CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 4 October 2010, the State party submitted that the author’s communication should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It stated that the author merely complained before the judicial police and sent communications of an administrative nature to members of the Government and the Presidency. The State party contends that the author should have filed proceedings before the competent magistrate (plainte avec constitution de partie civile) under section 157 of the Code of Penal Procedure, which shall set the criminal action in motion; it further submits that it was open to the author to seize the presiding judge with a private prosecution (citation directe de particulier), which can be initiated either by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, or by the victim himself, in accordance with the provisions of section 290 of the Code of Penal Procedure. 4.2 According to the State party, as the author was legally represented, he ought to have known the above mentioned legal avenues, which were open to him. As he did not pursue any, the author must be considered to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 8 December 2010, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. 5.2 The author rejects the contention that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. He submits that even though, under sections 157 and 290 of the Code of Penal Procedure, a victim can initiate criminal prosecution either through the constitution de partie civile, or through a private prosecution before a presiding judge or the competent court, (a) these procedures remain inaccessible due to the attendant costs associated with the proceedings; and (b) they are ineffective. 5.3 The author submits that section 158(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure require that the litigant setting the criminal proceedings in motion: “shall, at the risk of his complaint being inadmissible, deposit at the registry of the court of first instance an amount considered sufficient for defraying the costs of the proceedings. The amount shall be fixed by an order of the examining magistrate. An additional deposit may be fixed in the course of the inquiry.” According to the author, such cash deposits are not linked to the quantum, and practice shows that such amounts vary. Within the Fako courts area, orders by examining magistrates usually range from 160,000 to 500,000 CFAF and above. The author submits that he became incapacitated and had a lengthy stay at hospital, which entailed significant costs. He stresses that he is the sole breadwinner of a family of six and thus does not have the means to make such deposits. 5.4 The author further stresses that, even if he had filed such a complaint, under section 160 of the Code of Penal Procedure, after the deposit of the required amount, the examining magistrate shall forward the complaint to the State Counsel. The State Counsel may then either declare the complaint inadmissible or order the commencement of an inquiry against persons known or unknown. A person mentioned in the complaint may also be heard as witness. In the present case, the author submits that he made prior complaints to the State Prosecutor and to the State Prosecutor-General, in accordance with section 135(1) of the Code of Penal Procedure, to no avail. Neither of these authorities initiated an investigation. 5.5 Similarly, according to the author, the institution of proceedings under section 290 of the Code of Penal Procedure, by way of private prosecution, is also subject to heavy financial prerequisites, which he could not have met, having become indigent. Furthermore, under section 128 of the Code of Penal Procedure, the Legal Department is a principal party 5