In my view, asking that question obviates the need for a response such as the Committee gives in this case concerning a violation by Canada of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to its Views. The Committee is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. The position adopted by the Committee on this point implies that it declares itself competent to consider the author’s arguments concerning a possible violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, as a result of irregularities in the proceedings taken against the author in the United States, a position identical to that adopted in the Kindler case (para. 14.3). APPENDIX In my view, while the Committee can declare itself competent to assess the degree of risk to life (death sentence) or to physical integrity (torture), it is less obvious that it can base an opinion that a violation has occurred in a State party to the Covenant on a third State’s failure to observe a provision of the Covenant. Individual opinion by Committee member Nisuko Ando concerning Committee’s admissibility decision on communication No. 829/1998 (Judge v. Canada) With regret, I must point out that I am unable to share the Committee’s conclusion set forth in paragraph 7.8 in which it draws attention of both the author and the State party and requests them to address the two issues mentioned therein which relate to articles 6, 7 and 2 of the Covenant. Taking the opposite position would amount to requiring a State party that called into question respect for human rights in its relations with a third State to be answerable for respect by that third State for all rights guaranteed by the Covenant vis-à-vis the person concerned. In its decision on admissibility of the communication the Committee makes clear that the communication is inadmissible as far as it relates to issues under articles 7, 10 (para. 7.4), article 6 (para. 7.5) and article 14 (5) (para. 7.7), and yet the Committee concludes that the facts presented by the author raise the two issues mentioned above. It is my understanding that in the present communication both the author and the State party have presented their cases in view of the Committee’s earlier jurisprudence on Case No. 470/1991 (J. Kindler v. Canada), because in those two communications the relevant facts are very similar or almost identical. The Committee’s line of argument in the present communication also suggests this. Under the circumstances I consider it illogical for the Committee to state that the communication is inadmissible in matters relating to articles 7, 10, 6 and 14 (5), on the one hand, but that it raises issues under articles 6, 7 and 2, on the other, unless it specifies how these apparent contradictions are to be solved. A mere reference to “the seriousness of these questions” (para. 7.8) does not suffice: Hence, this individual opinion! And why not? It would certainly be a step forward in the realization of human rights, but legal and practical problems would immediately arise. What is a third State, for example? What of States nonparties to the Covenant? What of a State that is party to the Covenant but does not participate in the procedure? Does the obligation of a State party to the Covenant in its relations with third States cover all the rights in the Covenant or only some of them? Could a State party to the Covenant enter a reservation to exclude implementation of the Covenant from its bilateral relations with another State? Even setting aside the complex nature of the answers to these questions, applying the “maximalist” solution in practice is fraught with problems. For while the Committee can ascertain that a State party has not taken any undue risks, and may perhaps give an opinion on the precautions taken by the State party to that end, it can never really be sure whether a third State has violated the rights guaranteed by the Covenant if that State is not a party to the procedure. In my view, therefore, the Committee should in this case have refrained from giving an opinion with respect to article 14, paragraph 5, and should have awaited a reply from the State party on the fundamental issue of expulsion by an abolitionist State to a State where the expelled individual runs the risk of capital punishment, since the terms in which the problem of article 14, paragraph 5, is couched will vary depending whether the answer to the first question is affirmative or negative. Individual opinion submitted by Committee member Christine Chanet concerning Committee’s admissibility decision on communication No. 829/1998 (Judge v. Canada) adopted on 17 July 2002 Unlike its position in the case of Kindler v. Canada, in this case the Committee directly addresses the fundamental question of whether Canada, having abolished the death penalty, violated the author’s right to life under article 6 of the Covenant by extraditing him to a State where he faced capital punishment, without ascertaining that that sentence would not in fact be carried out. For if an abolitionist State cannot expel or extradite a person to a State where that person could be executed, the issue of the regularity of the procedure followed in that State becomes irrelevant. I can only subscribe to this approach, which I advocated and had wished to see applied in the Kindler case; indeed, that was the basis of the individual opinion I submitted in that case. If, on the other hand, the Committee maintains the position adopted in the Kindler case, it will need to make a thorough study of the problem of States parties’ obligations under the Covenant in their relations with third States. 99