CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 justifies his remand in custody, in accordance with article 218 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which relates to remand in custody within the meaning of article 269 of the Code, the appellant cannot claim to have appealed in accordance with the requirements of the aforementioned article 269 of the Code.” 4.10 The State party concludes that the proceedings initiated by Mr. Zogo Andela against the actions of the examining magistrate did not constitute an application for release within the meaning of articles 222–235 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that he did not exhaust the available remedies for release, with or without bail. 4.11 The State party then turns to the proceedings brought by Mr. Zogo Andela for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his detention, in which he challenged the handling of the judicial inquiry. The author argued that the continuation of the inquiry by the examining magistrate after Mr. Zogo Andela had lodged an appeal against the order dismissing the defence of non-jurisdiction constituted a violation of the principle of the devolutive effect of the appeal and other principles relating to the right to a fair trial. The State party’s reply to that is that the examining magistrate was fully within his rights, pursuant to the applicable law, to continue the judicial inquiry after Mr. Zogo Andela had lodged his appeal. Article 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code states unambiguously that “Appeals against a ruling delivered during a preliminary inquiry other than that relating to a committal order or a no-case ruling shall not suspend preliminary inquiry.” The State party adds that the file and the records of the inquiry — the register in which all the actions of an examining magistrate are entered in chronological order — show unequivocally that a judicial inquiry was indeed conducted in this case. The examining magistrate was engaged in investigative procedures uninterruptedly from 30 April 2011 to 12 September 2012, holding hearings both of the claimants for criminal indemnification and of witnesses, and issuing rogatory commisions, both within Cameroon and abroad.7 4.12 The State party adds that, throughout the proceedings, Mr. Zogo Andela was invited to express his views. The file of the proceedings was placed at the disposal of his counsel on every occasion, as required under article 171 (1)–(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the first occasion, on 28 July 2011, during the examination on the merits, Mr. Zogo Andela denied the facts and then stated that he refused to express his views. On the second occasion, on 14 September 2011, his counsel put forward a defence: the fact that the offences were time-barred, the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the examining magistrate and the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the criminal court.8 On the third occasion, on 2 August 2012, Mr. Zogo Andela refused to attend court, on the grounds that his counsel were absent. The State party adds that, although the accused’s right of silence is enshrined under article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and could constitute a defence strategy, such a strategy cannot impede the course of a judicial inquiry. Mr. Zogo Andela’s appeals challenging the legality of the proceedings on the grounds that the term of his detention had expired and that the judicial inquiry was continuing after he had lodged an appeal against the order of the examining magistrate, who had dismissed the defence of lack of jurisdiction and the bar to proceedings, are no more than delaying tactics. 4.13 The State party adds, with regard to the question of delays, that the author’s claim concerning the late notification of the examining magistrate’s order (para. 2.14) should not be upheld, inasmuch as Mr. Zogo Andela has, since 21 September 2012, declined to accept a copy of the report of the proceedings or to sign it, as is attested in the report. 9 4.14 As regards the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court, the State party notes that only this Court has jurisdiction to hear cases relating to misappropriation of public funds exceeding the sum of 50 million CFA francs. The Supreme Court has thus terminated its hearing of the appeal lodged by Mr. Zogo Andela, and the case pending before the Special Criminal Court is under consideration, with due regard for the rights of the defence. The 7 8 9 8 Documents provided by the State party. The State party encloses the record of the examination. Document enclosed. GE.17-22814