Richard Isaac et al. v. Yvonne Bédard [1974] S.C.R. 1349, held that section 12 (1) (¿7) does not contravene the Canadian Bill of Rights and was, therefore, fully operative. within Indian families were traditionally patrilineal in nature. Her view is that the reasons put forward by the Canadian Government do not justify the discrimination against Indian women in section 12 (1) ф) of the Indian Act. She concludes that the Human Rights Committee should recommend the State party to amend the pro­ visions in question. 2. By its decision of 18 July 1978 the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, to the State party concerned, requesting information and observa­ tions relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. This request for information and observations was reiterated by a decision of the Com­ mittee's Working Group, dated 6 April 1979. 7. The Human Rights Committee recognizes that the relevant provision of the Indian Act, although not legally restricting the right to marry as laid down in arti­ cle 23 (2) of the Covenant, entails serious disadvantages on the part of the Indian woman who wants to marry a non-Indian man and may in fact cause her to live with her fiancé in an unmarried relationship. There is thus a question as to whether the obligation of the State party under article 23 of the Covenant with regard to the pro­ tection of the family is compHed with. Moreover, since only Indian women and not Indian men are subject to these disadvantages under the Act, the question arises whether Canada complies with its commitment under articles 2 and 3 to secure the rights under the Covenant without discrimination as to sex. On the other hand, ar­ ticle 27 of the Covenant requires States parties to accord protection to ethnic and linguistic minorities and the Committee must give due weight to this obligation. To enable it to form an opinion on these issues, it would assist the Committee to have certain additional observa­ tions and information. 3. By its decision of 14 August 1979 the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admiss­ ible and requested the author of the communication to submit additional information concerning her age and her marriage, which had not been indicated in the original submission. At that time no information or observations had been received from the State party concerning the question of admissibility of the com­ munication. 4. In its submission dated 26 September 1979 relating to the admissibility of the communication, the State party informed the Committee that it had no com­ ments on that point to make. This fact, however, should not be considered as an admission of the merits of the allegations or the arguments of the author of the com­ munication. 8. In regard to the present communication, however, the Human Rights Committee must also take into account that the Covenant has entered into force in respect of Canada on 19 August 1976, several years after the marriage of Mrs. Lovelace. She consequently lost her status as an Indian at a time when Canada was not bound by the Covenant. The Human Rights Com­ mittee has held that it is empowered to consider a com­ munication when the measures complained of, although they occurred before the entry into force of the Cov­ enant, continued to have effects which themselves con­ stitute a violation of the Covenant after that date. It is therefore relevant for the Committee to know whether the marriage of Mrs. Lovelace in 1970 has had any such effects. 5. In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol concerning the merits of the case, dated 4 April 1980, the State party recognized that "many of the provisions of the ... Indian Act, including section 12 (1) (&), require serious reconsideration and reform". The Government further referred to an earlier public declaration to the effect that it intended to put a reform bill before the Canadian Parliament. It none the less stressed the necessity of the Indian Act as an instrument designed to protect the Indian minority in accordance with article 27 of the Covenant. A definition of the In­ dian was inevitable in view of the special privileges granted to the Indian communities, in particular their right to occupy reserve lands. Traditionally, patrilineal family relationships were taken into account for deter­ mining legal claims. Since, additionally, in the farming societies of the nineteenth century, reserve land was felt to be more threatened by non-Indian men than by nonIndian women, legal enactments as from 1869 provided that an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would lose her status as an Indian. These reasons were still valid. A change in the law could only be sought in consultation with the Indians themselves who, however, were divided on the issue of equal rights. The Indian community should not be endangered by legislative changes. Therefore, although the Government was in principle committed to amending section 12 (1) ф) of the Indian Act, no quick and immediate legislative action could be expected. 9. Since the author of the communication is ethnically an Indian, some persisting effects of her loss of legal status as an Indian may, as from the entry into force of the Covenant for Canada, amount to a viola­ tion of rights protected by the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee has been informed that persons in her situation are denied the right to live on an Indian reserve with resultant separation from the Indian community and members of their families. Such prohibition may af­ fect rights which the Covenant guarantees in articles 12 (1), 17, 23 (1), 24 and 27. There may be other such effects of her loss of status. 10. The Human Rights Committee, accordingly, in­ vites the observations of the parties on the above con­ siderations and requests them, as appropriate, to fur­ nish repHes to the following questions: 6. The author of the communication, in her submis­ sion of 20 June 1980, disputes that legal relationships 38