cruel, inhuman and degrading. He further alleges that the judicial procedures in Pennsylvania, inasmuch as they relate specifically to capital punishment, do not meet basic requirements of justice. In this context, the author, who is white, generally alleges racial bias in the imposition of the death penalty in the United States, without, however, substantiating how this alleged bias would affect him. of the Covenant making it unlawful for a State party to seek extradition of a person from another country". It further argues that even if extradition could be found to fall within the scope of protection of the Covenant in exceptional circumstances, these circumstances are not present in the instant case. 4.5 The State party further refers to the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition,4 which clearly contemplates the possibility of unconditional surrender by providing for discretion in obtaining assurances regarding the death penalty in the same fashion as is found in article 6 of the Canada-United States Extradition Treaty. It concludes that interference with the surrender of a fugitive pursuant to legitimate requests from a treaty partner would defeat the principles and objects of extradition treaties and would entail undesirable consequences for States refusing these legitimate requests. In this context, the State party points out that its long, unprotected border with the United States would make it an attractive haven for fugitives from United States justice. If these fugitives could not be extradited because of the theoretical possibility of the death penalty, they would be effectively irremovable and would have to be allowed to remain in the country, unpunished and posing a threat to the safety and security of the inhabitants. State party's observations and author's comments 4.1 The State party recalls that the author illegally entered the territory of Canada, where he was arrested in April 1985. It submits that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae, loci and materiae. 4.2 It is argued that the author cannot be considered a victim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol, since his allegations are derived from assumptions about possible future events, which may not materialize and which are dependent on the law and actions of the authorities of the United States. The State party refers in this connection to the Committee's Views in communication No. 61/1979,1 where it was found that the Committee "has only been entrusted with the mandate of examining whether an individual has suffered an actual violation of his rights. It cannot review in the abstract whether national legislation contravenes the Covenant". 4.6 The State party finally submits that the author has failed to substantiate his allegations that the treatment he may face in the United States will violate his rights under the Covenant. In this connection, the State party points out that the imposition of the death penalty is not per se unlawful under the Covenant. As regards the delay between the imposition and the execution of the death sentence, the State party submits that it is difficult to see how a period of detention during which a convicted prisoner would pursue all avenues of appeal, can be held to constitute a violation of the Covenant. 4.3 The State party indicates that the author's allegations concern the penal law and judicial system of a country other than Canada. It refers to the Committee's inadmissibility decision in communication No. 217/1986,2 where the Committee observed "that it can only receive and consider communications in respect of claims that come under the jurisdiction of a State party to the Covenant". The State party submits that the Covenant does not impose responsibility upon a State for eventualities over which it has no jurisdiction. 5. In his reply to the State party's submission, the author maintains that, since the right to life is at stake, there is no possible argument for leaving extradition outside the Committee's jurisdiction. 4.4 Moreover, it is submitted that the communication should be declared inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, since the Covenant does not provide for a right not to be extradited. In this connection, the State party quotes the Committee's inadmissibility decision in communication No. 117/1981:3 "There is no provision Committee's considerations admissibility and decision on 6.1 During its 45th session in July 1992, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It observed that extradition as such is 1 Leo Herzberg et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 2 April 1982, para. 9.3. 2 H. v.d.P. v. the Netherlands, declared inadmissible on 8 April 1987, para. 3.2. 4 Adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 1990; see General Assembly resolution 45/168 of 14 December 1990. 3 M. A. v. Italy, declared inadmissible on 10 April 1984, para. 13.4. 114