communication pursuant to article 14. 9 One action relates to the alleged bias of the judge presiding over the reasonableness of the national security certificate and the ongoing reviews of his detention,10 while the other challenges the constitutionality of the national security certificate process as it applies to the author. In this constitutional challenge, the author makes claims under sections 7, 9 and 10 (c) of the Charter, in relation to the promptness and fairness of the hearing, including matters of standard of proof, disclosure of evidence and procedural rights, and in relation to the duration and lawfulness of his continued detention. Given available domestic remedies, which are actually and still being pursued by the author, the State party considers that this portion of the case is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. provided for by law. 12 For the State party, the communication clearly discloses that the author knows why he was detained pursuant to the Act, and knows the applicable legal standards that governed his detention and ultimate deportation. He had ample opportunity to make arguments before various courts and judges concerning the lawfulness of his continued detention, and to make arguments against the finding by the Ministers that he represents a threat to national security. By the express terms of the Act, as a permanent resident of Canada the author was entitled to have his detention reviewed at least every six months. 13 In the author’s case, reviews did not lead to his release because he was repeatedly found to be a danger to national security. However, reviews are meaningful and can help to secure release from detention. The State party thus argues that this claim is incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. 4.9 As to the author’s claims under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the State party argues that section 2 of the Charter protects freedom of conscience, thought, opinion and expression, limited consistently with the terms of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant where the needs of a free and democratic society so require. The author has failed to pursue this potential domestic remedy, and so this portion of his claim is also inadmissible. 4.12 On the claims under article 14, the State party submits that deportation proceedings do not involve either the determination of a criminal charge or rights and obligations in a suit at law, but are in the nature of the administration of public law. With respect to the “criminal charge” aspect of article 14, it claims that deportation proceedings are even less connected to the determination of a criminal charge than extradition proceedings, which the Committee has viewed as not falling within the scope of article 14. 14 Consequently, the State party submits that those of the author’s claims that relate specifically to paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 14 are inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. 4.10 On the discrimination claim under article 26, the State party indicates that section 15 of the Charter guarantees to everyone the right to equality without discrimination. It refers to the Committee’s earlier decision in a case about the author 11 , and recalls that failure to pursue a section 15 claim domestically in relation to a particular discrimination complaint makes that complaint inadmissible before the Committee. 4.13 With respect to the “suit at law” aspect of article 14, the State party reiterates its arguments in V.R.M.B. v. Canada,15 that deportation proceedings are neither a determination of a “criminal charge” nor the determination of “rights or obligations in a suit at law”. Rather, deportation proceedings are in the realm of public law and involve the State’s ability to regulate citizenship and immigration. The Committee declined to express its view as to whether a deportation proceeding is a “suit at law” in that case, as well as in Ahani v. Canada, another case involving deportation proceedings of a person representing a threat to national security.16 4.11 The State party argues that the author has failed to substantiate his claims. In relation to his claim under article 9, it points out that it relates to his detention as a threat to national security and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that there is nothing arbitrary, ipso facto, about detention of an alien based on the issuance of a security certificate 9 Although the author has now been deported from Canada, this fact does not preclude him in law from continuing with his action, nor does it necessarily deprive him of a meaningful remedy if he ultimately proves successful. Pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Canadian courts have robust powers to remedy any constitutional wrongs. 10 At the time of the State party’s submissions, the author’s latest attempt to have the Presiding Judge removed for bias was still pending before the Supreme Court of Canada, which was to decide whether to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal was denied on 25 August 2005. 11 Communication No. 953/2000, Zündel v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 27 July 2003, para. 8.6. 12 Communication No. 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 10.2. See also communication No. 236/1987, V.M.R.B. v. Canada, inadmissibility decision of 18 July 1988, para. 6.3. 13 See Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 83(2). 14 Communication No. 1020/2001, Cabal and Bertran v. Australia, Views adopted on 7 August 2003, para. 7.6; and communication No. 961/2000, Everett v. Spain, para. 6.4. 15 Communication No. 236/1987, V.M.R.B. v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 July 1988. 16 Communication No. 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 10.5. 25