October 5, 2004

April 7, 2005

To: Ms. Louise Arbour

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Office of High Commissioner for Human rights

United Nations Office

CH-1211 GENEVE 10

By fax: (41-22)917 9022

Dear Ms. Louise Arbour:

Re: My human rights complaints against government of Canada to UNMy name is Wanxia Liao, a Chinese immigrant in Ontario, Canada, where you were a judge sitting at the Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Appeal before you became the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I am writing to you again to protest your Office's continuing cover up of my complaint against government of Canada for brutal Fascist racial/political persecution on me to the UN's human rights bodies, since it has seized all the complaints that I sent to the UN's various human rights complaint channels. This is an intentional denial of my access to the international human rights bodies at the UN. I am here questioning your impartiality and integrity in your position as the highest human rights official of the UN. I am also request that you recuse your self and your office from handling my case on grounds of conflict of interests, since my complaint is against the government and its courts that each of them you served as a judge.

My complaint is against the Canadian government (in collusion with the U.S.A.) in that they organized a brutal Fascist persecution against me. I was incriminated by a conspiracy led by Canadian governments human rights committee for criminal prosecution, was subjected to arbitrary detention, have been literally (by court order of the Ontario Superior Court) barred to access to courts to seek redress, etc. All of these only resulted in from an academic dispute that I had with a professor when I was a MA graduate student at the University of Toronto, in that the professor lost his White race supremacy art history theory to my challenge, and I filed a human rights complaint against this professor for racist reprisal. (See my Web site for more info: www.wliao.150m.com and http://www.globility.com\~wxl85Since 1999, I have been sending my complaint to the UN's human rights bodies but never reached them. In April of 2004, I faxed my complaint to the Human Rights Committee again, because the revised policy of the committee provides that whether an individual complaint should be registered with the Committee will be decided by a "Special Rapporteur" of the Committee, not by a staff of your Office. However, my complaint was returned promptly by Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Markus Schmidt. (It is your Office to be responsible for Mr. Scmidt's conduct since this morning he called me and told me that he is "assigned" to my case in your Office, and "you don't expect this Office will assist you"). The reason for returning is (1), I have not exhausted domestic remedies, (2), the Committee is not generally in a position to review a sentence imposed by national courts, nor can it review the question of innocence or guilt", (3), I did not provide "sufficient facts" of my case or how my "rights under the relevant treaty have been violated".

It is a serious violation of the procedural rules of the Human Rights Committee. By Rules of the Procedure of the Human Rights Committee and by the guidelines for individual complaints provided by UN's Fact Sheet No. 7, Mr. Markus Schmidt and your Office have NO such authority to refuse my complaint. First, it should have been the Special Rapporteur, not your staff such as Mr. Schmidt to decide whether to register my case. Second, the UN's procedure on individual complaints that provides: "If your complaint contains the essential elements outlined above, your case is registered, that is to say formally listed as a case for consideration by the relevant committee." A review of my enclosed Complaint will show that my Complaint clearly contains EVERY element as listed on this procedure. Canada is a party that signed the treaty and recognized the competence of the Human Rights Committee. My Complaint contains all detailed identity information about me, and was signed. There was no reason for your Office not to transmit my complaint to the Special Rapporteur for consideration of registration, and by doing so, you have violated the Committee's rules.

Further, all of the reasons provided by the refusal are based on no ANY factual ground. For reason (1), it is contrary to the indication at the very beginning of the Complaint that I have been barred from court and I have appealed to all domestic authorities but failed; for reason (2), I did not ask the Committee to evaluate my sentence or review my innocence or guilt, but requested the Committee to review the violation of the laws that the Canadian courts committed in the process of the civil and criminal processes in my case. For reason (3), a review of my complaint shows that I have provided extensive detailed facts and Canadian laws on my case, and I also provided the URL of my Web Page where all the relevant documents on my case are for reviewing.

On August 11, 2004, I faxed a letter of complaint and inquiry to Mr. Schmidt, I subsequently received a phone call and a letter from your Office telling me to re-send my complaint the OHCHR would have "a second look". I sent my complaint to the OHCHR on September 11. On September 24, I received my complaint, returned by Mr. Schmidt again. This time, the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not listed as a reason, the reasons for returning are that 1), the Committee "is not generally in a position to review the evaluation of facts and evidence by national courts and authorities, nor can it review the interpretation of domestic legislation", and 2), the Committee is not in a position to "review a sentence imposed by national courts, nor can it review the question of innocence or guilt".

Mr. Markus Schmidt again violated the procedural rules of the Committee, and he apparently could not answer my inquiry that whether he is the "Special Rapporteur on New Communications", whether it is a violation of the Committee's procedural rules for Mr. Schmidt to decide the admissibility of my case alone, and whether my complaint has met the basic elements for the Rapporteur to consider for registration. Further, the reasons he provided to me are totally unfounded on any fact:

A), there is NO need in my complaint for the Committee to "review the evaluation of the facts and evidences by national courts", since all the essential "facts and evidences" for the allegations in my complaint are NOT disputed between the national courts and me, i.e. for my most essential allegations under the Covenant:For my allegation that "The Canadian government organized a racially/politically motivated criminal prosecution on me in purpose to suppress my human rights complaint", all the basic facts and evidences are NOT in dispute between all parties in Canadian courts. Such as the fact that the OHRC gave me an unconditional guaranty of "confidentiality rule", then solicited my reply by incriminating questions, and then breached this "confidentiality rule" to use my reply to charge me with criminal offence; and it was agreed by all parties including the Judge at my criminal trial that when I allegedly committed the count of "crime", I had no knowledge that the OHRC had already breached the "confidentiality rule", etc. The issue for the UN to review is only whether Canadian government is justified for such entrapment, and in finding me guilty on the basis of these undisputed facts.

For my allegation of denial of my access to Canadian courts, the court orders that literally refused all my legal rights provided by Ontario Rules of Civil Procedures - my rights to Defendants' statement of defense, to discovery, to file motion to dismiss Defendants' defense, and even to file responding motion materials to respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss my actions, etc., are ALL recorded in paper in form of court orders, and correspondences, so certainly they do not need any review by the Committee. The issue for the Committee to examine here is only whether the Canadian court can deprive my legal rights, without even providing any reason, or without any reason permitted by law.

For my allegation under Article 26 "The Canadian government openly deprived my right to equal protection before law by (1), court order prohibiting me to 'commence and continue any court proceedings'; (2), refusal to proceed with my complaint of perjury against the prosecution's witness without providing any lawful reason; (3), bail condition to prohibit me to access the Ontario Human Rights Commission without any lawful grounds. These are no disputed facts for these allegations for the Committee to review, since the court order barring me from court is on record, and even the Defendant of my perjury charge and the prosecution did not dispute that the Defendant committed perjury at my criminal trial but only refused to proceed with my complaint. And for the bail condition, there was never a reason provided to me. Apparently, the only issue for the UN to review is whether Canadian government is justified for such conduct.

B), there is NO need for the Committee to interpret Canadian domestic legislation, since the "interpretation" of laws in my complaint is NOT an issue disputed between Canadian courts and me, for even if the Canadian courts themselves NEVER gave these laws any interpretation other than that provided in my complaint. The rules been allegedly violated are detailed stipulations and requirements governing the courts' procedures and they are written in clearest language so that there is no possibility of any other interpretation. The issue for the UN to review is only whether the national courts' refusal to apply the laws to my cases is justifiable.

C ), And there is NO need for the Committee to review my sentence, innocence or guilt, since the issue of "sentence" on me has never been raised in the Complaint, so the issue for the UN to review is only whether Canadian courts' may violate Canadian laws by Canadian court in finding me guilty.

Further, your Office's handling of my complaint has constituted overt discrimination:

On the issue of "admissibility", a simple search in the Database for the Committee's recent decisions on the Committee's Web site shows that,

(1), most of the complaints been adjudicated by the Committee have similar traits to that of my complaint (such as allegations for violation of the Covenant Articles 9.1, -liberty and security of person, or 14.1, equality before the courts and tribunals, and 26 - equal treatment and protection under law, etc. for criminal or civil trials, and racial discrimination), and have submission dates similar and later to that of mine. And for all of these complaints, the issue of admissibility was decided by the Committee members in group discussions. However, my complaint has been always singled out, as the issue of admissibility of my complaint has been always decided by Mr. Schmidt alone, without referring to the Committee for group discussion. Obviously, these other complaints were dealt with by procedures provided in UN's Facts Sheet No. 7 for individual human rights complaint, yet my complaint was always selected by Mr. Schmidt for a differential treatment with different procedure. And there is no reason for such differential treatment, for compared to these complaints, my complaint is significant in nature since it complains for government's racial/political persecution. Even some of the complaints with nature of "triviality" (as decided by the Committee) could make it to the Committee group discussion, yet my complaint was barred from the Committee.

(2), and when Mr. Schmidt decided on the issue of admissibility for my complaint, he used different standard than that been used by the Committee to those other complaints, such as:

a). when declaring those other complaints inadmissible in relation to issue of "national courts' evaluation of facts and evidences", the Committee's reason was always only a standard that: "the information before the Committee and the arguments advanced by the author do not show that the Courts' evaluation of the facts and their interpretation of the law were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice", not what Mr. Schmidt advised me (see Communication No 934/2000 : Canada. 08/08/2000, etc.) This means the Committee does routinely review and carefully examine national courts' evaluation of facts and interpretation of laws, (Communication No 933/2000 : Democratic Republic of the Congo. 19/09/2003, and Communication No. 798/1998 : Jamaica. 07/11/2003, and this is supported by most of the communications shown by a simple search on the Committee's Database using key word "evaluation of the facts and the interpretation of the law"). The issue for the Committee is only whether such a review shows a manifest denial of justice. However, Mr. Schmidt apparently used a standard on my complaint that simply denied the Committee's reviewing of a complaint without the premise that whether the Courts' evaluation of the facts and their interpretation of the law were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Obviously, Mr. Schmidt has purposely used a different standard to my complaint that is simply a complete bar for a complaint to be reviewed by the Committee, contrary to that used by the Committee in assessing other complaints.

b), and a simple search in the Committee's Database shows that the Committee does review and has reviewed considerable numbers of complaints involving questions concerning complainants' innocence or guilt (such as Communication No 1167/2003 : Philippines. 07/09/2004, etc.), contrary to Mr. Schmidt's position in his refusing to review my complaint, that the Committee is "not in a position to review a sentence imposed by national courts, nor can it review the question of innocence or guilt".

I believe that your Office's discrimination against me is racially/politically motivated because my complaint is against Canada, not China, and my complaint has such merits that it can hardly be dismissed for "inadmissible" by the Committee that is composed of geographically allocated state members, not the Western powers alone.

In October of 2004, I filed a complaint against your Office and Mr. Schmidt with the President of General Assembly. However, my complaint was transferred to your Office by Secretary of the President's Office, Tony Gallagher of the US, without consulting with any officials of the President's Cabinet, for reason that "the President's Office does not have the function to handle this kind of complaint". I wrote a letter to your Office on October 6, 2004, requesting your office to forward my complaint back to the President's Office or the Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, on grounds that my complaint against your Office to be handled by your Office is a conflict of interests. Further, it is a serious abuse of Tony Gallagher's administrative duty for her to transmit my complaint to you without consulting any official of the Cabinet. However, so far it has been more than half year, I have never received any response from your Office.

By this refusal, your Office has in fact taken over the power of the President of the General Assembly and his Cabinet. As one of the functions of the General Assembly is: "To discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations". And the human rights bodies, including your Office, are one of the most important organs of the UN, whose practice shall be monitored by the General Assembly for any dysfunction that affects the UN's impartial power. Since the UN has the function to serve individual human rights complainants through its human rights bodies, an individual then is entitled to complain to the higher authorities at UN when the individual is refused to be served or is improperly served by these human rights bodies. I therefore have this right to complain to the high UN officials, like the President of the General Assembly or the Secretary General. Your Office's interference with this right of mine is a gross abuse of the UN system and an intentional cover up of Canada and US's brutal abuse of racial minority's human rights.

I am here also to inquire the handling of the complaints that I sent since March 2004 to the Commission on Human Rights under its 1503 procedure and the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Mr. Duoduo Diene at your Office, since I understand that all these complaints would have to go through your Office first, since their mailing addresses and fax numbers are all same and within your office. So far I have never received even an acknowledgement of receipt of these complaints.

I am entitled to know how you disposed of my complaints at your Office. If you never transmitted my complaints to their designated recipients, the Commission on Human Rights and Mr. Diene, what was the reason for you to do so? And why would you not inform me the disposition and the reason? If you do not transmit my complaints to their recipients and do not give me an acknowledgement of receipt of my complaints, does that mean that your Office in fact has seized all my complaints, (except the one to Human Rights Committee, that has been repeatedly sent back to me by Mr. Schmidt)? Which rule of the UN authorizes you to do so?

Further, this cover up for the Canadian government by you is continuing. As I sent you a letter of protest for your cover up for Canada, and resent my complaint to the Human Rights Committee at UN on April 5 and 6, 2005, Mr. Schmidt called me this morning, April 7, 2005, and told me that "you don't expect this Office will assist you", and that he was "assigned" to my case at your Office. As I advised him that I did not expect your office would assist me. I only can reveal this cover up to the world public and that is what I will do.

Dear Ms. Louise Arbour, while you, as the highest human rights official at UN, are touring the world and censoring other countries' human rights abuses, don't you think it is so ironic that you covered up the human rights violation complaint to UN that is against your country Canada, and the government and the courts that you personally served for? Would it be more appropriate for you to censor your own country as well or first for human rights abuses? As a judge, you must know well the principle of an adjudicator's self-recusal when there is conflict of interests in the matter before you. I request you to recuse yourself and your Office from handling my complaints to UN's human rights bodies from now on. Otherwise, all of your "leadership" in world's human rights cause is only a vicious hypocrisy and by that you greatly disrepute the UN.

I request a reply and I will contact you to follow up with my inquiry.

Sincerely,

Wanxia Liao

7 Beatrice St.

Toronto, Ontario

Canada M6J 2T2

Tel: (416) 537-0656