Communication No. 939/2000 Submitted by: Georges Dupuy Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Declared inadmissible: 18 March 2005 Subject matter: Impact of failure to disclose a document during criminal proceedings disclosure of the above-mentioned statement during the trial. Procedural issues: Level of substantiation of claim; exhaustion of domestic remedies 2.6 On 14 December 1995, the author sued the Government of Quebec for what he alleged was the malicious conduct of the deputy Crown prosecutor handling the case for failing to submit the written statement of 16 August 1991 during the trial. Substantive issues: Right to a fair trial - Right to have adequate time for the preparation of the defence - Right to be tried without undue delay - Equality of sexes. 2.7 On 20 March 1996, the Superior Court of the district of Montreal allowed the deputy prosecutor’s motion for dismissal and rejected the author’s appeal. On 17 June 1997, the Court of Appeal held that certain allegations in the complaint of 14 December 1995 might warrant the reopening of the trial; it quashed the judgement of the trial court and ruled that the outcome of the present appeal depended initially on the decision the Minister of Justice would take on the author’s application under section 690 of the Criminal Code and subsequently on the outcome of any new trial ordered by the Minister. Articles of the Covenant: 2, paragraph 3; 3; 14, paragraph 3 (b); and 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 5, paragraph 2 1. The author of the communication is Mr. Georges Dupuy, a Canadian citizen, born on 9 May 1947. He claims to be the victim of violations by Canada of articles 2, paragraph 3; 3; 14, paragraph 3 (b; and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is unrepresented. 2.8 On 7 May 2001, the Minister of Justice rejected the author’s application for a retrial. Factual background The complaint 2.1 On 16 August 1991, Ms. Gascon, the author’s ex-wife, lodged a complaint against the author for allegedly making death threats against her. 3.1 The author declares that he is innocent and that he was, in fact, sentenced on the basis of false accusations by Ms. Gascon so that she could obtain possession of the family home when the couple separated. 2.2 Following a preliminary investigation on 19 December 1991, the Criminal Court of Quebec convicted the author on 24 April 1992 of having deliberately threatened, by telephone on or about 12 and 15 August 1991, to kill or seriously hurt Ms. Gascon. On 12 March 1993, the judge handed down a suspended sentence of two years with probation. 3.2 The author maintains that Ms. Gascon’s written statement was deliberately and maliciously withheld from him during the trial in order to weaken his defence. The author considers that this statement constituted new evidence which would have enabled him to contest the complainant’s version. The author thus asserts that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. He also emphasizes the delay in the decision of the Minister of Justice under section 690 of the Criminal Code. 2.3 On 15 February 1994, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to alter the verdict and on 11 August 1994 the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the author’s application for leave to appeal. The author specifies that the decisions of the courts were based on the sole testimonies of Ms. Gascon and himself. 3.3 The author explains that his case is the result of the Quebec Government’s sexist policy of punishing men in matters of conjugal violence for the benefit of extremist feminist groups, thereby undermining the equality of marriage partners. 2.4 The author says that it was only in December 1994 that he saw a police report containing a written statement about him by Ms. Gascon dated 16 August 1991. 3.4 The author complains that because he has a criminal record it is difficult for him to find a job. He says that domestic remedies have been exhausted, as described above. 2.5 On 3 April 1995, under section 690 of the Criminal Code, the author requested the Minister of Justice to order a new trial on grounds of the non- 16