Communication No. 408/1990 Submitted by: W. J. H. (name deleted) (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 15 November 1989 Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Declared inadmissible: 22 July 1992 (forty-fifth session) was due to a procedural error: it referred in this context to the judgment of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 24 December 1985, by which the author was convicted on the basis of evidence that later was found to have been irregularly obtained. Subject matter: Request for compensation for damages resulting from time spent in pretrial detention Procedural issues: Inadmissibility ratione materiae Substantive issues: Presumption of innocence— Miscarriage of justice Articles of the Covenant: 9(5), 14(2) and (6) 2.3 The author claims that, as no legal remedy for the denial of compensation is available, domestic remedies have been exhausted. Article of the Optional Protocol: 3 The complaint 1. The author of the communication (dated 15 November 1989) is W. J. H., a citizen of the Netherlands, currently residing in Belgium. He claims to be a victim of a violation by the Netherlands of article 14, paragraphs 2 and 6, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political, Rights. He is represented by counsel. 3.1 The author claims that the ’sHertogenbosch Court of Appeal, by its decision of, 21 November 1988, violated his right to be considered innocent, pursuant to article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. He submits that, since he was not found guilty by the court, he should not suffer financial damage as a result of the institution of criminal proceedings against him. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was arrested on 8 December 1983 and kept in pre- trial detention until 8 February 1984. On 24 December 1985, the Arnhem Court of Appeal convicted him on a variety of criminal charges, including forgery and fraud. On 17 March 1987, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) quashed the earlier conviction and referred the case to the ’s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, which acquitted the author on 11 May 1988. 3.2 He further contends that the failure to grant him compensation constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant. He claims that the judgment of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 24 December 1985 was a final decision within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6, because it was the judgment of the highest factual instance. In this context, he argues that the subsequent judgments acquitting the author, constitute “new facts” within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6. He finally claims that. his pre- trial detention should be considered equivalent to “punishment” in said paragraph. 2.2 Pursuant to sections 89 and 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author subsequently filed a request with the ’sHertogenbosch Court of Appeal for award of compensation for damages resulting from the time spent in pre-trial detention and for the. costs of legal representation. Section 90, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, after an acquittal, the Court may grant compensation for reasons of equity. On 21 November 1988, the Court of Appeal rejected the author’s request. The Court was of the opinion that it would not be fair to grant compensation to the author, since his acquittal The State party’s observations and the author’s comments 4.1 By submission of 9 July 1991 the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It submits that the author did not invoke article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant when requesting compensation, but 27