Sutton, Quebec and Huntingdon, Quebec. In 1993, they brought their case before the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. They challenged sections 1, 6 and 10 of Bill No. 178 enacted by the Quebec legislature on 22 December 1988. They alleged to be victims of violations of articles 2, 19, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the federal government of Canada and by the Province of Quebec, due to the act's prohibitions on the use English in advertising or in the name of their firms. After hearing both parties, the Committee gave its opinion on what it believed to be the three major issues: (a) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates any right that the authors might have by virtue of article 27; (b) whether Sec.58 of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 178, Sec.1, violates the authors' right to freedom of expression; (c) whether the same provision is compatible with the authors' right to equality before the law. 1. The Committee observed that "provisions of article 27 refers to minorities in States", which English-speaking people in Canada are not. It stated that the "authors therefore have no claim under article 27 of the Covenant". 2. The Committee disagreed with the Government of Quebec which asserted "that commercial activities such as outdoor advertising do not fall within the ambit of article 19." The Committee stated "Article 19, paragraph 2, must be interpreted as encompassing every form of subjective ideas and opinions capable of transmission to others, which are compatible with article 20 of the Covenant, of news and information, of commercial expression and advertising, of works of art, etc.; it should not be confined to means of political, cultural or artistic expression." The Committee believed that "it [was] not necessary, in order to protect the vulnerable position in Canada of the francophone group, to prohibit commercial advertising in English." It suggested that "This protection may be achieved in other ways that do not preclude the freedom of expression, in a language of their choice, of those engaged in such fields as trade. For example, the law could have required that advertising be in both French and English." It concluded that "A State may choose one or more official languages, but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of