4.14 The State party argues that, given the equivalence of article 6 of the European Convention and article 14 of the Covenant, the European Court’s case law is persuasive that the deportation proceedings challenged by the author are not encompassed by article 14 of the Covenant. In this respect, it refers to the case of Maaouia v. France,17 where the European Court held that the decision of whether or not to authorize an alien to stay in a country of which he is not a national does not entail any determination of his civil rights or obligations or of any criminal charge against him, within the meaning of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention.18 allegations of bias is inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.17 On 16 September 2005, the State party informed the Committee that on 25 August 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the author leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal of 23 November 2004. The State party indicates that this decision does not affect its position that the communication is inadmissible, in particular with regard to the alleged bias of the judge presiding at the security certificate review hearing. Author’s comments 5. On 3 November 2005, the author indicated that he wished to maintain his communication, but did not comment on the State party’s observations. 4.15 Subsidiarily, the State party submits that the author has failed to substantiate that the security certificate and detention reviews were conducted other than in full accordance with article 14. The author’s deportation, predicated on Canada’s reasonable belief that he is a threat to national security, proceeded according to Canadian law in a fair and impartial manner affording the author the assistance of legal counsel and the opportunity to challenge evidence, including by way of examination of a representative of the CSIS. To the extent that the author was restricted in his ability to challenge all the evidence against him, this was done for national security reasons, 19 in accordance with Canadian law which the Committee has viewed as satisfactory, 20 and which is consistent with the Covenant (article 13). Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party challenges the totality of the communication. In respect of the author’s claims under article 7 and 10 related to his conditions and length of detention, the State party contends that the author could have pursued remedies for violations of the Canadian Charter, in particular under section 12, according to which “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment”. In addition, the author could have complained about his detention conditions under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, in particular under sections 28 on inmate complaints 22 and section 34 relating to segregation. In the absence of any comments or objection from the author, who filed a constitutional action under other sections of the Charter, the Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.16 The State party submits that there was no bias with respect to the author’s deportation proceedings. The domestic courts properly weighed the factual record and the applicable legal principles in rejecting the author’s bias allegations. The State party invokes the Committee’s established jurisprudence in this regard. 21 No case of arbitrariness and bias in evaluation of evidence can be made out by the author, let alone in a prima facie way. The State party submits that any article 14 claim based on 17 Maaouia v. France, application No. 39652/98, decision rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 5 October 2000. 18 The State party refers to more than ten decisions of the European court supporting this statement, and provides copies of all of them in its annexes. These include the cases of Elvis Jakupovic v. Austria, application No. 36757/97, judgement of the European Court of Human Rights on 15 November 2001; and Veselin Marinkovic v. Austria, application No. 46548/99, judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 October 2001. 19 See Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Division 9: “Protection of Information”. 20 Communication No. 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 10.5. 21 See, e.g., communication No. 1188/2003, RiedlRiedstein et al. v. Germany, decision of 2 November 2004, para. 7.3. 6.3 With regard to the author’s claims under article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3, because of his alleged arbitrary and prolonged detention and the denial of bail, the Committee notes that the author has introduced a constitutional action in the Federal Court of Canada, claiming that the national security certificate process applied to him violates sections 7, 9 and 10 (c) of the Charter. The Committee further notes that these sections, which deal with liberty, arbitrary detention and review of the validity of 22 Section 28: “Where an inmate alleges that the inmate’s privileges have been infringed or otherwise has a complaint against another inmate or employee, the inmate may make a complaint in writing to the Superintendent.” 26