2.4 Concerning the course of the proceedings against the author, it is stated that a habeas corpus application was filed on his behalf on 13 September 1991; he was represented by a legal aid representative. The application was dismissed by the Superior Court of Quebec. The author's representative appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec on 17 October 1991. 2.5 Counsel requests the Committee to adopt interim measures of protection because extradition of the author to the United States would deprive the Committee of its jurisdiction to consider the communication and the author to pursue his communication properly. Complaint 3. The author claims that the order to extradite him violates article 6 juncto 26 of the Covenant; he alleges that the way death penalties are pronounced in the United States generally discriminates against Black people. He further alleges a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, in that he, if extradited and sentenced to death, would be exposed to "the death-row phenomenon", i.e. years of detention under harsh conditions, awaiting execution. State party's observations 4. On 30 April 1992, the State party informed the Committee of the author's situation in regard to remedies which are either currently being pursued by him before Canadian courts or which are still available for him to pursue. It indicates that the Court of Appeal of Quebec is seized of the matter, and that, if it rendered a decision unfavourable to the author, he could appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the event of an unfavourable decision there, he could still "petition the Minister of Justice to seek assurances under the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States that if surrendered, the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out. Counsel for K.C. has in fact indicated that, once remedies before the courts have been exhausted, he will be making representations to the Minister regarding assurances. A review of the Minister's decision is available in the Superior Court of Quebec on habeas corpus with appeals again to the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Supreme Court of Canada or on application to the Federal Court Trial Division with appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently, there is no basis for [K.C.]'s complaint as he has not exhausted all remedies available in Canada and has several opportunities to further contest his extradition." Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 On 12 March 1992 the Special Rapporteur on New Communications requested the State party, pursuant to rule 86 of the Committee's rules of procedure, to defer the author's extradition until the Committee had had an opportunity to consider the admissibility of the issues placed before it. 5.2 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Sights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. -438-