INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS SUBSEQUENT TO ADMISSIBILITY DECISION SIXTH SESSION Communication No. 5/1977 Submitted by: Moriana Hernández Valentini de Bazzano on 15 February 1977 Alleged victims: The author, Luis Maria Bazzano Ambrosini, Martha Valentini de Massera and José Luis Massera State party: Uruguay Date of decision: 18 April 1979 (sixth session) Request to State party for additional information under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol to have occurred in respect of the treatment of Luis Maria Bazzano Ambrosini, Martha Valentini de Massera and José Luis Massera. The State party is re­ quested, in this connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration; The Human Rights Committee decides: 1. That the State party be informed that the Com­ mittee does not consider that its submission, dated 16 November 1978, is sufficient to comply with the re­ quirements of article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, since it contains no explanations on the merits of the case under consideration; 2. That, to fulfil its obligation under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party be requested to supplement its submission by providing, not later than six weeks from the date of the transmittal of this deci­ sion to the State party, observations concerning the substance of the matter under consideration, and in par­ ticular on the specific violations of the Covenant alleged 3. That upon receipt, the State party's supplemen­ tary submission under article 4 (2) of the Optional Pro­ tocol be transmitted to the author of the communication under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure of the Committee, who may, within four weeks of the date of the transmittal, submit any additional observations to the Committee, in care of the Division of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva; 4. That this decision be communicated to the State party and the author. TENTH SESSION Communication No. 24/1977 Submitted by: Sandra Lovelace on 29 December 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision: 31 July 1980 (tenth session) Minorities—Indian Act—Sex discrimination—Right to marry—Protection of the family—Right of residence—Request to author and State party for specific information to enable Committee to form­ ulate views 1978, 28 November 1979 and 20 June 1980, is a 32-yearold Canadian citizen of Indian origin, living in Canada. She was born and registered as a "Maliseet Indian" but lost her rights and status as an Indian, in accordance with Section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act, after having married a non-Indian on 23 May 1970. Pointing out that an Indian man who marries a non-Indian woman does not lose his Indian status, she claims that the Act is discriminatory on the grounds of sex and contrary to ar­ ticles 2 (1), 3, 23 (1) and (4), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. As to the admissibility of the communication, she con­ tends that she was not required to exhaust local remedies since the Supreme Court of Canada, in The Attorney-General of Canada v. Jeanette Lavell, Articles of Covenant: 2, 3, 23, 27 Interim decision' 1. The author of the communication dated 29 December 1977, supplemented by letters of 17 April ' Pursuant to rule 85 of the provisional rules of procedure, Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky did not participate in the consideration of this communication or in the adoption of this interim decision. 31