CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 US$ 40 million. Moreover, Mr. Zogo Andela did not meet any of his obligations under the reassignment agreement. Despite a number of calls to order, no progress was made. In accordance with article 19 of the reassignment agreement, therefore, the Minister of Finance and Budget terminated the agreement in a letter dated 20 June 2003 and invited the chief executive of SCLM to take all the necessary steps to moor the fishing boats in Douala. These instructions were not obeyed. The State was therefore forced to initiate action to recover the vessels. The eight boats that were berthed in Cameroonian territorial waters were boarded and brought back to the port of Douala. Of the 12 other boats taken to five different countries, namely Spain, Senegal, Mozambique, Mauritania and the Congo, some had been destroyed and others seized and sold by foreign creditors. Operations to recover the six boats in the Congo were systematically hindered by actions carried out by employees of Mr. Zogo Andela. One boat was set on fire (Andela VII) and another sank (Andela X). 4.5 The State party reiterates that the Government was forced to bear the servicing of the debt that had been contracted, initiate proceedings to establish its right of ownership over the vessels that had been removed abroad and, on some occasions, take humanitarian action to relieve the wretched plight of the seamen abandoned abroad. 4.6 As regards procedure, the State party asserts that the author’s statement that a request for the withdrawal of the remand warrant was submitted before an examining magistrate in limine litis on 14 September 2011 is incorrect. In fact, the file shows that the examination began on 28 July 2011. On that date, the accused put forward no defence. When questioned, he denied the facts. He can therefore not maintain that his request was submitted in limine litis. The request of 14 September 2011 related mainly to a defence of non-jurisdiction and a bar to proceedings. The main purpose of the request therefore related not to his release but to the merits of the case. 4.7 According to the State party, Cameroonian law does contain mechanisms whereby a person may request release from detention, particularly articles 222–235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but these were not invoked by Mr. Zogo Andela. 4.8 As for the question of the remand in custody, the examining magistrate complied with the provisions of article 218 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which he issued a remand warrant, giving reasons for his decision to remand the accused in custody. 6 Notification of this order, issued on 30 March 2011, was sent the same day to Mr. Zogo Andela, who did not engage any judicial remedy against the decision. Nor did he submit a request for release during the course of the proceedings pursuant to the provisions mentioned above. The defence of non-jurisdiction and the bar to proceedings cannot constitute a judicial remedy against the examining magistrate’s decision to deprive him of his liberty. In the view of the State party, the author is maliciously attempting to change the subject of his appeal. 4.9 According to the State party, the Centre Region court of appeal, contrary to the claims of the author, gave a correct interpretation of article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code when it decided to dismiss Mr. Zogo Andela’s appeal of 24 July 2012, since the subject of the application to the examining magistrate related to a defence of nonjurisdiction and a bar to proceedings, whereas article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that an accused may appeal only against rulings in respect of remand in custody. The limitation of the scope of action by an examining magistrate against which an accused may seek a remedy is intended specifically to avoid a paralysis of inquiry proceedings aimed at causing delays. The appeal by the accused against a committal order by the examining magistrate is thus inadmissible, particularly since such an action must be seen in the light of the accused’s refusal to attend court. The Supreme Court confirmed that judgment in its ruling of 1 July 2015, holding that “in submitting a defence in limine litis before the examination of the merits while not appealing against the order that indisputably 6 GE.17-22814 The State party encloses the order: “In view of the fact that the accused is being prosecuted for misappropriation of public funds, which is provided for and penalized under articles 74 and 184 of the Criminal Code, and that these criminal acts are sufficiently serious and complex, his detention is consequently necessary in the interests of uncovering the truth. We therefore order that Mr. Zogo Andela be remanded in custody.” 7