CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 to the trial. The author stresses that he regularly seized the Legal Department by addressing his complaints, which remained unanswered, to them. 5.6 The author adds that the acts about which he complained would have been qualified as assault, unintentional harm and false arrest, all of which are misdemeanours, committed and reported in 2002. The Code of Penal Procedure, which entered into force in 2007, provides under section 65(4) that misdemeanours are time-barred after three years. As such, the action would have been time-barred by law. No other recourse existed prior to the coming into force of the Code of Penal Procedure. Accordingly, the author submits that none of the remedies suggested by the State party was effective, and invites the Committee to declare his communication admissible. State party’s observations on merits 6.1 On 14 April 2011, the State party argued that the claims are without merit. The State party first submits that the author lacks credibility, as he did not disclose in his communication the fact that the reason for his appointment of 29 August 2002 with the Government delegate heading the Limbe Urban Council was a request for assistance, after the author claimed that his house had been set on fire.4 According to the State party, the author, who truncated the reasons for his presence within the Government delegate’s office, does not indicate what caused the dispute with the latter. Consequently, the State party is of the view that the author’s contentions under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are illfounded. 6.2 Concerning the author’s right to liberty and security, the State party submits that the author’s allegations are incorrect. Following the incident of 29 August 2002, the Senior Divisional Officer of the Fako Division issued on 30 August 2002 an order for the author’s administrative detention, for a period of 15 days, renewable, for “acts of banditry and attempted arson on the Government Delegate Limbe Urban Council, and disturbance of public service at the Limbe Urban Council”.5 This order, however, could not be executed, owing to the intervention of the State Prosecutor.6 The State party also refers to a letter from the Government delegate of the Limbe Urban Council dated 3 September 2002, addressed to the Minister of Justice, in which the delegate complains about the biased and lax attitude of the Prosecutor, who failed to arrest the author after the latter attempted to murder him by assaulting him and pouring petrol on him with a view to setting him on fire on 29 August 2002. The State party thus contends that the author benefited from judicial protection and that it cannot be sustained that his right to security was violated. 6.3 With respect to the principle of non-discrimination, the State party is of the view that the fact that charges were brought against the author, and were later withdrawn, do not reveal any discrimination. Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, then applicable in the common law parts of Cameroon, provides that “in any trial …, any prosecutor may at any time before the judgment is pronounced … withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of one or more of the offences with which such person is charged”. Such prerogatives should be analysed as part of the prosecutorial discretion. 4 5 6 6 The State party annexes a letter dated 26 August 2002, signed by the author, entitled “appeal for assistance”, addressed to the Government delegate (Limbe Urban Council) in which the author solicits assistance on behalf of his family, who were the victims of a fire on 25 July 2002. Document annexed by the State party. The State party annexes an affidavit from a police officer dated 7 November 2002, which submits that: (a) the arrest could not take place as the author was admitted to hospital; (b) the author was arrested, and then released by order of the Prosecutor.