CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 4.21 As regards the arguments based on article 16, the State party points out that the criminal liability of legal persons does not exclude the individual liability of the natural persons who have committed or been accessory to the acts in question. Mr. Zogo Andela should not try to hide behind the legal personality of the company that he represented in order to escape prosecution. 4.22 Lastly, according to the State party, the author’s allegations under article 26 are unfounded, in that the author has not shown in what way the situation of the other persons prosecuted for misappropriation of public funds was identical to that of Mr. Zogo Andela or established any improper difference in treatment. 4.23 The State party invites the Committee to reject the author’s claims as being unfounded and to recognize that it is not the Committee’s function to issue financial sanctions against States. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 2 March 2017, the author conveyed his comments on the State party’s observations. He also added a further complaint under article 7 of the Covenant, arguing that the appalling living conditions and detention conditions to which Mr. Zogo Andela was subjected had had an impact on his health. In addition, all his property and assets had been unjustly frozen. Mr. Zogo Andela was thus unable to care for himself properly, to eat adequately or to honour his financial commitments, including his counsel’s fees. The author therefore alleged that the decision to freeze Mr. Zogo Andela’s accounts, to sell his property unlawfully and to seal up the furniture in his house, over and above his detention, and the denial of care and food in line with the diet prescribed by his doctors, were detrimental to his physical health and constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. 5.2 As far as the legal aspect is concerned, the author maintains and reiterates his claims that the remedies have been ineffective and that Mr. Zogo Andela was not required to request release on bail, since he submitted a bar to proceedings on the basis of the statute of limitations applying to his case, which ought to have obliged the examining magistrate not to examine the case and to order the withdrawal of the remand warrant issued on 30 March 2011. 5.3 The author contests the Supreme Court’s conclusions of 1 July 2015. He says that no judicial inquiry was held in the case of Mr. Zogo Andela and accuses the State party of having fabricated false evidence 12 to fit the circumstances. He reiterates his assertion that the detention of Mr. Zogo Andela without trial since 30 March 2011 is excessive. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined by any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party contests the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that domestic remedies were not exhausted within the terms of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 In that respect, the Committee takes note of the author’s claims under article 9 (1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Covenant concerning the detention of Mr. Zogo Andela, which he contends is arbitrary. The Committee notes the argument put forward by the State party that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, inasmuch as he has not used the available 12 10 Reference is made to the documents provided by the State party and mentioned in para. 4.11, above. GE.17-22814