cases. The author explains briefly that the lower court had found that the three cases had not been filed in due form. This, he states, should not have had any bearing upon the cases because the court, under Danish law, should have assisted him in correcting any procedural errors in the presentation of the three law suits; the court, however, failed in its duty and the Supreme Court merely upheld the lower court's decisions, without granting the remedy sought. The author encloses copies of the three Supreme Court decisions. recognized elsewhere in the Covenant. The author does not indicate the subject matter of any of the three lawsuits and it does not appear that they were concerned with obtaining a remedy for the violation of any such rights or freedoms. Furthermore, the communication does not contain any substantial evidence that the right of fair hearing, as laid down in article 14 (1) of the Covenant, may have been violated. Being unable to find that there are any grounds substantiating the author's allegations of violations of the Covenant, the Committee concludes, in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol, that the com­ munication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, and therefore decides: Article 2 (3) of the Covenant requires the State party to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms recognized in the Covenant are violated shall have an ef­ fective remedy. The Committee observes therefore that there can be no breach of article 2 (3) unless a remedy is sought for the violation of one of the rights or freedoms The communication is inadmissible. FOURTEENTH SESSION Communication No. 91/1981 Submitted by: A. R. S. on 8 May 1981 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of decision on inadmissibility: 28 October 1981 (fourteenth session) Parole—Mandatory supervision—Heavier penalty subsequent to commission of offence—Concept of victim—Examination of law in abstracto—Com­ patibility of communication with Covenant—Inad­ missibility ratione temporis et materiae 2.2 The release of the author on 8 September 1982 is contingent on his signing the "mandatory supervision certificate", a requirement which, he claims, did not ex­ ist at the time of commission of the offences in ques­ tion. He contends that "mandatory supervision" is therefore tantamount to a penalty heavier than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal of­ fences were committed and that this "heavier penalty" constitutes in his case a violation of article 15 (1) of the Covenant. The author further maintains that "man­ datory supervision" constitutes a reimposition of punishment which should be regarded as remitted and that the demand that he sign the mandatory supervision certificate (an act, he claims, which would constitute a contract with penalties for failure of fulfilment), or else face the punishment of serving the entire sentence until 3 February 1988, constitutes a criminal action of in­ timidation in violation of section 382 of the Canadian Criminal Code and of article 11 of the Covenant. The author finally asserts that he is denied the right to challenge before a court the basic legal assumption that the term of imprisonment, in spite of earned remission of the sentence, continues in force after the date of release to the date of expiration, in violation of article 9 (1), (4) and (5) of the Covenant. Articles of Covenant: 9 (I), (4) and (5), 11, 15 (1) Articles of Optional Protocol: 1, 2 and 3 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 8 May 1981 and a further letter dated 8 June 1981) is A.R.S., a 42-year-old Canadian citizen serving a prison sentence at a Canadian federal penitentiary. He claims to be a victim of breaches by Canada of article 15 (1), as well as articles 9 (1), (4) and (5) and 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He describes the facts of the claim as follows: 2.1 On 22 November 1971 the author was sentenced to 16 years' and 3 months' imprisonment for various of­ fences committed between 30 January and 3 July 1970. The expiry date of the full sentence is 3 February 1988, but the author has been informed in writing that he has earned remission and been credited with statutory remission equal to one third of the sentence and that the date of his release has been set for 8 September 1982. He claims that certain provisions of the Parole Act, which entered into force on 1 August 1970 (i.e. after the dates of commission of each of his offences), intro­ duced the element of "mandatory supervision" for con­ victed persons released before the expiration of their term of imprisonment. 3. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of pro­ cedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 29