他们辩称，加拿大最高法院对Ford和Devine案件的评论阐明，《规章》条例确立法语“显著”要求的理由，完全出于魁北克省法语弱势状况和语言形象(visage linguistique)的考虑。
They argue that the remarks of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford and Devine to the effect that that French “marked predominance” requirement was justified in Charter terms were entirely based on considerations relating to the vulnerability of the French language and the visage linguistique of Québec.
提交人认为，这些考虑不符合第十九条第3款的附加规定，因此违反了《公约》。
In the authors' view, these considerations did not meet the cumulative requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, and are thus in violation of the Covenant.
5.3 提交人辩称，在向高等法院提出第一次上诉时，他们并没有拒绝就魁北克省法语语言的弱势状况和语言形象提供新证据。
5.3 The authors argue that they did not refuse to introduce new evidence on the vulnerability of the French language and the visage linguistique of Québec to the Superior Court, on first appeal.
他们向高等法院阐明，他们宁可向高等法院提供此类新证据，而不愿意在进行新审理时提出。
Before the Superior Court, they stated that they would prefer to introduce such new evidence before him, rather than at a new trial.
他们辩称，高等法院错误地把他们的表述理解为，根本放弃向高等法院提出任何证据。
They contend the Superior Court misinterpreted this statement to mean a renunciation to provide any evidence at all, even before him.
此外，他们指出，在Ford和Devine案件中，魁北克政府第一次向加拿大最高法院一级提出有关法语语言弱势状况的证据。
They point out, moreover, that in Ford and Devine, the Québec Government supplied evidence on the vulnerability of the French language for the first time at the level of the Supreme Court of Canada.
5.4 提交人指出，他们不仅就Ford和Devine案向最高法院提出了广泛的证据，包括有关加拿大《公约》义务的文件、当事各方的陈述以及委员会关于McIntyre和Singer案的决定，以及省政府在此领域的惯例。
5.4 The authors point out that they filed extensive evidence not before the Supreme Court in Ford and Devine, including documentation relating to Canada's Covenant obligations, the submissions of the parties and the Committee's decisions in McIntyre and Singer and State practice in the area.
他们辩称，在上诉中维持原判的高等法院裁决实际上规定由被告承担(提供某些证据的)责任，却不允许被告履行举证责任，是违反第十四条的做法。
They argue that the Superior Court judgement, upheld on appeal, had the effect of imposing a burden on an accused (to supply certain evidence) without allowing the accused to meet that burden, in violation of article 14.
此外，其他针对“显著”规定提出的诉讼程序，并未改变提交人就对他们的判决已经援用无遗国内现有补救办法的事实。
The fact, moreover, that other proceedings are challenging the “marked predominance” requirement does not change the fact that the present authors have exhausted available domestic remedies for their convictions.
5.5 第三，提交人辩称，他们不仅远远充分地佐证了他们的指称，而且充分地阐明了按《公约》规定受保护的权利，远远充足地阐明了违反上述这些权利的行为。
5.5 Thirdly, the authors argue that they have more than sufficiently supported their allegations, more than sufficiently identified the rights protected under the Covenant, and more than sufficiently described the conduct in violation of those rights.
因此，来文应宣布予以受理。
The communication should thus be declared admissible.
缔约国的补充陈述
Supplementary submissions of the State party
6.1 缔约国2004年8月24日的照会再次强调了对受理问题的意见，具体指出，两位提交人并未参与目前的国内诉讼程序，只是他们的公司才是当事方。
6.1 By note of 24 August 2004, the State party reiterated its submissions of admissibility, pointing out in particular that the current authors were not involved in the domestic proceedings, their corporation being the only party.
委员会一贯裁定，只有个人才可提交来文，而不受理来文不会对第十九条保护商业言论的规定范围形成影响。
The Committee has consistently decided that only individuals can submit a communication, and the inadmissibility of the communication does not have an impact on the scope of article 19's protection of commercial speech.
6.2 缔约国强调，高等法院表示，只要法人公司的律师愿意在新审理的情况下充实其证据，即请该律师提供补充证据。
6.2 The State party emphasizes that the Superior Court invited counsel for the corporation to add to his evidence if he wished to do so in the context of a new trial.
律师拒绝提供新证据，宁可获得他可就此提出上诉的判决。
He declined to do so, preferring instead to obtain a judgement that he could appeal.
在拒绝了高等法院的邀请之后，他继续寻求向上诉法院提供补充证据。
After having declined the Superior Court's invitation, he again sought to add evidence before the Court of Appeal, which denied the application on behalf as the new evidence was not related to the judicial debate framed by the corporation itself in the lower courts and on appeal.
上诉法院拒绝了以代理名义提供的补充证据，因为，新证据与公司本身在下级法院和上诉中划定的诉讼辩论范围不相关。
After having declined the Superior Court's invitation, he again sought to add evidence before the Court of Appeal, which denied the application on behalf as the new evidence was not related to the judicial debate framed by the corporation itself in the lower courts and on appeal.
提交人不能向委员会寻求重新审查律师在国内法庭上限制证据并狭隘地界定诉讼问题的战略决策。
The authors cannot before the Committee seek to review the strategic decisions of counsel to limit evidence and narrowly define the issues in the domestic courts.
6.3 缔约国辩称，显然提交人主要想在委员会上寻求对加拿大法律的举证责任问题提出异议。
6.3 The State party argues that it is clear that the authors mainly seek to challenge before the Committee a question of burden of proof in Canadian law.
这个问题在国内法庭上已经解决。
That issue has already been resolved before the domestic courts, who are currently examining the separate question of the constitutionality of section 58 of the Charter of the French language with its “marked predominance” requirement.
目前国内法庭正在另行审查《法语语言规章》第58条有关法语“显著”规定是否符合宪法的问题。
That issue has already been resolved before the domestic courts, who are currently examining the separate question of the constitutionality of section 58 of the Charter of the French language with its “marked predominance” requirement.
7.1 委员会在审理来文所载的任何请求之前，必须根据其议事规则第93条确定，该来文是否符合《任择议定书》规定的受理条件。
7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
7.2 关于国内补救办法援用无遗问题，委员会说，提交人的法人公司明确地拒绝了高等法院一级要求提供证据的邀请，没有就《法语语言规章》第58条理由不足的指称提供证据，加拿大最高法院当时认为法语“显著”规定是可接受的。
7.2 The Committee observes, on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, that the authors' corporation, at the level of the Superior Court, expressly declined the Court's invitation to tender evidence going to the alleged insufficiency of justification of section 58 of the Charter of the French Language, being evidence not before the Supreme Court of Canada at the time it had suggested that a “marked predominance” requirement for French was be acceptable.