D. B. v. Canada Comm. 15/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 20 (HRC 1979)

			International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions

	Follow @worldcourts

24 April 1979

Communication No. 15/1977

human rights committee

Sixth Session

9-27 April 1979

d. b.

canada

DECISION

BEFORE:	CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas v. Mavrommatis (Cyprus) VICE-CHAIRMEN: Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Luben G. Koulishev (Bulgaria), Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador) RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius) MEMBERS: Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Mr. Manouchehr Ganji (Iran), Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Dejan Janca (Yugoslavia), Mr. Haissam Kelani (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan), Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky (Canada), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Diego Uribe Vargas (Colombia) All the members, except Mr. Ganji and Mr. Uribe Vargas, attended the sixth session of the Committee. Mr. Bouziri and Mr. Prado Vallejo attended only part of that session.

PermaLink:	http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1979.04.24_DB_v_Canada.htm

Citation:	D. B. v. Canada Comm. 15/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 20 (HRC 1979)
Publications:	Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selected Decision under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 20, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)

[1] The communication, comprising the initial letter dated 8 August 1977 and subsequent letters dated 21 March and 25 December 1978, is submitted by D. B., a Canadian citizen who appears also to hold British and French nationality. From the material submitted by the author, it appears that he had, prior to the entry into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for Canada, accumulated a number of tines, imposed for breaches of parking regulations, which he refused to pay. As a consequence, it appears, the author was repeatedly arrested, from 1975 to 1977, under warrants of arrest issued by the Municipal Court of Montreal, which meted out several sentences of payment of fines or imprisonment in lieu of payment of fines or for contempt of court. It further appears from the material submitted by the author that he has also been sentenced to imprisonment for refusal to pay alimony to his ex-wife.

[2] The author claims that the Municipal Court of Montreal did not have competence to act in his case, that then entire judicial system of Canada is corrupt and that the judges, the members of the legal profession and the municipal authorities of Montreal have consistently flouted his rights under the law, in violation of several articles of the Covenant.

[3] Before considering a communication on the merits, the Committee must ascertain whether it fulfils the basic conditions relating to its admissibility under the Optional Protocol. In this connection, the Committee has endeavoured to elicit from the author clarifications regarding questions of admissibility of the communication and the facts complained of.

[4] A thorough examination by the Committee of all the material submitted by the author, including his last submission, dated 25 December 1978, in response to the Committee's request for clarifications, has not revealed any precise allegations of fact in substantiation of the claim that he is a victim of violations by the State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

[5] The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

[6] The communication is inadmissible.

Home | Terms & Conditions | About