The author of the communication (initial letter dated 4 September 1984 and further letters of 23 and 24 April, 24 June, 20 Auoust and 21 November 1985) is H.S., who currently resides in France. He submitted the communication on his own behalf.
In his initial letter (dated 4 September 1984), the author alleqed that he had been arbitrarily depriVed of his French nationality. He stated that he had b3en born in Mauritania in 1944, at that time a French colony, that he had entered France in 1959 as a French national, and that he had lived there since. When Mauritania became independent in 1960, the author claimed to have requested that he retain his French nationality in accordance with the French Nationality COde (Law No. 60-152 of 28 June 1960). Many years later (the author claimed that this took place in 1979), he had alleqedly been informed by the relevant French authorities that, pursuant to a decision of the Ministry of Justice, he w~s no longer reqarded as a French national and that consequently he was required to return his French identity papers. In August 1979~ the author initiated proceedinqs before the Tribunal de Qrande instance of Bobiqny with a view to securlno recOQnitlon of his French nationality. These proceeaings were, however, still pendinq at the tt.e of the submission of the communication.
The author stated that his wife (born in Mali) and his six children were sufferina from the situation. He mentioned that on 18 NOvember 1983, the authorities had declined to renew his wife's residence permit and that they had no place to live.
The author enclosed a copy of his French identity card (No. 3531769, issued by the Prefect of Police of Paris on 22 OCtober 1973) and a copy of his card as reservist in the French army (issued on 5 December 1983).
BV its decision of 17 October 1984, the Workina Group of the Human Rlqhts Committee ;ransmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requestinq information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. The Workinq Group -169-
ReqardinQ the principles established by the French Nationality Code in respect of persons from former overseas territories (Mauritania had the status of an overseas territory of the French Republic on 31 December 1946 and became independent on 28 November 1960), the St3te party submitted that: "The Act of 28 July 1960 and the subsequent Act of 9 January 1973 make a distinction between persons who are autom~tically French ~nd persons whose French nationality is subject to recognition in accordance with the criterion of qeoQraphica1 oriQin. To this end, the lEQis1ator differentiated between those who are from and those who are not from the territory of the French RepUblic. Ca} French persons from the territory of the French Republic, as it was constituted on 28 July 1960, and domiciled, on the date on which a State previously havinq the status of oversea.s territory of the French Republic attained independence, in the territory of that State retained French nationality (art. 152), (b) French persons not from the territory of the French Republic, on the other hand, 16st French nationality when their country of origin gained its independence. "However, oersons were entitled to retain French nationality: (a) Automatically, if on the date on which a former overseas territory became independent they were not domiciled in that territory. The solution derives e contrario from the new article 153, which subjects to a formal procedure only persons who were not from the territory of the Republic and who were domiciled at the time of independence in the teriitory of the State that became independents Cb} In other cases, by the making of a statement of recognition of French nationality after their domicile was transferred to France. The Act of 9 January 1973 subsequently removed this option and replaced it by an authorisation for the making of a statement to restore French nationality, which is requ1ated by the new articles 153, 156 and 157. Restoration of nationality may be denied on the qround of unworthiness {indignite} or failure to be assimilated. (d) Prove that they were French prior to independenceJ (b) Shc~ that they have retained French nationality in the aforementioned conditions."
The State party further submitted that the following rules were applicable regarding proof and contentious proceedlnq~: "French nationality is evidenced in cases of difficulty by a certificate issued by the juge d'inst8nce of the place of domicile of the applicant. The juge d'instance draws up the certificate in the liqht of the applicant's civil status, which attests to the date and place of birth and the parentage (art. 149). "If the jUge dtinstance refuses to issue the certlficate 6 the person concerned may spply in a non-contentious procedure to the Minister of Justice (art. IS1). "He may also 'institute proceedings before the Tribunal de qrande i~5tance with the primary and direct ~~jEet of obtaininq a judQement as to whether or not he possesses French nationality' (art. 129). The judqement of that court is appealable to the Coor d'appel, then to the Cour de cassation. "Moreover, French persons Who have lost their French na~ionality and who wish to recover it must, under the procedure established in 1973, make a statement before the juge d'instance of their place of domicile aft~r receivina authorization to do so from the Minister responsible for naturalization (currently the Minister of Social Affairs and National Solidarity. in 1977, the Minister of LabOUr) (art. IS3). "The Minister's refusal to autho~ize the making of a statement can be contested in non-contentious or contentious proceedings. "In the former case, the party concer~ed may request the Minister to reconsider his decision and to authorize the makinQ of a statement for the restoration of nationality. "In the case of contentious proceedings, the party concerned may bring the matter of the Minister's refusal before the tribunal administratif, and may subsequently appeal to ~he COnseil d'etat." .
The State party observed that the determination of the author's nationality was a problem that had been rendered complex by the fact that he bad qiven two different dates of birthz "Up until 1973, [H.S.l claimed to have been born in 1923. As he would thus have been 37 years of a~e when Mauritania became independent, and as he was domiciled in France in 1960, he could oriqinally have been considered to be French. -171- "Furthermore, the inquiries that were conducted durinq the various proceedinqs revealed that there were doubts, not only 8S to [H.S.'sl civil status (date and place of birth, parentaqe), but with reqard to his actual identity in relation to other individuals havinQ the same name. These Q'Jestions had of necessity to be settled before a decision cculd be taken in respect of this applicant's nationality."
The State party lists the followinq dec~sions and other measures concerninq the author's leqal statusa "23 February 1959. A decision havinq the legal validity of a birth certificate was issued by the Trlb~nal de premier deqre at Selibaby, at the oral request of (H.S.l, statinq that he ~.d been born at Massi-Chaqqor, Mauritania, in 1923• .!~ February 1967. In the light of the above decision, a certificate of PrQnch natio~ality was issued to (S.S.l by the Tribunal d'lnstanc~ du 20eme arrondissement de Paris on the ground that be had been domiciled 1n Prance in 1960 (art. 13, para. 1, of the ordinance of 19 OCtober 1945, in the 1960 version, •••• persons domiciled in the ceded territories lose French nationality unless they effeetively establish their de-iei1e outside those territories') • ") Marc..h 1961. A French national identity card, No. 1513223-YN 7701, was issued ~V the Pr~fect of Police of Paris. 1124 August 1973. At (H.S.·sl requ..~, tbe ?rocureur de la Republigue, in Paris, had the birth certificate amended to state that (H.S.l was born in 1944, not 1923. ·5 OCtober 1971. The Juqe d'instance du 19•• arrondisseaent de Paris issued (H.S.l a new certificate of French nationality in the light of the chanqe in the date of his bi~th. "22 October 1913. A new identity card, No. 353 1769-8U 668 H, was issued by the Prefect of Poli~e of Paris• •~. (H.S.] aqain applied to the Juge d'instance du 19"e arrondisseaent for a certificate of nationality. "23 March 1976. The Gerde des Sceaux, Ministry of Justice, sent a notice to the J~Qe il'instance dl! l~~ arrondissHlent de Paris, statino that (H.S.l was I to be considered a foreigner. In fact, if the party concerned had been born in 1944, as he claims, he would have been only 16 years old vhan Mauritania became independant and could not, under those circuutances, be considered domiciled in France for purposes of nationality, since his status was dependent on that of his father or survivinq mother aDd he had at no time submitted evidence of their livinQ in Prance at that time. -112- "8 March 1977. The Ministrv of Lahour rejected the applicat ion on the qround that (H.S.l had provided falRe information. ".!!2!. IH.S.) applied to the Juqe d'in8tance at Aulnay-aoIl8-BoiR for a new certificate of nationality. "25 May 1'.l1:~.. IH.5.1 returned his national identity cdrd to the Blanc-Me8ni1 pol ice I'Itllt kn. "26 June 1~1q. The Minister of Justice ~ent a notice identical to that of 23 March 1976 to the Juge d'inst.n~e, atatinq that the certificat~ of nationality should be withheld. "3 JUl¥ 1979. IH.S.l vas notifi~ of the refusal to issue a certificate of nat iona11 ty. "August 1979. IH.S.l applied to the Tribunal de qrande instance of Bobiqny with a view to securing recoqnition of hin French nationality (art8. 128-136). "9 August 1979. As required under the Code of Civil Procedure, IH.S.'al lawyer forvarded d copy of the summons to the Ministry of JU8tic~. "12 October 1979. The lawyer aqain notified the Chancel1erie, the form of the first summons havinq been irreQular. "19 December 1979. The Minifltry of JU8tice qave the followinq instructions to the Procureur of the Tribunal de qrande inst.nce of Bobiqnyt (a) The lavyer vas to be informed that the new and currently prepared summon8 had been filed with the Ministry of Justice, (b) Since IH.S.I had successively provided tvo bi~th dates in the documents vhich he had submitted for the proce8l1inqs, t~e court vas to be reauested to rule on the applicant's civil status. "29 January 1980. IH.S.) vas qiven a hearinq by the erocureur at Bobiqny concerninq the authenticity of the documents that he had placed in the file. It became apparent that the testimony submitted to the Parquet de Paris in RlIpPOrt of the chanqe of date of birth under the dechsioo of 24 Auqust 1973 had been prepared by IH.S.l himself b~aU8e the witnl ~se8 were unable to write. This renders 8puri(~8 the certificate issued on 5 October 1973. "12 ~~rch 1980. The Minister 01 the Interior consulted the Minister of Justice with reqard to t~e status of ao individual nam&e IA.S. 1, who purportedly waR born lllt Sokodiandt, Mill , in l'H6, but whoae birth certificate hllld n~ver been tranemitted. -173- ";> December 1980, 10 Januarv 1981, 6 and 17 February 1982. Severll1 te1eqrllmft were Rent to INTERPOL ,Nouakchottl ahout the identity of (If.S.I. "9 December lc}82. Reque"t. by the Mini.try of Ju",tice for an inquiry into 11 third individual, a1,,0 c"·olc.1 (A.S.I. In this connection, INTERPOL (8arnllko) waft llk_i",e lIRked l!leveral time. to flt8te whether thil'O third in<1ividulll W81!l II twin brother of the orl'IVious one. "14 Septemher 1983. H4tllrino of the df"tainee, IH.S. I, hy 8n investi<1l1tor of the Poissy police deoartment. "la Octob~r 1c}83. APp.ic8tion bv the wife of (H.S. I, horn in ~a1i, for oermission to stay in France. "lA Novernher .lli. Notiftclltlon to Mrll. (H.S.I that her IIPDl1cation was refu.ed. "29 March 1984. Preparatory hearino. The j~dQe resoonsihle for oreparinQ the proceedinC:lI' of the Bohic:IOY tcibur.lIl oroared Mllitre I':uolme 8. Ye."e, (H.S.' sI new 18wy.r, to .ut.bUsh hill client'. ohv.ical il1entity with tt.e inclividlJa1 Baid to have entered Franc. in 1959 and to have heen there on 28 November 1960, the date on which Mauritani~ att~ined independen~•• "2 ~lune 1984. 'H.S. 's! application fdr the rt!'tltoration of hia French nationality addr ••••d to the Pre.ident of the French Republic. Thi. apPlication was transmitt~ to the Min{st.r of Socilll Affairs and Nationftl Solidar,ty for action. "28 Auquat 1984. Reau.Rt by the Ministry of Social Affairs llnd National Solid8ritv to the Prefect of Seine and Marne (wn"e (H.S. I was detainedl for an inQu~ry under article 153. "7 AUQust 1984. Re,~rt of the inauiry by the MiniAtry of th ... Interior c::-mmunicated to the Ministry of' Justice. "13 Auqu.t 1984. Transmission of the llbove rQPOrt to the procur.ur at Bobiqny. "16 October 1984. Transmis8ion of the report of the inquiry by the Prefecture of Seine 3nd Marne to the Ministry of Social Affairs. "7 November 1984. New pr.paratory h.arinq for the calle b.fore the Tribunal d... Qrande intltllnce of Bohiany. "'I November lCJ04. Orcler to rH.S. '''I lawyer rI'!Oewed. "6 FfObrLlary 19A5. Further pr(!p~rlltory hearina at the requ.st of (H.S.I who had ..ho8en anoth .. r counRelr POl'ltponement unt i 1 24 ADr i1 1<,85. Order r enewl'ld ... -174- (a) With regard to the iesuinq of a certificate of French nationality by the 1uqe d'instance (art. 149), H.S. wae refuBed the certificate on 3 July 1979. Re started leqal proceedinqs in Auqust 1979 before the Tribunal de qrande inatance of Bobiqny. The proceedinqs proved to be extremely complicated because of the doubts concernlnq the author's person and civil status. In the course of 1984, the judge responsible for preparinq the case at Bobigny ordered H.S.'s lawyer, without success, to establish his client's identity (orders dated 29 March 1984, 9 November 1984 and 6 February 1985). The "atter was subsequently postponed until the hearlnq on 24 APril 1985, at the request of the applieant hillself. In these circumstances, the prolonqation ot the procedural period was the responsibility of the author. In any event, it was for the Tribunal de grande inatance of Bobiqny to pronounce on th~ application of H.S. for recognition of French nationality. H.S. would be able to appeal aqalnst the judgement and then, if there was occasion, to submit his cas~ to the Cour de cassation. (b) With reqard to the procedure for the reatoration of 'rench nationality (art. 153 of the Natlonality COde). first, H.S. neither applied to the competent Minister, nor instituted proceedings before the administrative tribunals with a view to the overturning of the neqativ~ decision of the Minister of Labour, dated 8 March 1977. Tl.ose remedies could have been sought simultaneously, a••entioned above. Secondly, a new application vas currently under examination at the Ministry of Social Affairs and National Solidarity, H.S. havinq aqain, in 1984, requested authorization to make a declaration of French nationality before the competent jug. d'instance. Should the Minister of Social Affairs and National Solida~ity turn down the application, aqain all of the afore.entioned relledies could be aouqht by H.S. by contentious and non-contentious ...ns alike.
In further sUbmisBlons dated 23 and 24 April 1985 the author oomaented on the State party's Bubmission and reiterated that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his French nationality in 1979 and that 8ince then, d.spite all his efforts and the procedures to which he had applied, he remained in the sa.e situation.
Concerninq his date ot birth, the author stated that he had been born in Mauritania in 1944, that hiB father had died durinq the Second World War fighting for France, that hi. mother had died in 1958, that in 1959 he had decided to travel to France. In order to obtain a birth certificate he had gone to the Tribunal de premier degre at Selibaby, Mauritania. A decision, havinq the legal validity of a birth certificate, had been issued by the tribunal on 23 February 1959 stating that he had been born at Massi-Chaqqor, Mauritania, in 1923. The author further stated that the Haut commissariat de l'Afrique accidentale franqaise, on the basis of that decision, had issued to him an identity card with which he had travelled to France. He had used the card for employment purpa.e., to pay his social insurance, '). The author contested the whole process by which he had been deprived of his "'rench nationdlity. In plllfticular hf1 contested the reasoninQ of the Garde des Sceaux on 23 March 1976 (see para. 4.5) hecause he had been domiciled in France since 1959. He arqued that even if, In 1960, he had been a minor, his status cou,.d not have been dependent on that of his parenta. He recalls that they both died prio~ to the independence of Mauritania in 1960. Therefore, he saw himself as a victim of discrimination. The author claimed that. the State party's assertic 19 that "the proceedinqs have proved to be extremely ccmplicated because of the doubts concerninq the author's person and civil status" (8ee above para.
7 (a» were not valid and that the application of domestic remedies in that reqard had been unClMsonahly prolonqed within the meaninq of article 5, paraqraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. He arQues that there could be no doubt about his person and status, since he had lawfully lived and worked in France since 1959, he had no brothers and he did not know of any person havinq his name. He added that there were approximately 1 million individuals with his family name in Weat Africa. with reqard to the procedure for the restoration of French nationality (art. 151 of the Nationality Code), he arqued that he had never applied to the competent minister nor initiated proceedinqs before the administrative tribunals for the simple reason that he wae French and had always been French. In particular, he d~nied that on 2 June 1984 he had written to the Pr~8ident of the French Republic "for the restoration of hia French nationality" (Ree para. 4.5). He had written a letter merely to request due pror.ess of law in his case.
Reqardinq his (letention, the author reiterated that in 1979 he ha,,; been obl1qed to return his national ide"tity ell I d. He stated that 1'1 that time he had become afraid that he miqht be dismissed from hig job at Air France because of ll'lck of leqal documents. Bel1elfinq lh, his sitl)!ltion WIJS prlltCariou8, he had felt that he had no choice but to aqree, when I!IPf'~oached in the presence of his t1upervieor, t.o be involved in drutl trafflckinq. ','hat had brouqht about his arrest in MarCh 1980. He lII11eqed discriminatl.on because his supervisor, a white man, had never been tried while he himself and three other black coll~aques had been sentenced to sev~ral years of imprisonment. He mentioned that he had been 8entenced by a French tr ibunal as "Io'rench" and that durinq hi8 trial for druq traffickinq the queRtioll of his nationality ha<j rot been put into question. However, subsequentLy - as shown in a copy of a letter dated, it appears, in .June 1981, addressed by the Pr~fectur~ des Yvelinec (Foreiqners Department) t.o the nirector of the Poissy prison - the priAlm authorities were informed th"t H.S. "who hilA declllred that he is a French national is In fact M~uritanian" and that the er iminal record If thlA "foreiqner" should he fOI·wariled to the Pr'fectul'e. 5.S ReQllrdinq his family, the author enclosed copies of birth certificates of hi8 six chi ldren (one llorn in Mali, the othe-rfl in "'ranee). It appellfs that he has three wives (two from Mll1i, one from Seneqal). He submitted cO\Jies of certificates of Fcench nationality reqardinCl three L" his children. His wife, M••4., mother of -176- h. At thf" twenty-fifth Rlwlli.ln of the Human Riqhts CommIttee in ,July 1985, the State partv was requestoo to RubmIt furtt-er information concerninq the author's leqal RItuation and, in particular, the State party was IlIsked to Indicate when a final decisIon concerninCl the author's nllltionality miqht be expect ...-<l, if he pursued the matter In a timely fashIon. At the same time, the author was requested to specify which provlsions of the Covenant had alleqedly been vIolaterl in his clllse.
By a further letter dated "J.O Auqu8t 1985, the author claimed to be a victim of violations of the followinQ provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Politkal Riqhtllf artkles 2, paraqraphs 1 and] (b), 5, paraqraph 2,
9, p~raqraph 4, 1">, paraqraph 1, 16, 17, paraqraphs 1 and 2J 2JJ 24 and 26. He offered the followinq clarifications in substantiation of his claims: (d) That articles 2, paraqraph 3 (b), 9, paraqraph 4, and 16 had bep.n violated hecaus.· a complaint which he had lodqed aqainst tw') ju<.qes of tt-,e Bobiqny juriBdi~tion in l"ehruary 198'), for alleqedly actinq aqalnst his interests and riqhlB, had not been properly considered, (b) Thllt IU t le l,:q 7, 9, paraqraph 4, a , l'l, pIU 1IC;l'af\h 1, had been violated b~au8e he had been al~eqedly unjustly convicted and sentenced ;'0 ol!!ven years uf impr~Ronment in 1981 and because the French authoritieB, in qeneral, Illnd the judqes, in particular, were bent on harfllinq him, (C) That articles 2, paraqraph 1, 5, paragraph 2,
23, 24 anCl 26 had been violaten because he haa suffered discrimination in the sense that, deR lite all his efforts, the case concerninq his nati0nality has been pending before tr.e courts since 1979 and because his honour and reputation had be~n undermined, his family had not received social 8ecurit~ allowlllnce& llInd his children had been deprived of proper educlltion.
By a further letter dated 21 November 1995, t.he author transmitted to the Human Riqhts Committee a copy of submissions dated l~ and 23 October 1985 from his lawyer, Maitre Tourrette, to the Tribunal d~ qrand~ instance of Bobiqny. In his lIubrnis9ions, thl'! lawyer, aftl'!r a lengthy des.::ription of hiB (:lient's case, requested that the court. (a) Take note that his client had proven that h~ was the H.5. horn in 1944 and present in France hefore 28 \,;:-Vl'!l1lbIH 1'l60, the date when Mauritania had acceded to indeperllienceJ (h) stllte that H.S., borll in 1944, orphaned in 1959, the (Jate of his arrival in France, retained nationlllity by filiation and 1I180 because of hiR pLeSenCl'! ~n the ter r I tory in the Republic of Ft a ne!'! pr ior to the independen,:e 01 Mall r 1tania, (c) Recoqnize that H.S. had p088"S!lOO French !ltlltU!I for mor~ than 10 years. He con9ilJered it: ()f lesser: Importance that, if the Court coni-1ider ,~d the application to he insufftc:iently well-founded, it should or-der any addit.ionllll lnformation or lIfly hearinq of witne9ges ready t.o furnish informllltion both on the fardly of H.S. lInd his pregence in France before the independence of Mauritania. -177-
The State party reiterated that the prolonqat.ion of time-llmita cont1nued to be, aB was the case ellrlier, the responsibility of the 'luthor and that he hilI'! not exhausted all the remfldies available Ul'ldtl'1: dOll'esttc law. F'or the State party it 8eeme.1 obvious that his communicat,ion o.,qht to be [' e-jecte<l in accordance with the provisions of article 5, paraqraph 2 (hI, of the Optional Protocol.
The St,llte party observed that the ellthor, in his further It>t(:~r of 20 AUQust 1985 (see para. 7.1), had r ...lerred to proceedinqs inAtltuted by hlmtJelt after he had submitted his communicatiC'n relatinq to the questinn of hh nationality to the Human Riqhts Committee "'nd it "tateO that those p['(x~eedinQB concerned other issuOR than that of hi:, nationality. It fu!'ther stated that the proceedinqs consi"ted of an interim rell."f procedure instltuteO fol.1.owinq imprtllOnment for non-payment of a custom!' fine and of complaints filed aqaillflt judqes of the Tribunal de qrande instance of Bobiqny. 'l'hose proceedinas, IIccordinq to the State party, could be summc.ri:l:ed lili follows: "(a) ~roceeOinqB concerning impr i<l~!lIllent. for deht "On 15 July 1985, rH.S. J made an application to the PreJ'lident of the 'rribunal "e qranl'le instance of Bobiqny challenqinq the imprb'lonment for debt. "On .H July 1985, the Preflicf~nt f >Jsued /In interim reltef oriler referr inq the case to the competent crimin51 court for a final deciJ'lion. "On 13 September 1985, the order was serveil On him bv II bailiff. "On 30 AuqlJst 1985, a dec1l1rlltion of lack of jurisdiction was issued, after the lluthor hnd made a further apPlication to the President of the Tribunal which virtllally rl'pe3terl the arquments IIdduced in his application of 15 July 1985. "[n conclusion, since the Cuatcmtl Administration is currently conlitierlnq a settlement with [H.S.l, he lqht be releaAoo. "(b) Complaints aqainst judges "On 2'J March 1985, IlLS. 1 file~ I) complaint .1qainst the senior examininq m~qi8trate of Hoblqny toqether with a propoeeO civil action for damaqea, COached in terms that IHd not specify ','he precise nllture of the qr ievances Ill! Intendecl to developllnd thllt he r~fu8ts<1 to clarify. The PUhlic Pronecutor of I\obiqny nevertheless made an IIppllclt,tion to the Criminal Chllmber of the Cour de Cll8Sllt ion for a court to be /llppolnteti to investiqate the ml'ltter, Ainee t.he ·-178 - "II.S. waR notl f led , I' this decision on 2~ Sept.emher 19115. "On 6 Oct.-lher 198'·;, (H.S.I made further complalntfl to the HI>rlinr examlrlnq mllQ!8trl'lte of the Trlhunal de qr.lllnde Inntance of Bohiqny concerniroq one of the cxamlninq mllqistratl'l8 of that court. The latt.&r maqifltrllte had on 29 March 1980 charqed IIl.S. i with hreaklnq the law on narcotlcA and f1muqqllnq In (~()ntr"hand qoodfl, then ordered that he flhoulti I~ detained provifll<'nally. On 10 F'ebrllltfY 1981, hp. had referret1 him, with three CO-a{T1l8erl, t~o the ':orrN;t:1onlll Court to be tr ied on thoB(~ Itbove-mentiont.'d count8. '
With reqar(l to the author'8 allflQations that hl8 family had not r·eceiv{~l flocial J'lf"{;,lri tv ll'llowanceR, the :.tate party observed that lJi8 chll"ren had en taken into cllIre by the ilepartmental Social Al'18i~tance Office of Bobiqny and I,laced In i'I home, their mother heinq of no fixed abodE', that Act No. '/5-551 of 2 ;JII .. 1975 protecttl(] the familiefJ of prisoners in reBpect of 8icknes8 benefitn and mate" llty and that thus far H.S.'8 wife had not applied to the Cai8se primaire d'llIltBun" ·:e ml'lladie for floclal benefits. The Stat" party fu:ther ObBl!!fVeil thatl "All theRe qrie\lllnces thuB invoked by the applicant are /lot only tardy, Iwt do not fall within the scope of the consideration of thie communication, which iB concerned 801ely wit.h exirstinq leqal IlInd administrative proc:edures relatinl1 to the qUl'!'l!ltlor of hlB natlonll1ity. They 8hould therefore be kept sep.'!Il'ate. " S. With reQftrd to the l'lleqed violationlK of articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant, thl" StiltCl' ~artv noted thlilt t ',e IHlthor had offered no justification in support of hiA alleqations. It furthl.t' noted that it f,dled to see how the author could have been 8uhjected to inhuman and deqradinq treatment or subjected to attack", on hio honour and reputation in connection with the leqal proceedinqs before t.he Trlbunal de qrande instance of Bobiqnv, the purpose of which "'8S to rest,lve the complex leqal problem of hi8 nationality IlInd to do Ba a, his own request. In alleqinq violations of articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant in th~8 respect, the Stlllte party affirmed, hI'! wa8 in error.
Finlllllv, the State party emphasized that, contrary to what the author would appear to maintain, no provision of the Intel:national Covenant on Civil and Political Riqhtfl obllqed a State to confer natl'''lallty on inlHviduals who applied for it. It relt.erated that the riqht of every State to determine who were its national8 so fill' as its international ohliqations were concerned waB an uncontested principle of public international lllw. R.7 by a let.ter date(] i8 MIHeh 1986, the llIuthor Informed the Committee that the Tr Ih\lll<ll ele qrllnde iostance of Roblqnv had handed down a decl810n in the case on 13 March 1901>, t'lenylnq him recoqnltion of French nat:lonllllitYJ thlllt he had rUed an Itppeal aqlllllA1: th.'llt declAlon lInd that he intended, "HI III last re80rt, to brin<l hin ea8e before the COIJr dp. caA!\lItlon, If AO warranted. -179-
The Commlttee notes that the State pl'lrty has m~intllll.neoc1 th"t the Inquiries that were conducted durinq the vlIriou8 proceedinqs I' evelll1 lIt<i thll there were r10uhtn not only 1Il8 to the l'uthor'd civil statu6 (date and plllCt of hlrth and pllrentllqe), but also with reqard to t,is actual Identity in relation to other individUl'Ill'I h»vinq the !lllme n~me and that thEr8e queHtions tutd of necessity to be settled before a decision could he taken in rl~l'Ipect of toe llllthor's nationllllity (see para. 4.4). The Com;l'ittep. further notf~fl the Stdte Pluty's assertion thlll\: the allthor hl'lA not exhausted a11 the ,1......'hestlt.: remeodi"/f aVlIilahle before the competent French adminl.strCltive andludicidl autho.itial'l, not only with reqard to the tRIlU~nq of 11 certificate of French r.ittioOlllity bv the l' 'le d' instance (ar.t. 149), but 11180 with rElqard to the procedur(> for the restorat ion of French nationali ty (art. 15.3 of the N'.ltiona1ity Code) (Ae'! para. 4.7). 9 • . The Committee observee that the present elloe conCerne eol~ly Mr. H.S.'s effort.8 to have hi8 nlJtionality, liS that of a French ct tiMl:Il, recoqnh:ed anew by the Frfmch ,".mthoritie8. If.S. llIlIintlllins that his nationality "'.8 not in disputt': when he e"t-ercd Fumce. Later, on 23 M.9rch 1976, the Minlllitry of JU9tice ma,je it known that H.S. 8hould be reqllrded as It foreiqner. He Wl!I8 required to l1ucrendt'!'r two c4!'rtH'iclItes of French nationalit.y, illfiued to him in 1967 and 1973, [&soectively, ~nd to han~'i in hts nat 10nal identity card. After l'nsucceRsful attempt8 to perauade the Ministry of Justice to "restore" his French nl'ltion~lity and lo obtain a new "certificlIte of neotionality' from the ,~ompetent jl,clqe, If.S., in l.uquat 1979, appl ied to the Trihunal (1e Qrande instance of Bvhiqnv for "recoqnitiofl" of hia French nationality. Upon completion, those proceedinqs are ztppealable, first, to the Cour d'appl!l and, secondly, to the Cour de ClIs8atiol ••
'rhe Committee is aWIHe that the proceedinqlJ befor" th" 're lhunal de qt&nde in8tance of Bobiqny lasted for more than six and a half ·yoarll. However, the Committee finds that the delays in the proceedinqs in 1984 Ml'~ 1985 were cllul1ed by the author himself. For that leason the Committee is unllhlo to conclude thllt t:.e dome8t1c remedi~e, which, I\ccordinq to both pllrtieB, ate ill proqrest•.• have been urlduly pro1onqerJ ill 1I manner that would exempt the- author {rcAI! exhllu8tlna th~m under article 5, pnrl!lqraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. ~/ 9.') In the lIqht of the ohserv,Jitions set OlJt in paraqrllpha 9.3 and q.4 lIbove, the COInmittee in obliqed to conclude that, t'Pve" a89uminq chat th~ facta of th~ clIse miqht have raiaM iRSllflS under the Covenant, the requirem~.'rIt of exhallHt.ion of domestic remedies, I'fldel" llIrticle S, pl!lfaqr.ilIph 2 (ll). of the Optional Protocol, hed not been blat by the illJthor at the timt' of tht' 8ubmilll'lion of thf~ Gomml1ot~at1on in September 1984 and thl'lt thiR requirement hltR still not bef!o mt"t. ··180··
'I'hl!! Human RlqhtR Committee therefore ~~.: Th"t the <~mmunicllltion 18 Inadmit'lRi hIe,
That the decision 8hall he communlcsted to the iluthor 4n<1 to the Stllt.~
party. NoteI'; !V' The Committee notes that althouqh there lA Itqreement between the parties thst the court proceedinqB (or the "recoQnition" of the author'" nationality were initiated in IIJ79 IDnd are 8tll1 in prOQreBS. the pllrtiel'l do not aqree on the Question of whether lhe separate administrative proce<iure for the "restoration" of the authOr's n~tion1l1ity was invoked hy him in 1984. ··181·