"Article 25. The act is justified if committed: "(1) Pursuant to a legislative provision or to a mandatory order given by a competent authority; "(3) By a person who has to save himself or another from a serious and imminent danger to the person which cannot be avoided in any other way, which is not the result of his own action and to which he is not exposed in the course of the exercise of his profes­ sion or occupation; "(2) By a person who is constrained to defend himself or another against a direct or wrongful act of violence against the per­ son, his honour or his property, provided that the defence is pro­ portionate to the attack; "The circumstances referred to in this subparagraph are pre­ sumed to exist in any case where a person during the night repels any person who climbs or forcibly enters the enclosure, walls, doors or windows of his dwelling or outbuildings, whatever the harm done to the attacker, or where a person finds a stranger in his dwelling, provided that in the latter case there is no justification for the stranger's presence in the premises and that the stranger offers resistance; "(4) By the members of the police force in the course of opera­ tions planned with the object of preventing and curbing the offences of extortion and kidnapping, and the production and processing of and trafficking in narcotic drugs". Article 2. This decree shall enter into force on the date of its enactment and shall suspend any provisions inconsistent therewith. For transmittal and enforcement. Done in Bogotá, D . E . , on 20 January 1978. Communication No. 50/1979 Submitted by: Gordon C. Van Duzen on 18 May 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of adoption of views: 1 April 1982 (fifteenth session) Lighter penalty—Parole—Mandatory supervision— Retroactivity of penal laws—Autonomous meaning of Covenant terms and concepts Articles of Covenant: 2 and 15 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 18 May 1979 and further letters of 17 Aprh 1980, 2 June and 11 June 1981) is Gordon C. Van Duzen, a Canadian citizen, who is represented before the Com­ mhtee by Professor H. R. S. Ryan. 2.1 The author alleges that he is the victim of a breach by Canada of article 15 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: 2.2 On 17 November 1967 and 12 June 1968, respec­ tively, the author was sentenced upon conviction of dif­ ferent offences to a three-year and a 10-year prison term. The latter term was to be served concurrently with the former, so that the combined terms were to expire on 11 June 1978. On 31 May 1971, the author was released on parole under the Parole Act 1970, then in force. On 13 December 1974, while stih on parole, the author was convicted of the indictable offence of break­ ing and entering and, on 23 December 1974, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years. By apphca­ tion of section 17 of the Parole Act 1970, his parole was treated as forfeited on 13 December 1974. As a conse­ quence, the author's combined terms have been calculated to expire on 4 January 1985.' In 1977 several sections of the Parole Act 1970, among them section 17, were repealed. New provisions came into force on 15 October 1977 (Criminal Law Amendment Act 1977). 2.3 According to the author the combined effect of the new law was that forfeiture of parole was abolished and the penahy for committing an indictable offence while on parole was made lighter, provided the indict­ able offence was committed on or after 15 October 1977, because, inter alia, pursuant to the new provi­ sions, time spent on parole after 15 October 1977 and before suspension of parole, was credited as time spent under sentence. Therefore, a parolee whose parole was revoked after that date was not required to spend an equivalent time in custody under the previous sentence. 2.4 The author aheges that, by not making the "lighter penahy" retroactively applicable to persons who have committed indictable offences while on parole before 15 October 1977, the Parhament of Canada has enacted a law which deprives him of the benefit of ar­ ticle 15 of the Covenant and thereby failed to perform its duty, under article 2 of the Covenant, to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdic­ tion the rights recognized in the Covenant and to take the necessary steps to adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights. 3.1 As regards the admissibihty of the communica­ tion the author claimed that in the present state of the law in Canada the benefit of article 15 of the Covenant could only be afforded to him through the royal prerogative of mercy, exercised by the GovernorGeneral of Canada on the advice of the Privy Council for Canada. A petition submitted by the author in this connection was rejected on 19 January 1979 denying the vahdity of the author's claim. It was explained that the relevant provisions in article 15 of the Covenant applied only where the penalty for an offence had been reduced by law, and since there was no suggestion that the ' This date appears from a correction submitted by the State party (19 February 1982), the date having earlier been given by the parties as 19 December 1984. 118