Documentation Centre Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM)
SIM SIM

Drift 15, 3512 BR Utrecht, The Netherlands, telephone: +31 30 2538033, fax: +31 30 2537168, email: sim.documentation@uu.nl


Documentation Home
Search this Database



Article : CCPR-OP-1
Subject :victim
Keywords :being a victim
Communication :078/1980
Parties :A.D. on behalf of the Mikmaq Tribal Society v. Canada
Reference :inadmissibility decision of 29 July 1984

Facts :
1. The author of the communication (...) is A.D., "Jigap'ten of Santeoi Mawa'iomi" - Grand Captain - of the Mikmaq tribal society. He submits the communication on behalf of "the Mikmaq people" who claim as their territory the lands which they possessed and governed at the time when they entered into a protection treaty with Great Britain in 1952, and which are known today as Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and parts of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Gaspe peninsula of Quebec.

AUTHOR'S SUBMISSIONS:

3. Responding to a request by the Committee for clarification (decision of 29 October 1980) A.D., in a letter dated 9 December 1980, (...) submits that he has been authorized by the Grand Council of the Mikmaq people to represent his kinsmen before the Committee. [Footnote: The author states that the Grand Council, whose members are the Grand Chief, the Grand Captain and the Assistant Grand Chief, constitutes "the traditional Government of the Mikmaq tribal society".]

(...)

STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS:

(...)

5.2 The State party further submits that the communication does not fulfil the requirements of articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. It is argued that, in the circumstances of the case, A.D. cannot claim either that his own rights have been violated, since according to article 1 (1) of the Covenant the right of self-determination is a collective right, or that he is duly authorized under the relevant provisions of the Optional Protocol to act on behalf of the Mikmaq nation.

(...)

Decision on admissibility :
(...)

7.2 Articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol provide for the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals who claim to be victims of a violation of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

(...)

7.4 The Committee agreed to clarify first the standing of the author in so far as he claims to represent the Mikmaq tribal society.

7.5 While seeking to clarify the standing of the author, the Committee received a "communique" dated 1 October 1982 from the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Mikmaq tribal society, D.M., stating that nobody was authorized to speak on behalf of the Mikmaq nation or on behalf of the Grand Council or the Grand Chief, unless the latter "will give this authority in writing to the person or persons for each separate correspondence". Consequently, the Committee requested the Grand Council of the Mikmaq to comment on or clarify A.D.'s authority to act on behalf of the Mikmaq tribe and to provide the relevant information not later than 1 February 1983. In response, R.B., legal counsel for A.D., informed the Committee by telegram of 31 January 1983 that the Mikmaq Grand Council had reaffirmed the authority of A.D. to pursue communication No. R.19/78 before the Committee and that a document signed to this effect by the Grand Council would be transmitted by registered mail.

7.6 Six months later, on 3 August 1983, a letter mandating the legal counsel of A.D., Mr. R.B., to represent the Grand Council was received. This "Commission" was signed by the author of the communication himself and by the Assistant Grand Chief. The content of the "Commission" shows clearly that it is not the Grand Council in its legal entity which authorizes A.D. to act but that it is the author himself who confirms his self-authorization.

7.7 Later submissions of the author dated 6 January and 6 February 1984 referred to the substance of his complaints without providing evidence on his standing in the case of the Mikmaq people.

8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

8.2 The Human Rights Committee observes that the author has not proven that he is authorized to act as a representative on behalf of the Mikmaq tribal society. In addition, the author has failed to advance any pertinent facts supporting his claim that he is personally a victim of a violation of any rights contained in the Covenant.

9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

The communication is inadmissible.

Views :


Remedy proposed :


Individual Opinion :

Documentation Home
Search this Database


Last Modified: 14-08-2009 17:20:49 (Documentation SIM)