paragraph 85; see also, in this context, the remarks on the expanded notion of "victim", paragraph 6 above), the issue of the extent to which, in the area of extradition, a State party to an international human rights treaty must take into account the situation in a receiving State, still remains an open question. I should, therefore, like to repeat what I stated together with Mr. Waleed Sadi in the joint individual opinion in the Kindler case (decision of 30 July 1993, appendix). The same considerations are applicable in the present case. suffering and that every method of execution is bound to cause some suffering. However, I must admit that it is impossible for me to specify which kind of suffering is permitted under article 7 and what degree of suffering is not permitted under the same article. I am totally incapable of indicating any absolute criterion as to the scope of suffering permissible under article 7. What I can say is that article 7 prohibits any method of execution which is intended for prolonging suffering of the executed or causing unnecessary pain to him or her. As I do not believe that gas asphyxiation is so intended, I cannot concur with the Committee's view that execution by gas asphyxiation violates article 7 of the Covenant. 24. We observed in paragraph 5 of the joint individual opinion that the allegations of the author concerned hypothetical violations of his rights in the United States (after the legality of the extradition had been tested in Canadian Courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada), and unreasonable responsibility was being placed on Canada by requiring it to defend, explain or justify before the Committee the United States system of administration of justice. I continue to believe that such is indeed unreasonable. Both at the level of the judiciary as well as at the level of administrative proceedings, Canada has given all aspects of Mr. Ng's case the consideration they deserve in the light of its obligations under the Covenant. It has done what can reasonably and in good faith be expected from a State party. [English original] G. INDIVIDUAL OPINION SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANCISCO JOSÉ AGUILAR URBINA (DISSENTING) Extradition and the protection afforded by the Covenant 1. In analysing the relationship between the Covenant and extradition, I cannot agree with the Committee that "extradition as such is outside the scope of application of the Covenant" (Views, para. 6.1). I consider that it is remiss – and even dangerous, as far as the full enjoyment of the rights set forth in the Covenant is concerned – to make such a statement. In order to do so, the Committee relies on the pronouncement in the Kindler case to the effect that since "it is clear from the travaux préparatoires that it was not intended that article 13 of the Covenant, which provides specific rights relating to the expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State party, should detract from normal extradition arrangements",1 extradition would remain outside the scope of the Covenant. In the first place, we have to note that extradition, even though in the broad sense it would amount to expulsion, in a narrow sense would be included within the procedures regulated by article 14 of the Covenant. Although the procedures for ordering the extradition of a person to the requesting State vary from country to country, they can roughly be grouped into three general categories: (a) a purely judicial procedure, (b) an exclusively administrative procedure, or (c) a mixed procedure involving action by the authorities of two branches of the State, the judiciary and the executive. This last procedure is the one followed in Canada. The important point, however, is that the authorities dealing with the extradition proceedings constitute, for this specific case at least, a "tribunal" that applies a procedure which must conform to the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant. [English original] F. INDIVIDUAL OPINION SUBMITTED BY MR. NISUKE ANDO (DISSENTING) I am unable to concur with the Views of the Committee that "execution by gas asphyxiation ... would not meet the test of 'least possible physical and mental suffering' and constitutes cruel and inhuman [punishment] in violation of article 7 of the Covenant" (paragraph 16.4). In the view of the Committee "the author has provided detailed information that execution by gas asphyxiation may cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not result in death as swiftly as possible, as asphyxiation by cyanide gas may take over 10 minutes" (paragraph 16.3). Thus, the swiftness of death seems to be the very criterion by which the Committee has concluded that execution by gas asphyxiation violates article 7. In many of the States parties to the Covenant where the death penalty has not been abolished, other methods of execution such as hanging, shooting, electrocution or injection of certain materials are used. Some of them may take a longer time and others shorter than gas asphyxiation, but I wonder if, irrespective of the kind and degree of suffering inflicted on the executed, all those methods that may take over ten minutes are in violation of article 7 and all others that take less are in conformity with it. In other words, I consider that the criteria of permissible suffering under article 7 should not solely depend on the swiftness of death. 2.1 The fact that the drafters of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not include extradition in article 13 is quite logical, but on that account alone it cannot be affirmed that their intention was to leave extradition proceedings outside the protection The phrase "least possible physical and mental suffering" comes from the Committee's general comment 20 (44) on article 7, which states that the death penalty must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering. This statement, in fact, implies that there is no method of execution which does not cause any physical or mental 1 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyeighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), annex XII.U, communication No. 470/1991 (Joseph Kindler v. Canada), Views adopted on 30 July 1993, para. 6.6. 110