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 UN
My 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\~wxl85
Since 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