ANNEX II SUMMARY OF STATES PARTIES’ REPLIES PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF VIEWS BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE NOTE: Owing to logistical problems, the full text of the replies could not be reproduced. However, they are on file with the Committee’s secretariat and references to follow-up on Views is regularly made in the Committee’s annual reports. Pertinent references are indicated wherever possible. Communication No. 167/1984 Submitted by: Chief Bernard Ominayak and members of the Lubicon Lake Band (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 14 February 1984 Alleged victim: Lubicon Lake Band State party: Canada Date of adoption of Views: 26 March 1990 (thirty-eighth session) Can$ 170 million. Informal discussions continued in February 1990 between lawyers for the Canadian Government, the province of Alberta and leaders of the Band. The discussions terminated when the Band reopened its demand for additional compensation. The Government subsequently offered to have any outstanding issue resolved by arbitration. Response, dated 25 November 1991, of the Government of Canada to the Committee’s Views* On 25 November 1991 the Government of Canada informed the Committee that the remedy awarded to the Lubican Lake Band consisted of a comprehensive package of benefits and programmes valued at Can$ 45 million (in addition to the value of land, mineral rights or possible provincial contributions) and a 95 square mile reserve. The Committee was also informed that the Band had withdrawn from negotiations on 24 January 1989 regarding the issue of whether the Band should receive additional compensation of approximately _____________ * For the Committee’s Views, see Selected Decisions, vol. 3, p. 62. _______________ Communication No. 195/1985 Submitted by: William Eduardo Delgado Páez Alleged victim: The author State party: Colombia Date of adoption of Views: 12 July 1990 (thirty-ninth session) forwarded a copy of resolution No. 10/96 adopted by a Ministerial Committee established pursuant to enabling legislation No. 288/1996 dated 11 September 1996, recommending payment of compensation to the author of the communication. Response, dated 7 June 1991, of the Government of Colombia to the Committee’s Views* The State party, in a submission dated 7 June 1991, challenged the Committee’s Views, considering that there had been no violations of articles 9 and 25(c) of the Covenant. The State party subsequently, on 21 April 1997, _____________ * For the Committee’s Views, see Selected Decisions, vol. 3, p. 85. 127