ÿWPC: Ê”H ¤Èqe²f@7mï_*ibƒa¨šñ!HŶý`f*-•ª1Á3)¦Tºɼúÿ+Yjïà“{úîLë–ßÛ/Ÿ ®°N3Ï¥dû†±AM¦Á£y]W±g ö§JÞØ;ªLH%(ûE£um¶êÎÚ¨$82û7©¬À¬º{̡ǂ­“‚8J§_ZGQ ÿib·+ð5>”èSŠÄBX{WU,÷\u Dæ1OÝ °úm_ýÅã .ól •nP/§-¨Sé7œXœÿhèß>Êd4eJë|ß@Y Ö/Ði§ªÞ«˜Ñÿë–œxJ½Z‹n…ê¶õaÐ,}Iê•@#7œÙŠ›zê›#P¾ëˆàRÇFs„ÌÔdÿê)?&$7±ái¨[kã‰3°ê*ZЭŒ3C£½¼¸9ï0(Jý&û}¶ŽøØS¾•+}8ŽÜÆaòNŠïãÈ?qÔt|ë6¥aFvÕAPʾÕ>Ei®dHÁâ:˜û/ÚSÕ d‰€'§¢×WZŽÈl L‹ôƒÆi·Mã¬L÷ÃçÏŸ§·RãìÞ³¿xvböbÿÖzùþ¦R¬ oÜ„VGEh޶Ã"Såž*Â>鿞x#ÉUNY %§ 0:­ 0Uç 0ã< 0Å 0¿ä 0¹£ 0³\ 0­ 0§¼ 0¡c 0Å 0ÑÉ 0³š 0­M 0§ú 0¡¡ 0›B 0•Ý 0r 0Âÿ 0ÎÁ 0° 0ª? 0¤é 0ž 0˜+ 0’à 0ŠU 0Qß 0M0 08} 0µ! 0<Ï" 0n # 0y# 0‘$ 0—% 0Ö±& 0T‡' 0Û( 0:á) 0Ö* 0ñ* 0< , 03E- 00x. 0-¨/ 0*Õ0 0'ÿ1 0$&3 0!J4 0k5 1eq6 7Ö6 0Uä6ä6 0U97Ž7Ž7 B-¤7 0CÑ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7Ñ7 0ƒ888 1u—8 72 9N>9^ @9w@L94Œ9 9¯9 m±9±9±9 0VÈ9˜\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnÒV,,,,ÒV0(@øÐ Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ö\$¡¡ÔCEUS.,Ô*+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+G ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*8+8 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó(&& ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó(AA ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó(GG ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(88 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó(55 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó(22 ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó(// ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(,, ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó()) ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó&&& ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓ  Ó6 ÿÿ4heading 1Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ UK ÔóóòòÔ‡XXXÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔ US ÔóóÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó6Š €ÿÿ4heading 2Ñ  ÑÓ Ôþ ÓÓ „ ÓÓ2(4 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2Óò òÔ UK ÔÔ‡XXXÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ‡ôôôÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Óó óÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓ Ôþ Ó6 tÿÿ4heading 3Ñ  ÑÓ „ ÓÓ2(4 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ UK ÔóóòòÔ‡XXXÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ‡ôôôÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ US ÔóóÑ  Ñ6r eÿÿ4heading 5Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ‡ôôôÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<ÿÿ:Default Para<ÿÿ:footnote refÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡ôôôÔ6qqÿÿ4Body TextÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ UK ÔÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<eeÿÿ:footnote texÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔ:ppÿÿ8Body Text 3Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó0SSÿÿ.footerÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ °°ÀÐ ÓÔ UK ÔÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓ °°ÀÐ ÓÓ  Ó:ÿÿ8Body Text 2Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÔ UK ÔÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÓÓÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<eeÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ñ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó:ÿÿ8page number0SSÿÿ.headerÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ °°ÀÐ ÓÔ UK ÔÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓ °°ÀÐ ÓÓ  Ó6qqÿÿ4ParagraphÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ OZ ÔÔ‡ŠŠŠÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔ US ÔÑ  ÑÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó<i.i ÿÿ:Outline001_1Ó Ôþ ÓÓ „ ÓÓ2(4 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÓÓÓÓò òÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôó óà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<c+i ÿÿ:Outline001_2Ó ¢þ ÓÓ â ÓÓ/%’ ’ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ ¢þ Ó<`+i ÿÿ:Outline001_3Ó jÿ ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ Ó<]+i ÿÿ:Outline001_4Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<Z+i ÿÿ:Outline001_5Ó Ôþ ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<W+i ÿÿ:Outline001_6Ó jÿ ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ Ó<T+i ÿÿ:Outline001_7Ó Ôþ ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<Q+i ÿÿ:Outline001_8Ó Ôþ ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ Ôþ Ó<B+] ÿÿ:Outline001_9Ó jÿ ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÓÓÓÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓÓÓÓÓ jÿ Ó/0123456 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_1A.1.i.1.a.i.1.a.87i.(-2«$§§Ý ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(-2«$©©Ý ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  Ý Ñ ° Ñ)Hairline d(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(B2½±$¤¤Ý ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)li)ì÷Y/— š›DœDžŸD ¡D¢£Dû¾Q/<°3|x£$ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(.3½g$¦¦Ý ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òÑ€=OaÑHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòJudge€v.€CanadaóóÐ „Ô ÐÌCommunication€No.€829/1998**Ð X¨ ÐÌ5€August€2002ó óÝ ƒw½gÿÝÔCECE.,ÔÝ  ÝÐ , | Ðò òÌÔ_ÔCCPRÔ_Ô/C/78/D/829/1998*ó óÐ  P ÐÌÌò òVIEWSó óÐ ¼  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Roger€Judge€(represented€by€counsel,€Mr.€Eric€Sutton)Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð F– ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€CanadaÐ d ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€7€August€1998€(initial€submission)Ð â2 ÐóóÌÌÓ  ÓòòThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ ›ë Ðand€Political€Rights,€Ð „Ô ÐÌòòMeeting€onóó€5€August€2002,Ð V¦ ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€829/1998,€submitted€to€the€Human€RightsÐ (x ÐCommittee€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Roger€Judge€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantÐ a Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð úJ ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ Ì!  Ðcommunication,€and€the€State€party,Ð µ"! ÐÌòòAdopts€the€followingóó:Ð ‡$×# ÐÓÂÓÌÌÓ  Óò òòòViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóóó óÐ B'’"& ÐÓ½ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication,€dated€7€August€1998,€is€Mr.€Roger€Judge,€a€citizen€of€theÐ þ)N%) ÐUnited€States€of€America,€at€the€time€of€the€submission€detained€at€Ste„Anne„des„Plaines,€Qubec,Ð ç*7&* ÐCanada,€and€deported€to€the€United€States€on€the€day€of€submission,€i.e.€7€August€1998.€He€claimsÐ Ð+ '+ Ðto€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€Canada€of€articles€6,€7,€10€and€14€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ ¹, (, ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights.€He€is€represented€by€counsel.Ð ¢-ò(- ЇòòFacts€as€submitted€by€the€authorÐ ° ÐÌÑ€? l<` Ñóó2.1€On€15€April€1987,€the€author€was€convicted€on€two€counts€of€first„degree€murder€and€possessionÐ ‚Ò Ðof€an€instrument€of€crime,€by€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€of€Philadelphia,€Pennsylvania.€On€12€JuneÐ k» Ð987,€he€was€sentenced€to€death,€by€electric€chair.€Heò ò€ó óescaped€from€prison€on€14€June€1987€and€fledÐ T¤ Ðto€Canada.òò1óóÐ @  ÐÌ2.2€On€13€July€1988,€the€author€was€convicted€of€two€robberies€committed€in€Vancouver,€Canada.Ð  b ÐOn€8€August€1988,€he€was€sentenced€to€10€yearsðð€imprisonment.€The€author€appealed€hisÐ û K Ðconvictions,€but€€on€1€March€1991,€his€appeal€was€dismissed.Ð ä 4  ÐÌ2.3€On€15€June€1993,€the€author€was€ordered€deported€from€Canada.€The€order€was€conditional€asÐ ¶  Ðhe€had€announced€his€intention€to€claim€refugee€status.€On€8€June€1994,€he€withdrew€his€claim€forÐ Ÿï  Ðrefugee€status,€at€which€point€the€deportation€order€became€effective.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌ2.4€On€26€January€1995,€on€recommendation€of€the€Correctional€Services€of€Canada,€his€case€wasÐ Zª  Ðreviewed€by€the€National€Parole€Board€which€ordered€him€detained€until€expiry€of€his€sentence,€i.e.Ð C“ Ð8€August€1998.òò2óóÐ ,| ÐÌ2.5€On€10€November€1997,€the€author€wrote€to€the€Minister€of€Citizenship€and€ImmigrationÐ þN Ðrequesting€ministerial€intervention€with€a€view€to€staying€the€deportation€order€against€him,€untilÐ ç7 Ðsuch€time€as€a€request€for€extradition€from€the€United€States€authorities€might€be€sought€andÐ Ð  Ðreceived€in€his€case.€If€removed€under€the€Extradition€Treaty,€Canada€could€have€asked€forÐ ¹  Ðassurances€from€the€United€States€that€he€not€be€executed.€In€a€letter,€dated€18€February€1998,€theÐ ¢ò ÐMinister€refused€his€request.òò3óó€Ð ‹Û ÐÌ2.6€The€author€applied€to€the€Federal€Court€of€Canada€for€leave€to€commence€an€application€forÐ ]­ Ðjudicial€review€of€the€Ministerððs€refusal.€In€this€application,€the€author€requested€a€stay€of€theÐ F– Ðimplementation€of€the€deportation€order€until€such€time€as€he€would€be€surrendered€for€extradition,Ð / Ðand€a€declaration€that€his€detention€in€Canada€and€deportation€to€the€United€States€violated€his€rightsÐ h Ðunder€the€Canadian€Charter.€The€authorððs€application€for€leave€was€denÔ_ÔiedÔ_Ô€on€23€June€1998.€NoÐ  Q Ðreasons€were€provided€and€no€appeal€is€possible€from€the€refusal€to€grant€leave.Ð ê : ÐÌ2.7€The€author€then€petitioned€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec,€whose€jurisdiction€is€concurrent€withÐ ¼" ! Ðthat€of€the€Federal€Court€of€Canada,€for€relief€identical€to€that€sought€before€the€Federal€Court.€OnÐ ¥#õ" Ð6€August€1998,€the€Superior€Court€declined€jurisdiction€given€that€proceedings€had€already€beenÐ Ž$Þ# Ðundertaken€in€the€Federal€Court,€albeit€unsuccessfully.€Ð w%Ç $ ÐÌ2.8€The€author€contends€that,€although€the€ruling€of€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec€could€be€appealedÐ I'™"& Ðto€the€Court€of€Appeal,€it€cannot€be€considered€an€effective€remedy,€as€the€issue€would€be€limitedÐ 2(‚#' Ðto€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€rather€than€the€merits€of€the€case.Ð )k$( ÐÌòòThe€complaintÐ í*=&* ÐÌóó3.1€The€author€claims€that€Canada€imposed€mental€suffering€upon€him€that€amounts€to€cruel,Ð ¿,(, Ðinhuman€and€degrading€treatment€or€punishment,€having€detained€him€for€ten€yearsò ò€ó ówhile€theÐ ¨-ø(- Ðcertainty€of€capital€punishment€was€hanging€over€his€head€at€the€conclusion€of€his€sentence,€and€thisÐ ° Ðconstitutes€a€breach€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.€He€argues€that€he€suffered€from€the€ð ðdeath€rowÐ ™é Ðphenomenonðð,€during€his€detention€in€Canada.€This€is€explained€as€a€state€of€mental€orÐ ‚Ò Ðpsychological€anguish,€and,€according€to€him,€it€matters€little€that€he€would€not€be€executed€onÐ k» ÐCanadian€soil.€The€author€claims€that€the€State€party€had€no€valid€sentencing€objective€since€he€wasÐ T¤ Ðsentenced€to€death€in€any€event,€even€though€in€another€State€party,€and€therefore€only€served€toÐ =  Ðprolong€the€agony€of€his€confinement€while€he€awaited€deportation€and€execution.€It€is€alsoÐ & v Ðsubmitted€that€in€this€respect,€the€author€was€not€treated€with€humanity€and€respect€for€the€inherentÐ  _ Ðdignity€of€the€human€person,€in€violation€of€article€10€of€the€Covenant.ò ò€ó óÐ ø H ÐÌ3.2€The€author€claims€that€ð ðby€detaining€[him]€for€ten€years€despite€the€fact€that€he€faced€certainÐ Í   Ðexecution€at€the€end€of€his€sentence,€and€proposing€now€to€remove€him€to€the€United€States,€CanadaÐ ¶  Ðhas€violated€[his]€right€to€life,€in€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.ððÐ Ÿï  Ðò òÌó ó3.3€The€author€also€claims€that,€because€of€his€status€as€a€fugitive€he€is€denied€a€full€appeal€in€theÐ r  ÐUnited€States,€under€Pennsylvanian€law,€and€therefore€by€returning€him€to€the€United€States€CanadaÐ [«  Ðparticipated€in€a€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant.€In€this€regard,€the€author€statesÐ D” Ðthat€the€trial€judge€made€errors€in€instructing€the€jury,€which€would€have€laid€the€groundwork€forÐ -} Ðappeals€against€both€his€conviction€and€sentence.òòÐ f ÐóóÌòòState€partyððs€observations€on€admissibilityÐ è8 ÐÌóó4.1€The€State€party€contends€that€the€authorððs€claims€are€inadmissible€for€failure€to€exhaust€domesticÐ º  Ðremedies,€failure€to€raise€issues€under€the€Covenant,€failure€to€substantiate€his€claims€andÐ £ó Ðincompatibility€with€the€Covenant.Ð ŒÜ ÐÌ4.2€On€the€issue€of€non„exhaustion€with€respect€to€the€authorððs€detention€in€Canada,€the€State€partyÐ ^® Ðargues€firstly€that€the€author€failed€to€raise€his€claims€before€the€competent€courts€in€Canada€at€theÐ G— Ðmaterial€times.€Both€during€his€1988€sentencing€hearing€and€on€appeal€of€his€convictions€of€robberyÐ 0€ Ðthe€author€failed€to€complain,€as€he€now€alleges,€that€a€10„year€sentence,€in€light€of€his€convictionsÐ i Ðand€sentences€in€the€United€States,€constituted€cruel€treatment€or€punishment€in€violation€of€sectionÐ  R Ð12€of€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms.€These€arguments€were€not€made€until€1998,Ð ë ; Ðwhen€the€authorððs€removal€from€Canada€was€imminent.Ð Ô!$  Ðò òÌó ó4.3€Secondly,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€author€failed€to€appeal€to€the€Appeal€Division€of€theÐ §#÷" ÐNational€Parole€Board€of€Canada€or€to€challenge€before€the€courts€both€the€National€Parole€BoardððsÐ $à# Ðdecision€not€to€release€him€before€the€expiration€of€his€full€sentence€and€the€annual€reviews€of€thatÐ y%É $ Ðdecision.€If€he€had€been€successful€with€these€appeal€avenues,€he€might€have€been€released€prior€toÐ b&²!% Ðthe€expiration€of€his€sentence.€Failure€to€pursue€such€remedies€is€clearly€inconsistent€with€theÐ K'›"& Ðauthorððs€position€that€Canada€violated€his€Covenant€rights€in€detaining€him€in€Canada€rather€thanÐ 4(„#' Ðremoving€him€to€the€United€States.Ð )m$( ÐÌ4.€4€Thirdly,€the€State€party€argues€that€if€the€author€had€wanted€to€be€removed€to€the€United€StatesÐ ï*?&* Ðrather€than€continue€to€be€detained€in€Canada,€he€could€also€have€requested€the€Department€ofÐ Ø+('+ ÐCitizenship€and€Immigration€to€intervene€before€the€National€Parole€Board€for€the€purposes€ofÐ Á,(, Ðarguing€that€he€be€released€and€removed€to€the€United€States.€Furthermore,€he€could€have€appliedÐ ª-ú(- Ðto€have€been€transferred€to€Pennsylvania€pursuant€to€the€Transfer€of€Offenders€Treaty€betweenÐ ° ÐCanada€and€the€United€States€of€America€on€the€Execution€of€Penal€Sentences.€In€the€State€partyððsÐ ™é Ðview,€the€authorððs€failure€diligently€to€pursue€such€avenues€casts€doubt€on€the€genuineness€of€hisÐ ‚Ò Ðassertion€that€he€wanted€to€be€removed€to€the€United€States,€where€he€had€been€sentenced€to€death.Ð k» ÐÌ4.5€On€the€issue€of€non„exhaustion€with€respect€to€the€authorððs€request€for€a€stay€of€the€deportationÐ =  Ðorder€to€the€United€States,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€author€failed€to€appeal€the€ruling€of€theÐ & v ÐSuperior€Court€of€Qubec€to€the€Court€of€Appeal.€Contrary€to€the€authorððs€view,€that€this€remedyÐ  _ Ðwould€not€be€useful€as€it€would€be€limited€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court€rather€than€the€merits€ofÐ ø H Ðthe€case,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€authorððs€petition€was€dismissed€for€both€procedural€andÐ á 1  Ðsubstantive€reasons,€and,€therefore,€the€Court€of€Appeal€could€have€reviewed€the€judgement€on€theÐ Ê   Ðmerits.Ð ³  ÐÌ4.6€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author€has€failed€to€show€that€his€detention€and€subsequentÐ …Õ  Ðremoval€to€the€United€States€raise€any€issues€under€articles€6,€7,€10€or€14,€paragraph€5€of€theÐ n¾  ÐCovenant.€If€the€Committee€is€of€the€opinion€that€these€articles€do€apply€to€the€instant€case,€the€StateÐ W§  Ðparty€argues€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€any€of€these€claims€for€the€purposes€ofÐ @ Ðadmissibility.€Ð )y ÐÌ4.7€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€articles€7€and€10,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€authorÐ ûK Ðhas€not€cited€any€authority€in€support€of€his€proposition€that€the€ð ðdeath€row€phenomenonðð€can€applyÐ ä4 Ðto€a€prisoner€detained€in€an€abolitionist€State€for€crimes€committed€in€that€State,€where€that€personÐ Í Ðhas€been€previously€sentenced€to€capital€punishment€in€another€State.€The€author€was€sentenced€toÐ ¶ Ðimprisonment€for€robberies€he€committed€in€Canada€and€was€not€on€death€row€in€Canada.€It€isÐ Ÿï Ðsubmitted,€therefore,€that€the€ð ðdeath€row€phenomenonðð€does€not€apply€in€the€circumstances€and€heÐ ˆØ Ðhas€no€claim€under€articles€7€and€10.Ð qÁ ÐÌ4.8€On€the€authorððs€argument€that€the€sentencing€in€Canada€had€no€valid€objective€as€he€had€beenÐ C“ Ðsentenced€to€death€in€the€United€States,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€sentencing€principle€ofÐ ,| Ðretribution,€denunciation€and€deterrence€require€the€imposition€of€a€sentence€in€Canada€for€crimesÐ e Ðcommitted€in€Canada.€Ð þN ÐÌ4.9€According€to€the€State€party,€if€fugitives€in€Canada€facing€the€death€penalty€were€not€prosecutedÐ Ð!   Ðand€sentenced€for€crimes€in€Canada,€this€would€lead€to€potential€abuses.€First,€it€would€create€aÐ ¹" ! Ðdouble€standard€of€justice.€Such€fugitives€would€be€immune€from€prosecution€while€individuals€notÐ ¢#ò" Ðfacing€the€death€penalty€would€be€prosecuted€and€sentenced,€even€though€the€crime€committed€inÐ ‹$Û# ÐCanada€was€the€same€in€both€cases.€Similarly,€it€would€encourage€lawlessness€among€such€fugitivesÐ t%Ä $ Ðsince€in€Canada€they€would€be€de€facto€immune€from€prosecution€and€imprisonment.€In€essence,Ð ]&­!% Ðfugitives€sentenced€to€death€for€murder€in€the€United€States€would€be€given€a€ð ðcarte€blancheðð€toÐ F'–"& Ðcommit€subsequent€offences€in€Canada.Ð /(#' ÐÌ4.10€If€the€Committee€were€to€find€that€the€facts€of€this€case€do€raise€issues€under€articles€7€and€10,Ð *Q%) Ðthe€State€party€submits€that€the€author€has€not€substantiated€a€violation€of€these€articles€for€theÐ ê*:&* Ðpurposes€of€admissibility.€The€State€party€argues€that€the€Committee€has€on€many€occasionsÐ Ó+#'+ Ðreiterated€that€lengthy€detention€on€death€row€does€not€constitute€a€violation€of€articles€7€and€10€inÐ ¼, (, Ðthe€absence€of€some€further€compelling€circumstances.òò4óó€It€states€that€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÐ ¥-õ(- Ðeach€case€need€to€be€examined,€and€that€in€the€past€the€Committee€has€had€regard€to€the€relevantÐ ° Ðpersonal€factors€of€the€author,€the€specific€conditions€of€detention€on€death€row€and€whether€theÐ ™é Ðproposed€method€of€execution€is€particularly€abhorrent.€No€such€circumstances€apply€in€this€case.Ð ‚Ò ÐMoreover,€it€states€that,€where€the€delay€in€awaiting€execution€is€the€fault€of€the€accused,€such€asÐ k» Ðwhere€he€escapes€custody,€the€accused€cannot€be€allowed€to€take€advantage€of€this€delay.€In€thisÐ T¤ Ðcase,€the€delay€arises€from€the€authorððs€own€criminal€acts,€his€escape€and€the€robberies€he€committedÐ =  Ðin€Canada.òò5óóÐ & v ÐÌ4.11€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€6,€the€State€party€states€that€the€author€hasÐ ø H Ðprovided€no€authority€for€his€proposition€that€òòdetaining€óóan€individual€for€crimes€committed€in€thatÐ á 1  ÐState€despite€the€fact€that€the€same€person€has€been€sentenced€to€death€in€another€State€raises€anÐ Ê   Ðissue€under€article€6.€The€author€was€sentenced€in€Canada€for€robberies€he€committed€there€and€isÐ ³  Ðnot€facing€the€death€penalty€in€Canada.Ð œì  ÐÌ4.12€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€claim€that€his€òòdeportationóóÐ n¾  Ðfrom€Canada€would€violate€article€6.€It€recalls€the€Committeeððs€jurisprudence€that€ð ðif€a€State€partyÐ W§  Ðtakes€a€decision€relating€to€a€person€within€its€jurisdiction€and€the€necessary€and€foreseeableÐ @ Ðconsequences€is€that€the€personððs€rights€under€the€Covenant€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,Ð )y Ðthe€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violation€of€the€Covenant.ððòò6óó€The€State€party€also€invokes€theÐ b ÐCommitteeððs€decision€in€òòReid€v.€Jamaicaóó,€when€it€decided€that€the€requirement€of€article€6€that€aÐ ûK Ðsentence€of€death€may€be€ð ðimposed€in€accordance€with€the€lawðð€implied€that€the€proceduralÐ ä4 Ðguarantees€prescribed€in€the€Covenant€were€observed.òò7óó€According€to€the€State€party,€if€theÐ Í Ðprocedural€guarantees€of€the€Covenant€were€observed,€there€is€no€violation€of€article€6.€The€only€dueÐ ¶ Ðprocess€issue€raised€by€the€author€was€the€narrower€appeal€of€conviction€and€sentence€allowed€underÐ Ÿï ÐPennsylvanian€law.€In€this€respect,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€author€has€not€substantiated€hisÐ ˆØ Ðclaim€that€he€was€deprived€of€his€right€to€review€by€a€higher€tribunal€and€it€refers€òòmutatis€mutandisóóÐ qÁ Ðto€its€submissions€on€article€14,€paragraph€5,€(below).€ò ò€Ð Zª ÐÌó ó4.13€On€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€presents€several€arguments€toÐ 0€ Ðdemonstrate€that€an€issue€under€this€article€does€not€arise.€Firstly,€it€contends€that€the€authorððsÐ i Ðcomplaint€has€its€basis€in€the€law€of€the€United€States,€State€of€Pennsylvania€and€not€in€CanadianÐ  R Ðlaw.€Therefore,€the€author€has€no€òòprima€facieóó€claim€against€Canada.€Ð ë ; ÐÌ4.14€Secondly,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€authorððs€right€to€review€by€a€higher€tribunal€shouldÐ ½" ! Ðbe€treated€under€article€6€and€not€separately€under€article€14.€It€argues€that,€given€that€the€CommitteeÐ ¦#ö" Ðinterprets€article€6,€paragraph€2,€as€requiring€the€maintenance€of€procedural€guarantees€in€theÐ $ß# ÐCovenant,€including€the€right€to€review€by€the€higher€tribunal€stipulated€in€article€14,€paragraph€5,Ð x%È $ Ðto€the€extent€that€this€case€raises€issues€under€article€6,€this€right€to€review€should€be€treated€underÐ a&±!% Ðarticle€6€only.€Ð J'š"& Ðò òÌó ó4.15€Thirdly,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€authorððs€detention€in€and€removal€from€Canada€does€notÐ )m$( Ðraise€an€issue€under€article€14,€as€his€incarceration€for€robberies€committed€in€Canada€did€not€haveÐ *V%) Ðany€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€on€his€right€to€have€his€convictions€and€sentencesÐ ï*?&* Ðreviewed€in€Pennsylvania.€It€is€also€submitted€that€the€authorððs€removal€did€not€have€any€necessaryÐ Ø+('+ Ðand€foreseeable€consequence€on€his€appeal€rights€since€the€authorððs€appeal€had€already€taken€placeÐ Á,(, Ðin€1991,€while€he€was€imprisoned€in€Canada.€€Ð ª-ú(- ÐÔ_ìÔ‡4.16€The€State€party€argues€that,€although€in€the€United€States€a€prisonerððs€rights€may€be€adverselyÐ ° Ðaffected€in€the€event€that€he€escapes€from€custody,€the€author€has€failed€to€substantiate€his€claim€thatÐ ™é Ðhis€right€to€review€by€a€higher€tribunal€was€violated.€It€encloses€the€judgement€of€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ‚Ò Ðof€Pennsylvania€on€the€authorððs€appeal,€indicating€that€the€Supreme€Court€of€Pennsylvania€isÐ k» Ðstatutorily€mandated€to€review€all€death€sentences,€in€particular€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€toÐ T¤ Ðsustain€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€This€statutory€review€was€undertaken€with€respect€toÐ =  Ðthe€authorððs€case,€on€22€October€1991,€at€which€he€was€legally€represented.€The€Supreme€CourtÐ & v Ðaffirmed€both€the€conviction€and€sentence.€On€the€allegation€that€the€trial€judge€committed€errorsÐ  _ Ðin€instructing€the€jury€and€that€those€errors€had€not€be€reviewed€by€the€Supreme€Court,€the€StateÐ ø H Ðparty€submits€that€even€if€the€judge€so€erred,€upon€a€realistic€view€of€the€evidence,€a€properlyÐ á 1  Ðinstructed€jury€could€not€have€come€to€any€other€conclusion€than€that€reached€by€the€jury€in€theÐ Ê   Ðauthorððs€trial.Ð ³  ÐÌ4.17€The€State€party€further€submits€that€two€additional€review€Ô_ììÔrecoursesÔ_ììÔ€are€available€to€the€authorò òÐ …Õ  Ðó óin€the€United€States.€The€first€is€a€petition€filed€in€the€Court€of€Common€Pleas€under€PennsylvaniaððsÐ n¾  ÐPost„Conviction€Relief€Act€(Ô_ììÔPCRAÔ_ììÔ)€in€which€constitutional€issues€may€be€raised.€The€State€partyÐ W§  Ðclaims€that€the€author€has€already€filed€a€petition€under€this€Act.ò ò€ó óThe€second€is€a€petition€for€writ€ofÐ @ Ðhabeas€corpus€filed€in€the€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Pennsylvania.€This€court€has€theÐ ,| Ðpower€to€overturn€the€judgements€of€the€courts€of€the€Commonwealth€of€Pennsylvania,€if€itÐ e Ðconcludes€that€the€conviction€was€pronounced€in€violation€of€rights€guaranteed€to€criminalÐ þN Ðdefendants€under€federal€law.€If€the€author€is€unsuccessful€in€both€of€these€petitions,€he€may€appealÐ ç7 Ðto€the€higher€courts€and€ultimately€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court.ò òÐ Ð  Ðó óÌ4.18€In€addition,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€author€could€petition€the€GoÔ_ììÔvernorÔ_ììÔ€of€PennsylvaniaÐ ¢ò Ðfor€clemency€or€to€have€his€sentence€commuted€to€a€less€severe€one.€Prior€flight€does€not€precludeÐ ‹Û Ðsuch€an€application.€According€to€the€State€party,€in€light€of€the€Ô_ììÔrecoursesÔ_ììÔ€available€to€a€prisoner€onÐ tÄ Ðdeath€row,€only€two€executions€were€carried€out€in€Pennsylvania€over€the€past€thirty€years.€Ð ]­ Ðò òÌó ó4.19€Finally,€with€a€view€to€admissibility€of€the€communication€as€a€whole,€the€State€party€arguesÐ 0€ Ðthat€it€is€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol,Ð i Ðand€article€5,€paragraph€1€of€the€Covenant.€It€is€submitted€that€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€shouldÐ  R Ðnot€be€raised€as€a€shield€to€criminal€liability€and€the€author€should€not€be€allowed€to€rely€on€theÐ ë ; ÐCovenant€to€support€his€argument€that€he€should€not€have€been€prosecuted€in€Canada€for€crimes€heÐ Ô!$  Ðcommitted€there.€Moreover,€the€Covenant€should€not€be€used€by€those€who€through€their€ownÐ ½" ! Ðcriminal€acts€have€voluntarily€waived€certain€rights.€The€State€party€contends€that€the€authorððsÐ ¦#ö" Ðclaims€are€contradictory.€On€the€one€hand,€he€claims€that€his€removal€from€Canada€to€the€UnitedÐ $ß# ÐStates€violates€articles€6€and€14,€paragraph€5€of€the€Covenant,€on€the€other,€that€his€detentionÐ x%È $ Ðviolates€articles€7€and€10.€Canada€is€alleged€therefore,€to€violate€the€Covenant€by€removing€him€asÐ a&±!% Ðwell€as€not€removing€him.òòÐ J'š"& ÐÌState€partyððs€response€on€the€meritsÐ )l$( ÐÌóó5.1.€With€respect€to€the€allegation€of€a€violation€of€articles€7€and€10,€the€State€party€submits€thatÐ î*>&* Ðcontrary€to€what€is€implied€in€the€authorððs€submissions,€the€ð ðdeath€row€phenomenonðð€is€not€solelyÐ ×+''+ Ðthe€psychological€stress€experienced€by€inmates€sentenced€to€death,€but€relates€also€to€otherÐ À,(, Ðconditions€including,€the€periodic€fixing€of€execution€dates,€followed€by€reprieves,€physical€abuse,Ð ©-ù(- Ðinadequate€food€and€isolation.ò ò€€Ð ° ÐÌó ó5.2€With€respect€to€the€authorððs€request€for€a€stay€of€his€deportation€until€such€time€as€CanadaÐ †Ö Ðreceived€an€extradition€request€and€an€assurance€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€carried€out,€theÐ o¿ ÐState€party€submits€that€the€United€States€hasò ò€ó óno€obligation€to€seek€extradition€of€a€fugitive€nor€toÐ X¨ Ðgive€such€assurances.€The€Government€of€Canada€cannot€be€expected€to€wait€for€such€a€request€orÐ D ” Ðto€wait€for€the€granting€of€such€assurances€before€removing€fugitives€to€the€United€States.€TheÐ - } Ðdanger€of€a€fugitive€going€unpunished,€the€lack€of€authority€to€detain€him€while€waiting€for€anÐ  f Ðextradition€request€and€the€importance€of€not€providing€a€safe€haven€for€those€accused€of€or€foundÐ ÿ O Ðguilty€of€murder,€militate€against€the€existence€of€such€an€obligation.€Moreover,€the€Minister€ofÐ è 8  ÐCitizenship€and€Immigration€has€a€statutory€obligation€to€execute€a€removal€order€as€soon€asÐ Ñ !  Ðreasonably€practicable.Ð º  ÐÌ5.3€On€the€alleged€violation€of€article€6€and€the€authorððs€contention€that€errors€were€committedÐ ŒÜ  Ðduring€his€trial€in€Pennsylvania,€which€would€have€provided€the€basis€for€a€appeal,€the€State€partyÐ uÅ  Ðstates€that€it€is€not€for€the€Committee€to€review€the€facts€and€evidence€of€a€trial€unless€it€could€beÐ ^®  Ðshown€to€have€been€arbitrary€or€a€denial€of€justice.òò8óó€It€would€be€inappropriate€to€impose€anÐ G— Ðobligation€on€it€to€review€trial€proceedings,€particularly€given€that€they€occurred€in€the€UnitedÐ 0€ ÐStates.ò òÐ i Ðó óÌ5.4€In€relation€to€the€allegation€of€a€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€5,€the€State€party€submits€thatÐ ë; Ðthis€article€does€not€specify€what€type€of€review€is€required€and€refers€to€the€òòÔ_ììÔtravauxÔ_ììÔ€Ô_ììÔprparatoiresÔ_ììÔóóÐ Ô$ Ðof€the€Covenant,€which€it€claims€envisaged€a€broad€provision€that€recognised€the€principle€of€a€rightÐ ½  Ðto€review€while€leaving€the€type€of€review€procedure€to€be€determined€in€accordance€with€theirÐ ¦ö Ðrespective€legal€systems.òò9óóÐ ß ÐÌ5.5€The€State€party€reiterates€that€the€authorððs€case€was€fully€reviewed€by€the€Supreme€Court€ofÐ a± ÐPennsylvania.€It€submits€that,€although€originally€in€Pennsylvania€a€defendant€who€escaped€custodyÐ Jš Ðwas€held€to€have€forfeited€his€right€to€a€full€appellate€review,€the€Supreme€Court€of€this€state€hasÐ 3ƒ Ðrecently€departed€from€this€position,€holding€that€a€fugitive€should€be€allowed€to€exercise€his€post„Ð l Ðtrial€rights€in€the€same€manner€as€he€would€have€done€had€he€not€become€a€fugitive.€This€isÐ  U Ðdependent,€the€State€party€clarifies,€on€whether€the€fugitive€returns€on€time€to€file€post„trial€motionsÐ î > Ðor€an€appeal.€It€also€notes€that€filing€deadlines€are€subject€to€exceptions€which€allow€for€late€filing.òò10óóÐ ×!'  ÐÌòòThe€authorððs€comments€on€State€partyððs€response€on€admissibility€and€the€meritsóóÐ ©#ù" ÐÌ6.1€In€relation€to€the€State€partyððs€arguments€on€non„exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€with€respectÐ {%Ë $ Ðto€the€authorððs€detention€in€Canada,€the€author€submits€that€it€was€not€until€1993,€almost€5€yearsÐ d&´!% Ðafter€his€robbery€convictions,€that€he€was€ordered€deported.€He€argues€that€he€could€have€beenÐ M'"& Ðgranted€early€parole€for€the€purposes€of€deportation€to€the€United€States€and€as€such€could€not€haveÐ 6(†#' Ðknown€in€1988€that€Canada€would€see€fit€to€detain€him€for€the€full€10€years€of€his€sentence.Ð )o$( ÐFurthermore,€the€author€could€not€have€known€in€1988€that€although€the€United€States€was€willingÐ *X%) Ðto€seek€extradition,€it€would€not€do€so€ð ðas€the€eventual€deportation€of€the€author€to€the€United€StatesÐ ñ*A&* Ðappeared€less€problematic.ððÐ Ú+*'+ ÐÌ6.2€On€the€question€of€an€appeal€to€the€National€Parole€Board,€including€appeals€of€the€annualÐ ¬-ü(- Ðreviews,€the€author€submits€that€appeals€of€this€nature€would€have€been€ineffective€as,€based€on€theÐ ° Ðevidence,€the€Board€could€only€find€that€ð ðif€releasedðð€the€author€would€likely€cause,€inter€alia,Ð ™é Ðserious€harm€to€another€person€prior€to€expiry€of€sentence.€However,€as€in€reality€the€author€wouldÐ ‚Ò Ðnot€have€been€released€on€completion€of€two„thirds€of€his€sentence,€but€would€have€been€turned€overÐ k» Ðto€the€Canadian€immigration€services€to€be€deported,€the€prison€authorities€should€not€haveÐ T¤ Ðsubmitted€the€authorððs€case€to€the€Parole€Board€for€review€in€the€first€place.€Once€seized€with€theÐ =  Ðcase,€the€Board€could€not€refuse€to€rule€on€the€risk€of€harm,€were€the€author€to€be€released.€ò òÐ & v Ðó óÌ6.3€On€the€issue€of€the€possibility€of€applying€for€transfer€to€the€United€States€pursuant€to€theÐ ø H ÐTransfer€of€Offenders€Treaty,€the€author€argues€that€the€consent€of€both€States€parties€is€necessaryÐ á 1  Ðfor€such€a€transfer€and€that€Canada€would€never€have€agreed€considering€its€refusal€to€deport€himÐ Ê   Ðbefore€he€had€served€his€full€term€of€imprisonment.€Further,€the€author€argues€that€the€onus€shouldÐ ³  Ðnot€be€on€him€to€pursue€legal€remedies,€all€of€which€he€considers€would€have€been€futile,€to€hastenÐ œì  Ðhis€return€to€the€jurisdiction€where€he€was€sentenced€to€death.òòÐ …Õ  ÐóóÌ6.4€With€respect€to€a€possible€appeal€of€the€authorððs€request€for€a€stay€of€the€deportation€order€fromÐ W§  Ðthe€Superior€Court€of€Qubec,€the€author€submits€that€this€decision€was€rendered€orally€on€6€AugustÐ @ Ð1998,€at€approximately€20:00.€The€Government€of€Canada€removed€the€author€in€the€early€hours€ofÐ )y Ð7€August€1998,€before€any€appeal€could€be€launched.€Therefore,€any€appeal€would€have€been€mootÐ b Ðand€futile€because€the€very€subject€of€the€proceedings€was€no€longer€within€Canadian€jurisdiction.Ð ûK ÐÌ6.5€The€author€reiterates€that€the€judge€of€the€Superior€Court€declined€jurisdiction€to€stay€theÐ Í Ðdeportation€because€the€Federal€Court€had€refused€to€intervene.€He€argues€that€although€the€judgeÐ ¶ Ðwent€on€to€analyse€the€case€on€the€merits€he€should€not€have€done€so,€having€declined€jurisdictionÐ Ÿï Ðand€that€an€appeal,€had€it€not€been€moot,€would€have€been€limited€to€the€question€of€whether€heÐ ˆØ Ðought€to€have€declined€jurisdiction€and€not€whether€he€had€made€a€case€that€his€rights€under€theÐ qÁ ÐCanadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms€had€been€violated.Ð Zª ÐÌ6.6€The€author€contests€the€State€partyððs€argument€on€incompatibility€and€states€that€the€theory€thatÐ ,| Ðòòifóó€the€authorððs€crimes€in€Canada€had€gone€unpunished€a€precedent€would€have€been€set€wherebyÐ e Ðthose€subject€to€execution€in€one€state€could€commit€crimes€with€impunity€in€another€state,€isÐ þN Ðinherently€flawed.€On€the€contrary,€the€author€argues€that€if€death€row€inmates€knew€that€they€wouldÐ ç 7 Ðbe€prosecuted€for€crimes€in€Canada€this€would€encourage€them€to€commit€such€crimes€there€in€orderÐ Ð!   Ðto€serve€a€prison€sentence€in€Canada€and€prolong€their€life€or€indeed€commit€murder€in€Canada€andÐ ¹" ! Ðstave€off€execution€in€the€United€States€indefinitely.€If€the€author€had€been€ð ðremoved€by€way€ofÐ ¢#ò" Ðextradition€following€apprehension€in€Canada€in€1988,€he€would€have€had€little€in€the€way€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðarguments€to€put€forth.ððòòÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌóó6.7€The€author€contests€the€State€partyððs€arguments€on€the€merits.€He€confirms€that€he€has€noÐ F'–"& Ðauthority€for€the€proposition€that€detention€in€Canada€for€crimes€committed€in€Canada€can€constituteÐ /(#' Ðdeath€row€confinement€as€there€is€no€such€recorded€instance.€The€author€submits€that€the€mentalÐ )h$( Ðanguish€that€characterises€death€row€confinement€began€with€his€apprehension€in€Canada€in€1988Ð *Q%) Ðand€ð ðwill€only€end€upon€his€execution€in€the€United€States.ððÐ ê*:&* ÐÌ6.8€The€author€rejects€as€misinterpretation,€the€State€partyððs€point€that€the€decision€in€Pratt€andÐ ¼, (, ÐMorganòò11óó€is€authority€for€the€proposition€that€a€prisoner€cannot€complain€where€delay€is€due€to€hisÐ ¥-õ(- Ðown€fault€such€as€an€ð ðescape€from€custodyðð.€He€concedes€that€the€period€when€he€was€at€large€is€notÐ ° Ðcomputed€as€part€of€the€delay€but€this€period€began€from€the€point€of€apprehension€by€the€CanadianÐ ™é Ðauthorities.€He€further€submits€that€he€was€not€detained€in€Canada€because€of€his€escape€but€ratherÐ ‚Ò Ðbecause€he€was€prosecuted€and€convicted€of€robbery.€Ð k» ÐÌ6.9€On€the€State€partyððs€reference€to€the€conditions€of€detention€in€the€Special€Handling€Unit,€theÐ =  Ðauthor€submits€that€this€is€the€only€super„maximum€facility€of€its€kind€in€Canada,€and€that€he€wasÐ & v Ðsubjected€to€ð ðabhorrent€living€conditionsðð.ò ò€ó ó€He€also€submits€that€the€National€Parole€BoardððsÐ  _ Ðdecision€to€hold€him€for€the€full€10€years€of€his€sentence€and€the€subsequent€annual€reviewsÐ û K Ðmaintaining€this€decision€constituted€a€form€of€reprieve,€albeit€temporary,€from€his€return€to€theÐ ä 4  ÐUnited€States€where€he€was€to€be€executed.€In€this€regard,€the€author€refers€to€the€discussion€of€thisÐ Í   Ðissue€in€Pratt€and€Morgan€(Privy€Council),€where€Lord€Griffith€commented€on€the€anguish€attendantÐ ¶  Ðupon€condemned€prisoners€who€move€from€impending€execution€to€reprieve.€ò òÐ Ÿï  ÐÌó ó6.10€The€author€argues€that€to€remove€him€to€a€jurisdiction€which€limits€his€right€to€appeal€violatesÐ r  Ðarticle€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant,€and€submits€that€article€6€of€the€Covenant€should€be€readÐ [«  Ðtogether€with€article€14,€paragraph€5.€On€the€issue€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€Pennsylvaniaððs€reviewÐ D” Ðof€his€case,€the€author€maintains€that€the€Court€refused€to€entertain€any€claims€of€error€at€trial€and,Ð -} Ðtherefore,€reviewed€the€evidence€and€decided€to€uphold€the€conviction€and€sentence.€Issues€such€asÐ f Ðthe€propriety€of€jury€instructions€are€excluded€from€this€type€of€review.€Ð ÿO ÐÌ6.11€Without€wishing€the€Committee€to€consider€the€transcripts€of€the€murder€trial,€the€author€alsoÐ Ñ! Ðrefers€to€alleged€errors€that€occurred€during€the€course€of€his€trial€that€could€have€changed€theÐ º  Ðoutcome€of€the€case.€He€refers€to€a€question€from€the€jury€which€sought€to€clarify€the€differenceÐ £ó Ðbetween€1òòstóó€and€3òòrdóó€degree€murder€and€manslaughter.€The€juryððs€request€was€not€answered,€as€theÐ ŒÜ Ðauthorððs€attorney€could€not€be€located.€When€the€attorney€appeared€the€next€day,€the€jury€was€readyÐ uÅ Ðto€deliver€a€verdict€without€receiving€an€answer€to€the€request€for€clarification.€A€verdict€of€1òòstóóÐ ^® Ðdegree€murder€was€then€returned.Ð G— ÐÌ6.12€The€author€submits€that€while€a€mechanism€allowing€limited€review€might€be€viewed€asÐ i Ðacceptable€in€cases€in€which€non„capital€crimes€have€been€committed,€he€contends€that€this€is€whollyÐ  R Ðunacceptable€where€the€defendantððs€life€hangs€in€the€balance,€and€when€he€is€barred€from€having€anyÐ ë ; Ðclaim€of€error€at€trial€reviewed.€Ð Ô!$  ÐÌ6.13€On€the€possibility€of€seeking€relief€under€the€Ô_ììÔPCRAÔ_ììÔ,€the€author€confirms€that€he€did€indeed€seekÐ ¦#ö" Ðrelief€by€filing€such€a€motion€after€he€was€deported€to€the€United€States.€This€motion€was€dismissedÐ $ß# Ðon€21€July€1999,€and€by€reference€to€the€previous€case€of€òòCommonwealth€v.€Kindleróó,€it€was€arguedÐ x%È $ Ðthat€the€authorððs€fugitive€status€had€disqualified€him€from€seeking€such€relief.€The€author€furtherÐ a&±!% Ðsubmits€that€as€his€application€for€relief€under€the€Ô_ììÔPCRAÔ_ììÔ€was€dismissed,€he€cannot€seek€federalÐ J'š"& Ðhabeas€corpus€relief,€as€Ô_ììÔPCRAÔ_ììÔ€relief€was€refused€on€the€basis€of€the€failure€to€respect€a€State€statute.Ð 3(ƒ#' ÐÌ6.14€On€the€possibility€of€a€request€to€the€Governor€of€Pennsylvania€to€seek€commutation€of€hisÐ *U%) Ðsentence€to€life,€the€author€argues€that€the€Governor€is€an€elected€politician€who€has€no€mandate€toÐ î*>&* Ðengage€in€an€independent,€neutral€review€of€judicial€decisions.€It€is€submitted€that€his/her€functionÐ ×+''+ Ðin€this€respect€ð ðdoes€not€satisfy€the€requirements€of€articles€14(5)€and€6€of€the€Covenantðð.Ð À,(, ÐÐ ©-ù(- ÐòòCommitteeððs€consideration€admissibilityÐ ° ÐóóÌ7.1€At€its€75òòthóó€session,€the€Committee€considered€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€ItÐ ‚Ò Ðascertained€that€the€same€matter€was€not€being€examined€under€another€international€procedure€ofÐ k» Ðinternational€investigation€or€settlement.€€Ð T¤ ÐÌ7.3€As€regards€the€authorððs€complaint€relating€to€prison€conditions€in€Canada,€the€Committee€foundÐ & v Ðthat€the€author€had€not€substantiated€this€claim,€for€purposes€of€admissibility.Ð  _ ÐÌ7.4€On€the€issue€of€an€alleged€violation€of€articles€7€and€10€of€the€Covenant€in€connection€with€theÐ á 1  Ðauthorððs€detention€in€Canada€with€the€prospect€of€capital€punishment€awaiting€him€in€the€UnitedÐ Ê   ÐStates€upon€serving€his€term€of€imprisonment€in€Canada,€the€Committee€noted€that€the€author€wasÐ ³  Ðnot€confined€to€death€row€in€Canada,€but€serving€a€ten€year€sentence€for€robbery.€Consequently,€heÐ œì  Ðhad€failed€to€raise€an€issue€under€articles€7€and€10€in€this€respect€and€this€part€of€the€communicationÐ …Õ  Ðwas€found€to€be€inadmissible€under€articles€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Ð n¾  ÐÌ7.5€As€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€6€for€òòdetainingóó€the€author€in€Canada€for€crimes€committedÐ @ Ðtherein,€the€Committee€considered€that€he€had€not€substantiated,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€howÐ )y Ðhis€right€to€life€was€violated€by€his€òòdetentionóó€in€Canada€for€crimes€committed€there.€This€aspect€ofÐ b Ðthe€communication€was€declared€inadmissible€under€article€2€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð ûK ÐÌò òó ó7.6€The€State€party€had€argued€that€the€author€could€not€avail€himself€of€the€Optional€Protocol€toÐ Í Ðcomplain€about€his€òòdeportation€to€the€United€Statesóó,€as€he€had€not€appealed€his€request€for€a€stayÐ ¶ Ðof€the€deportation€order€from€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubec€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€and€therefore€hadÐ Ÿï Ðnot€exhausted€domestic€remedies.€The€Committee€observed€the€authorððs€response,€that€an€appealÐ ˆØ Ðwould€have€been€ineffective€as€the€Court€of€Appeal€would€only€have€dealt€with€the€issue€ofÐ qÁ Ðjurisdiction€and€not€with€the€merits€of€the€case,€and€that€the€State€party€removed€the€author€withinÐ Zª Ðhours€of€the€Superior€Courtððs€decision,€thereby€rendering€an€attempt€to€appeal€this€decision€moot.Ð C“ ÐThe€Committee€noted€that€the€State€party€had€not€contested€the€speed€with€which€the€author€wasÐ ,| Ðdeported,€after€the€decision€of€the€Superior€Court€and,€therefore,€irrespective€of€whether€the€authorÐ e Ðcould€have€appealed€his€case€on€the€merits,€found€that€it€would€be€unreasonable€to€expect€the€authorÐ þN Ðto€appeal€such€a€case€after€his€deportation,€the€very€act€which€was€claimed€to€violate€the€Covenant.Ð ç 7 ÐAccordingly,€the€Committee€did€not€accept€the€State€partyððs€argument€that€this€part€of€theÐ Ð!   Ðcommunication€was€inadmissible€for€failure€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.Ð ¹" ! Ðò òÌó ó7.7€As€regards€the€authorððs€claim€under€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant,€and€that€CanadaÐ Œ$Ü# Ðviolated€article€6€by€deporting€him,€the€Committee€observed€that€the€author€had€the€òòrightóó€underÐ u%Å $ ÐPennsylvanian€law€to€a€full€appeal€against€his€conviction€and€sentence.€Furthermore,€the€CommitteeÐ ^&®!% Ðnoted€that,€according€to€the€documents€provided€by€the€parties,€while€the€extent€of€the€appeal€wasÐ G'—"& Ðlimited€after€the€author€had€become€a€fugitive,€his€conviction€and€sentence€were€reviewed€by€theÐ 0(€#' ÐSupreme€Court€of€Pennsylvania,€which€has€a€statutory€obligation€to€review€all€death€penalty€cases.Ð )i$( ÐAccording€to€these€documents,€the€author€was€represented€by€counsel€and€the€Court€reviewed€theÐ *R%) Ðevidence€and€law€as€well€as€the€elements€required€to€sustain€a€first„degree€murder€conviction€andÐ ë*;&* Ðcapital€punishment.€In€these€particular€circumstances,€the€Committee€found€that€the€author€had€notÐ Ô+$'+ Ðsubstantiated,€for€purposes€of€admissibility,€his€claim€that€his€right€under€article€14,€paragraph€5,Ð ½, (, Ðwas€violated€and€that,€therefore,€his€deportation€from€Canada€entailed€a€violation€by€Canada€ofÐ ¦-ö(- Ðarticle€6€of€the€Covenant.Ð ° ÐÌ7.8€Notwithstanding€its€decision€that€the€claim€based€on€article€14,€paragraph€5,€was€inadmissible,Ð ‚Ò Ðthe€Committee€considered€that€the€facts€before€it€raised€two€issues€under€the€Covenant€that€wereÐ k» Ðadmissible€and€should€be€considered€on€the€merits:Ð T¤ ÐÌ1.€As€Canada€has€abolished€the€death€penalty,€did€it€violate€the€authorððs€right€to€life€under€articleÐ & v Ð6,€his€right€not€to€be€subjected€to€torture€or€to€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€or€punishmentÐ  _ Ðunder€article€7,€or€his€right€to€an€effective€remedy€under€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant€byÐ ø H Ðdeporting€him€to€a€State€in€which€he€was€under€sentence€of€death€without€ensuring€that€Ô_ììÔthatÔ_ììÔ€sentenceÐ á 1  Ðwould€not€be€carried€out?Ð Ê   ÐÌ2.€The€State€party€had€conceded€that€the€author€was€deported€to€the€United€States€before€he€couldÐ œì  Ðexercise€his€right€to€appeal€the€rejection€of€his€application€for€a€stay€of€his€deportation€before€theÐ …Õ  ÐQubec€Court€of€Appeal.€As€a€consequence€the€author€was€not€able€to€pursue€any€further€remediesÐ n¾  Ðthat€might€be€available.€By€deporting€the€author€to€a€State€in€which€he€was€under€sentence€of€deathÐ W§  Ðbefore€he€could€exercise€all€his€rights€to€challenge€that€deportation,€did€the€State€party€violate€hisÐ @ Ðrights€under€articles€6,€7€and€2€of€the€Covenant?Ð )y ÐÌThe€Committee€concluded€that,€given€the€seriousness€of€these€questions,€the€parties€should€beÐ ûK Ðafforded€the€opportunity€to€comment€on€them€before€the€Committee€expressed€its€Views€on€theÐ ä4 Ðmerits.€The€parties€were€requested€to€provide€information€on€the€current€procedural€situation€of€theÐ Í Ðauthor€in€the€United€States€and€on€any€prospective€appeals€he€might€be€able€to€pursue.€The€StateÐ ¶ Ðparty€was€requested€to€supplement€its€submissions€in€relation€to€the€above€questions€and€request€forÐ Ÿï Ðinformation€as€soon€as€possible,€but€in€any€event€within€three€months€of€the€date€of€transmittal€ofÐ ˆØ Ðthe€admissibility€decision.€€Any€statements€received€from€the€State€party€were€to€be€communicatedÐ qÁ Ðto€the€author,€who€would€be€requested€to€respond€within€two€months.Ð Zª ÐÌÔ& Ò ÔòòThe€State€partyððs€response€on€the€merits€pursuant€to€the€Committeeððs€requestóóÐ ,| ÐÔ'Ò,­¯ÔÌ8.1€By€òònote€Ô_ììÔverbaleÔ_ììÔóó€of€15€November€2002,€the€State€party€responded€to€the€questions€and€requestÐ þN Ðfor€further€information€by€the€Committee.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà0  àòò1.€Whether€Canada€violated€the€Covenant€by€failing€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penaltyÐ ¹" ! Ðwould€not€be€carried€outТ#ò"(#(# ÐÌóó8.2€The€State€party€refers€to€article€6,€paragraph€1,€which€declares€that€every€human€being€has€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðright€to€life€and€guarantees€that€no€one€shall€be€arbitrarily€deprived€of€his€or€her€life.€€It€submits€thatÐ ]&­!% Ðwith€respect€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty,€article€6,€paragraph€2,€specifically€permits€itsÐ F'–"& Ðapplication€in€those€countries€which€have€not€abolished€it,€but€requires€that€it€be€imposed€in€aÐ /(#' Ðmanner€that€respects€the€conditions€outlined€in€article€6.€€Ð )h$( ÐÌ8.3€Article€6€does€not€explicitly€refer€to€the€situation€where€someone€is€extradited€or€removed€toÐ ê*:&* Ðanother€state€where€that€person€is€subject€to€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty.€€However,€the€StateÐ Ó+#'+ Ðparty€notes€that€the€Committee€has€held€that€ð ðif€a€State€party€takes€a€decision€relating€to€a€personÐ ¼, (, Ðwithin€its€jurisdiction€and€the€necessary€and€foreseeable€consequence€is€that€Ô_ììÔthatÔ_ììÔ€personððs€rightsÐ ¥-õ(- Ðunder€the€òòCovenantóó€will€be€violated€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€State€party€itself€may€be€in€violationÐ ° Ðof€the€Covenant.ððòò12óó€€The€Committee€has€thus€found€that€article€6€applies€to€the€situation€where€aÐ ™é ÐState€party€seeks€to€extradite€or€remove€an€individual€to€a€state€where€he/she€faces€the€death€penalty.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌ8.4€Article€6€allows€States€parties€to€extradite€or€remove€an€individual€to€a€state€where€they€face€theÐ T¤ Ðdeath€penalty€as€long€as€the€conditions€respecting€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€article€6€areÐ =  Ðmet.€€The€State€party€argues€that€the€Committee,€in€the€instant€case,€does€not€seem€to€questionÐ & v Ðwhether€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€United€States€meets€the€conditions€prescribed€inÐ  _ Ðarticle€6.òò13óó€€Rather,€the€Committee€asked€whether€Canada€violated€the€Covenant€by€failing€to€seekÐ ø H Ðassurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€carried€out€against€the€author.Ð á 1  ÐÌ8.5€According€to€the€State€party,€article€6€and€the€Committeeððs€General€Comment€14€on€article€6òò14óóÐ ³  Ðare€silent€on€the€issue€of€seeking€assurances,€and€no€legal€authority€supports€the€proposition€thatÐ œì  Ðabolitionist€states€must€seek€assurances€as€a€matter€of€international€law.€€The€State€party€submits€thatÐ …Õ  Ðto€subsume€such€a€requirement€under€article€6€would€represent€a€significant€departure€from€acceptedÐ n¾  Ðrules€of€treaty€interpretation,€including€the€principle€that€a€treaty€should€be€interpreted€in€light€of€theÐ W§  Ðintention€of€the€states€parties€as€reflected€in€the€terms€of€the€treaty.òò15óóÐ @ ÐÌ8.6€The€State€party€recalls€that€the€Committee€has€considered€several€communications€respectingÐ b Ðthe€extradition€or€removal€of€individuals€from€Canada€to€states€where€they€face€the€death€penalty.€Ð ûK ÐIn€none€of€these€cases€did€the€Committee€raise€concerns€about€the€absence€of€seeking€assurances.€Ð ä4 ÐFurthermore,€the€State€party€observes€that,€the€Committee€has€on€previous€occasions€rejected€theÐ Í Ðproposition€that€an€abolitionist€state€that€has€ratified€the€Covenant€is€necessarily€required€to€refuseÐ ¶ Ðextradition€or€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€applied.€€€In€òòKindler€v.Ð Ÿï ÐCanadaóó,òò16óó€the€Human€Rights€Committee€asked,€ð ðDid€the€fact€that€Canada€had€abolished€capitalÐ ˆØ Ðpunishmentð8ðrequire€Canada€to€refuse€extradition€or€request€assurances€from€the€UnitedÐ qÁ ÐStatesð8ðthat€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€imposed€against€Mr.€Kindlerðð.€The€State€party€notes€theÐ Zª ÐCommitteeððs€statement€in€this€regard€that€it€ð ðdoes€not€find€that€the€terms€of€article€6€of€the€CovenantÐ C“ Ðnecessarily€require€Canada€to€refuse€to€extradite€or€to€seek€assurances.ðð€€€These€comments€wereÐ ,| Ðrepeated€in€the€Committeeððs€views€in€òòÔ_ììÔNgÔ_ììÔ€v.€Canadaóóòò17óóòò€óóand€òòCox€v.€Canada.óóòò18óóÐ e ЀÌ8.7€As€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ç 7 Ðaiming€at€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty€pursuant€to€which€States€parties€are€required€to€take€allÐ Ð!   Ðnecessary€measures€to€abolish€the€death€penalty€within€their€jurisdictions,€the€State€party€refers€toÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€Committeeððs€finding€that€for€States€parties€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol,€its€provisions€areÐ ¢#ò" Ðconsidered€as€additional€provisions€to€the€Covenant€and€in€particular€article€6.òò19óó€€It€submits€that€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðinstrument€is€silent€on€the€issue€of€extradition€or€removal€to€face€the€death€penalty,€includingÐ t%Ä $ Ðwhether€assurances€are€required.€€The€State€party€expresses€no€view€on€whether€this€instrument€canÐ ]&­!% Ðbe€interpreted€as€imposing€a€requirement€that€assurances€be€sought,€but€emphasizes€that€it€is€notÐ F'–"& Ðcurrently€a€party€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol.€Therefore,€its€actions€may€only€be€scrutinizedÐ /(#' Ðunder€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant.Ð )h$( ÐÌ8.8€The€State€party€argues€that€at€the€time€of€the€authorððs€removal,€7€August€1998,€there€was€noÐ ê*:&* Ðdomestic€legal€requirement,€that€Canada€was€required€to€seek€assurances€from€the€United€States€thatÐ Ó+#'+ Ðthe€death€penalty€would€not€be€carried€out€against€him.€€While€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€hadÐ ¼, (, Ðnot€ruled€on€this€issue€in€the€immigration€context,€they€had€dealt€with€it€in€relation€to€extradition,Ð ¥-õ(- Ðfinding,€in€the€cases€of€òòKindler€v.€Canada€(Minister€of€Justice),óóòò20óó€and€òòReference€Re€Ô_ììÔNgÔ_ììÔÐ ° ÐExtradition.óóòò21óóòò,€óóthat€providing€the€Minister€with€discretion€as€to€whether€to€seek€assurances€that€theÐ ™é Ðdeath€penalty€would€not€be€carried€out€and€the€decision€to€extradite€Kindler€and€Ô_ììÔNgÔ_ììÔ€without€seekingÐ ‚Ò Ðassurances€did€not€violate€the€Canadian€Constitution.òò22óóòò€óó€Ð k» ÐòòÌóó8.9€It€further€argues€that€a€State€partyððs€conduct€must€be€assessed€in€light€of€the€law€applicable€atÐ ; ‹ Ðthe€time€when€the€alleged€treaty€violation€took€place:€at€the€time€of€the€authorððs€removal€there€wasÐ $ t Ðno€international€legal€requirement€requiring€Canada€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€wouldÐ  ] Ðnot€be€carried€out€against€Roger€Judge.€€It€submits€that€this€is€evidenced€by€the€CommitteeððsÐ ö F Ðinterpretation€of€the€Covenant€in€òòKindler,€Ô_ììÔNgÔ_ììÔ€óóand€òòCox€(supra).€óó€In€addition,€the€United€NationððsÐ ß /  ÐModel€Treaty€on€Extraditionòò23óó€does€not€list€the€absence€of€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€notÐ È   Ðbe€carried€out€as€a€ð ðmandatory€ground€for€refusalðð€to€extradite€an€individual€but€it€is€listed€as€anÐ ±  Ðð ðoptional€ground€for€refusalðð.€Finally,€it€submits€that€whether€abolitionist€states€should€be€requiredÐ šê  Ðto€seek€assurances€in€all€cases€when€removing€individuals€to€countries€where€they€face€the€deathÐ ƒÓ  Ðpenalty€is€a€matter€of€state€policy€but€not€a€legal€requirement€under€the€Covenant.€€€Ð l¼  Ðà  àòòÌóó8.10€On€the€question€of€whether€removing€the€author€to€a€state€where€he€was€under€a€sentence€ofÐ >Ž Ðdeath€without€seeking€assurances€violates€article€7€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€submits€that€theÐ 'w ÐCommittee€has€held€that€extradition€or€removal€to€face€capital€punishment,€within€the€parametersÐ ` Ðof€article€6,€paragraph€2,€does€not€òòper€se€óóviolate€article€7.òò24óó€It€also€notes€the€Committeeððs€finding€thatÐ ùI Ðthere€may€be€issues€that€arise€under€article€7€in€connection€with€the€death€penalty€depending€on€theÐ â2 Ðð ðpersonal€factors€regarding€the€author,€the€specific€conditions€of€detention€on€death€row,€andÐ Ë Ðwhether€the€proposed€method€of€execution€is€particularly€abhorrentðð.òò25óóÐ ´ ÐÌ8.11€The€State€party€argues€that,€in€the€instant€case,€the€Committee€rejected€as€inadmissible€anyÐ †Ö Ðclaims€respecting€the€authorððs€personal€factors,€conditions€of€detention€on€death€row€or€the€methodÐ o¿ Ðof€execution.€€The€only€issue€that€is€raised€is€whether€Canadaððs€failure€to€seek€assurances€that€theÐ X¨ Ðdeath€penalty€will€not€be€applied€violates€the€authorððs€rights€under€article€7.€€The€State€party€arguesÐ A‘ Ðthat€if€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€within€the€parameters€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€does€notÐ *z Ðviolate€article€7,€then€the€failure€of€a€state€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€beÐ c Ðapplied€cannot€violate€article€7.€€To€hold€otherwise€would€mean€that€the€imposition€of€the€deathÐ üL Ðpenalty€within€the€parameters€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€by€State€X,€would€not€constitute€torture,Ð å 5 Ðcruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€or€punishment,€but€that€a€state€which€extradites€to€State€XÐ Î!  Ðwithout€seeking€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€applied,€would€be€found€to€haveÐ ·"! Ðplaced€the€individual€at€a€real€risk€of€torture,€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€or€punishment.€Ð  #ð" ÐIn€the€State€partyððs€view,€this€amounts€to€an€untenable€interpretation€of€article€7.€For€these€reasons,Ð ‰$Ù# Ðthe€State€party€asserts€that€it€is€not€in€violation€of€article€7€for€having€removed€Roger€Judge€to€theÐ r% $ ÐUnited€States€without€seeking€assurances.Ð [&«!% ÐÌ8.12€The€State€party€submits€that€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant€requires€States€parties€toÐ -(}#' Ðensure€that€any€person€whose€rights€or€freedoms€have€been€violated€under€the€Covenant,€have€anÐ )f$( Ðeffective€remedy,€that€claims€of€rights€violations€can€be€heard€before€competent€authorities€and€thatÐ ÿ)O%) Ðany€remedies€be€enforced.€€€The€State€party€relies€on€its€submissions€on€articles€6€and€7€and€assertsÐ è*8&* Ðin€light€of€those€arguments,€that€it€did€not€violate€the€authorððs€rights€or€freedoms€under€the€Covenant.€Ð Ñ+!'+ ÐCanadaððs€obligations€under€article€2,€paragraphs€3(a)€and€Ô_ììÔ(cÔ_ììÔ),€thus€do€not€arise€in€this€case.Ð º, (, ÐÐ £-ó(- Ð8.13€Furthermore,€the€State€party€submits€that€individuals€who€claim€violations€of€their€rights€andÐ ° Ðfreedoms,€can€have€such€claims€determined€by€competent€judicial€authorities€and€if€such€claims€areÐ ™é Ðsubstantiated,€be€provided€an€effective€remedy.€€€More€particularly,€it€argues,€that€the€issue€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðwhether€it€was€required€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€not€be€applied€to€the€author€couldÐ k» Ðhave€been€raised€before€domestic€courts.òò26óóÐ T¤ ÐÌà0  àòò2.€Did€the€removal€of€the€author€to€a€state€in€which€he€was€under€sentence€of€death€€beforeÐ & v Ðhe€could€exercise€all€his€rights€to€challenge€that€removal€violate€the€authorððs€rights€underÐ  _ Ðarticles€6,€7€and€2€of€the€CovenantóóÐø H(#(# ÐÌ8.14€The€State€party€relies,€òòmutatis€mutandis,€óóon€its€previous€submissions€with€respect€to€the€firstÐ Ê   Ðquestion€posed€by€the€Committee.€€In€particular,€its€argument€that€article€6€and€the€CommitteeððsÐ ³  Ðrelevant€General€Commentòò27óóare€silent€on€the€issue€of€whether€a€state€is€required€to€allow€anÐ œì  Ðindividual€to€exercise€all€rights€of€appeal€prior€to€removing€them€to€a€state€where€they€have€beenÐ …Õ  Ðsentenced€to€death.€No€legal€authority€has€been€found€for€this€proposition€and€finding€such€aÐ n¾  Ðrequirement€under€article€6€would€represent€a€significant€departure€from€accepted€rules€of€treatyÐ W§  Ðinterpretation.€In€the€State€partyððs€view,€articles€6,€paragraph€4,€and€14,€paragraph€5,€provideÐ @ Ðimportant€safeguards€for€the€State€party€seeking€to€impose€the€death€penaltyòò28óó€but€do€not€apply€toÐ )y Ða€State€Party€that€removes€or€extradites€an€individual€to€a€State€where€they€have€been€sentenced€toÐ b Ðdeath.€€Ð ûK ÐÌ8.15€The€State€party€explains€that€Section€48€of€the€Immigration€Actòò29óóòò€óóstipulates€that€a€removal€orderÐ Í Ðmust€be€executed€as€soon€as€reasonably€practicable€subject€to€statutory€or€judicial€stays.€€That€is,Ð ¶ Ðwhere€there€are€no€stays€on€its€execution,€a€removal€order€is€a€mandatory€one€which€the€MinisterÐ Ÿï Ðis€legally€bound€to€execute€as€soon€as€reasonably€practicable,€having€little€discretion€in€this€regard.€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€the€present€case,€the€State€party€submits€that,€none€of€the€statutory€stays€available€under€sectionsÐ qÁ Ð49€and€50€of€the€Immigration€Act€applied€to€the€author,€and€his€requests€for€a€judicial€stay€wereÐ Zª Ðdismissed€by€the€reviewing€courts.Ð C“ ÐÌ8.16€The€State€party€argues€that€the€application€for€leave€to€commence€an€application€for€judicialÐ e Ðreview€of€the€Ministerððs€response€that€he€was€unable€to€defer€removal€including€a€lengthyÐ þN Ðmemorandum€of€argument€was€considered€by€the€Federal€Court€and€denied.€Similarly,€the€SuperiorÐ ç 7 ÐCourt€of€Qubec€considered€the€authorððs€petition€for€the€same€relief€dismissing€it€for€both€proceduralÐ Ð!   Ðand€substantive€reasons.€€Neither€court€found€sufficient€reason€to€stay€removal.€€€If€the€State€partyÐ ¹" ! Ðwere€to€grant€stays€on€removal€orders€until€all€levels€of€appeal€could€be€exhausted,€it€argues€that€thisÐ ¢#ò" Ðwould€mean€that€individuals,€such€as€the€author,€who€committed€serious€crimes,€would€remain€inÐ ‹$Û# ÐCanada€for€significantly€longer€periods,€which€would€result€in€lengthy€delays€on€removals€with€noÐ t%Ä $ Ðguarantee€that€serious€criminals,€such€as€the€author,€could€be€held€in€detention€throughout€the€appealÐ ]&­!% Ðprocess.òò30óó€€Ð F'–"& ÐÌ8.17€On€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€article€7€in€this€regard,€the€State€party€relies,€òòmutatisÐ )h$( Ðmutandis,€óóon€its€previous€submissions€with€respect€to€the€first€question€posed€by€the€Committee.€Ð *Q%) ÐIn€particular,€if€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€within€the€parameters€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,Ð ê*:&* Ðdoes€not€violate€article€7,€then€the€failure€of€a€state€to€allow€an€individual€the€possibility€ofÐ Ó+#'+ Ðexercising€all€judicial€Ô_ììÔrecoursesÔ_ììÔ€prior€to€removal€to€the€state€imposing€the€death€penalty€cannot€beÐ ¼, (, Ða€violation€of€article€7.€€The€State€party€argues€that€the€crucial€issue€is€whether€a€State€partyÐ ¥-õ(- Ðimposing€the€death€penalty€has€met€the€standards€set€out€in€article€6€and€other€relevant€provisionsÐ ° Ðof€the€Covenant€and€not€whether€the€State€party€removing€an€individual€to€a€State€where€he€is€underÐ ™é Ðsentence€of€death€has€provided€that€individual€with€sufficient€opportunity€for€judicial€review€of€theÐ ‚Ò Ðdecision€to€remove.Ð k» ÐÌ8.18€With€respect€to€article€2,€paragraph€3€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€submits€that€it€has€notÐ =  Ðviolated€any€of€the€authorððs€Covenant€rights€as€he€enjoyed€sufficient€judicial€review€of€his€removalÐ & v Ðorder,€prior€to€his€removal€to€the€United€States,€including€review€of€whether€the€removal€wouldÐ  _ Ðviolate€his€human€rights.€€€Ð ø H ÐÌ8.19€On€the€authorððs€current€situation€in€the€United€States,€the€State€party€submits€that€it€has€beenÐ Ê   Ðinformed€by€the€Philadelphia€District€Attorneyððs€Office,€State€of€Pennsylvania€that€the€author€isÐ ³  Ðcurrently€incarcerated€in€a€state€penitentiary,€and€that€no€execution€date€has€been€set€for€him.Ð œì  ÐÌ8.20€On€23€May€2002,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Pennsylvania€denied€the€authorððs€application€for€postÐ n¾  Ðconviction€relief.€The€author€has€recently€filed€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus€in€the€Federal€DistrictÐ W§  ÐCourt.€An€adverse€decision€rendered€by€the€District€Court€can€be€appealed€to€the€Federal€Court€ofÐ @ ÐAppeals€for€the€Third€Circuit.€This€may€be€followed€by€an€appeal€to€the€Ô_ììÔU.S.Ô_ììÔ€Supreme€Court.€If€theÐ )y Ðauthorððs€federal€appeals€are€denied,€an€application€for€clemency€can€be€filed€with€the€StateÐ b ÐGovernor.€€In€addition,€the€State€party€reiterates€that,€according€to€the€state€of€Pennsylvania,€thereÐ ûK Ðhave€only€been€three€persons€executed€since€the€reintroduction€of€the€death€penalty€in€1976.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌ8.21€Without€prejudice€to€any€of€the€preceding€submissions,€the€State€party€apprises€the€CommitteeÐ ¶ Ðof€domestic€developments€that€have€occurred€since€the€€events€at€issue€in€this€case.€€€On€15€FebruaryÐ Ÿï Ð2001,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€held,€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Burns,óóòò31óó€that€the€government€must€seekÐ ˆØ Ðassurances,€in€all€but€exceptional€cases,€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€applied€prior€toÐ qÁ Ðextraditing€an€individual€to€a€state€where€they€face€capital€punishment.€€The€State€party€submits€thatÐ Zª ÐCitizenship€and€Immigration€Canada€is€considering€the€potential€impact€of€this€decision€onÐ C“ Ðimmigration€removals.Ð ,| ÐÌÔ& Ò ÔòòThe€authorððs€response€on€the€merits€pursuant€to€the€Committeeððs€requestóóÐ þN ÐÔ'Òþ‚úÔÌ9.1€By€letter€of€24€January€2003,€the€author€responded€to€the€request€for€information€by€theÐ Ð!   ÐCommittee€and€commented€on€the€State€partyððs€submission.€He€submits€that€by€relying€on€theÐ ¹" ! Ðdecision€in€òòKindler€v.€Canadaòò32óó,óó€in€its€argument€that€in€matters€of€extradition€or€removal,€theÐ ¢#ò" ÐCovenant€is€not€necessarily€breached€by€an€abolitionist€state€where€assurances€that€the€death€penaltyÐ ‹$Û# Ðnot€be€carried€out€are€not€requested,€the€State€party€has€misconstrued€not€only€the€facts€of€òòKindleróóÐ t%Ä $ Ðbut€the€effect€of€the€Committeeððs€decision€therein.€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌ9.2€Firstly,€the€author€argues€that€òòKindler€óódealt€with€extradition€as€opposed€to€deportation.€He€recallsÐ /(#' Ðthe€Committeeððs€statement€that€there€would€have€been€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€ð ðif€the€decisionÐ )h$( Ðto€extradite€without€assurances€would€have€been€taken€arbitrarily€or€summarilyðð.€However,€sinceÐ *Q%) Ðthe€Minister€of€Justice€considered€Mr.€Kindlerððs€arguments€prior€to€ordering€his€surrender€withoutÐ ê*:&* Ðassurances,€the€Committee€could€not€find€that€the€decision€was€made€ð ðarbitrarily€or€summarilyðð.€TheÐ Ó+#'+ Ðcase€currently€under€consideration€concerns€deportation,€which€lacks€any€legal€process€under€whichÐ ¼, (, Ðthe€deportee€may€request€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€not€be€carried€out.€€ò òÐ ¥-õ(- Їó ó9.3€Secondly,€the€author€reiterates€that€he€petitioned€the€Canadian€courts€to€declare€that€his€removalÐ ° Ðby€deportation€would€violate€his€rights€under€the€Canadian€Charter€of€Rights€and€Freedoms,€so€asÐ ™é Ðto€suspend€his€removal€from€Canada€and€ð ðforceðð€the€United€States€to€request€his€extradition,€atÐ ‚Ò Ðwhich€point€he€could€have€requested€the€Minister€of€Justice€to€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penaltyÐ k» Ðnot€be€carried€out.€As€the€Minister€of€Justice€has€no€such€power€under€the€deportation€process,€theÐ T¤ ÐState€party€was€able€to€exclude€the€author€from€the€protections€afforded€by€the€extradition€treaty€andÐ =  Ðno€review€of€the€appropriateness€of€requesting€assurances€was€ever€carried€out.€The€author€submitsÐ & v Ðthat€the€United€States€would€have€requested€his€extradition€and€encloses€a€letter,€dated€3€FebruaryÐ  _ Ð1994,€from€the€Philadelphia€District€Attorneyððs€Office,€exhibited€with€the€authorððs€proceedings€inÐ ø H ÐCanada,€indicating€that€it€will€initiate€extradition€proceedings€if€necessary.€Any€refusal€by€theÐ á 1  ÐMinister€to€require€assurances€could€then€have€been€reviewed€through€the€domestic€court€system.Ð Ê   ÐIn€ð ðsidesteppingðð€the€extradition€process€and€returning€the€author€to€face€the€death€penalty,€the€StateÐ ³  Ðparty€is€said€to€have€violated€the€authorððs€rights€under€articles€6,€7,€and€2€(3)€of€the€Covenant,€asÐ œì  Ðunlike€Kindler,€it€did€not€consider€the€merits€of€assurances.ò òÐ …Õ  Ðó óÌ9.4€As€to€whether€the€State€party€violated€his€rights€by€deporting€him€before€he€could€exercise€allÐ W§  Ðhis€rights€to€challenge€his€deportation,€the€author€submits€that€the€State€partyððs€interpretation€of€itsÐ @ Ðobligations€are€too€restrictive€and€that€death€penalty€cases€require€special€consideration.€ByÐ )y Ðremoving€him€within€hours€after€the€Superior€Court€of€Qubecððs€decision€(handed€down€lateÐ b Ðevening),€it€is€argued€that€the€State€party€ensured€that€the€civil€rights€issues€raised€by€the€authorÐ ûK Ðcould€not€benefit€from€any€appellate€review.Ð ä4 ÐÌ9.5€The€author€argues€that€this€restrictive€approach€is€contrary€to€the€wording€of€the€GeneralÐ ¶ ÐComment€on€article€2€which€States€ð ðð8ðThe€Committee€cÔ_ììÔonsidersÔ_ììÔ€it€necessary€to€draw€the€attentionÐ Ÿï Ðof€State€parties€to€the€fact€that€the€obligation€under€the€Covenant€is€not€confined€to€the€respect€ofÐ ˆØ Ðhuman€rights,€but€that€State€parties€have€also€undertaken€to€ensure€the€enjoyment€of€these€rights€toÐ qÁ Ðall€individuals€under€their€jurisdiction.ðð€By€deporting€the€author€to€ensure€that€he€could€not€availÐ Zª Ðhimself€of€his€right€of€appeal,€not€only€did€the€State€party€violate€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€theÐ C“ ÐCovenant,€but€the€spirit€of€this€general€comment.Ð ,| ÐÌ9.6€The€author€submits€that€the€Minister€has€some€discretion,€under€section€48€of€the€ImmigrationÐ þN ÐAct€and€is€not€under€an€obligation€to€remove€him€ð ðimmediatelyðð.€Also,€domestic€jurisprudenceÐ ç 7 Ðrecognises€that€the€Minister€has€a€duty€to€exercise€this€discretion€on€a€case„by„case€basis.€He€refersÐ Ð!   Ðto€the€case€of€òòWang€v.€The€Minister€of€Citizenship€&€Immigrationóóòò33óó,€where€it€was€held€that€ð ðtheÐ ¹" ! Ðdiscretion€to€be€exercised€is€whether€or€not€to€defer€to€another€process€which€may€render€theÐ ¢#ò" Ðremoval€order€ineffective€or€unenforceable,€the€object€of€that€process€being€to€determine€whetherÐ ‹$Û# Ðremoval€of€that€person€would€expose€him€to€a€risk€of€death€or€other€extreme€sanctionðð.€AccordingÐ t%Ä $ Ðto€this€principle,€the€author€believes€that€he€should€not€have€been€deported€until€he€had€Ô_ììÔhadÔ_ììÔ€anÐ ]&­!% Ðopportunity€to€avail€himself€of€appellate€review.€It€is€submitted€that€had€his€right€to€appeal€not€beenÐ F'–"& Ðcurtailed€by€his€deportation,€his€case€would€still€have€been€in€the€Canadian€judicial€system€when€theÐ /(#' ÐSupreme€Court€of€Canada€determined,€in€òòUnited€States€of€America€v.€Burnsóóòò34óó,€that€except€inÐ )h$( Ðexceptional€cases,€assurances€must€be€requested€in€all€cases€in€which€the€death€penalty€couldÐ *Q%) Ðotherwise€be€imposed,€and€he€would€have€benefited€from€it.Ð ê*:&* ÐÌ9.7€On€the€State€partyððs€argument€(paragraph€8.13)€that€ð ðthe€issue€of€whether€Canada€was€requiredÐ ¼, (, Ðto€seek€assurances€that€the€death€penalty€not€be€applied€to€Roger€Judge€could€have€been€raisedÐ ¥-õ(- Ðbefore€domestic€courtsðð,€the€author€submits€that€the€State€party€misconstrued€his€legal€position.€TheÐ ° Ðauthorððs€proceedings€in€Canada€were€intended€to€result€in€a€stay€of€his€deportation,€so€as€to€compelÐ ™é Ðthe€United€States€to€seek€extradition,€and€only€at€this€point€could€the€issue€of€assurances€have€beenÐ ‚Ò Ðraised.€Ð k» ÐÌ9.8€On€the€authorððs€current€legal€position,€it€is€contested€that€no€execution€date€has€been€set.€It€isÐ =  Ðsubmitted€that€a€Death€Warrant€was€signed€by€the€Governor€on€22€October€2002,€and€his€executionÐ & v Ðscheduled€for€10€December€2002.€However,€his€execution€has€since€been€stayed,€pending€habeasÐ  _ Ðcorpus€proceedings€before€the€Federal€District€Court.€€€€€€Ð ø H ÐÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€CommitteeóóÐ Ê   ÐÌ10.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€examined€the€communication€in€light€of€all€the€informationÐ œì  Ðmade€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€for€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð …Õ  ÐÌQuestion€1.€As€Canada€has€abolished€the€death€penalty,€did€it€violate€the€authorððs€right€to€life€underÐ W§  Ðarticle€6,€his€right€not€to€be€subjected€to€torture€or€to€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€treatment€orÐ @ Ðpunishment€under€article€7,€or€his€right€to€an€effective€remedy€under€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€theÐ )y ÐCovenant€by€deporting€him€to€a€State€in€which€he€was€under€sentence€of€death€without€ensuring€thatÐ b ÐÔ_ììÔthatÔ_ììÔ€sentence€would€not€be€carried€out?Ð ûK ÐÌ10.2€In€considering€Canadaððs€obligations,€as€a€State€party€which€has€abolished€the€death€penalty,€inÐ Í Ðremoving€persons€to€another€country€where€they€are€under€sentence€of€death,€the€Committee€recallsÐ ¶ Ðits€previous€jurisprudence€in€òòKindler€v.€Canada,óóòò35óó€that€it€does€not€consider€that€the€deportation€ofÐ Ÿï Ða€person€from€a€country€which€has€abolished€the€death€penalty€to€a€country€where€he/she€is€underÐ ˆØ Ðsentence€of€death€amounts€òòper€seóó€to€a€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€The€CommitteeððsÐ qÁ Ðrationale€in€this€decision€was€based€on€an€interpretation€of€the€Covenant€which€read€article€6,Ð Zª Ðparagraph€1,€together€with€article€6,€paragraph€2,€which€does€not€prohibit€the€imposition€of€the€deathÐ C“ Ðpenalty€for€the€most€serious€crimes.€€It€considered€that€as€Canada€itself€had€not€imposed€the€deathÐ ,| Ðpenalty€but€had€extradited€the€author€to€the€United€States€to€face€capital€punishment,€a€state€whichÐ e Ðhad€not€abolished€the€death€penalty,€the€extradition€itself€would€not€amount€to€a€violation€by€CanadaÐ þN Ðunless€there€was€a€real€risk€that€the€authorððs€rights€under€the€Covenant€would€be€violated€in€theÐ ç 7 ÐUnited€States.€On€the€issue€of€assurances,€the€Committee€found€that€the€terms€of€article€6€did€notÐ Ð!   Ðnecessarily€require€Canada€to€refuse€to€extradite€or€to€seek€assurances€but€that€such€a€request€shouldÐ ¹" ! Ðat€least€be€considered€by€the€removing€state.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌ10.3€While€recognizing€that€the€Committee€should€ensure€both€consistency€and€coherence€of€itsÐ t%Ä $ Ðjurisprudence,€it€notes€that€there€may€be€exceptional€situations€in€which€a€review€of€the€scope€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðapplication€of€the€rights€protected€in€the€Covenant€is€required,€such€as€where€an€alleged€violationÐ F'–"& Ðinvolves€that€most€fundamental€of€rights€ð!ð€the€right€to€life€„€and€in€particular€if€there€have€beenÐ /(#' Ðnotable€factual€and€legal€€developments€and€changes€in€international€opinion€in€respect€of€the€issueÐ )h$( Ðraised.€The€Committee€is€mindful€of€the€fact€that€the€abovementioned€jurisprudence€was€establishedÐ *Q%) Ðsome€10€years€ago,€and€that€since€that€time€there€has€been€a€broadening€international€consensus€inÐ ê*:&* Ðfavour€of€abolition€of€the€death€penalty,€and€in€states€which€have€retained€the€death€penalty,€aÐ Ó+#'+ Ðbroadening€consensus€not€to€carry€it€out.€Significantly,€the€Committee€notes€that€since€òòKindleróó€theÐ ¼, (, ÐState€party€itself€has€recognized€the€need€to€amend€its€own€domestic€law€to€secure€the€protection€ofÐ ¥-õ(- Ðthose€extradited€from€Canada€under€sentence€of€death€in€the€receiving€state,€in€the€case€of€òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStates€v.€Burns.óó€There,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€held€that€the€government€òòmust€óóseek€assurances,Ð ™é Ðin€all€but€exceptional€cases,€that€the€death€penalty€will€not€be€applied€prior€to€extraditing€anÐ ‚Ò Ðindividual€to€a€state€where€he/she€faces€capital€punishment.€It€is€pertinent€to€note€that€under€theÐ k» Ðterms€of€this€judgment,€ð ðOther€abolitionist€countries€do€not,€in€general,€extradite€withoutÐ T¤ Ðassurances.ðð€òò36óó€The€Committee€considers€that€the€Covenant€should€be€interpreted€as€a€livingÐ =  Ðinstrument€and€the€rights€protected€under€it€should€be€applied€in€context€and€in€the€light€ofÐ & v Ðpresentð!ðday€conditions.€ò ò€Ð  _ Ðó óÌ10.4€In€reviewing€its€application€of€article€6,€the€Committee€notes€that,€as€required€by€the€ViennaÐ ä 4  ÐConvention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties,€a€treaty€should€be€interpreted€in€good€faith€and€in€accordanceÐ Í   Ðwith€the€ordinary€meaning€to€be€given€to€the€terms€of€the€treaty€in€their€context€and€in€the€light€ofÐ ¶  Ðits€object€and€purpose.€Paragraph€1€of€article€6,€which€states€that€ð ðEvery€human€being€has€theÐ Ÿï  Ðinherent€right€to€lifeð8ððð,€is€a€general€rule:€its€purpose€is€to€protect€life.€States€parties€that€haveÐ ˆØ  Ðabolished€the€death€penalty€have€an€obligation€under€this€paragraph€to€so€protect€in€allÐ qÁ  Ðcircumstances.€Paragraphs€2€to€6€of€article€6€are€evidently€included€to€avoid€a€reading€of€the€firstÐ Zª  Ðparagraph€of€article€6,€according€to€which€that€paragraph€could€be€understood€as€abolishing€theÐ C“ Ðdeath€penalty€as€such.€This€construction€of€the€article€is€reinforced€by€the€opening€words€ofÐ ,| Ðparagraph€2€(ð ðIn€countries€which€have€not€abolished€the€death€penaltyð8ððð)€and€by€paragraph€6Ð e Ð(ð ðNothing€in€this€article€shall€be€invoked€to€delay€or€to€prevent€the€abolition€of€capital€punishmentÐ þN Ðby€any€State€Party€to€the€present€Covenant.ðð).€In€effect,€paragraphs€2€to€6€have€the€dual€function€ofÐ ç7 Ðcreating€an€exception€to€the€right€to€life€in€respect€of€the€death€penalty€and€laying€down€limits€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€scope€of€that€exception.€Only€the€death€penalty€pronounced€when€certain€elements€are€presentÐ ¹  Ðcan€benefit€from€the€exception.€Among€these€limitations€are€that€found€in€the€opening€words€ofÐ ¢ò Ðparagraph€2,€namely,€that€only€States€parties€that€ð ðhave€not€abolished€the€death€penaltyðð€can€availÐ ‹Û Ðthemselves€of€the€exceptions€created€in€paragraphs€2€to€6.€For€countries€that€òòhave€óóabolished€theÐ tÄ Ðdeath€penalty,€there€is€an€obligation€not€to€expose€a€person€to€the€real€risk€of€its€application.€Thus,Ð ]­ Ðthey€may€not€remove,€either€by€deportation€or€extradition,€individuals€from€their€jurisdiction€if€itÐ F– Ðmay€be€reasonably€anticipated€that€they€will€be€sentenced€to€death,€without€ensuring€that€the€deathÐ / Ðsentence€would€not€be€carried€out.€Ð h ЀÌ10.5€The€Committee€acknowledges€that€by€interpreting€paragraphs€1€and€2€of€article€6€in€this€way,Ð ê : Ðabolitionist€and€retentionist€States€parties€are€treated€differently.€But€it€considers€that€this€is€anÐ Ó!#  Ðinevitable€consequence€of€the€wording€of€the€provision€itself,€which,€as€becomes€clear€from€theÐ ¼" ! ÐòòÔ_ììÔtravauxÔ_ììÔ€Ô_ììÔprparatoiresÔ_ììÔóó,€sought€to€appease€very€divergent€views€on€the€issue€of€the€death€penalty,€inÐ ¥#õ" Ðan€effort€at€compromise€among€the€drafters€of€the€provision.€The€Committee€notes€that€it€wasÐ Ž$Þ# Ðexpressed€in€the€òòÔ_ììÔtravauxÔ_ììÔóó€that,€on€the€one€hand,€one€of€the€main€principles€of€the€Covenant€shouldÐ w%Ç $ Ðbe€abolition,€but€on€the€other,€it€was€pointed€out€that€capital€punishment€existed€in€certain€countriesÐ `&°!% Ðand€that€abolition€would€create€difficulties€for€such€countries.€The€death€penalty€was€seen€by€manyÐ I'™"& Ðdelegates€and€bodies€participating€in€the€drafting€process€as€an€"anomaly"€or€a€"necessary€evil".€€ItÐ 2(‚#' Ðwould€appear€logical,€therefore,€to€interpret€the€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€in€a€wide€sense,Ð )k$( Ðwhereas€paragraph€2,€which€addresses€the€death€penalty,€should€be€interpreted€narrowly.€€€Ð *T%) ÐÌ10.6€For€these€reasons,€the€Committee€considers€that€Canada,€as€a€State€party€which€has€abolishedÐ Ö+&'+ Ðthe€death€penalty,€irrespective€of€whether€it€has€not€yet€ratified€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ ¿,(, ÐCovenant€Aiming€at€the€Abolition€of€the€Death€Penalty,€violated€the€authorððs€right€to€life€underÐ ¨-ø(- Ðarticle€6,€paragraph€1,€by€deporting€him€to€the€United€States,€where€he€is€under€sentence€of€death,Ð ° Ðwithout€ensuring€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€be€carried€out.€The€Committee€recognizes€thatÐ ™é ÐCanada€did€not€itself€impose€the€death€penalty€on€the€author.€But€by€deporting€him€to€a€countryÐ ‚Ò Ðwhere€he€was€under€sentence€of€death,€Canada€established€the€crucial€link€in€the€causal€chain€thatÐ k» Ðwould€make€possible€the€execution€of€the€author.ò ò€Ð T¤ ÐÌó ó10.7€As€to€the€State€partyððs€claim€that€its€conduct€must€be€assessed€in€the€light€of€the€law€applicableÐ * z Ðat€the€time€when€the€alleged€treaty€violation€took€place,€the€Committee€considers€that€the€protectionÐ  c Ðof€human€rights€evolves€and€that€the€meaning€of€Covenant€rights€should€in€principle€be€interpretedÐ ü L Ðby€reference€to€the€time€of€examination€and€not,€as€the€State€party€has€submitted,€by€reference€to€theÐ å 5  Ðtime€the€alleged€violation€took€place.€The€Committee€also€notes€that€prior€to€the€authorððs€deportationÐ Î   Ðto€the€United€States€the€Committeeððs€position€was€evolving€in€respect€of€a€State€party€that€hadÐ ·  Ðabolished€capital€punishment€(and€was€a€State€party€to€the€Second€Optional€Protocol€to€theÐ  ð  ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Human€Rights,€aiming€at€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty),€from€whetherÐ ‰Ù  Ðcapital€punishment€would€subsequent€to€removal€to€another€State€be€applied€in€violation€of€theÐ r  ÐCovenant€to€whether€there€was€a€real€risk€of€capital€punishment€as€such€(Communication€No.Ð [«  Ð692/1996,€òòÔ_ììÔA.R.J.Ô_ììÔ€v.€Australiaóó,€Views€adopted€on€28€July€1997€and€Communication€No.€706/1996,Ð D” ÐòòÔ_ììÔG.T.Ô_ììÔ€v.€Australiaóó,€Views€adopted€on€4€November€1997).€Furthermore,€the€State€partyððs€concernÐ -} Ðregarding€possible€retroactivity€involved€in€the€present€approach€has€no€bearing€on€the€separateÐ f Ðissues€to€be€addressed€under€question€2€below.Ð ÿO ÐÌQuestion€2.€The€State€party€had€conceded€that€the€author€was€deported€to€the€United€States€beforeÐ Ñ! Ðhe€could€exercise€his€right€to€appeal€the€rejection€of€his€application€for€a€stay€of€his€deportationÐ º  Ðbefore€the€Qubec€Court€of€Appeal.€As€a€consequence€the€author€was€not€able€to€pursue€any€furtherÐ £ó Ðremedies€that€might€be€available.€By€deporting€the€author€to€a€State€in€which€he€was€under€sentenceÐ ŒÜ Ðof€death€before€he€could€exercise€all€his€rights€to€challenge€that€deportation,€did€the€State€partyÐ uÅ Ðviolate€his€rights€under€articles€6,€7€and€2,€paragraph€3€of€the€Covenant?Ð ^® ÐÌ10.8€As€to€whether€the€State€party€violated€the€authorððs€rights€under€articles€6,€and€2,€paragraph€3,Ð 0€ Ðby€deporting€him€to€the€United€States€where€he€is€under€sentence€of€death,€before€he€could€exerciseÐ i Ðhis€right€to€appeal€the€rejection€of€his€application€for€a€stay€of€deportation€before€the€Qubec€CourtÐ  R Ðof€Appeal€and,€accordingly,€could€not€pursue€further€available€remedies,€the€Committee€notes€thatÐ ë ; Ðthe€State€party€removed€the€author€from€its€jurisdiction€within€hours€after€the€decision€of€theÐ Ô!$  ÐSuperior€Court€of€Qubec,€in€what€appears€to€have€been€an€attempt€to€prevent€him€from€exercisingÐ ½" ! Ðhis€right€of€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Appeal.€It€is€unclear€from€the€submissions€before€the€CommitteeÐ ¦#ö" Ðto€what€extent€the€Court€of€Appeal€could€have€examined€the€authorððs€case,€but€the€State€party€itselfÐ $ß# Ðconcedes€that€as€the€authorððs€petition€was€dismissed€by€the€Superior€Court€for€procedural€andÐ x%È $ Ðsubstantive€reasons€(see€para.€4.5€above),€the€Court€of€Appeal€could€have€reviewed€the€judgmentÐ a&±!% Ðon€the€merits.€€Ð J'š"& ÐÌ10.9€The€Committee€recalls€its€decision€in€òòA.€R.€J.€v.€Australiaóóòò37óó,€a€deportation€case€where€it€did€notÐ )l$( Ðfind€a€violation€of€article€6€by€the€returning€state€as€it€was€not€foreseeable€that€he€would€beÐ *U%) Ðsentenced€to€death€and€ð ðbecause€the€judicial€and€immigration€instances€seized€of€the€case€heardÐ î*>&* Ðextensive€argumentsðð€as€to€a€possible€violation€of€article€6.€In€the€instant€case,€the€Committee€findsÐ ×+''+ Ðthat,€by€preventing€the€author€from€exercising€an€appeal€available€to€him€under€domestic€law,€theÐ À,(, ÐState€party€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€authorððs€contention€that€his€deportation€to€a€country€whereÐ ©-ù(- Ðhe€faces€execution€would€violate€his€right€to€life,€was€sufficiently€considered.€The€State€party€makesÐ ° Ðavailable€an€appellate€system€designed€to€safeguard€any€petitionerððs,€including€the€authorððs,€rightsÐ ™é Ðand€in€particular€the€most€fundamental€of€rights€ð!ð€the€right€to€life.€€Bearing€in€mind€that€the€StateÐ ‚Ò Ðparty€has€abolished€capital€punishment,€the€decision€to€deport€the€author€to€a€state€where€he€is€underÐ k» Ðsentence€of€death€without€affording€him€the€opportunity€to€avail€himself€of€an€available€appeal,€wasÐ T¤ Ðtaken€arbitrarily€and€in€violation€of€article€6,€together€with€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð =  ÐÌ10.10.€€Having€found€a€violation€of€article€6,€paragraph€1€alone€and,€read€together€with€article€2,Ð  _ Ðparagraph€3€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€does€not€consider€it€necessary€to€address€whether€theÐ ø H Ðsame€facts€amount€to€a€violation€of€article€7€of€the€Covenant.€Ð á 1  ÐÌ11.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€toÐ ³  Ðthe€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€as€found€by€theÐ œì  ÐCommittee€reveal€a€violation€by€Canada€of€articles€6,€paragraph€1€alone€and,€read€together€with€2,Ð …Õ  Ðparagraph€3,€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð n¾  ÐÌ12.€Pursuant€to€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a)€of€the€Covenant,€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€authorÐ @ Ðis€entitled€to€an€appropriate€remedy€which€would€include€making€such€representations€as€areÐ )y Ðpossible€to€the€receiving€state€to€prevent€the€carrying€out€of€the€death€penalty€on€the€author.Ð b ЀÌ13.€Bearing€in€mind€that,€by€becoming€a€State€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€hasÐ ä4 Ðrecognised€the€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€theÐ Í ÐCovenant€or€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€toÐ ¶ Ðensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognised€in€theÐ Ÿï ÐCovenant€and€to€provide€an€effective€and€enforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€beenÐ ˆØ Ðestablished,€the€Committee€wishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€aboutÐ qÁ Ðthe€measures€taken€to€give€effect€to€its€Views.€The€Committee€is€also€requested€to€publish€theÐ Zª ÐCommitteeððs€Views.Ð C“ ÐÌÔ_ììÔð[ ðAdoptedÔ_ììÔ€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.€SubsequentlyÐ e Ðto€be€issued€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committeeððs€annual€report€to€the€GeneralÐ þN ÐÔ_ììÔAssembly.ð] ðÔ_ììÔÐ ç 7 ÐÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€by€Committee€member€Mr.€Ô_ììÔNisukoÔ_ììÔ€AndoóóÐ ¢#ò" Ðòòconcerning€Committeeððs€admissibility€decision€on€communicationóóÐ ‹$Û# ÐòòNo.€829/1998€(Judge€v.€Canada)€adopted€on€17€July€2002óóÐ t%Ä $ ÐÌWith€regret,€I€must€point€out€that€I€am€unable€to€share€the€Committeeððs€conclusion€set€forth€inÐ F'–"& Ðparagraph€7.8€in€which€it€draws€attention€of€both€the€author€and€the€State€party€and€requests€themÐ /(#' Ðto€address€the€two€issues€mentioned€therein€which€relate€to€articles€6,€7€and€2€of€the€Covenant.Ð )h$( ÐÌIn€its€decision€on€admissibility€of€the€communication€the€Committee€makes€clear€that€theÐ ê*:&* Ðcommunication€is€inadmissible€as€far€as€it€relates€to€issues€under€articles€7,€10€(para.€7.4),€article6Ð Ó+#'+ Ð(para.€7.5)€and€article€14€(5)€(para.€7.7),€and€yet€the€Committee€concludes€that€the€facts€presentedÐ ¼, (, Ðby€the€author€raise€the€two€issues€mentioned€above.€€It€is€my€understanding€that€in€the€presentÐ ¥-õ(- Ðcommunication€both€the€author€and€the€State€party€have€presented€their€cases€in€view€of€theÐ ° ÐCommitteeððs€earlier€jurisprudence€on€Case€No.€470/1991€(òòJ.€Kindler€v.€Canadaóó),€because€in€thoseÐ ™é Ðtwo€communications€the€relevant€facts€are€very€similar€or€almost€identical.€€The€Committeeððs€lineÐ ‚Ò Ðof€argument€in€the€present€communication€also€suggests€this.€€Under€the€circumstances€I€considerÐ k» Ðit€illogical€for€the€Committee€to€state€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€in€matters€relating€toÐ T¤ Ðarticles€7,€10,€6€and€14€(5),€on€the€one€hand,€but€that€it€raises€issues€under€articles€6,€7€and€2,€on€theÐ =  Ðother,€unless€it€specifies€how€these€apparent€contradictions€are€to€be€solved.€€A€mere€reference€toÐ & v Ðð ðthe€seriousness€of€these€questionsðð€(para.€7.8)€does€not€suffice:€€Hence,€this€individual€opinion!€€Ð  _ ÐÌ(Signed):€€Mr.€Ô_ììÔNisukeÔ_ììÔ€AndoÐ á 1  ÐÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Mrs.€Christine€Ô_ììÔChanetÔ_ììÔóóÐ œì  Ðòòconcerning€Committeeððs€admissibility€decision€on€communicationóóÐ …Õ  ÐòòNo.€829/1998€(Judge€v.€Canada)€adopted€on€17€July€2002Ð n¾  ÐÌóóUnlike€its€position€in€the€case€of€òòKindler€v.€Canadaóó,€in€this€case€the€Committee€directly€addressesÐ @ Ðthe€fundamental€question€of€whether€Canada,€having€abolished€the€death€penalty,€violated€theÐ )y Ðauthorððs€right€to€life€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant€by€extraditing€him€to€a€State€where€he€facedÐ b Ðcapital€punishment,€without€ascertaining€that€that€sentence€would€not€in€fact€be€carried€out.Ð ûK ÐÌI€can€only€subscribe€to€this€approach,€which€I€advocated€and€had€wished€to€see€applied€in€theÐ Í ÐKindler€case;€indeed,€that€was€the€basis€of€the€individual€opinion€I€submitted€in€that€case.Ð ¶ ÐÌIn€my€view,€asking€that€question€obviates€the€need€for€a€response€such€as€the€Committee€gives€inÐ ˆØ Ðthis€case€concerning€a€violation€by€Canada€of€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant.Ð qÁ ÐÌThe€position€adopted€by€the€Committee€on€this€point€implies€that€it€declares€itself€competent€toÐ C“ Ðconsider€the€authorððs€arguments€concerning€a€possible€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€theÐ ,| ÐCovenant,€as€a€result€of€irregularities€in€the€proceedings€taken€against€the€author€in€the€UnitedÐ e ÐStates,€a€position€identical€to€that€adopted€in€the€Kindler€case€(para.€14.3).Ð þN ÐÌIn€my€view,€while€the€Committee€can€declare€itself€competent€to€assess€the€degree€of€risk€to€lifeÐ Ð!   Ð(death€sentence)€or€to€physical€integrity€(torture),€it€is€less€obvious€that€it€can€base€an€opinion€thatÐ ¹" ! Ða€violation€has€occurred€in€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€on€a€third€Stateððs€failure€to€observe€aÐ ¢#ò" Ðprovision€of€the€Covenant.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌTaking€the€opposite€position€would€amount€to€requiring€a€State€party€that€called€into€questionÐ ]&­!% Ðrespect€for€human€rights€in€its€relations€with€a€third€State€to€be€answerable€for€respect€by€that€thirdÐ F'–"& ÐState€for€all€rights€guaranteed€by€the€Covenant€òòvis„„visóó€the€person€concerned.Ð /(#' ÐÌAnd€why€not?€€It€would€certainly€be€a€step€forward€in€the€realization€of€human€rights,€but€legal€andÐ *Q%) Ðpractical€problems€would€immediately€arise.Ð ê*:&* ÐÌWhat€is€a€third€State,€for€example?€€What€of€States€non„parties€to€the€Covenant?€€What€of€a€StateÐ ¼, (, Ðthat€is€party€to€the€Covenant€but€does€not€participate€in€the€procedure?€€Does€the€obligation€of€aÐ ¥-õ(- ÐÑ=OaÑâ =âѰ°Ñâ =âÑ  ÑState€party€to€the€Covenant€in€its€relations€with€third€States€cover€all€the€rights€in€the€Covenant€orÐ ° Ðonly€some€of€them?€€Could€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€enter€a€reservation€to€excludeÐ ™é Ðimplementation€of€the€Covenant€from€its€bilateral€relations€with€another€State?€€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌEven€setting€aside€the€complex€nature€of€the€answers€to€these€questions,€applying€the€ð ðmaximalistððÐ T¤ Ðsolution€in€practice€is€fraught€with€problems.Ð =  ÐÌFor€while€the€Committee€can€ascertain€that€a€State€party€has€not€taken€any€undue€risks,€and€mayÐ  _ Ðperhaps€give€an€opinion€on€the€precautions€taken€by€the€State€party€to€that€end,€it€can€never€reallyÐ ø H Ðbe€sure€whether€a€third€State€has€violated€the€rights€guaranteed€by€the€Covenant€if€that€State€is€notÐ á 1  Ða€party€to€the€procedure.Ð Ê   ÐÌIn€my€view,€therefore,€the€Committee€should€in€this€case€have€refrained€from€giving€an€opinion€withÐ œì  Ðrespect€to€article€14,€paragraph€5,€and€should€have€awaited€a€reply€from€the€State€party€on€theÐ …Õ  Ðfundamental€issue€of€expulsion€by€an€abolitionist€State€to€a€State€where€the€expelled€individual€runsÐ n¾  Ðthe€risk€of€capital€punishment,€since€the€terms€in€which€the€problem€of€article€14,€paragraph€5,€isÐ W§  Ðcouched€will€vary€depending€whether€the€answer€to€the€first€question€is€affirmative€or€negative.Ð @ ÐÌFor€if€an€abolitionist€State€cannot€expel€or€extradite€a€person€to€a€State€where€that€person€could€beÐ b Ðexecuted,€the€issue€of€the€regularity€of€the€procedure€followed€in€that€State€becomes€irrelevant.Ð ûK ÐÌIf,€on€the€other€hand,€the€Committee€maintains€the€position€adopted€in€the€òòKindleróó€case,€it€will€needÐ Í Ðto€make€a€thorough€study€of€the€problem€of€States€partiesðð€obligations€under€the€Covenant€in€theirÐ ¶ Ðrelations€with€third€States.Ð Ÿï ÐÌ(Signed):€€Ms.€Christine€Ô_ììÔChanetÔ_ììÔÐ qÁ ÐÌÌòòIndividual€opinion€by€Committee€member€Mr.€Hipð;ðlito€Solari„YrigoyenóóÐ ,| Ðòòconcerning€Committeeððs€admissibility€decision€on€communicationóóÐ e ÐòòNo.€829/1998€(Judge€v.€Canada)€adopted€on€17€July€2002óóÐ þN Ðòò(dissenting)Ð ç 7 ÐÌóóI€disagree€with€regard€to€the€present€communication€on€the€grounds€set€forth€below:Ð ¹" ! ÐÌThe€Committee€is€of€the€view€that€the€authorððs€counsel€has€substantiated€for€the€purposes€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðadmissibility,€his€allegation€that€the€State€party€has€violated€his€right€to€life€under€article€6€andÐ t%Ä $ Ðarticle€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant€by€deporting€him€to€the€United€States,€where€he€has€beenÐ ]&­!% Ðsentenced€to€death,€and€that€his€claim€is€compatible€with€the€Covenant.€€The€Committee€thereforeÐ F'–"& Ðdeclares€that€this€part€of€the€communication€is€admissible€and€should€be€considered€on€the€merits.Ð /(#' ÐÌòòCommitteeððs€consideration€of€the€meritsóóÐ *Q%) ÐÌWith€regard€to€a€potential€violation€by€Canada€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€for€having€deported€theÐ Ó+#'+ Ðauthor€to€face€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€in€the€United€States,€the€Committee€refers€to€theÐ ¼, (, Ðcriteria€set€forth€in€its€prior€jurisprudence.€€Namely,€for€States€that€have€abolished€capitalÐ ¥-õ(- Ðpunishment€and€that€extradite€a€person€to€a€country€where€that€person€may€face€the€imposition€ofÐ ° Ða€death€penalty,€the€extraditing€State€must€ensure€itself€that€the€person€is€not€exposed€to€a€real€riskÐ ™é Ðof€a€violation€of€his€rights€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant.òò38óóÐ ‚Ò ÐÌThe€Committee€notes€that€the€State€partyððs€argument€in€the€present€communication,€that€severalÐ T¤ Ðadditional€review€recourses€were€available€to€the€author,€such€as€filing€a€petition€in€the€Court€ofÐ =  ÐCommon€Pleas€under€Pennsylvaniaððs€Post„Conviction€Relief€Act,€filing€a€writ€of€€habeas€corpus€inÐ & v Ðthe€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Pennsylvania,€making€a€request€to€theÐ  _ ÐGovernor€of€Pennsylvania€for€clemency,€and€appealing€to€the€Pennsylvania€Supreme€Court.€€TheÐ ø H ÐCommittee€observes€that€the€automatic€review€of€the€authorððs€sentence€by€the€Pennsylvania€SupremeÐ á 1  ÐCourt€took€place€in€absentia,€when€the€author€was€in€prison€in€Canada.€€Although€the€author€wasÐ Ê   Ðrepresented€by€counsel,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€undertake€a€full€review€of€the€case,€nor€did€itÐ ³  Ðreview€the€sufficiency€of€evidence,€possible€errors€at€trial,€or€propriety€of€sentence.€€A€review€of€thisÐ œì  Ðnature€is€not€compatible€with€the€right€protected€under€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant,Ð …Õ  Ðwhich€calls€for€a€full€evaluation€of€the€evidence€and€the€court€proceedings.€€The€CommitteeÐ n¾  Ðconsiders€that€such€limitations€in€a€capital€case€amount€to€a€denial€of€a€fair€trial,€which€is€notÐ W§  Ðcompatible€with€the€right€protected€under€article€14,€paragraph5,€of€the€Covenant,€and€that€theÐ @ Ðauthorððs€flight€from€the€United€States€to€avoid€the€death€penalty€does€not€absolve€Canada€from€itsÐ )y Ðobligations€under€the€Covenant.€€In€the€light€of€the€foregoing,€the€Committee€considers€the€StateÐ b Ðparty€accountable€for€the€violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant€as€a€consequence€of€the€violation€ofÐ ûK Ðarticle€14,€paragraph€5.Ð ä4 ÐÌThe€Committee€has€noted€the€State€partyððs€argument€that€there€was€no€law€under€which€it€could€haveÐ ¶ Ðdetained€the€author€on€expiry€of€his€sentence€and€therefore€had€to€deport€him.€€The€Committee€takesÐ Ÿï Ðthe€view€that€this€response€is€unsatisfactory€for€three€reasons,€namely:€€(1)Canada€deported€theÐ ˆØ Ðauthor€knowing€that€he€would€not€have€the€right€to€appeal€in€a€capital€case;€(2)€the€speed€with€whichÐ qÁ ÐCanada€deported€the€author€did€not€allow€him€the€opportunity€to€appeal€the€decision€to€remove€him;Ð Zª Ðand€(3)€in€the€present€case,€Canada€took€a€unilateral€decision€and€therefore€cannot€invoke€itsÐ C“ Ðobligations€under€the€Extradition€Treaty€with€the€United€States,€since€at€no€time€did€the€UnitedÐ ,| ÐStates€request€the€extradition.Ð e ÐÌThe€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€finds€that€Canada€hasÐ ç 7 Ðviolated€its€obligations€under€article€2€of€the€Covenant€to€ensure€to€all€individuals€within€its€territoryÐ Ð!   Ðand€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€Covenant€because,€when€it€deported€theÐ ¹" ! Ðauthor€to€the€United€States,€it€did€not€take€sufficient€precautions€to€ensure€that€his€rights€under€articleÐ ¢#ò" Ð6€and€to€article€14,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Covenant€would€be€fully€observed.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌThe€Human€Rights€Committee€requests€the€State€party€to€do€everything€possible,€as€a€matter€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðurgency€to€avoid€the€imposition€of€the€death€penalty€or€to€provide€the€author€with€a€full€review€ofÐ F'–"& Ðhis€conviction€and€sentence.€€The€State€party€has€the€obligation€to€ensure€that€similar€violations€doÐ /(#' Ðnot€occur€in€the€future.Ð )h$( ÐÌBearing€in€mind€that€by€signing€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€has€recognized€theÐ ê*:&* Ðcompetence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€orÐ Ó+#'+ Ðnot€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€to€ensure€to€allÐ ¼, (, Ðindividuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€CovenantÐ ¥-õ(- Ðto€provide€an€effective€and€enforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€theÐ ° ÐCommittee€wishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€about€the€measuresÐ ™é Ðtaken€to€give€effect€to€its€Views.€€The€State€party€is€also€requested€to€publish€these€Views.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌ(Signed):€€Mr.€Ô_ììÔHipð;ðlitoÔ_ììÔ€Ô_ììÔSolariÔ_ììÔ„Ô_ììÔYrigoyenÔ_ììÔÐ T¤ ÐÌÌòòIndividual€Opinion€of€Committee€Member€Mr.€Ô_ììÔRajsoomerÔ_ììÔ€Ô_ììÔLallahÔ_ììÔóóÐ  _ Ðòò(concurring)óóÐ ø H ÐÌI€entirely€agree€with€the€Committeeððs€revision€of€the€approach€which€it€had€adopted€in€òòKindler€v.Ð Ê   ÐCanadaóó€in€relation€to€the€correct€interpretation€to€be€given€to€the€ð ðinherent€right€to€lifeðð€guaranteedÐ ³  Ðunder€article€6(1)€of€the€Covenant.€This€revised€interpretation€is€well€explicated€in€paragraphs€10.4Ð œì  Ðand€10.5€of€the€present€Views€of€the€Committee.€I€wish,€however,€to€add€three€observations.Ð …Õ  ÐÌFirst,€while€it€is€encouraging€to€note,€as€the€Committee€does€in€paragraph€10.3€of€the€present€Views,Ð W§  Ðthat€there€is€a€broadening€international€consensus€in€favour€of€the€abolition€of€the€death€penalty,€itÐ @ Ðis€appropriate€to€recall€that,€even€at€the€time€when€the€Committee€was€considering€its€views€inÐ )y ÐòòKindleróó€some€10€years€ago,€the€Committee€was€quite€divided€as€to€the€obligations€which€a€StateÐ b Ðparty€undertakes€under€article€6(1)€of€the€Covenant,€when€faced€with€a€decision€as€to€whether€toÐ ûK Ðremove€an€individual€from€its€territory€to€another€State€where€that€individual€had€been€sentencedÐ ä4 Ðto€death.€No€less€than€five€members€of€the€Committee€dissented€from€the€Committeeððs€Views,Ð Í Ðprecisely€on€the€nature,€operation€and€interpretation€of€article€6(1)€of€the€Covenant.€The€reasonsÐ ¶ Ðwhich€led€those€five€members€to€dissent€were€individually€expressed€in€separate€individual€opinionsÐ Ÿï Ðwhich€are€appended€to€this€separate€opinion€as€A,€B,€C,€D€and€E.€In€the€case€of€the€separate€opinionÐ ˆØ Ðat€E,€only€the€fact€that€appears€most€relevant€is€reproduced€(paragraph€19€to€25).Ð qÁ ÐÌMy€second€observation€is€that€other€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€in€particular,€articles€5(2)€and€26,Ð C“ Ðmay€be€relevant€in€interpreting€article€6(1),€as€noted€in€some€of€the€individual€opinions.Ð ,| ÐÌIt€is€also€encouraging€that€the€Supreme€Court€of€Canada€has€held€that€in€similar€cases€assurancesÐ þN Ðmust,€as€the€Committee€notes,€be€obtained,€subject€to€exceptions.€I€wonder€to€what€extent€theseÐ ç 7 Ðexceptions€could€conceptually€be€envisaged€given€the€autonomy€of€article€6(1)€and€the€possibleÐ Ð!   Ðimpact€of€article€5(2)€and€also€article€26€which€governs€the€legislative,€executive€and€judicialÐ ¹" ! Ðbehaviour€of€States€parties.€That,€however,€is€a€bridge€to€be€crossed€by€the€Committee€in€anÐ ¢#ò" Ðappropriate€case.Ð ‹$Û# ÐÌ(Signed):€Ô_ììÔRajsoomerÔ_ììÔ€LallahÐ ]&­!% ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ ¥-õ(- ÐÓIÓòòò òAPPENDIXó óóóÐ ° ÐÓÓÌòòÓéÓIndividual€opinions€submitted€pursuant€to€rule€94,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Committee's€rules€ofÐ ƒÓ Ðprocedure,€concerning€the€Committee's€views€on€communication€No.€470/1991€(òòJoseph€KindlerÐ l¼ Ðv.€Canadaóó)óóÐ U¥ ÐÓŸÓÌÌA.€€òòIndividual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Bertil€Wennergren€(dissenting)óóÐ  ` ÐÌI€cannot€share€the€Committee's€views€on€a€non„violation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€€In€my€opinion,Ð â 2  ÐCanada€violated€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€by€extraditing€the€author€to€the€UnitedÐ Ë   ÐStates,€without€having€sought€assurances€for€the€protection€of€his€life,€i.e.€non„execution€of€a€deathÐ ´  Ðsentence€imposed€upon€him.€€I€justify€this€conclusion€as€follows:Ð í  ÐÌFirstly,€I€would€like€to€clarify€my€interpretation€of€article€6€of€the€Covenant.€€The€ViennaÐ o¿  ÐConvention€on€the€Law€of€Treaties€stipulates€that€a€treaty€must€be€interpreted€in€good€faith€and€inÐ X¨  Ðaccordance€with€the€ordinary€meaning€to€be€given€to€the€terms€of€the€treaty€in€their€context€and€inÐ A‘ Ðthe€light€of€its€object€and€purpose.€€The€object€of€the€provisions€of€article€6€is€human€life€and€theÐ *z Ðpurpose€of€its€provisions€is€the€protection€of€such€life.€Thus,€paragraph€1€emphasizes€this€point€byÐ c Ðguaranteeing€to€every€human€being€the€inherent€right€to€life.€€The€other€provisions€of€article€6Ð üL Ðconcern€a€secondary€and€subordinate€object,€namely€to€allow€States€parties€that€have€not€abolishedÐ å5 Ðcapital€punishment€to€resort€to€it€until€such€time€they€feel€ready€to€abolish€it.€€In€the€òòtravauxÐ Î Ðprparatoiresóó€to€the€Covenant,€the€death€penalty€was€seen€by€many€delegates€and€bodiesÐ · Ðparticipating€in€the€drafting€process€an€"anomaly"€or€a€"necessary€evil".€€Against€this€background,Ð  ð Ðit€would€appear€to€be€logical€to€interpret€the€fundamental€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€in€a€wideÐ ‰Ù Ðsense,€whereas€paragraph€2,€which€addresses€the€death€penalty,€should€be€interpreted€narrowly.€€TheÐ r Ðprincipal€difference€between€my€and€the€Committee's€views€on€this€case€lies€in€the€importance€IÐ [« Ðattach€to€the€fundamental€rule€in€paragraph€1€of€article€6,€and€my€belief€that€what€is€said€inÐ D” Ðparagraph€2€about€the€death€penalty€has€a€limited€objective€that€cannot€by€any€reckoning€overrideÐ -} Ðthe€cardinal€principle€in€paragraph€1.Ð f ÐÌThe€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€stands€out€from€among€the€others€laid€down€inÐ è 8 Ðarticle€6;€moreover,€article€4€of€the€Covenant€makes€it€clear€that€no€derogations€from€this€rule€areÐ Ñ!!  Ðpermitted,€not€even€in€time€of€a€public€emergency€threatening€the€life€of€the€nation.€€No€society,Ð º" ! Ðhowever,€has€postulated€an€absolute€right€to€life.€€All€human€rights,€including€the€right€to€life,€areÐ £#ó" Ðsubject€to€the€rule€of€necessity.€€If,€but€only€if,€absolute€necessity€so€requires,€it€may€be€justifiableÐ Œ$Ü# Ðto€deprive€an€individual€of€his€life€to€prevent€him€from€killing€others€or€so€as€to€avert€man„madeÐ u%Å $ Ðdisasters.€€For€the€same€reason,€it€is€justifiable€to€send€citizens€into€war€and€thereby€expose€them€toÐ ^&®!% Ða€real€risk€of€their€being€killed.€€In€one€form€or€another,€the€rule€of€necessity€is€inherent€in€all€legalÐ G'—"& Ðsystems;€the€legal€system€of€the€Covenant€is€no€exception.Ð 0(€#' ÐÌArticle€6,€paragraph€2,€makes€an€exception€for€States€parties€that€have€not€abolished€the€deathÐ *R%) Ðpenalty.€€The€Covenant€permits€them€to€continue€applying€the€death€penalty.€€This€"dispensation"Ð ë*;&* Ðfor€States€parties€should€not€be€construed€as€a€justification€for€the€deprivation€of€the€life€ofÐ Ô+$'+ Ðindividuals,€albeit€lawfully€sentenced€to€death,€and€does€not€make€the€execution€of€a€death€sentenceÐ ½, (, Ðstrictly€speaking€legal.€€It€merely€provides€a€possibility€for€States€parties€to€be€released€from€theirÐ ¦-ö(- Ðobligations€under€articles€2€and€6€of€the€Covenant,€namely€to€respect€and€to€ensure€to€all€individualsÐ ° Ðwithin€their€territory€and€under€their€jurisdiction€the€inherent€right€to€life€without€any€distinction,Ð ™é Ðand€enables€them€to€make€a€distinction€with€regard€to€persons€having€committed€the€"most€seriousÐ ‚Ò Ðcrime(s)".Ð k» ÐÌThe€standard€way€to€ensure€the€protection€of€the€right€to€life€is€to€criminalize€the€killing€of€humanÐ =  Ðbeings.€€The€act€of€taking€human€life€is€normally€subsumed€under€terms€such€as€"manslaughter",Ð & v Ð"homicide"€or€"murder".€Moreover,€there€may€be€omissions€which€can€be€subsumed€under€crimesÐ  _ Ðinvolving€the€intentional€taking€of€life,€inaction€or€omission€that€causes€the€loss€of€a€person's€life,Ð ø H Ðsuch€as€a€doctor's€failure€to€save€the€life€of€a€patient€by€intentionally€failing€to€activate€life„supportÐ á 1  Ðequipment,€or€failure€to€come€to€the€rescue€of€a€person€in€a€life„threatening€situation€of€distress.Ð Ê   ÐCriminal€responsibility€for€the€deprivation€of€life€lies€with€private€persons€and€representatives€of€theÐ ³  ÐState€alike.€€The€methodology€of€criminal€legislation€provides€some€guidance€when€assessing€theÐ œì  Ðlimits€for€a€State€party's€obligations€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€to€protect€the€rightÐ …Õ  Ðto€life€within€its€jurisdiction.Ð n¾  ÐÌWhat€article€6,€paragraph€2,€does€not,€in€my€view,€is€to€permit€States€parties€that€have€abolished€theÐ @ Ðdeath€penalty€to€reintroduce€it€at€a€later€stage.€€In€this€way,€the€"dispensation"€character€of€paragraphÐ )y Ð2€has€the€positive€effect€of€preventing€a€proliferation€of€the€deprivation€of€peoples'€lives€through€theÐ b Ðexecution€of€death€sentences€among€States€parties€to€the€Covenant.€€The€Second€Optional€ProtocolÐ ûK Ðto€the€Covenant€was€drafted€and€adopted€so€as€to€encourage€States€parties€that€have€not€abolishedÐ ä4 Ðthe€death€penalty€to€do€so.Ð Í ÐÌThe€United€States€has€not€abolished€the€death€penalty€and€therefore€may,€by€operation€of€article€6,Ð Ÿï Ðparagraph€2,€deprive€individuals€of€their€lives€by€the€execution€of€death€sentences€lawfully€imposed.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€applicability€of€article€6,€paragraph€2,€in€the€United€States€should€not€however€be€construed€asÐ qÁ Ðextending€to€other€States€when€they€must€consider€issues€arising€under€article€6€of€the€Covenant€inÐ Zª Ðconformity€with€their€obligations€under€article€2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€€The€"dispensation"Ð C“ Ðclause€of€paragraph€2€applies€merely€domestically€and€as€such€concerns€only€the€United€States,€asÐ ,| Ða€State€party€to€the€Covenant.Ð e ÐÌOther€States,€however,€are€in€my€view€obliged€to€observe€their€duties€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,Ð ç 7 Ðnamely€to€protect€the€right€to€life.€€Whether€they€have€or€have€not€abolished€capital€punishment€doesÐ Ð!   Ðnot,€in€my€opinion,€make€any€difference.€€The€dispensation€in€paragraph€2€does€not€apply€in€thisÐ ¹" ! Ðcontext.€€Only€the€rule€in€article€6,€paragraph€1,€applies,€and€it€must€be€applied€strictly.€€A€StateÐ ¢#ò" Ðparty€must€not€defeat€the€purpose€of€article€6,€paragraph€1,€by€failing€to€provide€anyone€with€suchÐ ‹$Û# Ðprotection€as€is€necessary€to€prevent€his/her€right€to€life€from€being€put€at€risk.€€And€under€articleÐ t%Ä $ Ð2,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€protection€shall€be€ensured€to€all€individuals€without€distinction€ofÐ ]&­!% Ðany€kind.€€No€distinction€must€therefore€be€made€on€the€ground,€for€instance,€that€a€person€hasÐ F'–"& Ðcommitted€a€"most€serious€crime".Ð /(#' ÐÌThe€value€of€life€is€immeasurable€for€any€human€being,€and€the€right€to€life€enshrined€in€article€6Ð *Q%) Ðof€the€Covenant€is€the€supreme€human€right.€€It€is€an€obligation€of€States€parties€to€the€Covenant€toÐ ê*:&* Ðprotect€the€lives€of€all€human€beings€on€their€territory€and€under€their€jurisdiction.€€If€issues€ariseÐ Ó+#'+ Ðin€respect€of€the€protection€of€the€right€to€life,€priority€must€not€be€accorded€to€the€domestic€lawsÐ ¼, (, Ðof€other€countries€or€to€(bilateral)€treaty€articles.€€Discretion€of€any€nature€permitted€under€anÐ ¥-õ(- Ðextradition€treaty€cannot€apply,€as€there€is€no€room€for€it€under€Covenant€obligations.€€It€is€worthÐ ° Ðrepeating€that€no€derogation€from€a€State's€obligations€under€article€6,€paragraph€1,€is€permitted.€Ð ™é ÐThis€is€why€Canada,€in€my€view,€violated€article€6,€paragraph€1,€by€consenting€to€extradite€Mr.Ð ‚Ò ÐKindler€to€the€United€States,€without€having€secured€assurances€that€Mr.€Kindler€would€not€beÐ k» Ðsubjected€to€the€execution€of€a€death€sentence.Ð T¤ ÐÌB.€WennergrenÐ & v ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.]Ð ø H ÐÌÌB.€òò€Individual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Rajsoomer€Lallah€(dissenting)óóÐ ³  ÐÌ1.€I€am€unable€to€subscribe€to€the€Committee's€views€to€the€effect€that€the€facts€before€it€do€notÐ …Õ  Ðdisclose€a€violation€by€Canada€of€any€provision€of€the€Covenant.Ð n¾  ÐÌ2.1€€I€start€by€affirming€my€agreement€with€the€Committee's€opinion,€as€noted€in€paragraph€13.1€ofÐ @ Ðthe€views,€that€what€is€at€issue€is€not€whether€Mr.€Kindler's€rights€have€been,€or€run€the€real€risk€ofÐ )y Ðbeing,€violated€in€the€United€States€and€that€a€State€party€to€the€Covenant€is€required€to€ensure€thatÐ b Ðit€carries€out€other€commitments€it€may€have€under€a€bilateral€treaty€in€a€manner€consistent€with€itsÐ ûK Ðobligations€under€the€Covenant.€€I€further€agree€with€the€Committee's€view,€in€paragraph€13.2,€toÐ ä4 Ðthe€effect€that,€where€a€State€party€extradites€a€person€in€such€circumstances€as€to€expose€him€to€aÐ Í Ðreal€r