CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 request for immediate release, the Douala tribunal de grande instance and the Court of Appeal did not act with their habitual speed, since the procedure lasted almost four months. The author believes that the excessive delay and the unwarranted protraction render the remedy ineffective. The author indicates that any new remedy to contest the two latest detention warrants of 9 October and 4 November 2013 would be ineffective in this context and that it would be unreasonable to require him to use procedures that have already proved fruitless. 3.11 Regarding the appeal on points of law that he lodged with the Supreme Court on 13 November 2013, the author complains that he has not received a copy of the Court of Appeal ruling of 8 November 2013, a document vital to the appeal proceedings. He indicates that the ruling was not sent to him until 26 February 2014 and believes that the courts of the State party have deliberately obstructed proceedings, making his appeal impossible. Furthermore, the author explains that there is no specific procedure under Cameroonian law requiring the Supreme Court to rule urgently in cases of arbitrary detention and that, consequently, the ordinary appeals procedure can last for more than a year, or even several years. He therefore insists that this remedy, too, cannot be considered effective with regard to the Covenant. The author adds that the Court of Appeal is the highest domestic court to rule on immediate release because Cameroonian law does not allow the judgements of the Court of Appeal in respect of habeas corpus petitions to be referred to the Supreme Court for rulings on points of law. 15 Additionally, the author maintains that, even if the Supreme Court were considered an effective remedy, the refusal of the judicial authorities to grant him a copy of the Court of Appeal ruling of 8 November 2013 has made it inaccessible. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its submission of 12 March 2014, the State party disputes the admissibility of the communication, emphasizing that the author has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies as provided for under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. The State party provided observations in relation only to the allegations of violations of articles 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14. 4.2 The State party clarified the facts submitted by the author concerning the three cases in which he is the subject of legal proceedings brought by private individuals before the Cameroonian courts. The first case, which is pending before the Douala-Bonanjo Court of First Instance, was brought by Mr. Kengoum, who lodged a complaint against the author on 9 December 2012 for fraud. In respect of the complaint, the State party submits that the author convinced Mr. Kengoum to hand over 65 million CFA francs, or approximately 100,000 euros, to Hope Finances (subsequently Hope Services) under false pretences. The State party explains that, following a preliminary inquiry, the author was placed in pretrial detention on 22 May 2013 and was brought before Douala-Bonanjo Court of First Instance on 24 May 2013 for an initial hearing. On 14 August 2013, the Court of First Instance ordered the release of the author in a preliminary ruling on condition of payment of bail, set at 68,250,000 CFA francs, or approximately 104,000 euros.16 In connection with the same case, the State party adds that at the 11 December 2013 hearing, when the release ruling of 14 August 2013 had yet to be enforced, the author’s counsel submitted a new application for release, which was dismissed as unfounded. 4.3 The State party indicates that the second case against the author followed a complaint of fraud brought by Logis SA, represented by Martin Nyamsi, whereby the 15 16 GE.14-23228 (E) The author refers to articles 584 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author failed to mention this ruling in the facts submitted. The pretrial detention order of 22 May 2013 submitted by the author contains a handwritten note for the same amount of bail. 9