CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 Mr. Nono) and from no legal relationship in the case of Logis SA. He also states that he was involved in these disputes merely as a representative of two corporations. 3.5 Regarding the violation of article 12, the author considers that he was prevented from returning to France freely not only because he was arrested and detained, but also because the public prosecutor confiscated his passport. He adds that the derogations under article 12, paragraph 3, do not apply to his case, given that he could not be considered a threat to public order, health or national security. 3.6 The author also cites violations of articles 14, paragraph 3 (c) and 9, paragraph 4, in view of the authorities’ excessive delays in ruling on his request for immediate release and treatment in a health emergency. The author recalls that his request for habeas corpus of 18 July 2013 was not ruled on until 18 September 2013, while the Douala tribunal de grande instance usually rules on immediate release cases every Wednesday. He also recalls that the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling only on 8 November 2013 and that the habeas corpus proceedings therefore lasted four months, while approximately 10 days is usually sufficient. He states that he mentioned this excessive delay in discussions during proceedings. Furthermore, he believes that the appeal on points of law that he lodged with the Supreme Court is uncertain, given that the Court is not subject to any time constraints in handing down rulings and could take several years to do so. He adds that the authorities have not responded to his multiple requests regarding his health. 3.7 In his note of 21 February 2014, the author adds that he is also a victim of violations of his rights under articles 6, paragraph 1, 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.8 The author states that his right to health and life as protected by article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant was violated because of the failure of the authorities to act, even though he had repeatedly alerted them to his declining health. Furthermore, he underscores that the numerous anomalies arising in his case can be explained by the bias of the judicial authorities, which have not acted with the required independence, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1. In that regard, the author maintains that the actions of the public prosecutor’s office merely reflected the Government’s wishes and that the justice officials demonstrated their dependence on the Government. He again states that the courts have acted in collusion with the complainants and that he is the victim of persecution by the political and judicial authorities of the State party. Regarding article 14, paragraph 2, he states that he did not benefit from the presumption of innocence, by virtue of which the State party should have accorded priority to his health, rather than his detention. While conceding that no sentence has yet been passed by the Cameroonian courts, the author maintains that the allegations are not punishable in France, while his French nationality required the State party to verify whether the acts that he was alleged to have committed were indeed established as offences. The author therefore considers that the allegations were made against him in violation of article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.9 Lastly, the author alleges that his property rights were violated and considers that a joint reading of the preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence could cover the protection of his intellectual property.14 3.10 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author claims that the domestic remedies of the State party are both unavailable and ineffective and that, therefore, he should not be obliged to continue pursuing domestic remedies for his communication to be admissible before the Committee. He recalls that although they were dealing with an urgent 14 8 The author cites communications Nos. 1853/2008, Atasoy v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012; 1854/2008, Sarkut v. Turkey, Views adopted on 29 March 2012; and 760/1997, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, Views adopted on 25 July 2000. GE.14-23228 (E)