5.2 With respect to the alleged violation of article 14 (l), the author advocates a broad interpretation of what constitutes "rights and obligations in a suit at law". He refers to the Committee's general comment on article 14 which states that "the provisions of article 14 apply to all courts and tribunals within the scope of that article, whether ordinary or specialized", and suggests that public law disputes also fall under the scope of application of article 14. Furthermore, he recalls that the English version of the Covenant protects rights and obligations "in a suit at law" rather than rights and obligations "de caractère civil", as stated in the French version of the Covenant, which therefore is said to be more restrictive. 5.3 With respect to article 9, the author maintains that this provision should be applied to all situations where an individual has been deprived of his liberty, including reasons of immigration control. 5.4 The author concludes that with respect to his other allegations, concerning violations of articles 18 and 19, he has at least presented prima facie evidence to the effect that Canada has violated the Covenant. He surmises that the reason why Canadian authorities want to deport him is because of his political opinions: National security grounds cannot be invoked unless there is justification for this infringement of a right guaranteed by the Covenant, in this case to be protected against all discrimination. ... The State invokes national security grounds against opinions expressed by an individual as penalizing that individual for having exercised his right to freedom of expression. The author suggests that the Committee would be ill-advised to have recourse to restrictive interpretations of the Covenant, interpretations which would be contrary to its object and purpose. 5.5 With regard to his allegation that he has been subjected to discrimination in violation of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant the author contends: "that the Canadian Government's manoeuvres constitute discrimi-nation against foreign citizens. An alien may not express his opinions, thought or convictions, for in exercising these rights he will not receive the same treatment as a Canadian citizen. The mechanism provided by article 19 (1) (f) of the Canadian Immigration Act is discriminatory in that the accuracy of information concerning an alien as regards ideas or opinions allegedly expressed by him is not verified. The alien cannot enjoy the same protection for his opinions as a citizen expressing the same .views". 6.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee observes that the State party has not contested the author's claim that domestic remedies have been exhausted. It further notes that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee therefore finds that the communication meets the requirements of article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee has also examined whether the conditions of articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol have been met. It observes that a right of asylum is not protected by the Covenant. With regard to the author's allegation that his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant and that his right to liberty under article 9 have been violated, the Committee finds that he has not substantiated either allegation. With regard to Article 6 of the Covenant, the author has merely expressed fear for his life in the hypothetical case that he should be deported to El Salvador. The Committee cannot examine hypothetical violations of Covenant rights which might occur in the future; furthermore, the Government of Canada has publicly stated on several occasions that it would not extradite the author to El Salvador and has given him the opportunity to select a safe third country. With regard to article 9, the Committee notes that this article prohibits unlawful arrest and detention, whereas the author was lawfully arrested in connection with his unauthorized entry into Canada, and the decision to detain him was not made arbitrarily, especially in view 55