author considers that he was not afforded a fair trial and is thus the victim of a miscarriage of justice. “non-prosecution”, that is, failure to pursue the case. 2.4 Late in 1980, the author came across fresh evidence which led him to believe that the police inquiry had been “partial, discriminatory and deliberately selective”. On 17 March 1981, however, he was summoned to appear before the full bench of the Supreme Court under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceeding) Ordinance and advised to remove his name from the roll of practicing barristers. The author subsequently requested his removal from the Roll of Barristers so as to prevent the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him. In 1983 and 1986, he submitted petitions for pardon to the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy; both were rejected. Since 1981, he has unsuccessfully sought to obtain the assistance of the Mauritius Bar Council in his efforts to be readmitted to the roll of practicing barristers. In 1986, he contemplated a formal motion before the Supreme Court but was advised to contact the Attorney General’s office instead, since a Letter from the Attorney General would be sufficient for him to resume his practice. He wrote to the Attorney General but did not receive any reply. 3.2 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that he did not pursue his appeal to the Judicial Committee Of the Privy Council because of the prohibitive costs involved, and because it would not, in his opinion, have constituted an effective remedy, as the Privy Council does not entertain an appeal based on facts. He claims that after the decision of the Chief Justice not to grant his request for re-instatement, the only effective remedy for him would be the enactment of new legislation allowing for a retrial in cases in which new material evidence becomes available after the conclusion of the trial, or new legislation vesting disciplinary powers in the Mauritian Bar Council along the same lines as those vested in the British Bar Council. He concludes that he has exhausted available judicial remedies, and affirms that the prolongation of the pursuit of remedies is not solely attributable to him. The State party’s observations 4.1 The State party contends that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. It argues that it is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the author, although availing himself of several non-judicial remedies, failed to pursue the avenue provided for under Mauritian law: to first apply to the Registrar for reinsertion of his name on the Roll of Barristers, and, in the event of a negative decision, to seek judicial review of the Registrar’s decision. The State party claims that the communication is also inadmissible because of the author’s failure to pursue his petition for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 2.5 Early in 1989, the author wrote to the Chief Justice, who recommended to him to apply for re-instatement under the Law Practitioner’s Act 1984; the author did so. On 17 November 1989, the Chief Justice declined to issue the order for his re-instatement on the ground of the author’s previous conviction The complaint 3.1 The author claims that there was no basis for suspending him indefinitely from the exercise of his profession. He notes that Mauritian legislation makes no provisions for a retrial in cases in which there exists new material evidence, which was unknown to the accused prior to the trial. As all criminal investigations are conducted by the police who have overall responsibility for a case, the judicial authorities, may only require supplementary information with respect to the investigation but have no control over it. Once an investigation is completed, it is submitted to the Crown Law Office. The author argues that at this juncture there exists a “no man’s land” bound to create situations in which the administration of justice may be jeopardized. He notes that the institution of the examining magistrate (Juge d’instruction) is unknown in Mauritius. For these reasons, the 4.2 The State party further affirms that the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2, of the Optional Protocol, since it does not disclose a claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. It notes that in as much as the author’s claim of a violation of article 14, on the ground that he had discovered new evidence not available to him during the trial, is concerned, the communication does not disclose in precise terms what this new evidence was. It contends that all the evidence referred to in the communication was available during the trial, and that the allegation of an “elaborate police frame up” 13