Communication No. 829/1998 Submitted by: Roger Judge (represented by Eric Sutton) Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Declared admissible: 17 July 2002 (seventy-fifth session) Date of adoption of Views: 5 August 2003 (seventy-eighth session) Subject matter: Extradition to a country where complainant faces execution 2.3 On 15 June 1993, the author was ordered deported from Canada. The order was conditional as he had announced his intention to claim refugee status. On 8 June 1994, he withdrew his claim for refugee status, at which point the deportation order became effective. Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Non-substantiation of claim - Review of facts and evidence Substantive issues: Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment - Right to life - Right to have one’s sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal - Effective remedy - Obligation to seek assurances that death sentence will not be carried out upon return to country of origin 2.4 On 26 January 1995, on recommendation of the Correctional Services of Canada, his case was reviewed by the National Parole Board which ordered him detained until expiry of his sentence, i.e. 8 August 1998.2 2.5 On 10 November 1997, the author wrote to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requesting ministerial intervention with a view to staying the deportation order against him, until such time as a request for extradition from the United States authorities might be sought and received in his case. If removed under the Extradition Treaty, Canada could have asked for assurances from the United States that he not be executed. In a letter, dated 18 February 1998, the Minister refused his request.3 Articles of the Covenant: 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7; 10 and 14 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 3 Finding: Violation (article 6, paragraph 1, alone and, read together with article 2, paragraph 3) 1. The author of the communication, dated 7 August 1998, is Mr. Roger Judge, a citizen of the United States of America, at the time of the submission detained at Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Québec, Canada, and deported to the United States on the day of submission, 7 August 1998. He claims to be a victim of violations by Canada of articles 6, 7, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.6 The author applied to the Federal Court of Canada for leave to commence an application for judicial review of the Minister’s refusal. In this application, the author requested a stay of the implementation of the deportation order until such time as he would be surrendered for extradition, and The facts as submitted by the author 2 As later explained by the State party, pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, a prisoner in Canada is entitled to be released after having served two thirds of his sentence (i.e. the statutory release date). However, the Correctional Services of Canada reviews each case, through the National Parole Board, to determine whether, if released on the statutory release date, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the released prisoner would commit an offence causing death or serious harm. Correctional Services of Canada did so find with respect to the author. 2.1 On 15 April 1987, the author was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime, by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On 12 June 1987, he was sentenced to death, by electric chair. He escaped from prison on 14 June 1987 and fled to Canada.1 2.2 On 13 July 1988, the author was convicted of two robberies committed in Vancouver, Canada. On 8 August 1988, he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The author appealed his convictions, but on 1 March 1991, his appeal was dismissed. 3 As later explained by the State party and evidenced in the documentation provided, the Minister informed the author that there was no provision under sections 49 and 50 of the Immigration Act to defer removal pending receipt of an extradition request or order. However, in the event that an extradition request was received by the Minister of Justice, the removal order would be deferred pursuant to paragraph 50 (1)(a) of the Immigration Act. An extradition request was never received. 1 The author states that the mode of execution was subsequently changed to execution by lethal injection. 85