the author on expiry of his sentence and therefore had to deport him. The Committee takes the view that this response is unsatisfactory for three reasons, namely: (1) Canada deported the author knowing that he would not have the right to appeal in a capital case; (2) the speed with which Canada deported the author did not allow him the opportunity to appeal the decision to remove him; and (3) in the present case, Canada took a unilateral decision and therefore cannot invoke its obligations under the Extradition Treaty with the United States, since at no time did the United States request the extradition. Individual opinion (dissenting) by Committee member Hipólito Solari-Yrigoyen concerning Committee’s admissibility decision on communication No. 829/1998 (Judge v. Canada) I disagree with regard to the present communication on the grounds set forth below: The Committee is of the view that the author’s counsel has substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, his allegation that the State party has violated his right to life under article 6 and article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant by deporting him to the United States, where he has been sentenced to death, and that his claim is compatible with the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares that this part of the communication is admissible and should be considered on the merits. The Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol finds that Canada has violated its obligations under article 2 of the Covenant to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant because, when it deported the author to the United States, it did not take sufficient precautions to ensure that his rights under article 6 and to article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant would be fully observed. With regard to a potential violation by Canada of article 6 of the Covenant for having deported the author to face the imposition of the death penalty in the United States, the Committee refers to the criteria set forth in its prior jurisprudence. Namely, for States that have abolished capital punishment and that extradite a person to a country where that person may face the imposition of a death penalty, the extraditing State must ensure itself that the person is not exposed to a real risk of a violation of his 38 rights under article 6 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee requests the State party to do everything possible, as a matter of urgency to avoid the imposition of the death penalty or to provide the author with a full review of his conviction and sentence. The State party has the obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. The Committee notes that the State party’s argument in the present communication, that several additional review recourses were available to the author, such as filing a petition in the Court of Common Pleas under Pennsylvania’s Post-Conviction Relief Act, filing a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, making a request to the Governor of Pennsylvania for clemency, and appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Committee observes that the automatic review of the author’s sentence by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took place in absentia, when the author was in prison in Canada. Although the author was represented by counsel, the Supreme Court did not undertake a full review of the case, nor did it review the sufficiency of evidence, possible errors at trial, or propriety of sentence. A review of this nature is not compatible with the right protected under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which calls for a full evaluation of the evidence and the court proceedings. The Committee considers that such limitations in a capital case amount to a denial of a fair trial, which is not compatible with the right protected under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, and that the author’s flight from the United States to avoid the death penalty does not absolve Canada from its obligations under the Covenant. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers the State party accountable for the violation of article 6 of the Covenant as a consequence of the violation of article 14, paragraph 5. Bearing in mind that by signing the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant 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 State party is also requested to publish these Views. Individual Opinion (concurring) by Committee member Rajsoomer Lallah I entirely agree with the Committee’s revision of the approach which it had adopted in Kindler v. Canada in relation to the correct interpretation to be given to the “inherent right to life” guaranteed under article 6 (1) of the Covenant. This revised interpretation is well explicated in paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5 of the present Views of the Committee. I wish, however, to add three observations. First, while it is encouraging to note, as the Committee does in paragraph 10.3 of the present Views, that there is a broadening international consensus in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, it is appropriate to recall that, even at the time when the Committee was considering its views in Kindler some 10 years ago, the Committee was quite divided as to the obligations which a State party undertakes under article 6 (1) of the Covenant, when faced with a decision as to whether to remove an individual from its territory to another State where that individual had been sentenced to The Committee has noted the State party’s argument that there was no law under which it could have detained 38 Communication No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia; No. 706/1996, T. v. Australia; No. 470/1991, Kindler v. Canada; No. 469/1991, Chitat Ng v. Canada and No. 486/1992, Cox v. Canada. 100