detention, cover in substance the author’s claims of arbitrary and prolonged detention and denial of bail under article 9 of the Covenant. It observes that these proceedings remain pending. The Committee has taken note of the author’s contention that the application of this remedy would be unduly prolonged. It observes that the author filed this action on 24 November 2004. At the time of the consideration of the communication, a little over two years had lapsed since the initial action. The author has not demonstrated why he believes that a constitutional challenge could take up to five years to be considered. In the circumstances, the Committee does not find that a delay of two years to consider a constitutional action is unduly prolonged. In view of the pending constitutional challenge, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies on these claims. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. detention issues, and not to issues of fairness and impartiality of hearings, which are covered by article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee observes that, in his Statement of Claim for constitutional action, the author challenged not only his detention, but also the entire process governing the determination of whether the security certificate is reasonable. However, the Committee considers that the guarantees under article 14 of the Covenant are substantively different from those protected by article 9 of the Covenant, which in turn provides similar protection to the one provided by sections 7, 9 and 10 (c) of the Charter. It concludes that a pending constitutional action under articles 7, 9 and 10 (c) of the Charter does not preclude the Committee from examining claims under article 14 of the Covenant. In addition the proceedings relating to the alleged bias of the Presiding Judge were concluded on 25 August 2005, when the Supreme Court denied the author’s leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. The State party has not mentioned other remedies which could have been pursued by the author with respect to his claims under article 14. The Committee concludes that the author has exhausted domestic remedies in relation to claims under article 14, and that the communication is not inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The claim under the same article that the author was not informed of the “real case” against him, with reference to the in camera hearings, appears to relate to, and is more appropriately dealt jointly with, the author’s claims under article 14. 6.5 On the claim under article 9, paragraph 1, of an alleged failure of the State party to ensure the security of the author, the State party claims that this part of the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. The Committee recalls that there are no fixed time limits for submission of communications under the Optional Protocol and that mere delay in submission does not of itself involve abuse of the right of communication. 23 However, in certain circumstances, the Committee expects a reasonable justification for such a delay. The alleged attacks against the author occurred between 1984 and 1995, i.e., 12 to 23 years ago. The Committee notes that the author has availed himself of the procedure under the Optional Protocol twice before, but that he did not take this opportunity to file such a claim before. In the absence of any justification of such a delay, the Committee considers that submitting the communication after such a time lapse should be regarded as an abuse of the right of submission. It finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee has noted the State party’s argument that deportation proceedings do not involve either “the determination of any criminal charge” or “rights and obligations in a suit at law”. It observes that the author has not been charged or convicted for any crime in the State party, and that his deportation is not a sanction imposed as a result of criminal proceedings. The Committee concludes that proceedings relating to the determination of whether a person constitutes a threat to national security, and his or her resulting deportation, do not relate to the determination of a “criminal charge” within the meaning of article 14. 6.8 The Committee recalls, in addition, that the concept of a “suit at law” under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant is based on the nature of the right in question rather than on the status of one of the parties.24 In the present case, the proceedings relate to the right of the author, who was a lawful permanent resident, to continue residing in the State party’s territory. The Committee considers that proceedings relating to an alien’s expulsion, the guarantees of which are governed by article 13 of the 6.6 With regard to the author’s claims under article 14, the Committee has noted the State party’s contention that a constitutional action based on sections 7, 9 and 10 (c) of the Charter was still pending in the Federal Court. However, as noted above, those sections of the Charter relate to 24 Communication No. 112/1981, Y.L. v. Canada, inadmissibility decision adopted on 8 April 1986, para. 9.1 and 9.2; communication No. 441/1990, Casanovas v. France, Views adopted on 19 July 1994, para. 5.2; communication No. 1030/2001, Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, decision on admissibility adopted on 28 October 2005, para. 8.3. 23 Communication No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, inadmissibility decision of 16 July 2001, para. 6.3. 27