CCPR/C/122/D/3090/2017 CCPR/C/122/D/3091/2017 of Appeal endorsed the Regional Court’s judgment, ruling that the author had failed to exhaust the remedies available to him under the law, and that the claim that his arrest was the result of gross negligence on the part of the State was unjustified. 6 With regard to the conditions governing his continued remand in custody, the Court of Appeal did not contest the fact that the author was not interrogated within 24 hours of his arrest. It pointed out, however, that the provisions of article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that set the time limit were not applicable at the material time. On 20 June 2012, the Court of Cassation dismissed the author’s appeal, based on the Judicial Code, claiming compensation for damage caused by the improper administration of justice. The Court noted that, at the time of his arrest and when he appeared before the Criminal Court, the author had failed to exercise all available legal remedies in order to establish the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest. It found, in addition, that the divergent assessments of the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal as to the advisability of maintaining him in custody demonstrated the effectiveness of the principle of two-tier proceedings, which offered redress for alleged maladministration of justice. Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights 2.15 On 12 April 2001, the author filed a complaint against France with the European Court of Human Rights. Invoking article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that he had not received a fair and public hearing before the Court of Cassation (see the end of paragraph 2.12 above). 2.16 Invoking article 5 (1) of the Convention, he complained of the arbitrary nature of his detention between June and November 1997. He argued first that, given the duration of the criminal proceedings, the request for remand detention pending extradition could not be based on urgency and that this procedural defect rendered the subsequent detention arbitrary. Secondly, he argued that his detention from 4 November 1997, the date on which he was turned over to the French authorities, until 10 November 1997, the day of the criminal court hearing, was legally permissible for a maximum of four days. Lastly, the author argued that the decision by the Lille Criminal Court on 10 November 1997 to maintain him in detention violated domestic law. Claiming that he had been denied the possibility of applying for compensation for the damage caused by his detention, the author requested compensation under article 5 (5) of the Convention. 2.17 Invoking article 6 (1) of the Convention, the author complained of the inequity of the decisions taken during the legal proceedings. He questioned their grounds, argued that the courts had not taken his arguments into account and had not responded to them, and challenged their assessment of the facts. He also complained about the duration of the criminal proceedings. 2.18 The author also claimed that article 13 of the Convention had been violated inasmuch as he had been denied an effective remedy in the form of compensation for the damages he had suffered as a result of the alleged violations of the Convention. 2.19 In a partial decision on admissibility delivered on 18 March 2003, the European Court dismissed the complaint against his alleged arbitrary detention as late, and concluded that the complaints concerning compensation for detention-related damages and the inequity of the decisions were manifestly ill-founded inasmuch as the author had been given the opportunity to present his arguments to the criminal courts, which had responded by handing down rulings that contained the requisite statement of grounds. The Court also ruled that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint concerning the duration of the proceedings at issue, and that the complaint based on article 13 was manifestly unfounded, since the author had not filed any complaint to which article 13 was applicable. 2.20 By a judgment of 2 November 2004, the European Court declared manifestly unfounded the author’s complaint concerning the impossibility of obtaining compensation 6 4 The Court also held that the request for arrest stemmed solely from the arrest warrant and that responsibility for deciding whether it should be granted lay with the authority that received the request, so that the author’s attempt to assign responsibility to the French State was unfounded. GE.18-10755