4. The author of the communication claims that there have been breaches of articles 15 (1), 9 (1), (4) and (5) and 11 of the Covenant. (a) Concerning the alleged breach of article 15 (1) tended to provide for the rehabilitation of the convicted person, in his own interest. The fact that, even in the event of remission of the sentence being earned, the per­ son concerned remains subject to supervision after his release and does not regain his unconditional freedom, cannot therefore be characterized as the imposition or re-imposition of a penalty incompatible with the guarantees laid down in article 15 (1) of the Covenant. (b) Concerning the alleged violation of article 9 (1), (4) and (5) 5.1 The author's principal complaint is against the introduction by the Parole Act 1970, in August 1970, after the commission of the punishable acts for which he was convicted, of a system of mandatory supervision for all prisoners benefiting from remission of sentence. However, the Committee is of the view that no action taken before the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party concerned can, as such, be judged in the light of the obligations deriving from the Covenant. Moreover, individuals may not criticize national laws in the abstract, since the Optional Protocol gives them the right to bring the matter before the Committee only where they claim to be victims of a violation of the Covenant. 6. The provisions of Canadian law under which a convicted person remains legally subject to deprivation of freedom until the expiry of the sentence, notwith­ standing the remission he may have earned, do not in any way affect the guarantees against arbitrary arrest or detention set out in article 9 of the Covenant. (c) Concerning the alleged breach of article 11 7. The argument that the legislation in force is con­ trary to article 11 of the Covenant is clearly groundless. The choice offered to a prisoner to accept release under the system of mandatory supervision or to continue to serve his sentence, does not result in a contractual obligation if the person concerned chooses release and signs the mandatory supervision certificate. It follows from the law itself that remission may be revoked if fur­ ther offences are committed during the period of super­ vision. 5.2 With regard to the actual implementation of the mandatory supervision, which might give the author cause for complaint, the Committee notes that the author has not yet served the two thirds of his sentence for which he is not entitled to remission and that in ad­ dition his release, due on 8 September 1982, depends on his good conduct up to that date. The mandatory super­ vision system is therefore not yet applicable to him. The possibility of the remission he has earned being can­ celled after his release is still more hypothetical. In the present situation, therefore, he has no actual grievance such as is required for the admissibility of a communication by an individual under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. In the light of the above, the Human Rights Committee considers that the claims of the author do not raise issues under any of the provisions of the Cov­ enant. The Committee therefore concludes that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and, in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, decides: The communication is inadmissible. 5.3 The Committee notes also that mandatory supervision cannot be considered as equivalent to a penalty, but is rather a measure of social assistance in­ FIFTEENTH SESSION Communication No. 79/1980 Submitted by: S. S. on 5 September 1980 Alleged victim: The author State party: Norway Date of decision on inadmissibility: 2 April 1982 (fifteenth session) Interference with privacy and home—Protection the law against interferences—Non-exhaustion domestic remedies. 2.1 The author complains that for over 20 years he has been the victim of relentless attacks upon his privacy by boys and youths in the town where he lives and that his repeated requests for protection and proper in­ vestigation have gone unheeded by the police. AH win­ dows on the ground floor and first floor of his house had been broken and he had given up on having them repaired and moved instead down to the basement, where he slept in a windowless room. Cars were fre­ quently parked in front of his house illegally in such a manner that he had difficulties entering and leaving his house. In anguish and desperation the author had on a of of Articles of Covenant: 2 and 17 Article of Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 5 September 1980 and further submission dated 16 November 1981) is a 77-year-old Norwegian na­ tional, Hving in Norway. He submits the communica­ tion on his own behalf. 30