various federal and provincial government officials and by the courts in Canada. It therefore submitted that these ahegations should be considered to be "an abuse of the right of submission" and declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. In so far as the communication alleged that before conviction Mr. Pinkney was housed in the same wing of the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre as convicted per­ sons and that his mail had been interfered with, the State party claimed that these allegations were not brought in writing to the attention of the appropriate authority, namely the Corrections Branch of the British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney-General, by or on behalf of Mr. Pinkney (though he made other com­ plaints and therefore was aware of the procedure) until the Branch became aware of his letter of 7 April 1978 to the Human Rights Committee. The State party therefore submitted that Mr. Pinkney had failed in this respect to exhaust all available domestic remedies before submitting his claims to the Committee. Mr. Pinkney, however, pointed out that he was informed that an in­ vestigation had been made into his complaints by the Attorney-General's Office and that his charges were un­ substantiated. vestigations he had ordered revealed no evidence to justify Mr. Pinkney's allegations. 27. Mr. Pinkney denies that he was ever interviewed personally about these complaints and objects that in­ quiries conducted by another department of the service complained against cannot be regarded as sufficiently independent. Mr. Pinkney has not, however, submitted to the Committee any contemporary written evidence of complaints of ill-treatment made by him and the Com­ mittee finds that it does not have before it any verifiable information to substantiate his allegations of violations of articles 10 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant in this respect. The Committee is not in a position to inquire further in this matter. 28. With regard to Mr. Pinkney's complaints that during his pre-trial detention he was not segregated from convicted prisoners and that his treatment as an unconvicted prisoner was worse than that given to con­ victed prisoners, the State party in its submission of 22 July 1981 has given the following explanations: A. Services to remand prisoners: In his 7 April 1978 letter to the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Pinkney alleges, without giving any specific example, that he was treated, as a remand prisoner, in a less favourable manner than was enjoyed by prisoners under sentence. It is inevitable that the treatment extended to remand prisoners will be regarded by them unfavourably when compared with that of sentenced prisoners, since the recrea­ tional, occupational and educational programmes offered to sen­ tenced prisoners are not available to remand prisoners in the light of the nature and anticipated duration of their incarceration. 25. The Human Rights Committee did not accept the State party's argument that the author's complaint concerning aheged racial insults should be declared in­ admissible as an abuse of the right of submission. Moreover, the Committee was of the view that the author's complaints appeared to have been investigated by the appropriate authorities and dismissed and conse­ quently it cannot be argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The Committee therefore found that it was not barred, on any of the grounds set out in the Optional Protocol from considering these com­ plaints on the merits, in so far as they related to events taking place on or after 19 August 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Canada). The fact that benefits identical to those available to convicted per­ sons are not available to remand prisoners does not mean that they are not treated, as required under article 10, paragraph 1, o f the Interna­ tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Like all prisoners, they can benefit from the physical and intellectual amenities offered by the Correctional Services, e.g. exercise, medical treatment, hbrary services, religious counseUing. It is true that they cannot avail themselves of certain programmes mostly destined to facilitate the social reinsertion of convicted persons. However, this does not, in the view of the Government of Canada, imply inhuman treatment or an attack on the dignity of remand prisoners. In fact, the contrary might be implied since these programmes aim to give effect to Canada's obligation to socially rehabilitate convicted individuals (Covenant, art. 10, para. 3). 26. According to the information submitted to the Committee by the State party, Mr. Pinkney's allega­ tions that he was insulted, humiliated and physically illtreated because of his race by prison guards while he was detained in the Lower Mainland Regional Correc­ tion Centre were the subject of inquiries on three occa­ sions by the Inspection and Standards Division of the British Columbia Correction Service. The first of these was in February 1977 following a complaint by Mr. Pinkney to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission when an inspector of the Division inter­ viewed him but concluded that Mr. Pinkney was unable to furnish sufficiently specific information to substan­ tiate his complaints. The second and third were in 1978 following Mr. Pinkney's communication to the Human Rights Committee when he was not interviewed per­ sonally as he had by then left the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre but his lawyers were con­ tacted and the Director of Inspection and Standards reported that, apart from one comment by a prison guard which was overheard by one of his lawyers and said to be "detrimental in nature or tone", the in­ B. Contact with convicted prisoners: On page 3 of his letter of 7 April 1978 and on pages 2 and 3 of his letter of 10 December 1980 to the Committee, Mr. Pinkney alleges that he was incarcerated at the Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre in an area of that institution which held sentenced prisoners while he was on remand status. The practice at the L . M . R . C . C . is for some sentenced prisoners in protective custody to serve as food servers and cleaners in the remand area of the prison. This arrangement is designed to keep them away from other sentenced prisoners who might cause them harm. The sentenced prisoners in the remand unit are not allowed to mix with the prisoners on remand except to the ex­ tent it is inevitable from the nature of their duties. They are accom­ modated in separate tiers of cells from those occupied by remand prisoners. The Government of Canada is of the view that lodging convicted prisoners in the same building as remand prisoners does not con­ travene article 10, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was recognized in the annotations on the text of the draft international covenant on human rights prepared by the Secretary-General of the L(nited Nations. In paragraph 42 of the said annotations, it was indicated that: "Segregation in the routine of prison life and work could be achieved though all prisoners might be detained in the same 99