CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 2.8 His remand in custody was initially set for a period of six months but was twice extended, in accordance with article 221 of the Cameroonian Criminal Procedure Code, for a total legal period of 18 months. 2.9 Well before the end of the legal duration of this period in custody, Mr. Zogo Andela, assisted by counsel, had, on 14 September 2011, submitted an application for the examining magistrate in charge of the case to withdraw the remand warrant issued on 30 March 2011, drawing attention, in the first instance, in limine litis, to the statute of limitations applicable in the case, as the events had occurred in 1996 and the preliminary inquiry had been opened only in 2008, or 12 years later. Under Cameroonian criminal law, the statute of limitations is 10 years. He also drew attention to the lack of jurisdiction ratione loci and ratione materiae of the court, the government procurator and the examining magistrate under article 294 of the Cameroonian Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that: “A court shall have jurisdiction over a case when it is: (a) The court of the place of commission of the offence; or (b) The court of the place of residence of the accused; or (c) The court of the place of arrest of the accused.” 2.10 According to the author, the offences of which Mr. Zogo Andela is accused could not have been committed in Yaoundé, since the allegedly misappropriated funds derived exclusively from fishing boats operating off the coast of Douala and not Yaoundé, which has no seashore. Moreover, the accused was arrested at his home in Douala and has never had an address or a domicile in Yaoundé. The author therefore maintains that the Mfoundi high court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. 2.11 Mr. Zogo Andela further requested the withdrawal of the remand warrant on the grounds that the examining magistrate lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, since the case was of a civil and commercial rather than a criminal nature, between two legal persons, namely the State of Cameroon and SCLM, a limited liability company that, on 30 October 1996, had signed a lease-purchase contract. The failure to execute this contract was the cause of the legal proceedings against Mr. Zogo Andela, who, as a natural person, was investigated instead of SCLM. 2.12 On 10 October 2011, Mr. Zogo Andela’s claims based on the statute of limitations and the lack of jurisdiction of the court and the judge were dismissed by the examining magistrate. On 13 October 2011, Mr. Zogo Andela appealed against that decision before the inquiry control chamber of the Centre Region court of appeal in Yaoundé, repeating his principal claims. On 24 July 2012, the Court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible under article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code.1 In the author’s view, the ruling lacked a legal basis and, moreover, had been rendered more than 10 months after the statutory deadline, which, under article 275 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is 10 days. Moreover, Mr. Zogo Andela was notified of this decision only on 17 September 2012. He consequently lodged a new appeal before the Supreme Court of Cameroon on 20 September 2012. 2.13 According to the author, the Supreme Court never heard the appeal, even though, under article 474 (3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court is required to rule on an appeal within 20 days. It should thus have ruled on the appeal by 10 October 2012, at the latest. The Court has still not ruled on the case. 2 2.14 On 21 September 2012, Mr. Zogo Andela learned that a committal order had been issued on 12 September 2012 transferring his case to the newly created Special Criminal Court, in other words before he had been notified of the ruling of the Centre Region court of appeal of 24 July 2012. It was on the basis of this committal order that Mr. Zogo Andela had been kept in custody. The author maintains that this procedure is unlawful and that the 1 2 GE.17-22814 Article 269 provides that “The defendant may appeal only against rulings in respect of remand in custody, judicial supervision, request for expert or counter-expert opinion and of restitution of articles seized.” The Supreme Court issued its judgment on 1 July 2015, after the initial submission of the communication to the Committee (see the State party’s observations, below). 3