previous day identified themselves as agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency and informed him that he would be flown to the United States on the basis of an arrest warrant issued against him in 1982. 2.3 In this context/ the author notes that agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency had offered him, in the course of a covert operation in 1982, to carry out a drug-traffieking operation, which he had declined. He submits that he never committed a drug-related offence, and argues that the United States authorities decided not to follow the formal extradition procedures under the United States-Ecuador Extradition Treaty, since the possibility of obtaining an extradition order by an Ecuadorian judge would have been remote. 2.4 After it had been ascertained that Mr. Canon spoke and understood English, the so-called "Miranda rights" (after a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court requiring criminal suspects to be informed of their right to remain silent, to obtain the assistance of a lawyer during interrogation, and that statements made by them may be used against them in court) were read out to him, and he was informed that he was detained by order of the United States Government. The author asked for permission to consult with a lawyer or to speak with the Colombian Consul at Guayaquil, but his request allegedly was turned down; instead, he was immediately made to board a plane bound for the United States. 2.5 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author indicates that he was unable to bring his case before an Ecuadorian judge so as to be able to determine tne legality of his expulsion from the country. He further indicates that any recourse to the Ecuadorian courts in his current situation would not be effective; in this context, he notes that he does not have the financial means to seize the Ecuadorian courts, nor the benefit of legal assistance in Ecuador, which would enable him to start civil action and/or to seek criminal prosecution of those responsible for his alleged illtreatment. Complaint 3. The author submits that the facts described above constitute a violation of articles 2; 5, paragraph 2; 7; 9, paragraph 1; 13; and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In particular, he contends that, in the light of the existence of a valid extradition treaty between the State party and the United States at the time of his apprehension, he should have been afforded the procedural safeguards provided for in said treaty. State party's information and observations 4.1 The State party did not make any submission prior to the adoption of the Committee's decision declaring the communication admissible. On 11 July 1991, it informed the Committee as follows: "The act in question occurred on 22 July 1987, before the present administration took office. Furthermore, the citizen in question has not submitted any kind of application or recourse to the competent national authorities. -291-