SIXTH SESSION Communication No. 15/1977 Submitted by: D. B. on 8 August 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on inadmissibility: 24 April 1979 (sixth session) entire judicial system of Canada is corrupt and that the judges, the members of the legal profession and the municipal authorities of Montreal have consistently flouted his rights under the law, in violation of several articles of the Covenant. Unsubstantiated allegations The communication, comprising the initial letter dated 8 August 1977 and subsequent letters dated 21 March and 25 December 1978, is submitted by D. В., a Canadian citizen who appears also to hold British and French nationality. From the material submitted by the author, it appears that he had, prior to the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for Canada, accumulated a number of fines, imposed for breaches of parking regulations, which he refused to pay. As a consequence, it appears, the author was repeatedly arrested, from 1975 to 1977, under warrants of arrest issued by the Municipal Court of Montreal, which meted out several sentences of pay­ ment of fines or imprisonment in lieu of payment of fines or for contempt of court. It further appears from the material submitted by the author that he has also been sentenced to imprisonment for refusal to pay ahmony to his ex-wife. Before considering a communication on the merits, the Committee must ascertain whether it fulfils the basic conditions relating to its admissibility under the Op­ tional Protocol. In this connection, the Committee has endeavoured to elicit from the author clarifications regarding questions of admissibiHty of the communica­ tion and the facts complained of. A thorough examination by the Committee of all the material submitted by the author, including his last sub­ mission, dated 25 December 1978, in response to the Committee's request for clarifications, has not revealed any precise allegations of fact in substantiation of the claim that he is a victim of violations by the State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. The author claims that the Municipal Court of Mon­ treal did not have competence to act in his case, that the Communication No. 20/1977 Submitted by: M. A. in December 1977 Alleged victim: Author's husband State party: S Date of decision on inadmissibility: 24 April 1979 (sixth session) Same matter under examination by failure to respond to Committee lACHR—Author's acknowledged that she has submitted her husband's case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (a) The author of the communication states that her hus­ band was arrested in S in September 1977, where he has allegedly been detained incommunicado, in spite of several attempts to remedy the situation, including the recourse of habeas corpus. The author claims that her husband is a victim of the prevailing situation in S, which allegedly reveals total disregard for the rights of persons arrested for political reasons. In this connec­ tion, the author lists several articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which have allegedly been violated in respect of her husband. The author was informed, in accordance with the Committee's decision of 26 July 1978, that the Human Rights Committee is precluded, under article 5 (2) {a) of the Optional Protocol, from considering a communica­ tion if the same matter is being examined by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. No response has been received from the author to the Committee's request that she clarify whether it is her intention to withdraw [the] case ... from the Inter-American Com­ mission on Human Rights. On the basis of the information before it, the Com­ mittee concludes that the same matter is under examina­ tion by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and that, therefore, the communication is inad­ missible pursuant to rule 90 of the Committee's provi­ sional rules of procedure. In its observations concerning the admissibility of the communication the State party observes, inter alia, that the alleged victim is a "wanted person", who has been sought by the S authorities since 18 January 1975, and further, that the same matter has been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. ... In this connection the author of the communication has The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. 20