Source: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/session41/184-1984.htm
Timestamp: 2014-10-23 21:18:20
Document Index: 673367370

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 152', 'e contrario', 'art. 149', 'art. 151', 'art. 129', 'art. 153', 'art. 13', 'art. 149', 'art. 153', 'art. 149', 'art. 153', 'art. 153', 'art. 149', 'art. 153']

H. S. v. France, Communication No. 184/1984, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/41/40) at 169 (1986). Submitted by: H.S. [name deleted] Alleged victim: The author State party .concerned: France Date of communication: 4 September 1984 (date of initial letter) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 10 April 1986, adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial letter dated 4 September 1984 and further
letters of 23 and 24 April, 24 June, 20 August and 21 November 1985) is H.S., who
currently resides in France. He submitted the communication on his own behalf. 2.1 In his initial letter (dated 4 September 1984), the author alleged that he had been
arbitrarily deprived of his French nationality. He stated that he had been born in
Mauritania in 1944, at that time a French colony, that he had entered France in 1959 as a
French national, and that he had lived there since. When Mauritania became independent in
1960, the author claimed to have requested that he retain his French nationality in
accordance with the French Nationality Code (Law No. 60-752 of 28 June 1960). Many years
later (the author claimed that this took place in 1979), he had allegedly been informed by
the relevant French authorities that, pursuant to a decision of the Ministry of Justice,
he was no longer regarded as a French national and that consequently he was required to
return his French identity papers. In August 1979, the author initiated proceedings before
the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny with a view to securing recognition of his
French nationality. These proceedings were, however, still pending at the time of the
submission of the communication. 2.2 The author stated that his wife (born in Mall) and his six children were suffering
from the situation. He mentioned that on 18 November 1983, the authorities had declined to
renew his wife's residence permit and that they had no place to live. 2.3 The author enclosed a copy of his French identity card (No. 3531769, issued by the
Prefect of Police of Paris on 22 October 1973) and a copy of his card as reservist in the
French army (issued on 5 December 1983). 3. By its decision of 17 October 1984, the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee
provide the Committee with copies of any court orders or decisions relevant to this case. 4.1 In a submission dated 26 March 1985, the State party provided information on the
existing legislation and regulations concerning French nationality, in particular in
respect of individuals from the former French overseas territories. It further submitted
information, including a detailed chronology of legal decisions, concerning the author's
legal status and objected to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that
domestic remedies had not been exhausted. It also noted that the author had not invoked
any specific provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in
support of his allegations and that his communication therefore did not meet the
requirements of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 4.2 Regarding the principles established by the French Nationality Code in respect of
persons from former overseas territories (Mauritania had the status of an overseas
territory of the French Republic on 31 December 1946 and became independent on 28 November
1960), the State party submitted that: "The Act of 28 July 1960 and the subsequent Act of 9 January 1973 make a
distinction between persons who are automatically French and persons whose French
nationality is subject to recognition in accordance with the criterion of Geographical
origin. To this end, the legislator differentiated between those who are from and those
who are not from the territory of the French Republic. (a) French persons from the territory of the French Republic, as it was constituted on
28 July 1960, and domiciled, on the date on which a State previously having the status of
overseas territory of the French Republic attained independence, in the territory of that
State retained French nationality (art. 152); (b) French persons not from the territory of the French Republic, on the other hand,
lost French nationality when their country of origin gained its independence. "However, persons were entitled to retain French nationality: (a) Automatically, if on the date on which a former overseas territory became
independent they were not domiciled in that territory. The solution derives e contrario
from the new article 153, which subjects to a formal procedure only persons who were
not from the territory of the Republic and who were domiciled at the time of independence
in the territory of the State that became independent; (b) In other cases, by the making of a statement of recognition of French nationality
after their domicile was transferred to France. The Act of 9 January 1973 subsequently
removed this option and replaced it by an authorization for the making of a statement to
restore French nationality, which is regulated by the new articles 153,156 and 157.
Restoration of nationality may be denied on the ground of unworthiness (indignite) or
failure to be assimilated. "Minor children under 18 years of age on the date of independence of the territory
where their parents were domiciled take the nationality of the parents, "Consequently, the persons to which these texts apply, in order to establish their
French nationality, must; (a) Prove that they were French prior to independence; (b) Show that they have retained French nationality in the aforementioned
conditions." 4.3 The State party further submitted that the following rules were applicable
regarding proof and contentious proceedings: "French nationality is evidenced in cases of difficulty by a certificate issued by
the juge d'instance of the place of domicile of the applicant. The juge
d'instance draws up the certificate in the light of the applicant's civil status,
which attests to the date and place of birth and the parentage (art. 149). "If the Juge d'instance refuses to issue the certificate, the person
concerned may apply in a non-contentious procedure to the Minister of Justice (art. 151). "He may also 'institute proceedings before the Tribunal de grande instance with
the primary and direct object of obtaining a judgement as to whether or not he possesses
French nationality' (art. 129). The judgement of that court is appealable to the Cour
d'appel, then to the Cour de cassation. "Moreover, French persons who have lost their French nationality and who wish to
recover it must, under the procedure established in 1973, make a statement before the Juge
d'instance of their place of domicile after receiving authorization to do so from the
Minister responsible for naturalization (currently the Minister of Social Affairs and
National Solidarity; in 1977, the Minister of Labour) (art. 153). "The Minister's refusal to authorize the making of a statement can be contested in
non-contentious or contentious proceedings. "In the former case, the party concerned may request the Minister to reconsider
his decision aria to authorize the making of a statement for the restoration of
nationality. "In the case of contentious proceedings, the party concerned may bring the matter
of the Minister's refusal before the tribunal administratif, and may subsequently
appeal to the Conseil d'etat." 4.4 The State party observed that the determination of the author's nationality was a
problem that had been rendered complex by the fact that he had given two different dates
of birth: "Up until 1973, [H.S.] claimed to have been born in 1923. As he would thus have
been 37 years of ace when Mauritania became independent, and as he was domiciled in France
in 1960, he could originally have been considered to be French. "From 1973 onwards, however, he has claimed that he was born in 1944. This would
mean that he was a minor in 1960. If so, he could have retained French nationality only if
his parents had themselves retained it but he apparently has not submitted proof thereof. "Furthermore, the inquiries that were conducted during the various proceedings
revealed that there were doubts, not only as to [H.S.'s] civil status (date and place of
birth, parentage), but with regard to his actual identity in relation to other individuals
having the same name. These Questions had of necessity to be settled before a decision
could be taken in respect of this applicant's nationality."
4.5 The State party lists the following decisions and other measures concerning the
author's legal status: "23 February 1959. A decision having the legal validity of a birth
certificate was issued by the Tribunal de premier degre at Selibaby, at the oral request
of [H.S.], stating that he had been born at Massi-Chaggor, Mauritania, in 1923. "21 February 1967. In the light of the above decision, a certificate of
French nationality was issued to [H.S.] by the Tribunal d'instance du 20eme arrondissement
de Paris on the Ground that he had been domiciled in France in 1960 (art. 13, para. 1, of
the ordinance of 19 October 1945, in the 1960 version: '... persons domiciled in the ceded
territories lose French nationality unless the7 effectively establish their domicile
outside those territories'). "3 March 1967. A French national identity card, No. 1513223-YN 7707, was
issued by the Prefect of Police of Paris. "24 August 1973. At [H.S.'s] request, the Procureur de la Republique, in
Paris, had the birth certificate amended to state that [H.S.] was born in 1944, not 1923. "5 October 1973. The Jugs d'instance du 19eme arrondissement de Paris issued
[H.S.] a new certificate of French nationality in the light of the change in the date of
his birth. "22 October 1973. A new identity card, No. 353 1769-BU 668 H, was issued by
the Prefect of Police of Paris. "1975. [H.S.] again applied to the Juge d'instance du 19eme
arrondissement for a certificate of nationality. "23 March 1976. The Garde des Sceaux, Ministry of Justice, sent a
notice to the Jugs d'instance du 19eme arrondissement de Paris, stating that [H.S.]
was to be considered a foreigner. In fact, if the party concerned had been born in 1944,
as he claims, he would have been only 16 years old when Mauritania became independent and
could not, under those circumstances, be considered domiciled in France for purposes of
nationality, since his status was dependent on that of his father or surviving mother and
he had at no time submitted evidence of their living in France at that time. "28 October 1976. At the request of the Ministry of Justice, [H.S.]
returned the two certificates which had been wrongfully issued, in accordance with the
official statement prepared by the Tribunal d'instance at Aulnay-sous-Bois on 28 October
1976. "Late 1976. [H.S.] applied to the Ministry of Labour for the statement of
restoration of French nationality provided for in article 153 of the Nationality Code. "8 March 1977. The Ministry of Labour rejected the application on the
ground that [H.S.] had provided false information. "1979. [H.S.] applied to the Juge d'instance at Aulnay-sous-Bois for
a new certificate of nationality. "25 May 1979. [H.S.] returned his national identity card to the
Blanc-Mesnil police station. "26 June 1979. The Minister of Justice sent a notice identical to that of
23 March 1976 to the Juge d'instance, stating that the certificate of nationality
should be withheld. "3 July 1979.[H.S.] was notified of the refusal to issue a certificate of
nationality. "August 1979. [M.S.] applied to the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny
with a view to securing recognition of his French nationality (arts. 128-136). "9 August 1979. As required under the Code of Civil Procedure, [H.S.'s]
lawyer forwarded a cow of the summons to the Ministry of Justice. "12 October 1979. The lawyer again notified the Chancellerie, the form of
the first summons having been irregular. "19.December.!979. The Ministry of Justice gave the following instructions
to the Procureur of the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny: (a) The lawyer was to be informed that the new and currently prepared summons had been
filed with the Ministry of Justice; (b) Since [B.S.] had successively provided two birth dates in the documents which he
had submitted for the proceedings, the court was to be requested to rule on the
applicant's civil status. "29 January ,1980. [H.S.] was given a hearing by the procureur at
Bobigny concerning the authenticity of the documents that he had placed in the file. It
became apparent that the testimony submitted to the Parguet de Paris in support of the
change of date of birth under the decision of 24 August 1973 had been prepared by [M.S.]
himself because the witnesses were unable to write. This renders spurious the certificate
issued on 5 October 1973. "12 March 1980. The Minister of the Interior consulted the Minister of
Justice with regard to the status of an individual named [A.S.], who purportedly was born
at Sokodiandi, Mall, in 1936, but whose birth certificate had never been transmitted. "14 August 1980. Since comparison of the files of [H.S.] and [A.S.] gave
around for assuming that these two individuals were using the same certificates and
documents, the Minister of Justice then asked the Minister o the Interior to order a
thorough inquiry in order to identify each of the persons concerned and to investigate if
they were making use of certificates or documents belonging to another person. "2 December 1980, 30 January 1981, 6 and 17 February 1982. Several
telegrams were sent to INTERPOL {Nouakchott) about the identity of [H.S.]. "9 December 1982. Request by the Ministry of Justice for an inquiry into a
third individual, also called [A.S.]. In this connection, INTERPOL (Bamako) was likewise
asked several times to state whether this third individual was a twin brother of the
Previous one. "14 September 1983. Hearing of the detainee, [H.S.], by an investigator of
the Poissy police department. "10 October 1983. Application by the wife of [H.S.], born in Mall, for
permission to stay in France. "18 November 1983. Notification to Mrs. [H.S.] that her application was
refused. "29 March 1984. Preparatory hearing. The judge responsible for preparing
the proceedings of the Bobigny tribunal ordered Maitre Eugene B. Yesse, [H.S. 's] new
lawyer, to establish his client's physical identity with the individual said to have
entered France in 1959 and to have been there on 28 November 1960, the date on which
Mauritania attained independence. "2 June 1984. [H.S.'a] application for the restoration of his French
nationality addressed to the President of the French Republic. This application was
transmitted to the Minister of Social Affairs and National Solidarity for action. "28.August' 1984. Request by the Ministry of Social Affairs and National
Solidarity to the Prefect of Seine and Marne (where [R.S.] was detained) for an inquiry
under article 153. "7 August 1984. Report of the inquiry by the Ministry of the Interior
communicated to the Ministry of Justice. "13 August 1984. Transmission of the above report to the procureur at
Bobigny. "16 October 1984. Transmission of the report Of the inquiry by the
Prefecture of Seine and Marne to the Ministry of Social Affairs. "7 November 1984. New preparatory hearing for the case before the Tribunal
de arande instance of Bobigny. "9 November 1984. Order to [H.S.'s] lawyer renewed. "6 February 1985. Further preparatory hearing at the request of [H.S.] who
had chosen another counsel; postponement until 24 April 1985. Order renewed." 4.6 The State party also mentioned that since May 1980, the author had been serving a
seven-year term of imprisonment for a breach of the legislation on narcotic drugs. 4.7 The State party contended that the author had not exhausted all available domestic
remedies before the competent French administrative and judicial authorities, not only
with regard to the issuing of a certificate of French nationality by the jugs
d'instance (art. 149 of the Nationality Code), but also with regard to the procedure
for the restoration of French nationality (art. 153 of the Nationality Code), because,
first, the author had failed to pursue certain courses of action within the time-limits
allowed to him and, secondly, because several remedies were still available to him. In
that connection the State party gave the following details" (a) With regard to the issuing of a certificate of French nationality by the jugs
d'instance (art. 149), H.S. was refused the certificate on 3 July 1979. He started
legal proceedings in August 1979 before the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny. The
proceedings proved to be extremely complicated because of the doubts concerning the
author's person and civil status. In the course of 1984, the judge responsible for
preparing the case at Bobigny ordered H.S.'s lawyer, without success, to establish his
client's identity (orders dated 29 March 1984, 9 November 1984 and 6 February 1985). The
matter was subsequently postponed until the hearing on 24 April 1985, at the request of
the applicant himself. In these circumstances, the prolongation of the procedural period
was the responsibility of the author. In any event, it was for the Tribunal de grande
instance of Bobigny to pronounce on the application of H.S. for recognition of French
nationality. H.S. would be able to appeal against the Judgement and then, if there was
occasion, to submit his case to the tour de cassation.
(b) With regard to the procedure for the restoration of French nationality (art. 153 of
the Nationality Code): first, H.S. neither applied to the competent Minister, nor
instituted proceedings before the administrative tribunals with a view to the overturning
of the negative decision of the Minister of Labour, dated 8 March 1977. Those remedies
could have been sought simultaneously, as mentioned above. Secondly, a new application was
currently under examination at the Ministry of Social Affairs and National Solidarity,
H.S. having again, in 1984, requested authorization to make a declaration of French
nationality before the competent jugs d'instance. Should the Minister of Social
Affairs and National Solidarity turn down the application, again all of the aforementioned
remedies could be sought by H.S. by contentious and non-contentious means alike. 5.1 In further submissions dated 23 and 24 April 1985 the author commented on the State
party's submission and reiterated that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his French
nationality in 1979 and that since then, despite all his efforts and the procedures to
which he had applied, he remained in the same situation. 5.2 Concerning his date of birth, the author stated that he had been born in Mauritania
in 1944, that his father had died during the Second World War fighting for France, that
his mother had died in 1958, that in 1959 he had decided to travel to France. In order to
obtain a birth certificate he had gone to the Tribunal de premier degre at Selibaby,
Mauritania. A decision, having the legal validity of a birth certificate, had been issued
by the tribunal on 23 February 1959 stating that he had been born at Massi-Chaggor,
Mauritania, in 1923. The author further stated that the Haut commissariat de l'Afrique
occidentals francaise, on the basis of that decision, had issued to him an identity card
with which he had travelled to France. He had used the card for employment purposes, to
pay his social insurance, etc., until 21 February 1967. On that day he had been issued a
certificate of French nationality by the Tribunal d'instance du 20eme arrondissement de
Paris and on 3 March 1967, he had been given a French national identity card by the
Prefect of Police of Paris. He stressed that at no time had he submitted false information
and that he could not be held responsible for an error (concerning his date of birth) made
in the decision taken by the tribunal of Selibaby. The author mentioned, however, that in
1973 he had requested a change in his date of birth because he had been born in 1944 and
not in 1923. On 5 October 1973, he had been issued a new certificate of French nationality
by the competent judge and on 22 October 1973 he had received a new identity card. 5.3 The author contested the whole process by which he had been deprived of his French
nationality. In particular he contested the reasoning of the Garde des Sceaux on 23
March 1976 (see pars. 4.5) because he had been domiciled in France since 1959. He argued
that even if, in 1960, he had been a minor, his status could not have been dependent on
that of his parents. He recalls that they both died prior to the independence of
Mauritania in 1960. Therefore, he saw himself as a victim of discrimination. The author
claimed that the State party's assertions that "the proceedings have proved to be
extremely complicated because of the doubts concerning the author's person and civil
status" (see above para. 4.7 (a)) were not valid and that the application of domestic
remedies in that regard had been unreasonably 'prolonged within the meaning of article 5,
paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. He argues that there could be no doubt about his
person and status, since he had lawfully lived and worked in France since 1959, he had no
brothers and he did not know of any person having his name. He added that there were
approximately 1 million individuals with his family name in West Africa. With regard to
the procedure for the restoration of French nationality (art. 153 of the Nationality
Code), he argued that he had never applied to the competent minister nor initiated
proceedings before the administrative tribunals for the simple reason that he was French
and had always been French. In particular, he denied that on 2 June 1984 he had written to
the President of the French Republic "for the restoration of his French
nationality" (see pars. 4.5). He had written a letter merely to request due process
of law in his case. 5.4 Regarding his detention, the author reiterated that in 1979 he had been obliged to
return his national identity card. He stated that at that time he had become afraid that
he might be dismissed from his job at Air France because of lack of legal documents.
Believing that his situation was precarious, he had felt that he had no choice but to
agree, when approached in the presence of his supervisor, to be involved in drug
trafficking. That had brought about his arrest in March 1980. He alleged discrimination
because his supervisor, a white man, had never been tried while he himself and three other
black colleagues had been sentenced to several years of imprisonment. He mentioned that he
had been sentenced by a French tribunal as "French" and that during his trial
for drug trafficking the question of his nationality had not been put into question.
However, subsequently - as shown in a copy of a letter dated, it appears, in June 1983,
addressed by the Prefecture des Yvelines (Foreigners Department) to the Director of the
Poissy prison - the prison authorities were informed that H.S. "who has declared that
he is a French national is in fact Mauritanian" and that the criminal record of this
"foreigner" should be forwarded to the Prefecture. 5.5 Regarding his family, the author enclosed copies of birth certificates of his six
children (one born in Mall, the others in France). It appears that he has three wives (two
from Mall, one from Senegal). He submitted copies of certificates of French nationality
regarding three of his children. His wife, M. M., mother of these three children, was
allowed, in January 1985, to stay in France, but according to the author, she is not
allowed to work or to receive social security allowances. He recalled that in 1983 she had
been requested to leave France and enclosed a copy of a letter dated 18 November 1983 from
the Prefecture de Police to that effect. 6. At the twenty-fifth session of the Human Rights Committee in July 1985, the State
natty was requested to submit further information concerning the author's legal situation
and, in particular, the State party was asked to indicate when a final decision concerning
the author's nationality might be expected, if he pursued the matter in a timely fashion.
At the same time, the author was requested to specify which provisions of the Covenant had
allegedly been violated in his case. 7.1 By a further letter dated 20 August 1985, the author claimed to be a victim of
violations of the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights: articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 3 (b); 5, paragraph 2; 7} 9, paragraph 4;
15, paragraph 1, 162 17, paragraphs 1 and 2} 23} 24 and 26. He offered the following
clarifications in substantiation of his claims: (a) That articles 2, paragraph 3 (b), 9, paragraph 4, and 16 had been violated because
a complaint which he had lodged against two judges of the Bobigny jurisdiction in February
1985, for allegedly acting against his interests and rights, had not been properly
considered; (b) That articles 7, 9, paragraph 4, and 15, paragraph 1, had been violated because he
had been allegedly unjustly convicted and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in 1981
and because the French authorities, in general, and the judges, in particular, were bent
on harming him; (c) That articles 2, paragraph I, 5, paragraph 2, 17, 23, 24 and 26 had been violated
because he has suffered discrimination in the sense that, despite all his efforts, the
case concerning his nationality has been pending before the courts since 1979 and because
his honour and reputation had been undermined, his family had not received social security
allowances and his children had been deprived of proper education. 7.2 By a further letter dated 21 November 1985, the author transmitted to the Human
Rights Committee a copy of submissions dated 15 and 23 October 1985 from his lawyer,
Maitre Tourrette, to the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny. In his submissions, the
lawyer, after a lengthy description of hie client's case, requested that the court, (a) Take note that his client had proven that he was the H.S. born in 1944 and present
in France before 28 November 1960, the date when Mauritania had acceded to independence; (b) State that H.S., born in 1944, orphaned in 1959, the date of his arrival in France,
retained nationality by filiation and also because of his presence on the territory in the
Republic of France prior to the independence of Mauritania; (c) Recognize that H.S. had possessed French status for more than 10 years. He
considered it of lesser importance that, if the Court considered the application to be
insufficiently well-founded, it should order any additional information or any hearing of
witnesses ready to furnish information both on the family of H.S. and his presence in
France before the independence of Mauritania. 8.1 By way of additional observations, submitted under cover of a letter from the
Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations dated 2 December 1985, the State
party noted that, in the legal proceedings instituted before the Tribunal de grande
instance of Bobigny (Court of Major Jurisdiction) by the author with a view to securing
recognition of his French nationality, he had recently changed his lawyer once again. He
had also applied for full legal aid, which had been granted to him. The State party
confirmed that Maltre Tourrette, the author's new lawyer, had made his written submission
on 23 October 1985, and it stated that the pre-trial judge at Bobigny had been obliged to
refer the papers in the case for final consideration on 4 December 1985. The State party
added that following this hearing, the case could be brought before the Tribunal on 19
December 1985 (see para. 8.7). 8.2 The State party reiterated that the prolongation of time-limits continued to be, as
was the case earlier, the responsibility of the author and that he had not exhausted all
the remedies available under domestic law. For the State party it seemed obvious that his
communication ought to be rejected in accordance with the provisions of article 5,
paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The State party observed that the author, in his further letter of 20 August 1985
(see para. 7.1), had referred to proceedings instituted by himself after he had submitted
his communication relating to the question of his nationality to the Human Rights
Committee and it stated that those proceedings concerned other issues than that of his
nationality. It further stated that the proceedings consisted of an interim relief
procedure instituted following imprisonment for non-payment of a customs fine and of
complaints filed against judges of the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny. Those
proceedings, according to the State party, could be summarized as follows: "(a) The proceedings concerning imprisonment for debt. "On 15 July 1985, [H.S.] made an application to the President of the Tribunal de
grande instance of Bobigny challenging the imprisonment for debt. "On 31 July 1985, the President issued an interim relief order referring the case
to the competent criminal court for a final decision. "On 13 September 1985, the order was served on him by a bailiff. "On 30 August 1985, a declaration of lack of jurisdiction was issued, after the
author had made a further application to the President of the Tribunal which virtually
repeated the arguments adduced in his application of 15 July 1985. "In conclusion, since the Customs Administration is currently considering a
settlement with [H.S.], he might be released. "(b) Complaints against judges "On 27 March 1985, [H.S.] filed a complaint against the senior examining
magistrate of Bobigny with a civil action for damages, couched in terms that did not
specify the precise nature of the grievances he intended to develop and that he refused to
clarify. The Public Prosecutor of Bobigny nevertheless made an application to the Criminal
Chamber of the Cour de cassation for a court to be appointed to investigate the matter
since the Bobigny tribunal did not have jurisdiction to investigate a case against one of
its own judges. "On 3 August 1985, the Cour de cassation made an order stating that there was no
ground for appointing such a court, since it was not in a position to determine whether
one or several persons were liable to be charged. "H.S. was notified of this decision on 24 September 1985. "On 6 October 1985, [H.S.] made further complaints to the senior examining
magistrate of the Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny concerning one of the examining
magistrates of that court. The latter magistrate had on 29 March 1980 charged [H.S.] with
breaking the law on narcotics and smuggling in contraband goods, then ordered that he
should be detained provisionally. On 10 February 1981, he had referred him, with three
co-accused, to the Correctional Court to be tried on those above-mentioned counts." 8.4 With regard to the author's allegations that his family had not received social
security allowances, the State party observed that his children had been taken into care
by the departmental Social Assistance Office of Bobigny and placed in a home, their mother
being of no fixed abode; that Act No. 75-551 of 2 July 1975 protected the families of
prisoners in respect of sickness benefits and maternity and that thus far H.S.'s wife had
not applied to the Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie for social benefits. The State
party further observed that: "All these grievances thus invoked by the applicant are not only tardy, but do not
fall within the scope of the consideration of this communication, which is concerned
solely with existing legal and administrative procedures relating to the question of his
nationality. They should therefore be kept separate." 8.5 With regard to the alleged violations of articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant, the
State party noted that the author had offered no justification in support of his
allegations. It further noted that it failed to see how the author could have been
subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or subjected to attacks on his honour and
reputation in connection with the legal proceedings before the Tribunal de grande instance
of Bobigny, the purpose of which was to resolve the complex legal problem of his
nationality and to do so at his own request. In alleging violations of articles 7 and 17
of the Covenant in this respect, the State party affirmed, he was in error. 8.6 Finally, the State party emphasized that, contrary to what the author would appear
to maintain, no provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
obliged a State to confer nationality on individuals who applied for it. It reiterated
that the right of every State to determine who were its nationals so far as its
international obligations were concerned was an uncontested principle of public
international law. 8.7 By a letter dated 28 March 1986, the author informed the Committee that the
Tribunal de grande instance of Bobigny had handed down a decision in the case on 13 March
1986, denying him recognition of French nationality} that he had filed an appeal against
that decision and that he intended, as a last resort, to bring his case before the Cour de
cassation, if so warranted. 9.1 Before proceeding to the merits of the case, the Committee must determine whether
the same matter was being examined under another procedure of international investigation
or settlement. There is no indication that that is the case. The Committee must also
determine whether the communication fulfils other admissibility criteria under the
Optional Protocol, including the condition relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies,
set out in article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. In this connection, the
Committee has endeavoured to elicit from the State party clarifications regarding the
apparent prolonged delays in the court proceedings related to the question of the author's
nationality. 9.2 The Committee notes that the State party has maintained that the inquiries that
were conducted during the various proceedings revealed that there were doubts not only as
to the author's civil status (date and place of birth and parentage), but also with regard
to his actual identity in relation to other individuals having the same name and that
these questions had of necessity to be settled before a decision could be taken in respect
of the author's nationality (see para. 4.4). The Committee further notes the State party's
assertion that the author has not exhausted all the domestic remedies available before the
competent French, administrative and judicial authorities, not only with regard to the
issuing of a certificate of French nationality by the jugs d'instance (art. 149),
but also with regard to the procedure for the restoration of French nationality (art. 153
of the Nationality Code) (see para. 4.7). 9.3 The Committee observes that the present case concerns solely Mr. H.S.'s efforts to
have his nationality, as that of a French citizen, recognized anew by the French
authorities. H.S. maintains that his nationality was not in dispute when he entered
France. Later, on 23 March 1976, the Ministry of Justice made it known that H.S. should be
regarded as a foreigner. He was required to surrender two certificates of French
nationality, issued to him in 1967 and 1973, respectively, and to hand in his national
identity card. After unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Ministry of Justice to
"restore" his French nationality and to obtain a new "certificate of
nationality" from the competent judge, H.S., in August 1979, applied to the Tribunal
de grande instance of Bobigny for "recognition" of his French nationality. Upon
completion, those proceedings are appealable, first, to the Cour d'appel and, secondly, to
the Cour de cassation. 9.4 The Committee is aware that the proceedings before the Tribunal de grande instance
of Bobigny lasted for more than six and a half years. However, the Committee finds that
the delays in the proceedings in 1984 and 1985 were caused by the author himself. For that
reason the Committee is unable to conclude that the domestic remedies, which, according to
both parties, are in progress, have been unduly prolonged in a manner that would exempt
the author from exhausting them under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional
Protocol. a/ 9.5 In the light of the observations set out in paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 above, the
Committee is obliged to conclude that, even assuming that the facts of the case might have
raised issues under the Covenant, the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies,
under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, had not been met by the author
at the time of the submission of the communication in September 1984 and that this
requirement has still not been met. 9.6 H.S. has introduced other issues in the case, mostly after the communication was
transmitted to the State party for observations on the question of admissibility. These
issues are either unsubstantiated or fall outside the scope of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and will, therefore, not be examined by the Committee. 10. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: 1. That the communication is inadmissible; 2. That the decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party. Notes a/ The Committee notes that although there is agreement between the
parties that the court proceedings for the "recognition" of the author's
nationality were initiated in 1979 and are still in progress, the parties do not agree on
the Question of whether the separate administrative procedure for the 'restoration' of the
author's nationality was invoked by him in 1984.