munication alleges that before conviction Mr. Pinkney was housed in the same wing of the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre as convicted persons and that his mail had been interfered with, these allegations were not brought to the attention of the appropriate authority, namely the Corrections Branch of the British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney-General, in writing by or on behalf of Mr. Pinkney (though he made other complaints and therefore was aware of the procedure) until the Branch became aware of his letter to the Human Rights Committee on 7 April 1978. The State party therefore submits that Mr. Pinkney failed in this respect to exhaust all available domestic remedies, before submitting his claims to the Committee. Mr. Pinkney, however, has pointed out that he was in­ formed that an investigation had been made into his complaints by the Attorney-General's Office and that his charges were unsubstantiated. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. That the communication is admissible in so far as it relates to Mr. Pinkney's trial and conviction on the charge of extortion; 2. That the communication is inadmissible in so far as it relates to the deportation proceedings and the deportation order issued against Mr. Pinkney; 3. That the communication is admissible in so far as it relates to Mr. Pinkney's treatment at the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre on or after 19 August 1976; 4. That, in accordance with 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party shall be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matters referred to in (a) and (c) above and the remedies, if any, that may have been taken by it. The State party is requested in this connec­ tion to include details of any investigations which the Canadian authorities have made into the matters com­ plained of by Mr. Pinkney; 19. The Human Rights Committee does not accept the State party's argument that the author's complaint concerning alleged racial insults should be declared in­ admissible as an abuse of the right of submission. Moreover, his complaints now appear to have been in­ vestigated by the appropriate authorities and dismissed, and consequently it cannot be argued that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 5. That any explanations or statements received from the State party shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to the author of the communication, under rule 93 (3) of the provisional rules of procedure of the Committee, with the request that any comments which the author may wish to submit thereon should reach the Human Rights Committee, in care of the Div­ ision of Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, within six weeks of the date of the transmittal; 20. The Committee therefore finds that it is not barred, on any of the grounds set out in the Optional Protocol, from considering these complaints on the merits, in so far as they relate to events taking place on or after 19 August 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Canada). 6. That this decision be communicated to the State party and the author of the communication. 15