itself, the Court's findings depended on an assessment of the information before them. However, it is not the function of the Committee to examine whether this assessment by the Courts was based on errors of fact, or to review their application of Canadian law, but only to determine whether it was made in circumstances in­ dicating that the provisions of the Covenant were not observed. grounds that until the missing briefcase and contents were produced, Mr. Pinkney's right to make full answer and defence was impaired. The trial judge refused this application. (a) The State party argues that "most if not all of the allegedly missing evidence was put before the trial judge and found not to be relevant or pertinent". It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Pinkney that there is no basis for this submission. While mention of the contents of the missing brief­ case was made at trial by Mr. Pinkney, this is hardly analogous to put­ ting this evidence before the trial judge. The only issue at trial was whether Mr. Pinkney had the intent to extort money. His defence was that he was for political reasons testing the veracity of information he had obtained, and that his method was to request money in return for the information. Clearly, the political motivations of Mr. Pinkney were extremely relevant, and if further evidence corroborating his evidence of political activity could have been produced, that may have been crucial. It is impossible to determine at this juncture what effect the presentation of all of Mr. Pinkney's evidence might have had on the trial judge's finding of credibility. 21. The Committee recahs that Mr. Pinkney was unable to convince the courts that such evidence would in any way have assisted his defence. Such a point is normahy one on which the assessment of the domestic courts must be decisive. But in any event the Committee has not, in all the information before it, found any sup­ port for the allegation that material evidence was withheld by the Canadian authorities, depriving Mr. Pinkney of a fair hearing or adequate facilities for his defence. (b) The State party further argues that Mr. Pinkney "failed to exer­ cise due diligence in order to obtain the allegedly missing evidence". It is respectfully submitted that this submission also is completely without merit and flies in the face of the evidence led at Mr. Pinkney's trial of the extensive efforts made by him to recover the missing evidence. It must as well be noted that Mr. Pinkney alleged that the missing briefcase was in the hands the police, and that from the date of his arrest until his trial, he was being held in custody at the Oakalla prison o n remand. It is submitted that it is remarkable that he man­ aged to make the efforts that he did to recover the missing evidence, and further that the evidence of the attempts made corroborate his allegations as to the vital nature of the missing evidence. The evidence led at trial indicating that the Vancouver police turned the black brief­ case in question over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for ex­ amination and indicating the interest shown by other agencies, in­ cluding Canadian Immigration and the American F.B.I, further cor­ roborates Mr. Pinkney's allegations concerning the nature of the evidence contained in the missing briefcase. 22. As regards the next aspect, however, the Com­ mittee, having considered all the information relating to the delay of two and a half years in the production of the transcripts of the trial for the purposes of the ap­ peal, considers that the authorities of British Columbia must be considered objectively responsible. Even in the particular circumstances this delay appears excessive and might have been prejudicial to the effectiveness of the right to appeal. At the same time, however, the Committee has to take note of the position of the Government that the Supreme Court of Canada would have been competent to examine these complaints. This remedy, nevertheless, does not seem likely to have been effective for the purpose of avoiding delay. The Com­ mittee observes on this point that the right under Article 14 (3) (c) to be tried without undue delay should be ap­ plied in conjunction with the right under Article 14 (5) to review by a higher tribunal, and that consequently there was in this case a violation of both of these provi­ sions taken together. 17. It is further submitted on Mr. Pinkney's behalf that the Government of British Columbia must be held responsible for delay resulting from mishaps in produc­ ing the trial transcripts and that the Court of Appeal itself, being aware of the delay, should also of its own motion have taken steps to expedite their production. 18. In its decision of 2 April 1980, the Human Rights Committee observed that allegations that a domestic court had committed errors of fact or law did not in themselves raise questions of violation of the Covenant unless it appeared that some of the re­ quirements of article 14 might not have been comphed with; Mr. Pinkney's complaints relating to his alleged difficulties in producing evidence in his defence and also the delay in producing the trial transcripts did appear to raise such issues. (c) The claims concerning alleged wrongful treatment while in detention 23. Mr. Pinkney alleges that he has been subjected to continual racial insults and ih-treatment in prison. He claims, in particular, (i) that prison guards insulted him, humiliated him and physically ül-treated him because of his race, in violation of articles 10 (1) and 17 (1) of the Covenant, and (ii) that during his pre-trial detention he was not segregated from convicted persons, that his cor­ respondence was arbitrarily interfered with and that his treatment as an unconvicted person was far worse than that given to convicted persons, in violation of articles 10 (1) and (2) {a) and 17 (1) of the Covenant. 19. The question now before the Committee is whether any facts have been shown which affected Mr. Pinkney's right to a fair hearing and a proper con­ duct of his defence. The Committee has carefuhy con­ sidered all the information before it in connection with his trial and subsequent appeal against conviction and sentence. 24. The State party asserted that the Corrections Branch of the Department of the Attorney-General of British Columbia undertook two separate investigations of the allegations of racial insults and on both occasions found no apparent evidence to support Mr. Pinkney's claims. Moreover, the State party maintained that these ahegations of the author appeared in the context of sweeping and numerous accusations of wrongdoing by 20. As regards the allegedly missing evidence, it has been estabhshed that the question whether it existed, and, if so, whether it would be relevant, was considered both by the trial judge and by the Court of Appeal. It is true that in the absence of the allegedly missing material 98