(b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the authors and, for information, to the State party. ____________ Communication No. 432/1990 Submitted by: W. B. E. (name deleted) Date of communication: 20 July 1990 Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Declared inadmissible: 23 October 1992 (forty-sixth session) 2.2 On 20 March 1981, the author submitted two petitions to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, pursuant to articles 89 and 591a of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering), for award of compensation for damages resulting from the time spent in detention and from lost revenue (altogether DFL 19,612,550). By decision of 10 February 1982, the Court rejected his petitions on the ground that, although he had been acquitted of the charges against him, the evidence produced at the trial showed that he had been closely involved in the realization of the plan for the illegal import of a substantial amount of heroin and had played an important role in the transport. Subject matter: Request for compensation following release after alleged unduly prolonged pre-trial detention Procedural issues: Substantiation of claim— Incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant ratione materiae—Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Unlawful detention—Right to compensation—Fair hearing Articles of the Covenant: 9(3) and (5) and 14(1), (2) and (6) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3 and 5(2)(b) 2.3 On 15 February 1982, the author appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), which, on 20 April 1982, declared his appeal inadmissible, on the ground that under Dutch law a refusal of the Court of Appeal to grant compensation is not appealable. 1. The author of the communication is W. B. E., a Dutch businessman residing in Amsterdam. He claims to be the victim of a violation by the Netherlands of articles 9, paragraphs 3 and 5, and 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2.4 On 14 October 1983, the author initiated a civil action against the State before the District Court of The Hague (Arrondissementsrechtbank), with a view to having declared void the Amsterdam Court of Appeal judgement of 10 February 1982. The Court rejected his request on 10 April 1985. His subsequent appeal against this decision was rejected by The Hague Court of Appeal on 11 December 1986. This judgement was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 25 November 1988. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was detained from 10 December 1979 to 27 April 1980 on suspicion of involvement in drug smuggling activities. On 27 March 1980 the District Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Haarlem acquitted him of the charges on a point of law. The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof), which, on 29 December 1980, acquitted the author, considering that the charges against him had not been proven lawfully and convincingly. 2.5 On 15 October 1983, the author filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights, which declared it inadmissible on 6 May 1985. 32