviolated  bythisregulationwhichinvolvestheRCMPintheadvancementof_Khalsa_ԀSikhreligiousand  politicalinterests.Theauthorsclaimthatthisspecialstatusallowedto_Khalsa_ԀSikhs,createsa  distinctiononthebasisofreligionandiscontrarytoarticles2,paragraph1,and26,asitisdenied  toothergroups.1 p  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  P  4.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommittee 0  must,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotitisadmissible  p  undertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. `  4.2TheCommitteehasnotedtheauthorsclaimsthattheyarevictimsofviolationsofarticles3, @  9,paragraph1,18,23,paragraphs3and4,26,and2,paragraph1,because_Khalsa_ԀSikhofficersof 0  theRCMPareauthorisedtowearreligioussymbolsaspartoftheirRCMPuniform.Inparticular,   theCommitteenotestheauthorsclaimunderarticles26,and2,paragraph1,thatthisisaspecial  statusallowedto_Khalsa_ԀSikhs,whichisdeniedtootherreligiousgroups.TheCommitteeisofthe  viewthattheauthorshavefailedtoshowhowtheenjoymentoftheirrightsundertheCovenanthas  beenaffectedbyallowing_Khalsa_ԀSikhofficerstowearreligioussymbols.Therefore,theycannot  beconsideredtobe victimswithinthemeaningofarticle1oftheOptionalProtocol.  5.TheCommittee,therefore,decides: `   (a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; @ 0  (b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorand,forinformation,totheState  p party.`(#(#  Notes  0 1󀀀InthejudgementoftheFederalCourtthetrialjudgestatedthat nowitnesshasbeencalledwho ! claimedanexemptiononreligiousorothersimilargroundandwhohadbeenrefused.Notonlyis "  therenoconcreteinstanceofdiscriminationbeforemebuttheAgreedStatementofFactstatesthat #! theRCMPwouldconsideranyrequestforexemptiononreligiousgroundsonabasissimilartothat $" onwhichthe_Khalsa_ԀSikhsrequesttoweartheturbanwasgranted.CE.,US.,