(a) How many Indian women marry non-Indian men on an average each year? Statistical data for the last twenty years should be provided. Ф) What is the legal basis of a prohibition to live on a reserve? Is it a direct result of the loss of Indian status or does it derive from a discretionary decision of the Coun­ cil of the community concerned? (c) What reasons are adduced to justify the denial of the right of abode on a reserve? (d) What legislative proposals are under considera­ tion for ensuring full equality between the sexes with regard to Indian status? How would they affect the position of Mrs. Lovelace? How soon can it be expected that legislation will be introduced? (e) What was Mrs. Lovelace's place of abode prior to her marriage? Was she at that time living with other members of her family? Was she denied the right to reside on a reserve in consequence of her marriage? ELEVENTH SESSION Communication No. 29/1978 Submitted by: E. B. on 7 April 1978 Alleged victim: В (author's brother) State party: S Date of decision: 29 October 1980 (eleventh session) Request to author for specific information Committee to formulate views 3. That any submissions from the author of the communication or from the alleged victim pursuant to operative paragraphs 1 and 2 above should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within two months of the transmittal of this decision to the author of the communication; to enable Interim decision The Human Rights Committee, Noting the information submitted by the State party on 4 July 1980 explaining that В was released from detention on 5 January 1980 and expelled from S on 24 February 1980 bound for Spain, 4. That any information or observations received from the author of the communication or from the alleged victim pursuant to this decision be transmitted to the State party; Recalling that the communication was initially sub­ mitted to the Committee at a time when the alleged vic­ tim was detained in S, 5. That, subject to the receipt of confirmation from the author of the communication or from the alleged victim to the effect that they wish the Committee to pur­ sue the matter, the State party be requested to fulfil its obligation under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, by supplementing its prior submission of 4 July 1980 in the manner set out in operative paragraph 4 of the Com­ mittee's decision on 14 August 1979; Decides: 1. That the author of the communication be re­ quested to confirm that his brother, B, was expelled from S, that he is living outside that country and that he wishes the Committee to pursue the matter; 6. That any submission from the State party pur­ suant to operative paragraph 5 of the present decision should reach the Human Rights Committee within two months of the date of transmittal to it of information or observations pursuant to paragraph 4 of the present decision; 2. That subject to the confirmation sought in operative paragraph 1, the alleged victim be requested to acquaint himself with the contents of the submissions previously made on his behalf and the submissions made by the State party, with a view to: (a) correcting any inaccuracies which he may find in the submissions made on his behalf, Ф) commenting as he deems relevant on the submis­ sions of the State party, and (c) adding any further information which he may wish to place before the Human Rights Committee for consideration in his case; 7. That pursuant to rule 93 (3) of the Committee's rules of procedure, the author of the communication and/or the alleged victim be allowed six weeks to com­ ment on any submission from the State party; 8. That this decision be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. 39