Inadmissibility decision; Procedural issues: exhaustion of domestic remedies; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
N. S. v. Canada
Communication No. 26/1978
28 July 1978
ADMISSIBILITY
Submitted by: N. S. on 19 January 1978
Alleged victim: The author
State party: Canada
Date of decision on inadmissibility: 28 July 1978 (fourth session)
Decision on Admissibility
The author of the communication (initial letter dated 19 January 1978 with enclosures and
further letter dated 25 April 1978) is a 45-year-old Indian citizen residing in Canada, who
worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government of
Canada, from 19 March 1973 until he was dismissed from his post as a teacher in a public
school on 10 December 1976. He claims that he was dismissed because of his race and
religion and that he failed in his recourse to the Public Service Staff Relations Board because
the Adjudicator was biased, ignored evidence and rendered a decision based on preconceived
views. After the expiry of the time-limit for appeal the author applied to the Federal Court of
Appeal for an extension of the time to appeal. Extension of time to appeal was not granted
and his application was dismissed on 14 November 1977. The author concludes that,
accordingly, he has exhausted domestic remedies.
The author calls for assistance to obtain justice and his reinstatement. He alleges that he is a
victim of violations of articles 2, 7, 14, 17 and 26 of the Covenant.
Before considering a communication from an individual who claims to be a victim of a
violation of the Covenant, the Committee shall ascertain, under article 5 (2) (b) of the
Optional Protocol that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
In the present case the author failed to avail himself in time of the remedy of appeal. Further,
the communication does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might
have absolved the author, according to the generally recognized rules of international law,
from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal. He cannot, therefore, be considered to
have exhausted the remedies available to him under Canadian law.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
The communication is inadmissible.