The author of the communication (initial letter of 13 August 19U5 anti Bubsequen-t, letters of 19 December 1985, 25 March and 10 June 190(,) is S. 11. 1)., a Canadian naturalized citizen born in I!:gypt in 1942, at pr.oeent pr:acti~ing medl~ille in the llrovince of Alberta. He su.)mlto the cOllUlluni,cation in hiD own name and 011 behalf 01' his Don A. H., born in Apr 11 19"16 in Ca, ..lda. lie allegoD violations of articles 2, 3, 7, 0, 14, 15, 23 and 26 of the International Covenant Oil Civil and Political Rights by federa), and provincial authorities in Canada.
'i'he authol: states that he was married to J. M. B., a Canadian nurse, on 20 January 1976, because of her advanced pregnancy; tlleh' eon A. wa& born .leus than three monthu later. As a result ot: marital diBllgreemonts and tl1e husuand'o allegations of Ilmental cruelty", the spouses wore sepluated by a sopat:ation agreemont of December 1977, and divot'cod in June 19U2. 1J.'ho authol" s cOllununkaU,on concerno alleged violations of his r ighto under the COVeMl1t dut'll1g the divorce proceedings, in particular in connection with the lower court's decioion to grant custody of the c~IUd to the motaler under the Canadian Uivorce Act, to award hor alimony and child auppOl't in the amount of $UOO per month and to div ido JlI..ltt'imonial property on the basis of a retroactive application of the new Matrimonial t>roperty Act of the Province of Albert~. Such dispositions allegedly constituted a gross abuse of judicial discretion by the jUdge concerned of the 'l'r ial uiviuion of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.
In particular, the author claims to be a victim at: violations 01:': (a) Article 2 of the Covenant, because "Canada failed to ellDur ..... that therl:t ie an effective remedy to the violation ot: my human rights, notwithotanding that the violations have been committed by pet'sous ao\:ing in an off.icial capacityll; (c) Articl~·/, because the Matrimonial Property Aot whioh gives judgOH "absolute and unchallengoable diacretionar\' powersll exposed him to "cruel, inhuml'n and deqndinq tlfta.~ment" by Bubjeoting him IIto tho whimo of the ju<1qe, and hia projudicos", (d) (,r~iula 8, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, beoause III am, in effeot, held ip 8ervlludtC' C(W an indefinite period of time, to my ex-spouse. 1 am foroed to provido lu"ury to my ex-epouue, witho"t any provieionu whatsoever r~r tho discontinuation of this state of servitude", (0) Article 14, because he wall tried "before cs tribunal, whoso competencu and impartiality are in very grave doubt ll , (f) Article 15, because of the retroactive application to him of the Matdmonial Property Act, (9) Article 23, paraqrut>h 4, because Canada haD failed to "take appropl'iate Htopa to ensure equality of righta and rospollalbiUtioEl of spouaea as to maniago, durinq marriago, and at its dissolution", ao manifested by G "systematic denial of fathor I' rights by tho oourts of Canada generally, and Alhorta specially", (h) Article 26, becauue "there exists in Canada, at preaent, a rampant and blatant diocrimination againot men at the diBBolutlon of marriage".
'l'he author furthor argues thut tho qrantinq of unrelltriutod and unchallenqoable discretiolllJry power:G tn judgos in matters of division of matdmollial proporty and awul'uing of child custody goou 11tOt'ally liquinut tho ouoonco of juutice. IIIf the purpoae of all lawa ia to pl'oteet one human ft'on1 the arbitrary wi 11 of anoth()l', then the idea of awarding 11 judgo utlL'eotrlcted anti unchllllonqoable di8cretionary powers aUlounta to auoponllion of the rule ot' 11'lW in favour of the r..ale of tho individual. The unrestricted discretionary power ot: judqes 18 liteully againct the intent and the purpouoa of the entire International Covenant 011 Civil and Political IHghta, llnd is indeed unconstitutional according to the Canadian Chartel' of IHqhta." In hiu own caue he claimu that tho trial judge "hol' boon uexist and raciat", pouuibly booauoe tho l1uthoa: is of Egyptian ol'iqin und hia ox-wife wao born and raiaed in the trial judqo'u homo town. :l. With roqar<1 to tho exhauotion of domeutlc rOlllod iuu, the author: Btaten that he haD uppoalod to the Supremo Court of Albet·t3, but that tho court of appoal ret'uoOtl to investigate tho trial judge's use ot: diacretion, and that no written reneone wOl'(~ q lYen for l'et:using to confJider the appeal. 'l'he author has allJo audre880d himnolf to the Chief Justice ot: Alberta, the Judicial Council, the Minister oS! Juotioe of Canada, tho Miniotor of Juet!ce of Albol'ta, am) the Provincial Ombudur,lan of Alberta, without succoau, because the 1udge's power of diacrotion io conoidered hoyond challonqe and thus no inve9tigatiOllf' were conducted. The author imHcat,eo that he could otill make an appeal to til~: preme Court 01: Canada, but oxplaino that. tliiu would not be a practical option becauae the main iuoue i8 the judqo's use of diRcrotion and the current law provides that the 1udge hao absolute diBcretion in matteul of awarding chi id custody /lnd diviaion of mnt:r imoni~\l propert.y, and thus
uy its daciaio" of 15 OCtober 1985, the Workinq Groull of the lIuman Righta Committee transmitted th~ oOllullunication to the Stat" party conc~rned, under rulo 9~ of t,he Couu\\ittee's l>l:oviaional rules of procedure, raqueatinq information and obaol'vationa relevant to the quaation of admiasibUlty of the cOlumunioat1();l. 'l'he Working Group alao requestad thtl Iluthor to provide oladficlition of hie; l:lU~qatiOlI that alllloal prooeecUngs before the Supreme Court of Canada would be unduly prolonged and not: conatitute an effective remedy.
In his aubmladon dated 19 Oecemuor 1985 the author refers to the time factoL' and indicates that it took no leas than fOUL" and a half yeara for hit:! case to COIllO t'o cOllrt. 'l'hia period inoluded a ye~..: of waiting before Pl'OCOQ<Unqa could at~lL't, and another year of waiting \lntH th" Amious Curiae completed Ilia report which waB handt.>O to him leas thtUl a week bufol'Q the date ot: the trial, thUD prooludinq allY efhotive t>rofesulonal challenge to the oonoluaiono of the report. It took al'l,roximately two more yoa,s of wat tinq ~ntll the ApJ>ollatu Uivhioll of.' tho HUPl'OII\( Court of J\lberta hearc.1 his ctUUt and diomisuod it, without qivillfJ allY wr iUon ('lauona. lie further statell thata "Utigants in Canada do not have a right to appoal to thu Suprome Court of Canada. At-poalu may b8 hear:d only an,vr applioation f.'or lea~e to appoal iu mado to, and qrantod by, the Supreme Court ot: Canada, whioh Iilay rofuoo without qivinq any ruasona, to hear any al'peal. This ls more likely to happon wholl the 1)L")vlnc1al Appeal CouX't '80111ion iu - aa in lily \H,yn - ummimoulJ ••• 1 have it "n q(~)(] Quthority thltt, aven if loave to 8ppoal ia qnmted by tho SuvrulIIo Court of Canada. tho waiting would bo no lQua thltn two ye8':U and vory likely, four YQarlJ or illOr.".
t1'he Quthor again drawY attantion to tho fltctual oituation, r'mallinq thut. "10qa1 tteparation betwaan lily "X-dpO~YO and lIIy"4lH occun:ud when my son,
With L'eqard to the authoL" a alatm conoerning ouatooy, the State llCu'ty l')()ints out that while he al)(,oa18d to the COurt of Al)lleal of Alberta on the ieauQIii of liulintenamJo and division of matdillollial pa:Ol>QL'ty, he did not apueal on the iaaue ot' ouatody, althoutlh he oould havo done so puraucmt to the Alb~u'ta Judicature Aut of 1900. MOL'OOVQr, thu State oontenda that the author haY not aubatallttated hia all~at:1on that the ouatody ruling untailod viollitiolla of artiolea 7, 14, 23 and 26 of the Covonant. 'l'he fa·.,t that women Are mOL'e ofton awarded ouatody or. ohU('Iren UllOU divoroo ia inout:fioiont oubatantiatlon. 1). With rQ9urd to the olaim that artiole 2, ptu:aqrlipha 1 to 3, and Iu:tiolu J of the Covenunt have buau violated, tha Statu lllHty uubmita that althou9h these pL'ov1aiony aL'e relovant to a determination of whothor othur: artioles of the Cov~nant have boon violat9d, thoy aw not oapuble of indopo"dont violation in t,hot,l' own l'19ht. 1). With L'uqtu:d to lIitlintolUlIloo alld cHvh.1on of property, tho Statu l),U:ty noteY that the author huy fuU~d to ueuk l.Ol:lVQ to al11)Oal thfJ judqomont of the AlbertA Court of Apl'oal to the Supt:ame COUl't ot: Canada. It 18 aubmitted that leava to tll)llUlil in at luaat 18 muintonlinoQ alld/or matrimonial prOl)urty callou hail boen qL'lantud I,)y tho tJUpl'QIIlO Court of Caraada IJinuu 1975 and that, in oiqht of these oallQO tho uppoal wuu ullowod. 'l'huu, "lul:ive to uppoul to thu Supremo Court of Canada on thoau IllUtture iu an oUoctiVQ and uuft!1oient domoutio romcdy, alt:houyh of counv tho rol.at1vQ IIIQdto ot! thu ualiSo will affeut the likol1hooc) of reUef buin~ yt:",ntQd. Curtain uulayy ",r:o inovital,)ly inlFolvod in invokinq tho appol1ato jur!ucHotioll of tho hiqhuut court of uny oountr:y, but Canlldu uubmita that the timo p... r1od~ involveu in procuQCHnCjD bufol'O tho Uupl'umu COU1't of Calludu ilL'" not untoward ill thiu ruyard, "ud that thoy ~t:o leaDt projudicil!Al in matturw ouoh ill' tho prOuullt, invo1,villC:l uololy finullcilAl "lid pl'o(lOrty intol'oHt.n." 5." 'l'ho Stuto pat'ty I:tluo uonttmdo that t:.hu author hUll not uubatantiatod hh I:llluqut ionu concol'ninld viollltionu by ClInuJ" of tho follow\nq proviuionu ot' thu Covunant. (u) !\]:t1o!-u_I' It ia 8ul,)mittoc) that the authur hau not l>L'ovidoo any uubatanthtion of hia ul",,1II1 to huvo boon oubjoctud to torture 01' CL'UOl., inhuman or duql'adin~ tL't)utment: con\:t:aL'y to uL'tiolQ 7 or tho Covonant. 11\ particular, it la uontunuud that ill Ol'uor to uubutant1uto thha clubl, it in not uut:Cioiul\t t!or tho authm' to allo~o that ho huu ooon L'04Ui l'od tu pay La total ,r ~OOO a month mtlintonunllo to} hiu t!Ol'lllUl' wHo anti child, Ok: that ho WIlU l'oquh'oc' to pay l:ho l.ullll) flUlll of $:.n,OtJb to hiu tUl'lllor wito upon divOl:UO' (h) !\l't-,~~,lo..!. It tu Hiltli lady lIuhlllitttll't tllat thu above UllOtllltiotl provido8 no fJuhutuntiution of the clailll that hiu dtlht not to bo hold in uorvitudo l)UrH~jjnt to uL'tiulo 8, puruq.:uph 2 otl tho Covcmant huu boon Viu.llltuu, (u) ~~J:_.!~_~__l:.! It iu tlubmitt:nd that thol't hU:J lxwn IlU Hubotantiation of the (:1ahll by tho lJuthul' t:hu .. thu tk'lal 1utltlo WIHJ hiaooo 01' illColllputont in awarding '000 /1 month 1n llIui.ntonuuc.m to hiu t:orlllor wHo and ddlt'i, CH' 1n qrul\tinq hio former: wif~ i.i lUlUp Hum paymollt ut: $:n,Ub6 upon divon:e. H, ht i\ltlurl'iGiunt tu lllloqe that all ill a violation of! artiolu 15 of the Covenant. Indeed, it 1a olear that the faotu 01' thh case fall outsiue the ambit of artiole 15, ainoe it applies to the oriulinul rathoL' than the oivil pL'OUOSS' (0) Artiole 23, para~p:allh 41 It ia submitted that there has boau no aubatantiation of! tho author' a olaim that the uu!alntentinoe and division of pk:oporty awarda violate artiole 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. In pcrtioular, 1t la submitted that it ls necessary in theaa matters for judgoa to be granted It certain d1acrution, ~nd that ill any ovent the diaeration is not an unfetterad one in Canada, (f) ~rtk:.le 26. It la eubmitteu that there haa boen no substantiation of the alleqation by the author that the maintenanoe and diviaion of prol~rty award of tho trial judge violated art1o!e 26 of the Covenant. In l'~l't1oular, no evidenoo has ueen providod ot: any dioua: illlination on the basltJ of raue or aex in the (>artioular c!L'oumatanoeo of the author' a oaee.
In his OOhlluenta oa: 25 Maroh and 10 June 1906, the author states that if the ConuilitteQ roquiroB additional doounlontary oubstantiation, he wUl undertake to provide it. But, in the light oa: the (.'xtanllive liIubmisaions and exhibity already proaented, tho Gutho, believes that au~fioient ~ubatantiation hae been l>rovidod to havQ the oase d.aolarod admissible Gnd to warrant fUL'ther examination on the mer its by the CommittQQ. In 1>lutioular, he arguQs that "tho ooot uubatanUation oC thG alloCJotionu Ues in the Cull text of the trial trcHsodllt., as wol1 as other oU 10illl documenta, inoludlnq tho t.,Kt of examineation fot: d1Boovery and four al'f1davita aubmittod to tho Court of! QUO{tIl' 8 Denoh of Alberta ovor the oourse of ..overal yelue."
Z With r.-.qard to tho alleCJatiuna ol' violations by Canada of artiole 23, l)arllqrnph 4, Gnd urticlp 26 of the Covonont, thQ author ututQl;\ that, in GueHtlon to the evidence alrelJdy pr u vltJad, "there are nUIROrOUll QX()Ok't witne98ea who would nUl/lily tewtHy to th" udstullce o~ ramplJllt tloxisln, in my own OGUU tlllouif1oally, and in t.hu lJ')plQmentatlon of ohild ouutody and u1vhion of ffilitrimonial proporty lawlil, gonurally." uuwid\lf roit:.oratinq hiu alleqntionw of "tiItnciem &II\() raoiQm", the aut.hor uubmitlJ "that: judq&t;l ill Canada CltQ proteoted fro'" loyal aocoulltllbU1ty, cOl\tra..·y tu artlo1e 26." In thiu oonneotioh he oituu a rooont attolllpt lo Que lUomburu ot! tho eour:t ol' Appoal. '1'ho Mautor in Chwllooru diamisaod the utaim on tho bafJia that. "jueHoilJl noqUqonoe dOOM not conutituto a oause at! action at: the common law".
with roqard to tho Stato Pluty' M oontention that he hau not l'lxhauotod domootic nUllodhu, with t:eapuut to the iUMUO of oustody, Lho Quthor 8ubmitu that .. it hoa boun the unanimous advice or several legBl experts thlJt the awartUnq of ohild ouutody i9 entlr~ly within tho disoretirnl of tho judge" and that thMroforo an ~~~Ql to thu Court or Appool would 00 totally tlJtllo. no oould not, he arguua, obtain a now uvaluat.1on of the fac'tfii by the Court of Ailpoal, and the only pOBoibU ity of challQnqinq the lowor COUl't 'a docision would bo by outabUuhinq bias or miuuonduct on the pllrt: of the judqo or of! the Amicus Cudao. In pUl'suinq thiu "unconventional lllottllU", he roquoutQd the lJrovj'lcial Ombudsman in Alberta to oomluot an inveut lCJation into tho way the dopur:tmont 01' AlIlicU9 cudao in Alborta ht run. ol~X)rtunity tu prove my allegationa of biaa and denyin~ me the means to ask for a new trial on the issue of oustody. It 'l'he authot also forwards preBs reports rahowinC) that l'ooently lIIany other divoraed fathenl have unauccest!fully attempted to sue the Amious Curiae, but that the Master in Chambers (who ie not a judge) has blocked tho legal action, IIthus, denying oitizens of this province the fUI.~alllEmtal oonstitutional right of having their. cases detex:mined in ~O'Jl't.1I
The 8uth01' ooncludes that dOlll0St:iC ...omedies, to the extent that they can be oonsidered effectivo, have been exhausted. lie further emphasizea the time faotor IIsino~ tl ~ harm to my son cf)ntinUQD until a solution iD l'eachod. It
Before cOllsidering any olaims contained in a cUl'IlDlunication the lIumun lli9ht S Committee muat, in accordanoe with rule 87 of its proviaional rul08 of procedurfl, deoida whether or not it :la admi8siLJlo undor the Opt.ional Protocol to the Covenant.
'l'he Committee obaerve9 in thia [09peot, on the basis of Lhe ir." Jrmation available to it, that the author haa failed to pureue ...otnedios which tho State party has aubmitted worQ available to him, namely, an app~al to the Court of Appeal on the issue of custody and an applioation for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the 188ue9 of maintenance and division of matrimonial propm'ty. Tho COllllnitteo has notod tho author 'a bullot that t1 furthor &[)l'0al on the iaal,e of oustody would be futile and that a p1'ooQduro before tI'.o Supreme Court of Canada would entail a furtho1' delay. '1lho Committoe finds, howevQr, that, in lhe partioular ciroumstanoos disolosed by the communioation, the author's doubts about tho offeotivoneufJ of thooe romedios are not wlUrantad Ilnd do not abDolve him from oxhauut1llCJ them, as roquhod uy a1'Uclo 5, paragraph 2 (b), of tho Optional Protocol. Tho Committee acconHngly concludeD tl••t domolltic remQdieu have not boen oxhausted. u. 'l'he Human \{iyhts Conllllitt~o thol'uCot'O docidos,
'l'he cOlluuuniotttiotl io illli<]lllinniblo,
'l'hi1J uoui1Jit>1l uhall bo cOllllllunh:atoc1 to tllo lautho( llnd to tho &tato party.