International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, First Optional
Protocol
Human
Rights Committee
Sixty-fifth session
22 March - 9 April 1999
Submitted
by: Robert W. Gauthier
Alleged victim: The author
State Party: Canada
Date of communications:
5 December 1994
Prior decisions: CCPR/C/60/D/633/1995,
Decision on admissibility, 10 July 1997
Date
of adoption of Views: 7 April 1999
|
As
regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author
explains that he has filed numerous requests, not only with
the Press Gallery, but also with the Speaker of the House,
all to no avail. According to the author, no reasons have
been given for denying him full access. The author applied
to the Federal Court for a review of the decision of the
Press Gallery, but the Court decided that it did not have
jurisdiction over decisions of the Press Gallery since it
is not a department of the Government of Canada. A complaint
filed with the Bureau of Competition Policy, arguing that
the exclusion of the National Capital News from equal access
constituted unfair competition was dismissed.
The author then initiated an action in
the Provincial Court against the Speaker of the House
of Commons, requesting a declaration by the court that
the denial of access to the precincts of Parliament on
the same terms as members of the Canadian Parliamentary
Press Gallery infringed the author’s right to freedom
of the press as provided in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The Court ruled, on 30 November 1994, that
the decision of the Speaker not to permit the author to
have access to the facilities in the House of Commons
that are used by members of the Press Gallery was made
in the exercise of a parliamentary privilege and therefore
not subject to the charter or to review by the Court.
The author points out that he has been
trying to obtain equal access to press facilities in Parliament
since 1982, and he argues therefore that the application
of domestic remedies is unreasonably prolonged, within
the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional
Protocol. He also expresses doubts about the effectiveness
of the appeal
|
Admissible
The
Committee examined the domestic remedies and came to the
conclusion that no effective remedies were available to
the author.
This
case illustrates how the Committee uses the context of
the case to determine whether the domestic remedies were
effective.
Offering
specific facts as to the domestic remedies that the victim
attempted to use to address the claim is essential to
making such an argument. Details as to the outcome of
these attempts help to reveal to the Committee why domestic
remedies would not achieve a satisfactory resolution to
this claim.
|
