SEVENTH SESSION Communication No. 2/1976 Submitted by: L. P. on 25 November 1976 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on admissibility: 14 August 1979 (seventh session) tions of ill-treatment while in custody in Canada, he claims to have exhausted domestic remedies by filing a civil action on 6 August 1976 against the prison authorities concerned and the Government of the Pro­ vince of British Columbia. He states that this action was "terminated as moot", when the Minister of Justice let the extradition order stand. Extradition—Ill-treatment while in custody—Facilities for preparation of defence—Inadmissibility ratione temporis, personae et materiae—Exhaustion of domestic remedies Articles of Optional Protocol: 3 and 5 (2) (b) The author of the communication (initial telegram dated 25 November 1976, letters dated 4 December 1977 and 20 March 1978 and further submissions dated 14 July and 23 August 1978) is a North American native In­ dian, social worker, member of the American Indian Movement for National Liberation, formerly domiciled at the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, United States of America. He claims to have been unlawfully extradited from Canada to the United States on the basis of false evidence, fabricated either by the United States law enforcement agents in collaboration with Canadian Government officials, or by a Canadian Government official who, in accordance with an ad­ ministrative arrangement between the Governments of Canada and the United States of America, assisted the latter Government during the extradition proceedings. He also alleges that his extradition was unlawful, in­ asmuch as he claims that the Government of Canada should have rejected the extradition request of the United States of America, since the alleged acts on which it was based had taken place on the territory of the independent Lakota nation, whose sovereignty Canada has failed to recognize. He further alleges that during his detention in Canada from 6 February 1976 until he was extradited 11 months later (on 18 December 1976), he was subjected to ill-treatment and denied the opportunity to prepare his case for the extradition hear­ ings property. The author alleges that the facts complained of con­ stitute breaches by the State party of the following ar­ ticles of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights: articles 1 (1) and (3); 2 (1) and (3) (a); 3; 7; 9 (1); 10; 13; 14 (3) (b); 18 (1); 19 (1) and 26. The Committee observes that the author's reference to some of these articles seems to be secondary to the main com­ plaints, deriving from the same facts. The Covenant entered into force for Canada on 19 August 1976. By its submissions, dated 29 May 1978 and 7 March 1979, respectively, furnished in response to the Commit­ tee's request for information and observations relevant to the question of admissibihty of the communication, the State party rejects the allegations put forward by the author. In respect of the extradition proceedings, it denies any responsibility for the alleged false evidence introduced at the extradition hearings and observes that any evi­ dence adduced was submitted by or on behalf of the re­ questing State, the United States of America. It further rejects the contention that the Canadian civil servant, who, for the purpose of the extradition hearings acted on behalf of the United States of America in accordance with the terms of a bilateral treaty between Canada and the United States of America, had any part in the al­ leged fabrication of false evidence, or any reason to beheve that the evidence adduced was fabricated. The State party further observes that L. P.'s extradition was sought on five different counts and that four of these were regarded by the extradition judge as warranting committal. The alleged false evidence, consisting of two affidavits, purportedly made and signed by an eyewitness, pertained to two of the five counts, on the basis of which extradition was sought. These affidavits were introduced at the extradition hearings as evidence of murder of two agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, near Oglala, South Dakota, on 26 June 1975. Subsequent to the extradition hearing, a third affidavit, made by the same person, and preceding in time the two adduced at the hearings, came to light. This affidavit, which, for one reason or another was not tendered at the extradition hearings, although The decision ordering the author's extradition was rendered by the extradition judge on 18 June 1976 and upheld on appeal by the Federal Court of Appeal on 27 October 1976. The author thereupon addressed himself to the Minister of Justice, asking him to determine that the offences for which his extradition was sought were of a political character and to order, under the power granted him by law, that he should not be extradited to the United States of America. The Minister of Justice came to the conclusion that the author's extradition was not sought for political offences. The author claims that his appeal to the Minister of Justice exempted him from availing himself of the op­ portunity to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He thus claims to have exhausted domestic remedies, as far as his extradition was concerned. In respect of the allega­ 21