19
CONFIDENTIAL
treated as confidential until they are either ruled
inadmissible or a final determination is made. in some
cases the result may be that the complaint itself helps to focus the state's attention on a problem not fully
perceived before in human rights terms this even when
the complaint itself may be dismissed by the Committee.
If the complaint proceeds to adverse determination against the state, it can only result in a public statement
of the Committee's "views" to the state. Even in an
open, pluralistic society the objective public statement
of such views can have a very useful effect in focussing
the issue, in human rights terms, (which, incidentally,
is also one of the important benefits of a Bill of Rights).
In any future society where pluralism may be at risk,
such comments from outside would be much more important, and the fact that such proceedings are available would be reassuring to its inhabitants.
6.
The Canadian experience with the Protocol
has been roughly as follows, since 1976. There have
been numerous complaints filed against Canada, probably 20-30. Of these the great majority have been dismissed as inadmissible, many on the basis that domestic remedies
had not been exhausted. I can only think of two which
resulted in an adverse finding. One involved an undue delay in a criminal proceeding, The other (Lovelace)
involved a finding of denial of minority rights because
an Indian woman lost her status as an Indian (thus being
excluded from her reserve community) by marrying a non-Indian.
Indian men marrying non-Indians did not lose their status. This was as provided in the federal Indian Act which in this respect had been unchanged for about a century.
These provisions had long been attacked by many Indian women and feminists, but strenuously supported by many
Indian men and male-dominated Indian bound councils
and organisations.
Faced with this conflict, successive
CONFIDENTIAL
.../4