been imprisoned or disappeared. This statement by the author has so far not been contested by the State party. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the communica­ tion is not inadmissible under article 5 (2) ф) of the Op­ tional Protocol. This decision may be reviewed in the light of further explanations which the State party may submit under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, giv­ ing details of any domestic remedies which it claims to have been available to the alleged victim, together with evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective. tions or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it; 4. That the State party be informed that the written explanations or statements submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must primarily relate to the substance of the matter under consideration, and in particular the specific violations of the Covenant alleged to have occurred. The State party is requested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under considera­ tion; 5. That any explanations or statements received from the State party shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to the author of the communication, under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure of the Committee, with the request that any additional observations which he may wish to submit should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks of the date of the transmittal; 6. That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. That the communication is admissible as far as it relates to the author's brother, B; 2. That the consideration of the communication shall be discontinued as far as it relates to C, D and E, because of lack of information; 3. That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party shall be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explana­ NINTH SESSION Communication No. 27/1978 Submitted by: Larry James Pinkney on 25 November 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on admissibility: 2 April 1980 (ninth session) Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Compatibility of communication with Covenant—Abuse of right of submission—Alleged mistrial—Procedural delays—Alien—Author's failure to appeal against deportation order—Prison conditions—Control of prisoner's correspondence Canadian Criminal Code and remanded to the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre at Oakalla, British Columbia, pending his trial on certain criminal charges. Because of his arrest, Mr. Pinkney's continued presence in Canada came to the attention of immigra­ tion officials and consequently, during the period that he was incarcerated at the Correction Centre, pro­ ceedings were taken under the Immigration Act to deter­ mine whether he was lawfully in Canada. These pro­ ceedings took place during the period between 21 May 1976 and 10 November 1976 when an order of deporta­ tion was issued against Mr. Pinkney. Subsequently, he was convicted of the criminal charges against him and sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment. Articles of Covenant: 10 (1) and (2), 13, 14 (1), (3) and (5) and 17 Articles of Optional Protocol: 3 and 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 25 November 1977 and a further letter dated 7 April 1978) is a citizen of the United States of America who is serving a prison sentence in Canada. He describes himself as a black political activist, having been involved in the activities of several political organizations since 1967 (Black Panther Party (1967-1968), Black National Draft Resistance League (Chairman) (1969-1970), San Francisco Black Caucus (Co-Chairman) (1970-1973), Minister of the Interior for the Republic of New Africa (1970-1972) under the name of Makua Atana and, since 1974, Chairman of the Cen­ tral Committee of the Black National Independence Party). He entered Canada as a visitor in September 1975. In May 1976 he was arrested by poHce authorities in Vancouver, British Columbia, on charges under the 2. By its decision of 18 July 1978 the Human Rights Committee transmitted Mr. Pinkney's communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. 3. The Committee also communicated its decision to Mr. Pinkney. 4. The State party's submissions on the question of admissibility were contained in letters of 18 June 1979 and 10 January 1980 and further comments from 12