buildings. A proposal that accused persons should be placed 'in separate quarters' was considered to raise practical problems; if adopted, States parties might be obliged to construct new prisons." Further, the Government of Canada does not consider that casual contact with convicted prisoners employed in the carrying out of menial duties in a correction centre results in a breach of the segrega­ tion provisions of the Covenant. travention of the rules established for the correctional centre by the director contained in correspondence, and where this is done the director shall "(a) Advise the inmate, "(6) In so far as the money or object is not held as evidence for the prosecution of an offence against an enactment of the province or of Canada, place the money or object in safe-keeping and give it to the inmate on his release from the correctional centre, and 29. Mr. Pinkney claims that the contacts resulting from such employment of convicted prisoners were by no means "casual" but were "physical and regular" since they did in fact bring unconvicted and convicted prisoners together in physical proximity on a regular basis. 30. The Committee is of the opinion that the re­ quirement of article 10 (2) (a) of the Covenant that "ac­ cused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons" means that they shall be kept in separate quarters (but not necessarily in separate buildings). The Committee would not regard the arrangements described by the State party whereby convicted persons work as food servers and cleaners in the remand area of the prison as being incompatible with article 10 (2) (a), provided that contacts between the two classes of prisoners are kept strictly to a minimum necessary for the performance of those tasks. 31. Mr. Pinkney also complains that while detained at the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre he was prevented from communicating with outside of­ ficials and was thereby subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his correspondence contrary to article 17 (1) of the Covenant. In its submission of 22 July 1981 the State party gives the following explana­ tion of the practice with regard to the control of prisoners' correspondence at the Correction Centre: Mr. Pinkney, as a person awaiting trial, was entitled under section 1.21 ((/) of the Gaol Rules and Regulations, 1961, British Columbia Regulations 7 3 / 6 1 , in force at the time of his detention to the "provi­ sion of writing material for communicating by letter with (his) friends or for conducting correspondence or preparing notes in connexion with (his) defence". The Government of Canada does not deny that letters sent by Mr. Pinkney were subject to control and could even be censored. Section 2.40 (6) of the Gaol Rules and Regulations, 1961 is clear on that point: "(c) Carry out his duties under this section in a manner that, in so far as is reasonable, respects the privacy of the inmate and person corresponding with the inmate. "(4) An inmate may receive books or periodicals sent to him directly from the publisher. "(5) fit." Every inmate may send as many letters per week as he sees 32. Although these rules were only enacted subse­ quent to Mr. Pinkney's departure from the Lower Mainland Regional Correction Centre, in practice they were being applied when he was detained in that institu­ tion. This means that privileged correspondence, de­ fined in section 1 of the regulations as meaning "cor­ respondence addressed by an inmate to a Member of Parliament, Members of the Legislative Assembly, bar­ rister or sohcitor, commissioner of corrections, regional director of corrections, chaplain, or the director of in­ spection and standards", were not examined or subject to any control or censorship. As for non-privileged cor­ respondence, it was only subject to censorship if it con­ tained matter that threatened the management, opera­ tion, discipline, or security of the correctional centre. At the time when Mr. Pinkney was detained therein, the procedure governing prisoners' correspondence did not allow for a general restriction on the right to com­ municate with government officials. Mr. Pinkney was not denied this right. To seek to restrict his communica­ tion with various government officials whüe at the same time allowing his access to his lawyers would seem a futile gesture since through his lawyers, he could put his case to the various government officials whom he was allegedly prevented from contacting. 33. In his letter of 27 August 1981 Mr. Pinkney comments as fohows on these submissions of the State party: "2.40 (6) Every letter to or from a prisoner shall (except as hereinafter provided in these regulations in the case of certain com­ munications to or from a legal adviser) be read by the Warden or by a responsible officer deputed by him for the purpose, and it is within the discretion of the Warden to stop or censor any letter, or any part of a letter, on the ground that its contents are objec­ tionable or that the letter is of excessive length." Further, on page 5 of the Government of Canada's submission, it is alleged by the Government that my mail was not tampered with at Oakalla, when in point of fact, not only was my mail interfered with by prison authorities in the normal sense of the requirements affecting all prisoners, but in point of fact, as the Government well knows, in some instances my mail to members of Government (whose mail should indeed have been privileged mail) never even got to these people, for it never even left the prison, once 1 mailed it. T o imply, as does the Government, that such actions would be "futile" for prison authorities to engage in, due to my having access to my lawyer at cer­ tain very definite times, is absolute nonsense. Section 42 of the Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations, British Columbia Regulation 2 8 4 / 7 8 , which came into force on 6 July 1978 provides that: "42 (1) A director or a person authorized by the director may examine all correspondence other than privileged correspondence between an inmate and another person where he is of the opinion that the correspondence may threaten the management, operation, discipline or security of the correctional centre. 34. No specific evidence has been submitted by Mr. Pinkney to establish that his correspondence was subjected to control or censorship which was not in ac­ cordance with the practice described by the State party. However, article 17 of the Covenant provides not only that "No one shah be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his correspondence" but also that "Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference". At the time when "(2) Where in the opinion of the director, or a person author­ ized by the director, correspondence contains matter that threatens the management, operation, discipline or security of the correc­ tional centre, the director or person authorized by the director may censor that matter. "(3) The director may withhold money, or drugs, weapons, or any other object which may threaten the management, operation, discipline, or security of a correctional centre, or an object in con­ 100