с. Decisions declaring a communication admissible (Cases subsequently discontinued or withdrawn) Communication No. 94/1981* Submitted by: L. S. N. (name deleted) on 6 April 1981 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on admissibility: 30 March 1984 (twenty-first session) Subject matter: Loss of Indian status by female Can­ adian citizen of Indian origin Procedural issues: Inadmissibility ratione temporis— Exhaustion of domestic remedies—Events prior to entry into force of the Covenant—Withdrawal of communication following legislative amendments Substantive on sex issues: Minorities—Discrimination based Articles of the Covenant: 2 (I), 3, 23, 26 and 27 Article of the Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 6 April 1981; further submissions of 26 May, 19 July and 26 November 1982 and 28 June 1983) is L. S. N., a 26-year-old Canadian citizen of Indian ori­ gin, hving in Canada. She states that she lost her Indian status in accordance with section 12 (1) (è) of the Indian Act, after having married a non-Indian on 30 August 1975. Pointing out that an Indian man who marries a non-Indian woman does not lose his Indian status, she claims that the Act is discriminatory on the grounds of sex and contrary to articles 2 (1), 3, 23 (1) and (4), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. As to the admissibility of the communication on the ground of exhaustion of domestic remedies, she states that she finds herself in the same situation as Sandra Lovelace (case No. 24/1977).' Sandra Lovelace, in her submission to the Committee, contended that she was not required to ex­ haust local remedies since the Supreme Court of Canada had held that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights providing for "equality before the law . . . without discrimination by reason of sex", section 12 (1) Ф) was fully operative. 2. By its decision of 21 October 1982, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the State party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility. At the same time, the author was requested to furnish * Not previously published in the annual report of the Human Rights Committee. ' Views adopted on 30 July 1981, Selected pp. 83-87. Decisions- . ., vol. 1, factual information in regard to her family and marital circumstances and in regard to any effect of loss of Indian status upon her participation in the hfe of the Indian community. 3. By a letter of 28 June 1983, the author points out that her communication is similar to that of Mrs. Lovelace in every respect, including the fact that her date of marriage was prior to the entry into force of the Covenant for Canada, and requests that the Committee find Canada in breach of article 27 of the Covenant as previously held in the case of Sandra Lovelace. 4.1. On 23 August 1983, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communica­ tion. It contests the admissibility of the communication in so far as article 26 of the Covenant is concerned, arguing that any claim by the author of the present communication that her rights to equality before the law or to the equal protection of the law have been violated is based on her loss of Indian status on 30 August 1975 as a result of the operation of s . l 2 (1) (6) of the Indian Act. Her loss of Indian status was final upon that date; any possible subsequent ef­ fects of that loss occurring after the coming into force of the Covenant in Canada were in regard to her family life or her participation in the Hfe of the Indian community. In other words, such effects do not relate to Article 26 of the Covenant. The State party does not contest the admissibility of "the portion of the communication relating to articles 23 and 27, . . . and also the portion relating to articles 2 (1) and 3, but only to the extent that they bear on the in­ terpretation of articles 23 and 27". 4.2. In its submission Canada expresses its commit­ ment to remove from the Indian Act "any provisions which discriminate against women or in some other way offend human rights", referring in particular to the work of a Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Indian Women which, in its report of 21 September 1982 recommended, inter alia, that the Indian Act should be amended so that Indian women no longer lose their In­ dian status upon marrying non-Indians and that Indian women who had previously lost their status should, upon apphcation, be entitled to regain it. The State party affirms that "the necessary steps are now being taken to develop legislation to amend the Indian Act". 4.3. The State party recognizes that at present no domestic remedies are available to the author of the communication. It is, however, pointed out that as of