CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 has appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal ruling of 8 November that confirmed the first-instance decision regarding the habeas corpus petition. The Committee further notes the author’s allegations of a miscarriage of justice, bad faith on the part of the State party and judicial bias. It also notes that, according to the author, available remedies to challenge his detention are neither effective nor accessible and that, consequently, derogation from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is justifiable. The Committee recalls that, although it is not necessary to exhaust domestic remedies when they have no chance of being successful, merely doubting their effectiveness does not absolve the author of a communication from the obligation to exhaust those remedies.25 The Committee notes that the author submits with this communication his habeas corpus petition and appeal against the decision of the Wouri Douala tribunal de grande instance, in which he invoked his rights under articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. The Committee observes that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the appeal lodged by the author on 13 November 2013. Moreover, the Committee considers that the author has not submitted sufficient information for it to conclude that the pending appeal is ineffective. The Committee further considers that the author has failed to demonstrate, for the purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the domestic courts amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has not fulfilled his obligation to exhaust domestic remedies and finds the alleged violations of articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 4, and 14, paragraph 3 (c), inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 Under articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, the Committee notes, firstly, the author’s allegations with regard to the inhuman conditions of his detention while in police custody. The Committee points out that, according to the record, the author has not brought any such claims before the national courts either. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all judicial remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. 26 Accordingly, the Committee considers these claims to be inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.27 8.6 Secondly, the Committee notes that, according to the author, the conditions and progress of his detention at New Bell Prison contributed to the deterioration of his health, because of the refusal of the authorities to allow him access to appropriate medical care, which would constitute inhuman treatment in violation of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the author contends that he has taken many steps to exhaust available domestic remedies, while the State party submits that the author has not brought these claims before the national courts and no legal remedy has been sought in respect of them. The Committee points out that from the onset of the symptoms of his illness on 19 October 2013, the author requested repatriation to France on medical grounds in letters dated 21 October 2013 and sent to all the courts involved in the cases against him.28 The Committee observes that the State party simply declares that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, without indicating which remedies were in fact available to the author. The Committee therefore considers that the available information does not demonstrate that domestic remedies have not been exhausted with regard to the claim of a violation of 25 26 27 28 GE.14-23228 (E) See communication No. 1511/2006, García Perea v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2009, para. 6.2. See communications Nos. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5; and 1813/2008, Akwanga v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 6.4. See P.L. v. Germany, para. 6.5; and Akwanga v. Cameroon, para. 6.4. Request sent to the presidents of the Douala Court of First Instance, the Wouri Douala tribunal de grande instance and the Douala Court of Appeal. 15