CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 8.4 As to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that, after he reported acts of corruption and embezzlement of which he had become aware in his capacity as accountant for ETGR, a preliminary investigation was launched by the Mascara police but was never completed because of the pressure brought to bear by the executive branch. His complaint was therefore dismissed. According to the author, the authorities conspired to use his subsequent appeal to the President of the Republic against him and, as a result, criminal proceedings were brought against him by the Mascara prosecutor on charges of having insulted a public official; he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and fined DA 50,000, as well as being ordered to pay DA 100,000 in damages. 8.5 The author further argues that, in his appeal to the Supreme Court in the case involving the charge of insulting a public official, his application for legal aid was unfairly rejected, and he was thus denied the necessary time and assistance to prepare his defence. He goes on to argue that a defence counsel was not assigned to him, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. Lastly, the author argues that his appeal before the Supreme Court in the case of defamation brought against him by his former employer was heard only after an unreasonable delay, as he had lodged the appeal on 1 April 2008 but it was not heard until 27 December 2012, nearly five years after its submission. In the absence of a rebuttal or clarification from the State party, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s claims and finds a violation by the State party of article 14 (1) and (3) (b), (c) and (d) of the Covenant. 8.6 Regarding article 17, the Committee notes that the author claims to have been the victim of unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation and that, after his release in July 2010, he spent nine months with no work or income, given that no employer in the area would hire him because of his conviction. The Committee further recalls that the author was convicted, following proceedings that the Committee has characterized as failing to provide the guarantees of a fair trial, for reporting acts of fraud that he had detected in the course of his work as an accountant for ETGR; those acts were subsequently confirmed and resulted in the conviction of the Director of ETGR. The author has not, however, received any redress, had to endure a long period of unemployment that was apparently due to his unjust conviction and now fears reprisals if he complains about the treatment to which he was subjected. The Committee recalls that article 17 provides that everyone has the right to be protected against unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation and finds that the treatment to which the author was subjected constitutes a violation of article 17 of the Covenant in respect of the author. 8.7 As to the author’s claim under article 19, the Committee must determine whether, as the author has argued, his criminal conviction under article 144 of the Criminal Code for insulting a public official after he wrote to the President of the Republic criticizing the judicial authorities of Mascara constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression, including his right to impart information, as guaranteed in article 19 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its concluding observations, adopted following its consideration of the State party’s periodic report in 2007, in which it noted with concern that the 2001 amendment of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to defame and insult State officials and institutions and, in particular, that such offences are subject to severe penalties, including imprisonment (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 24).11 11 10 See also the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/20/17/Add.1) on his visit to Algeria in April 2011, in particular recommendation No. 93, in which the Special Rapporteur states that defamation should be a civil matter and that fines should be significantly reduced in order not to discourage freedom of expression. GE.16-23057