The alternative would have been to disentitle people already depending on welfare payments and this would not have been acceptable or desirable.

On 10 April 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected the motion of the author's counsel to defer dismissal of the appeal, and dismissed it on the basis of the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine.

6.6 On the merits, the author maintains he suffered a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, in that he was deprived, through the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine, of appellate review of conviction or sentence in the United States.

However, on the second day, the cross-examination was cut short just after the witness admitted that he lied about his previous convictions, which should have disentitled him from immunity, and claimed to feel dizzy.

In light of the finality of the criminal proceedings in the United States, his extradition to the United States would be unlawful, firstly as his conviction was pronounced and his sentence imposed in absentia and, secondly, as he had and has no effective opportunity to appeal against conviction or sentence under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

The Committee thus need not consider whether the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine is compatible with article 14, paragraph 5, or whether extradition to a jurisdiction where an appeal had been so denied gives rise to an issue under the Covenant in respect of the State party.

The Court concluded: “There is nothing on the record to suggest that his political beliefs disentitled him to consideration for advancement in the Department of Economics.” The State party contends that there is no evidence in any of the impugned decisions of the university, the Commission or the courts that the author was treated differently because of his political beliefs.

Finally, the State party states that the Prince Edward Island decision is under appeal, and points out that the court referred to the finding in the author's case that “there was no evidence which showed his human dignity was even engaged, much less violated, or that his political views disentitled him to consideration for promotion”.

The Committee observes however that the Court of Appeal, having found that the author's views did not amount to a protected “creed”, went on to conclude that even considering the matter in the light most favourable to the author, there was nothing on the record to suggest that the author's political beliefs had disentitled him to consideration for advancement in the Department of Economics.

The majority in the Committee then goes on to conclude that, in the light of the judgement of Ontario Court of Appeal, there was nothing to suggest that the author's political beliefs had disentitled him to consideration for advancement in the Department of Economics in which he held tenure as associate professor.