Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. 24/1977, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 83 (1984). Submitted by: Sandra Lovelace on 29 December 1977 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Date of adoption of views: 30 July 1981 (thirteenth session) Concept of victim--Events prior to entry into force of Covenant and Optional Protocol-Minorities--Indian Act--Sex discrimination--Protection of the family--Right to marry--Right of residence Articles of Covenant 2 (1), 3, 12 (1) and (3}, 17, 23 (1), 24, 26 and 27 Views under article 5 {4j of the Optional Protocol ' , 2 1. The author of the communication dated 29 December 1977 and supplemented by letters of 17 April 1978, 28 November 1979 and 20 June 1980, is a 32-year-old woman, living in Canada. She was born and registered as "Maliseet Indian" but has lost her rights and status as an Indian in accordance with section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act, after having married a nonIndian on 23 May 1970. Pointing out that an Indian man who marries a non-Indian woman does not lose his Indian status, she claims that the Act is discriminatory on the grounds of sex and contrary to articles 2 (1), 3, 23 (1) and (4), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. As to the admissibility of the communication, she contends that she was not required to exhaust local remedies since the Supreme Court of Canada, in The A ttorney-General of Canada v. Jeanette Lavell, Richard Isaac et al. v. Yvonne Bddard [1974] S.C.R. 1349, held that decision 12 (1) (b) was fully operative, irrespective of its inconsistency with the Canadian Bill of Rights on account of discrimination based on sex. 2. By its decision of 18 July 1978 the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, to the State party concerned, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. This request for information and observations was reiterated by a decision of the Committee's Working Group, dated 6 April 1979. 3. By its decision of 14 August 1979 the Human Rights Committee declared the communication admissible and requested the author of the communication to submit additional information concerning her age and her marriage, which had not been indicated in the original submission. At that time no information or observations had been received from the State party concerning the question of admissibility of the communication. 4. In its submission dated 26 September 1979 relating to the admissibility of the communication, the State party informed the Committee that it had no comments on that point to make. This fact, however, should not be considered as an admission of the merits of the allegations or the arguments of the author of the communication.