Alleged victim: The author State party: Costa Rica Declared inadmissible: 30 March 1989 (thirty-fifth session) Subject matter: Expulsion from Costa Rica of stateless person Procedural issues: Inadmissibility ratione materiae Non-exhaustion of local remedies Abuse of the right of submission Substantive issues: Right to fair trial Right to "habeas corpus" Articles of the Covenant: 9 (1) and (4), 14 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3 and 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 25 March 1988, and further letter dated 27 December 1988) is J. R. C., of undetermined nationality, at present detained at the Centro de Detenciones de San Sebastián in San José, Costa Rica, awaiting expulsion from that country. He states that, according to his adoptive parents, he was born in Mexico, but that there is no evidence of this fact and that he has no document to establish his identity. He claims to be a victim of violation of articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Costa Rica. He is represented by counsel. 2.1 He states that on 4 July 1982 he clandestinely entered Costa Rica from Nicaragua, where he had participated in the Sandinista movement. The Costa Rican immigration police, however, arrested him and a tribunal sentenced him to two years' imprisonment on charges of "ideological falsehood" and use of a false document. In 1985, on completion of his term of imprisonment, he was expelled to Honduras, where police authorities immediately detained him under charges of having participated in a kidnapping said to have occurred in 1981. After escaping from prison in 1987, he re-entered Costa Rica in order to marry a Costa Rican woman by whom he had a son out of wedlock. On 24 November 1987, however, he was again detained by Costa Rican police. 2.2 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that on 11 December 1987 he invoked article 48 of the Costa Rican Constitution before the Costa Rican Supreme Court, requesting to be released from detention or, alternatively, to be brought before a judge if there were any charges against him. The Supreme Court, however, denied the author's requests on the grounds that, on 25 November 1987, the Ministry of Immigration had adopted a resolution to deport him as a danger to national security. The author claims that he has exhausted all domestic remedies available. 3. By decision of 8 July 1988, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of the admissibility of the communication. 74