CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 Given the Government delegate’s claims of prosecutorial bias in favour of the author, the State party is surprised by the author’s allegations of discrimination, and rejects them. State party’s further submission 7.1 On 28 April 2011, the State party reiterated that the author’s communication should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, stressing that the author himself recognized the existence of a number of legal avenues of which he has not availed himself. 7.2 Concerning the cost of the procedures, invoked by the author as an impediment, the State party highlights the existence of legal aid, which was not sought by the author. With respect to author’s comments on the lack of prospect of success of the procedures given the authorities’ lack of reaction to his previous complaints, the State party stresses that the essence of the citation directe de particulier and of the plainte avec constitution de partie civile is precisely to overcome the passivity and inaction of prosecutorial authorities. 7.3 As for the author’s contention that the relevant acts were time-barred, the State party submits that the acts took place in Limbe, in the English-speaking part of the country, which was governed by the Criminal Procedure Ordinance in force prior to 1 January 2007 (date of the entry into force of the Code of Penal Procedure), which ignored time limitations. The acts in question were thus not time-barred, as the author alleged, and the State party maintains that the communication should be declared inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on merits 8.1 On 17 June 2011, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations on the merits of the communication, reiterating prior arguments and adding the following. 8.2 Regarding articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the author reiterates that the object of his visit to the Government delegate concerned the payment of overdue bills, referring to the audience form filled in this regard, to which the State party failed to refer. The author further stresses that the State party failed to comment upon his allegations that he was brutally assaulted by the Government delegate and his cohorts, causing severe bleeding and injuries, which amounted to torture, and was never investigated by the State party. The author further stresses that the State party failed to comment upon his allegation that, after he was hospitalized, the Government delegate conspired to eliminate him (referring to facts in paragraph 2.4). 8.3 Regarding article 9 and the State party’s contention that the arrest warrant against the author was not executed, and that therefore no violation of his right to liberty and security occurred, the author notes that this position is at variance with the report of the police office submitted by the State party, which indicates that the author was arrested, taken to the gendarmerie post in Limbe, and that he was subsequently released following the orders of the State Prosecutor. 8.4 The author reiterates that the fact that his complaints were not ruled upon reveals a violation of his right to an effective remedy under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, as well as of the principle of non-discrimination under articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant. He adds that the exercise of judicial discretion evoked by the State party was certainly predicated on class, the Government delegate being part of the political and 7