Communication No. 35/1978 Submitted by: Shirin Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women on 2 May 1978 Alleged victims: The author and other Mauritian women State party: Mauritius Date of adoption of views: 9 April 1981 (twelfth session) Actio populans—Concept of victim—Standing of authors—Aliens—Immigration—Deportation —Naturalization—Residence—Right to marry —Protection of family—Sex discrimination—Equal protection of the law—Political rights 3. The State party, in its reply of 17 January 1979, informed the Committee that it had no objection to for­ mulate against the admissibility of the communication. 4. On 24 April 1979, the Human Rights Committee, (a) Concluding that the communication, as presented by the authors, should be declared admissible; (b) Considering, however, that it might review this decision in the light of all the information which would be before it when it considered the communication on the merits; Articles of Covenant: 2 (1), 3, 17, 23, 25 and 26 Articles of Optional Protocol: 1 and 2 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol' 1.1 The authors of this communication (initial letter dated 2 May 1978 and a further letter dated 19 March 1980) are 20 Mauritian women, who have requested that their identity should not be disclosed to the State party.' They claim that the enactment of the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Deportation (Amend­ ment) Act, 1977, by Mauritius constitutes discrimina­ tion based on sex against Mauritian women, violation of the right to found a family and home, and removal of the protection of the courts of law, in breach of articles 2, 3, 4, 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The authors claim to be victims of the alleged violations. They submit that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 1.2 The authors state that prior to the enactment of the laws in question, alien men and women married to Mauritian nationals enjoyed the same residence status, that is to say, by virtue of their marriage, foreign spouses of both sexes had the right, protected by law, to reside in the country with their Mauritian husbands or wives. The authors contend that, under the new laws, alien husbands of Mauritian women lost their residence status in Mauritius and must now apply for a "residence permit" which may be refused or removed at any time by the Minister of Interior. The new laws, however, do not affect the status of alien women married to Mauri­ tian husbands who retain their legal right to residence in the country. The authors further contend that under the new laws alien husbands of Mauritian women may be deported under a ministerial order which is not subject to judicial review. Therefore decided: {a) That the communication was admissible; (6) That in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party 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 on the substance of the matter under con­ sideration; (c) That the State party be requested, in this connec­ tion, to transmit copies of any relevant legislation and any relevant judicial decisions. 5.1 In its submission dated 17 December 1979, the State party explains the laws of Mauritius on the ac­ quisition of citizenship and, in particular on the naturalization of aliens. The State party further elaborates on the deportation laws, including a historical synopsis of these laws. It is admitted that it was the effect of the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1977 and of the Deportation (Amendment) Act, 1977 to limit the right of free access to Mauritius and immunity from deportation to the wives of Mauritian citizens only, whereas this right had previously been enjoyed by all spouses of citizens of Mauritius irrespective of their sex. Both Acts were passed following certain events in connection with which some foreigners (spouses of Mauritian women) were suspected of subversive ac­ tivities. The State party claims, however, that the authors of the communication do not allege that any particular individual has in fact been the victim of any specific act in breach of the provisions of the Covenant. The State party claims that the communication is aimed at obtaining a declaration by the Human Rights Com­ mittee that the Deportation Act and the Immigration Act, as amended, are capable of being administered in a discriminatory manner in violation of articles 2, 3, 4, 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the Covenant. 2. On 27 October 1978, the Human Rights Commit­ tee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of pro­ cedure, requesting information and observations rele­ vant to the question of admissibility. 5.2 The State party admits that the two statutes in question do not guarantee similar rights of access to residence in Mauritius to all foreigners who have mar­ ried Mauritian nationals, and it is stated that the "discrimination", if there is any, is based on the sex of the spouse. The State party further admits that foreign ' Pursuant to rule 85 of the provisional rules of procedure, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah did not participate in the consideration of this com­ munication or in the adoption of the views of the Committee under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol in this matter. ' Subsequently one of the authors agreed to the disclosure of her name. 67