Communication No. 948/2000
Submitted by: Mr. Ravi Devgan (represented by Mr. Harry Kopyto,
Alleged victim: The
State party: Canada
Date of communication:
1 June 2000
The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Meeting on 30 October
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. The author of the communication is Ravi Devgan, a Canadian citizen, born
in 1946. He claims to be victim of the violation of his rights under articles
2, 3, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights
Facts as submitted by
2.1 On 26 January 1996, the
Ontario Court tried the author on one account of fraud and one account
of making a false statement, involving separate complainants. The author
pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty, and on 17 May 1996 he was sentenced
to 90 days of intermittent imprisonment. The author claims that although
a civil suit for compensation for the fraud had been settled, he was also
ordered to pay compensation to both complainants, under s 725(1) of the
2.2 The author, represented
by a solicitor, gave Notice of Appeal of both conviction and sentence
set by the Ontario Court. However, the solicitor advised the author that
if he proceeded with the appeal a higher sentence might be imposed. In
August 1999, the author confirmed in writing to his counsel the withdrawal
of his Notice of Appeal. Counsel submitted a Notice of Abandonment to
the court, which dismissed the appeal as abandoned on 11 August 1999.
The author also appealed the compensation orders. In a judgement of 26
May, 1999 the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside one compensation order
and reduced the other.
2.3 After withdrawing his
appeal against the conviction and sentence the author obtained new advice,
which indicated that it would be extraordinary for the Court of Appeal
to increase the sentence, given that no cross-appeal was taken by the
Crown in respect of the sentence. The author then submitted a motion to
set aside the order of abandonment of the appeal. The Court of Appeal
for Ontario dismissed the motion on 7 February 2000, holding that there
was no basis to set aside the abandonment. The author applied for leave
to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, which on 23 March
2000 refused the application. Furthermore, the author applied for leave
to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's judgement in respect of the compensation.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused the application on 20 April 2000.
3. The author contends that
by denying him his right to appeal, the courts violated his rights pursuant
to Articles 2, 3, 7 and 14 of the Covenant. He also claims that the courts
placed him in double jeopardy by giving a compensation order at the criminal
trial, after a civil action had settled the matter, and that this also
constitutes a violation of articles 7article 14.
Issues and proceedings
before the Human Rights Committee
4.1 Before considering any
claims contained in the communication, the Human Rights Committee must,
in accordance with Article 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether
or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
4.2 With regard to the author's
claim that he was denied the right to appeal, the Committee notes that
according to the information provided by the author, he initially exercised
his right to appeal, but subsequently withdrew the appeal. Nothing in
the author's allegations or in the information before the Committee substantiates
for purposes of admissibility, the author's claim that in refusing his
motion for reopening the appeal the State party violated articles 2,3,7
or 14 of the Covenant. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible
under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
4.3 As regards the compensation
awarded in the criminal trial, the Committee is of the view that the author
has failed to substantiate his claim that in awarding compensation the
State party violated his rights under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant.
This part of the communication is also therefore inadmissible under article
2 of the Optional Protocol.
5. The Committee therefore
that the communication is
that this decision shall be
communicated to the author and, for information, to the State party.
* The following members of
the Committee participated in the examination of the present communication:
Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati, Lord Colville,
Ms. Elizabeth Evatt, Ms. Pilar Gaitan de Pombo, Mr. Louis Henkin, Mr.
Eckart Klein, Mr. David Kretzmer, Ms. Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Mr. Martin
Scheinin, Mr. Hipólito Solari Yrigoyen and Mr. Roman Wieruszewski. Pursuant
to rule 85 of the Committee's rules of procedure, member Maxwell Yalden
did not participate in the consideration of the communication.
[Adopted in English, French
and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently
to be translated into Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's
Annual Report to the General Assembly.]