CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 date of the first hearing of the accused before the Special Criminal Court was set for 12 October 2016.10 4.15 The Special Criminal Court was established by Act No. 2011/028 of 14 December 2011 (as amended by Act No. 2012/11 of 16 July 2012). Article 2 of the Act provides that the Court is competent “to have cognizance, in cases where the sum involved is not less than 50 million CFA francs, of offences of misappropriation of public funds and related offences provided for under the Criminal Code and the international agreements ratified by Cameroon.” It is thus a court of special jurisdiction and not, as the author maintains, a special tribunal. The principle of a second hearing remains unaffected. Article 11 of the Act provides that an appeal may be lodged against the decisions of the Special Criminal Court. 11 4.16 As regards the referral to the Special Criminal Court in the light of the principle of non-retroactivity stipulated under the Covenant, the State party says that Act No. 2011/028 is a procedural law, taking immediate effect. Article 15 of the Act provides that: “(1) Courts seized of a matter relating to the facts set out in article 2 of the present Act either as part of a judicial inquiry or in trial proceedings shall terminate their hearing; (2) Upon the promulgation of the present Act, orders of committal or partial cessation or transfer of proceedings by the examining magistrate of a court of major jurisdiction issued in trials relating to the facts set out in article 2 above shall be brought before the Court.” 4.17 Thus, in the case in question, the examining magistrate of the Mfoundi high court closed the judicial inquiry with an order of committal and partial cessation on 12 September 2012, that is, following the promulgation of the Act. The principle according to which the most severe criminal provisions must not be applied retroactively has thus not been violated. 4.18 As regards the continued detention of Mr. Zogo Andela and the author’s complaint on the basis of article 9, the State party points out that a warrant issued in the context of a judicial inquiry had legitimated the detention, given that article 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that “(b) Where [a defendant] is committed to the court having jurisdiction over misdemeanours, the committal order shall not put an end to the measures of detention or judicial supervision taken against him, when the maximum penalty provided for the offence is greater than the period of custody.” It is thus in the interests of justice that the detention should continue. 4.19 As regards the author’s complaint under article 11 of the Covenant, and his argument that the facts relate to commercial litigation and are not criminal offences, the State party notes that it is for the courts to assess and determine the facts, as they are currently doing. They have not yet adopted a position and it is therefore not for the Committee to pronounce on the matter. Moreover, the Committee has consistently held that the prohibition of imprisonment for debt under article 11 does not apply to criminal offences related to civil debts. In the case in question, Mr. Zogo Andela is being prosecuted for misappropriating public funds, an offence provided for and penalized under article 184 of the Criminal Code. For these reasons, article 11 of the Covenant should not apply. 4.20 As for article 2 (3), the State party maintains that, insofar as he has not exhausted domestic remedies to apply for his release, even though such remedies are available, Mr. Zogo Andela is not in a position to argue that he has been deprived of an effective remedy. 10 11 The State party encloses the record of notification of the first hearing. Article 11: “(1) A court hearing a case pursuant to article 2 of the present Act, and courts of first instance or of major jurisdiction hearing cases of misappropriation of public funds where the sum involved is less than 50 million (50,000,000) CFA francs and related cases provided for under the Criminal Code and the international agreements ratified by Cameroon, shall rule in first instance and without right of appeal. Their decisions may be subject only to an application; (2) An application by the Public Prosecution Service shall relate to the facts and to points of law; (3) An application by other parties shall relate only to points of law; (4) In cases of judicial review, the Supreme Court shall assume cognizance of the case and issue a decision.” GE.17-22814 9