Mr. Pinkney were contained in letters of 11 and 15 July 1979 and 21 and 22 February 1980. 7. From the information submitted by the parties, the following facts concerning these claims have been estabhshed: 5. Mr. Pinkney claims (a) that he is the victim of a mistrial in Canada in regard to the criminal charges brought against him, (b) that he has been prevented from appealing against the deportation order, which is due to come into effect upon his release from prison, and (c) that he has been subjected to ill-treatment because of his race. He alleges that, in consequence, the State party has violated articles 10 (1) and (2) (a), 13, 14 (1) and (3) (b), 16 and 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Larry James Pinkney was convicted by the trial court on a charge of extortion on 9 December 1976. Sentence of five years' imprisonment was pronounced on 7 January 1977. On 8 February 1977, Mr. Pinkney sought leave to appeal from his conviction and from his sentence to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. His appeal, however, was not heard until 34 months later. This delay, which the government of British Columbia described as "unusual and unsatisfactory", was due to the fact that the trial transcripts were not produced until June 1979 after the application for leave to appeal was made. Mr. Pinkney alleges that the delay in the hearing, due to the lack of the trial transcripts, was a dehberate attempt by the State party to block the exercise of his right of appeal. The State party rejects this allegation and submits that, notwithstanding the efforts of of­ ficials of the Ministry of the Attorney-General of British Columbia to hasten the production of the trial transcripts, they were not completed until June 1979, "because of various administrative mishaps in the Of­ ficial Reporters' Office". On 6 December 1979, that is 34 months after his application for leave to appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal heard the applica­ tion, granted leave to appeal and on that same day, after hearing Mr. Pinkney's legal counsel, (a) dismissed the appeal against conviction, which had been based on the ground that Mr. Pinkney had not been able to defend himself properly, because of the inability of the authorities to produce the missing briefcase and (b) ad­ journed the appeal against sentence sine die, to be heard at a time convenient for Mr. Pinkney's counsel. (a) The claims concerning the alleged mistrial 6. Mr. Pinkney's allegations relating to these claims are as follows: Prior to his arrest in May 1976, he had spent over three months in Vancouver compihng specific informa­ tion on alleged smuggling activities of certain East In­ dian Asian immigrants in Canada, involving smuggling out of Africa into Europe, Canada and the United States, with the complicity of Canadian immigration of­ ficials. He maintains that he was doing this work on behalf of the Governing Central Committee of the Black National Independence Party (BNIP) with a view to putting an end to these illegal activities, which he con­ tends were to the detriment of the economy of African countries. The author further indicates that, during the period prior to his arrest, he managed to establish con­ tact with a relative of the persons involved in the smug­ gling of diamonds and large sums of money from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zaire into Canada. He states that the relative revealed to him many details about her uncle's smuggling activities, that he recorded this information on tape, that he made copies of the let­ ters showing dates and amounts of transactions, names of people involved and other details and that he placed this material in a brief-case kept in a 24-hour public locker. He asserts that in one of the letters which was copied reference was made to a gift in cash to certain Canadian immigration officials for their assistance and also to the need to pay more money to a BOAC airline pilot for his help. The author maintains that he periodically informed the Central Committee of the BNIP and a security official at the Kenyan Embassy in Washington of his investigation by telephone and that he recorded these conversations and placed the tapes in the briefcase. The author maintains that after he was ar­ rested, in May 1976, the brief-case was discovered and confiscated by the роИсе and that the material necessary for his defence mysteriously disappeared before his trial. He states that these facts were ignored by the trial court, that he was accused of having used the informa­ tion in his possession with a view to obtaining money from the persons allegedly responsible for the smugghng, and that he was convicted on the basis of evidence which had been tampered with and distorted but which was nevertheless presented by the pohce and crown at­ torney. 8. According to the judgement of the Court of Ap­ peal dismissing the appeal against conviction, Mr. Pinkney, following his arrest, had directed police of­ ficers to a locker in a bus depot in Vancouver, from which they took, in his presence, two briefcases contain­ ing documents belonging to him. The State party con­ tended that the contents of these two brief-cases were not the subject of the controversy that arose, during the trial, when Mr. Pinkney asserted that a third briefcase has been kept at his residence, containing the documents which he maintained were of relevance to his defence. The authorities, however, disavowed any knowledge of the existence of a third brief-case. The Court of Appeal concluded that Mr. Pinkney's submissions concerning the third brief-case were too vague to support his con­ tention that it had existed. 9. With regard to these claims, the State party has argued that the author of the communication has not exhausted domestic remedies and that his claims in this respect should be declared inadmissible pursuant to arti­ cle 5 (2) Ф) of the Optional Protocol. It is submitted by the State party (a) that, if Mr. Pinkney continues to feel aggrieved by this most recent decision, he can, with leave of that Court, take a further appeal, on any ques­ tion of law, to the Supreme Court of Canada "within twenty-one days after the judgement appealed from is 13