CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 engaged in “forum shopping”, selecting a forum simply to gain a juridical advantage rather than by reason of a real and substantial connection to that forum. 4.11 Sixth, it would be in the interest of parties and in the broader interest of justice for the action to be tried in Israel. For the parties, adjudicating the action in Quebec would be impractical and would impede the impartial, prompt and efficient adjudication of the action on the basis of the best evidence available. With respect to the broader interests of justice, the action, as framed, could hardly lead to a just result. The plaintiffs had only turned to Canadian courts after some of their claims had been considered and rejected by judicial authorities in Israel. 4.12 Accordingly, the action was dismissed by the Superior Court after it exercised its exceptional discretionary power to decline to exercise adjudicative jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal and upheld the Superior Court’s decision. The leave application to the Supreme Court was also dismissed and communicated to the plaintiffs through an order without reasons. Lack of standing 4.13 The State party argues that the communication is inconsistent in terms of how the authors are identified. At times, it appears that two legal entities (the estate of the late Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin and the Bil’in Village Council) are identified, and one of the individual authors, Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed Abu Rahma, seems to be acting on behalf of the Bil’in Village Council. In circumstances where an individual is deceased, it is possible for that individual’s heirs to submit a communication directly on his or her behalf, but that individual’s estate cannot, in and of itself, be the author of a communication. Furthermore, the Committee has indicated that an individual who is the leader of an organization or other legal entity cannot act on that entity’s behalf in submitting a communication. 9 Accordingly, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the Optional Protocol, to the extent that it is being made on behalf of the above-mentioned legal entities. 4.14 The communication is also inadmissible to the extent it is being made on behalf of Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed Abu Rahma because his power of attorney document states that he is acting on behalf of the Council and not in his own personal capacity. 4.15 The State party argues that none of the authors has standing to bring this communication because they were not subject to Canada’s jurisdiction at the time of the alleged violations of the Covenant. The communication is therefore incompatible with the communications procedure established by article 1 of the Optional Protocol and inadmissible. Canada does not exercise jurisdiction of any kind over individuals living in the village of Bil’in or elsewhere in the West Bank. The facts alleged by the authors do not involve, in any way, the extraterritorial conduct of any Canadian State actors. The only connection between Canada and the facts alleged is a tenuous and indirect one: the alleged involvement of two legal entities that are incorporated in Quebec but, in fact, have no other meaningful connection to that province. Furthermore, the alleged activities of Green Park International and Green Mount International that are the focus of the present communication (expropriation of land and building of housing) were not governed by Canadian laws. Furthermore, since Canadian courts declined to exercise adjudicative jurisdiction over the civil action, none of the authors was actually subject to Canada’s adjudicative jurisdiction for the underlying facts that were alleged in the civil action and which are the focus of the present communication. Incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant 4.16 The State party argues that the authors’ allegations of violations of articles 7, 12, 17 and 27, in conjunction with the obligations under article 2 (1) to ensure the Covenant’s rights and under article 2 (3) to provide an effective remedy, fall outside the scope of the 9 8 The State party cites in this respect communication No. 40/1978, Hartikainen v. Finland, Views adopted on 9 April 1981. GE.17-21900