CCPR/C/113/DR/2176/2012 Disciplinary Board because the recusal request that he made was rejected on the grounds that it had not been submitted by a practising lawyer, since he himself had already resigned. He therefore considers himself to be a victim of a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.4 The author states that his right to presumption of innocence was violated because the disciplinary board disbarred him for breaching professional secrecy without his having been found guilty of any such act in criminal proceedings. According to the author, the disciplinary proceedings should have been suspended until his guilt had been established by a criminal court. The author therefore considers that this situation constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. 3.5 The author claims that his right of defence was violated because he was not allowed to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. He adds that the other lawyers were afraid of possible reprisals if they agreed to defend him and that the lawyer assigned to him was not experienced enough for it to be considered that his right of defence was respected. The author considers himself to be a victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.6 According to the author, not all the elements that he has submitted to the Committee were considered by the Court of Cassation, which can examine only points of procedure, not facts. He considers that the Court of Cassation acts as a “ratification chamber” for the decisions of the Bar’s Disciplinary Board and claims that he is also the victim of a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. 3.7 The author recalls that he had resigned from the Bar in March 2007 because of personal reasons, medical problems and harassment. He was therefore no longer a member of the Bar when the Disciplinary Board decided to disbar him. He therefore considers that the disbarment of an ordinary citizen for a breach of professional secret that did not occur and that has not been proven before a criminal court is a disproportionate and unlawful penalty that is not provided for by law. He claims that this situation constitutes a violation of articles 7, 14 and 15 of the Covenant. 3.8 The author adds that he has been evicted from his home, since he could no longer afford the rent because of harassment by members of the Bar; the latter are also preventing him from securing stable accommodation. He maintains that all the information about him submitted during the disciplinary proceedings was obtained illegally, that his home was unlawfully searched by the police, in particular on 5 July 2010, that his communications were intercepted and that he was obliged to go abroad, first to France and then to the United Kingdom, to escape his persecutors. He claims that these facts constitute a violation of his rights under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant. 3.9 The author states that he asked the members of the Board to reveal any potential conflicts of interest and to declare their membership of other organizations, but they refused to do so. The author claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of not being a member of those organizations, including the Order of Freemasons, in violation of article 18 of the Covenant. 3.10 The author considers that the disciplinary proceedings against him and his disbarment are due to his activism and, in particular, to his work to improve protection for salaried lawyers and to his scientific and academic research, which led to the publication of a study on corruption in the State party’s judicial system. He therefore considers that his freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant has been violated. 3.11 The author considers that, given that he resigned from the Bar on 1 March 2007, his disbarment, decided on 18 June 2009 and confirmed on 16 March 2010, constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of association under article 22 of the Covenant, insofar as GE.15-08734 5