ments on that point to maice. This fact, however, should not be considered as an admission of the merits of the allegations or the arguments of the author of the com­ munication. other hand, article 27 of the Covenant requires States parties to accord protection to ethnic and linguistic minorities and the Committee must give due weight to this obligation. To enable it to form an opinion on these issues, it would assist the Committee to have certain ad­ ditional observations and information. 5. In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol concerning the merits of the case, dated 4 April 1980, the State party recognized that "many of the provisions of the ... Indian Act, including section 12 (1) (6), require serious reconsideration and reform". The Government further referred to an earher pubhc declaration to the effect that it intended to put a reform bin before the Canadian Parhament. It none the less stressed the necessity of the Indian Act as an instrument designed to protect the Indian minority in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant. A definition of the In­ dian was inevitable in view of the special privileges granted to the Indian communities, in particular their right to occupy reserve lands. Traditionally, patrilineal family relationships were taken into account for deter­ mining legal claims. Since, additionally, in the farming societies of the nineteenth century, reserve land was felt to be more threatened by non-Indian men than by nonIndian women, legal enactments as from 1869 provided that an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would lose her status as an Indian. These reasons were still valid. A change in the law could only be sought in consultation with the Indians themselves who, however, were divided on the issue of equal rights. The Indian community should not be endangered by legislative changes. Therefore, although the Government was in principle committed to amending section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act, no quick and immediate legislative action could be expected. 7.3 In regard to the present communication, however, the Human Rights Committee must also take into account that the Covenant entered into force in respect of Canada on 19 August 1976, several years after the marriage of Mrs. Lovelace. She consequently lost her status as an Indian at a time when Canada was not bound by the Covenant. The Human Rights Com­ mittee has held that it is empowered to consider a com­ munication when the measures complained of, ahhough they occurred before the entry into force of the Cov­ enant, continued to have effects which themselves con­ stitute a violation of the Covenant after that date. It is therefore relevant for the Committee to know whether the marriage of Mrs. Lovelace in 1970 has had any such effects. 7.4 Since the author of the communication is ethnically an Indian, some persisting effects of her loss of legal status as an Indian may, as from the entry into force of the Covenant for Canada, amount to a viola­ tion of rights protected by the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee has been informed that persons in her situation are denied the right to live on an Indian reserve with resultant separation from the Indian community and members of their famihes. Such prohibition may affect rights which the Covenant guarantees in articles 12 (1), 17, 23 (1), 24 and 27. There may be other such effects of her loss of status; 6. The author of the communication, in her submis­ sion of 20 June 1980, disputes the contention that legal relationships within Indian famihes were traditionaUy patrihneal in nature. Her view is that the reasons put forward by the Canadian Government do not justify the discrimination against Indian women in section 12 (1) (6) of the Indian Act. She concludes that the Human Rights Committee should recommend the State party to amend the provisions in question. 8. The Human Rights Committee invited the parties to submit their observations on the above considera­ tions and, as appropriate, to furnish rephes to the following questions: (a) How many Indian women marry non-Indian men on an average each year? Statistical data for the last 20 years should be provided. (¿») What is the legal basis of a prohibition to hve 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? 7.1 In an interim decision, adopted on 31 July 1980, the Human Rights Committee set out the issues of the case in the following considerations: (c) What reasons are adduced to justify the denial of the right of abode on a reserve? 7.2 The Human Rights Committee recognized that the relevant provision of the Indian Act, although not legally restricting the right to marry as laid down in ar­ ticle 23 (2) of the Covenant, entails serious disadvan­ tages on the part of the Indian woman who wants to marry a non-Indian man and may in fact cause her to hve with her fiancé in an unmarried relationship. There is thus a question as to whether the obligation of the State party under article 23 of the Covenant with regard to the protection of the family is complied with. Moreover, since only Indian women and not Indian men are subject to these disadvantages under the Act, the question arises whether Canada complies with its com­ mitment under articles 2 and 3 to secure the rights under the Covenant without discrimination as to sex. On the (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 wiU 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? (/) What other persisting effects of Mrs. Lovelace's loss of status are there which may be relevant to any of the rights protected by the Covenant? 84