CCPR/C/118/D/2128/2012 authorities or challenging the actions of the judicial authorities may be convicted, and no remedy is available. 2.25 On 10 October 2010 the Mascara court sentenced the Director of ETGR to 2 years’ imprisonment for embezzlement and squandering of public funds in the case relating to the incidents reported by the staff association. On 26 January 2011, the Appeal Court of Mascara acquitted the Director of ETGR. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant. He first refers to the fact that the complaint that he lodged with the Mascara prosecutor’s office had been dismissed without a fair and transparent investigation having been conducted into that complaint. Although a preliminary investigation was subsequently opened, the action that he took in that regard resulted in his being sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined DA 50,000, under article 144 of the Criminal Code, for insulting a public official when all he had done was to send a letter of protest which contained no offensive language. The author adds that the wording of article 144 is quite vague.1 3.2 Regarding article 14 (3) (b), the author claims that the two-week period that he was given by the Supreme Court to file a defence brief signed by a lawyer who had been admitted to practise before the Supreme Court was insufficient, since he could not find such a lawyer in that amount of time. 3.3 The author further indicates that his appeal to the Supreme Court of 1 April 2008 against the decision of the Appeal Court of Mascara dated 26 March 2008 had still not been heard by the time he submitted his communication to the Committee 42 months later. In the author’s view, this constitutes an unreasonable postponement that violates his right under article 14 (3) (c) to be tried without undue delay. 2 3.4 The author argues that he is also a victim of a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant, inasmuch as he was exempted from the obligation to be represented by a lawyer who has been admitted to practise before the Supreme Court. The end result was that he lost his appeal; the rejection of his application for legal aid was unjust because the applicable law is unclear and does not specify income scales or levels of purchasing power. 3.5 Recalling his conviction for malicious accusation and defamation following his complaint concerning the Director of ETGR, the author maintains that, in making the statements and taking the actions for which he was convicted, he was exercising his right to freedom of expression. He notes that he was sentenced under article 144 of the Criminal Code, which, according to the author, violates article 19 of the Covenant.3 1 2 3 6 The author refers here to the concluding observations adopted by the Committee (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3) following its consideration of the report of Algeria in 2007 in which the Committee requested the State party to amend its legislation in order to decriminalize defamation and insulting behaviour. See paragraph 5.2 herein regarding subsequent developments. Article 144 of the Criminal Code stipulates the following: “Anyone who insults a public official, public servant or officer, senior officer or officer of the law in the course of their performance of their duties or when on duty, whether by word or deed, by threat, by the sending or presenting of an object of any kind, or by written text or drawings not otherwise made public, with the intention of undermining their honour, dignity or due respect for their authority, shall be liable to 2 months’ to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of DA 1,000 to DA 500,000. Where one or more public officials or officers of the court are insulted during court proceedings, the prison term shall be 1 or 2 years. In all cases the court may further order that its decision be displayed and published in whatever form it GE.16-23057