CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 communication, too, should be declared inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.16 6.11 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations concerning the violation of his rights under article 11, inasmuch as Mr. Zogo Andela considers himself to have been imprisoned for the breach of a contractual obligation. The Committee recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, the prohibition of detention for debt does not apply to criminal offences related to civil law debts and that, when a person commits fraud or negligent or fraudulent bankruptcy, he or she may be punished with imprisonment, even when he or she is no longer able to pay the debts.17 The Committee points out that, in this case, Mr. Zogo Andela is the subject of criminal proceedings for misappropriation of public funds, an offence provided for and penalized under article 184 of the Criminal Code, and that his assertion that the offence of which he is accused relates to failure to fulfil a contractual obligation cannot be upheld. Thus, since the facts fall well within the scope of a criminal offence, and do not relate to a failure to fufil a contractual obligation, the Committee considers that this claim is incompatible ratione materiae with article 11 of the Covenant and should therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol.18 6.12 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim under article 14 (1) and (2) that Mr. Zogo Andela did not receive a fair and public hearing by a competent and impartial court and that the referral of the case to the Special Criminal Court violated his right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The author also argued that the continuation of the inquiry by the examining magistrate after an appeal had been lodged against the order dismissing the defence of lack of jurisdiction constituted a violation of the devolutive effect of the appeal and other principles of the right to a fair trial. 6.13 The Committee notes that most of the author’s claims relate to the application of domestic law by the courts of the State party under article 14 (1). The reply of the State party was that the examining magistrate was within his rights in continuing the judicial inquiry after Mr. Zogo Andela had lodged his appeal, since he was authorized to do so under article 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Committee recalls that it is in general for the courts of States parties to consider the facts and the evidence or the application of domestic legislation in a given case, unless it can be established that the assessment of the evidence or the application of the legislation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.19 The Committee therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.14 The Committee notes the author’s allegation under article 14 (5) that the Special Criminal Court is a special tribunal that does not recognize the principle of a second hearing. The Committee recalls that article 14 (5) of the Covenant establishes that any person found guilty of an offence has the right to have the conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. The Committee notes in the present case that Mr. Zogo Andela is accused of the crimes of misappropriation of public funds and unlawful withholding of property, punishable under the Criminal Code of Cameroon, for which he has not yet been tried. As such, he is not, ratione personae, a victim, and thus the claim made under article 14 (5) of the Covenant must be rejected on grounds of inadmissibility, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.15 The Committee has taken note of the author’s allegation that article 15 of the Covenant was violated, in that Mr. Zogo Andela was taken into custody prior to the establishment of the Special Criminal Court responsible for hearing his case. The Committee points out that the accused is being prosecuted for misappropriation of public 16 17 18 19 12 See, among others, Akwanga v. Cameroon, para. 6.4, and communication No. 2325/2013, Foumbi v. Cameroon, decision adopted on 28 October 2014, para. 8.5. See communication No. 1342/2005, Gavrilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 March 2007, para. 7.3. See communication No. 1312/2004, Latifulin v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 7.2. See communications Nos. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; 886/1999, Bondarenko v. Belarus, Views adopted 3 April 2003, para. 9.3; and 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision on admissibility, adopted 24 March 2004, para. 8.6. GE.17-22814