FOURTEENTH SESSION Communication No, 27/1978 Submitted by: Larry James Pinkney on 25 November 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of adoption of views: 29 October 1981 (fourteenth session) Procedural delays—Fair trial—Racial discrimina­ tion—Segregation of prisoners—Correspondence of prisoners against him, and (c) that he has been subjected to wrongful treatment while in detention. He alleges that, in consequence, the State party has violated articles 10 (1) and (2) (a), 13, 14 (1) and (3) (6), 16 and 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Articles of Covenant: JO (1) and (2), 14 (1), (3) and (5) and 17(1) Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 3. 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. 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 25 November 1977 and a further letter dated 7 April 1978 as well as numerous further letters received from the author during the course of the proceedings) 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 ac­ tivities of several pohtical 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 Interior for the Republic of New Africa (1970-1972) under the name of Makua Atana and, since 1974, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Black National Independence Party). He entered Canada as a visitor in September 1975. On 10 May 1976 he was ar­ rested by pohce authorities in Vancouver, British Co­ lumbia, on charges under the Canadian Criminal Code and remanded to the Lower Mainland Regional Correc­ tion Centre at Oakalla British Columbia, pending his trial on certain criminal charges. Because of his arrest his continued presence in Canada came to the attention of immigration officials and, consequently during the period when he was incarcerated at the Correction Centre, proceedings were taken under the Immigration Act to determine whether he was lawfully in Canada. These proceedings took place during the period between 21 May 1976 and 10 November 1976 when an order of deportation was issued against him. On 9 December 1976 he was convicted by the County Court of British Columbia of the charge of extortion and on 7 January 1977 he was sentenced to a term of five years' imprison­ ment. On 8 February 1977, he sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence to the British Col­ umbia Court of Appeal. He was transferred to the British Columbia Penitentiary on February 1977. On 6 December 1979 the Court of Appeal dismissed his ap­ peal against conviction and adjourned his appeal against sentence sine die. 4. The Committee also communicated its decision to Mr. Pinkney. 5. 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 Mr. Pinkney were contained in letters of 11 and 15 July 1979 and 21 and 22 February 1980. 6. On 2 April 1980 the Human Rights Committee decided: (a) That the communication was inadmissible in so far as it related to the deportation proceedings and the deportation order issued against Mr. Pinkney; Ф) That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to Mr. Pinkney's trial and conviction on the charge of extortion; (c) That the communication was admissible in so far as it related to Mr. Pinkney's treatment at the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre on or after 19 August 1976. 7. In its observations under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 21 October 1980, the State party submits that there is no merit to the author's allegations which were found admissible by the Committee and that they should therefore be dismissed. Further submissions regarding the admissibility and merits of the case were received in a note of 22 July 1980 from the State party and in letters of 10 and 22 December 1980 and 30 April, 24 June, 27 August and 18 September 1981 from the author of the communication and his lawyer. (a) The claims concerning the deportation order 2. Mr. Pinkney claims (a) that he had been denied a fair hearing and review of his case in regard to the deportation order, which is due to come into effect on his release from prison, (b) that he is the victim of a mistrial in regard to the criminal charges brought 8. The Human Rights Committee, having examined the further submissions regarding the admissibility of the communication, has found no grounds to reconsider its decision of 2 April 1980. 95