Supplementary submissions by the State party subsequently used to support a trumped up charge, despite all the lies told by Ms. Gascon. 6.1 In its submissions of 11 August 2003, the State party reiterates its position that the communication is inadmissible and, subsidiarily, unfounded. 5.3 With regard to the non-disclosure of the document, the author contests the State party’s arguments and points out that Ms. Gascon’s written statement was essential for his full answer and defence. Unlike the State party, the author considers that the evidence of the defendant’s criminal intent (mens rea) that emerges from this statement is relevant to the evaluation of his guilt. The author explains that while the complainant and the deputy prosecutor were able to prepare their strategies on the basis of the statement, the accused was deprived of this strategic information during the trial. The author explains that he would have been able to use the statement to cross-examine Ms. Gascon, not only on the “motive for the crime” and the dates of the events, but also on many other points, all of which, according to the author, would have been relevant in revealing the scope and gravity of Ms. Gascon’s false accusations. Furthermore, in his opinion, even though the written statement contains the two accusations of death threats which led to his conviction, this in no way justifies the fact that the document was, as he alleges, concealed from him. 6.2 The State party specifies that although the decision of the Minister of Justice cannot be appealed against, it is nevertheless subject to judicial review by the Federal Court, as is any decision taken by a “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as currently defined (since 1 February 1992) by the Federal Courts Act. A decision taken under section 690 of the Criminal Code may thus be the subject of an application for judicial review to the Federal Court of Canada under article 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. The Court may strike down the decision and return the case to the judge for a new decision if one of the grounds justifying its intervention is established (see paragraph 4.1). According to the State party, this is a remedy which could have given the author satisfaction. The State party adds that the Williams case, which is available on the Internet, clearly establishes the existence of a domestic remedy, and that the author cannot be excused for not having exhausted that remedy. 5.4 The author asserts that his case reveals an omnipresent sexism in Quebec’s policy with respect to conjugal violence. As president of the association “Coalition pour la défense des droits des hommes du Québec” and vice-president of the Groupe d’entraide aux pères et de soutien à l’enfant, the author says that he has identified numerous cases of men who have been aggrieved, particularly by the nondisclosure of written statements by women complainants, and that this demonstrates how the courts treat men. The author considers that the judges acted maliciously in his case by not disclosing the aforementioned document, truncating the author’s remarks and basing themselves on extreme feminist positions, under the overall protection of the Minister of Justice (who is a woman). Admissibility considerations 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 With regard to the complaint of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b) read together with article 2 (3), the Committee has taken note of the State party’s arguments concerning inadmissibility for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see paragraphs 4.1 and 6.2) and the author’s comments in this regard. The Committee notes that the author admits that he did not submit an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice of 7 May 2001 partly because of the excessive delay in taking the decision and partly because of the absence of public awareness of the jurisprudence in the Williams case, which the author further considers to be contrary to the Criminal Code (see paragraph 5.5). After examining the evidence in the file, the Committee considers, firstly, that the complaint concerning the excessive duration of the procedure under section 690 5.5 In his additional comments of 7 March 2003, 15 June 2003 and 26 October 2004, the author repeats his arguments concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, based essentially on the excessive delay in the decision of the Minister of Justice under section 690 of the Criminal Code. He adds that the Criminal Code does not provide for a right of appeal against that decision. Lastly, he asserts that the jurisprudence concerning applications for judicial review stemming from the case William R. v. The Honourable A. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is practically unknown, is not indexed and is in contradiction with the Criminal Code. 20