K. Communication Ho. 367/1989, J.J.C. v. Canada (decision of 5 November 1991. adopted at the forty-third session) Submitted bv: J.J.C. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author gtate partyi Canada Date of communication: 18 May 1989 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Sights, Meeting on 5 November 1991, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1, The author of the communication is J.J.C, a Canadian citizen residing in Montreal, Canada. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Canada of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author states that, in 1987, the "Regie du Loqement" of Quebec rejected his request for a reduction of his rent; he submits that the reason for this request was his desire to obtain compensation for the continuous harassment he allegedly hact been subjected to by his neighbours. He appealed against the decision of the Regie 3 M Loqement to the.provincial court (Cour Provinciale) in the district of Montreal, which confirmed the decision of the Regie and rejected his appeal. According to the author, this judgement cannot be appealed pursuant to article 102 of the "Loi sur la Regie du Loqement". 2.2 The author states that he asked the provincial court to retract its judgement and further filed a complaint with the Conseil de la Magistrature of the Province of Quebec about the judge's alleged failure to comply with his professional duties. He was subsequently heard by a Committee of Enquiry (Comite d'Enquete} set up by the Conseil de la Maqisttature, composed of two judges and one lawyer. He complains that none of the Committee members displayed any interest in his case, and that the Committee's report was the product of "bad faith and partiality". He adds that, in any case, there is no true supervision and scrutiny of the judiciary's actions, as judges cannot be expected to sanction the actions of their colleagues. Finally, he notes that his complaint to the Committee has prompted the Conseil de la Magistrature of Quebec not to make available any longer the report of the Committee of Enguiry to citizens who have seized the Conseil. 2.3 Early in 1989, the author lodged another complaint with the Ministry of Justice, protesting against the decision of the Committee of Enquiry not to entertain his complaint against the judge. 2.4 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that, although it would be open to him to file a petition to the -372-