allegations, and incompatibility of the claims with the Covenant. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that his continued detention constituted a violation of article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. He acknowledges that a reasonable suspicion that criminal acts had taken place was present in his case, but contends that continued pre-trial detention should only be allowed in order to prevent flight or the commitment of further crimes. The author claims that, in the absence of serious grounds to assume that he would leave the jurisdiction or commit further crimes, 107 days of pre-trial detention was unreasonably long. He submits that he had offered bail, but that this offer was ignored by the Dutch authorities. 4.2 The State party contends that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, since he never invoked the substantive rights of the Covenant during the domestic procedures, although he had the opportunity to do so. 4.3 As regards the author’s allegation that article 9, paragraph 3 of the Covenant was violated by keeping him in pre-trial detention for 107 days, the State party refers to its legislation, which prescribes that detention, after an initial 4 days, be ordered by an examining magistrate, and after another 12 days, by the District Court. The District Court can only order detention not exceeding 30 days, which period may be extended twice. Grounds on which pretrial detention may be ordered are laid down in articles 67 and 67a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and only apply when there is a high level of evidence that the suspect committed a serious crime, carrying a prison sentence of 4 years or longer. 3.2 The author further claims that he has a right to compensation, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 5, since he was acquitted of the charges against him. In his opinion, the ground given by the Court of Appeal to reject his petitions for compensation constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. He argues that this provision must be interpreted broadly and should also apply to procedures for compensation following acquittal of a criminal charge. 4.4 The State party argues that the author’s detention was in accordance with the law, given the seriousness of the suspicions against him. The Court ordered his detention under article 67a, paragraph 2.3 of the Code, which provides that pre-trial detention can be lawfully imposed if it is reasonable to suppose that this is necessary to enable the facts to be established, other than through statements made by the suspect. The State party argues that the detention was necessary in order to prevent the investigation from being impeded by the author influencing fellow suspects and witnesses, and obliterating the traces of the offence in other ways. 3.3 Finally, he claims that the decisions rejecting his petitions pursuant to articles 89 and 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure were beset with irregularities which constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1. With respect to his petition under article 89, he points to two irregularities: firstly, the Chamber (Raadkamer) of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was not composed of the judges who had previously decided on the criminal case, as is prescribed by law, and secondly, one of the judges participating in the decision had not even taken part in the examination of his request. With respect to the rejection of his petition under article 591a, the author claims that the written judgement of the Court of Appeal did not permit the identification of its signatories. The author alleges that the refusal to grant him compensation is the direct result of the composition of the Chamber. State party’s observations and the author’s comments thereon 4.5 As regards the author’s allegation that article 9, paragraph 5, has been violated, the State party submits that serious suspicions existed that the author had committed criminal offences and that his detention was not unlawful. Thus, the State party argues that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.1 By submission, dated 25 October 1991, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, non-substantiation of the 4.6 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 2, the State party argues that this provision applies to criminal proceedings only, and not to proceedings to assess 33