CCPR/C/122/D/3090/2017 CCPR/C/122/D/3091/2017 and concerning the decision by the Court of Cassation to deny him access to a court to obtain compensation for the damages suffered as a result of remand detention, notwithstanding seven acquittals and the absence of any prison sentence. The European Court held that the author had been given the option of filing an application to the Court of Appeal, and subsequently to the National Commission on Compensation for Detention, for compensation for damages suffered from remand detention, and that he had exercised that option. As the author complained that he had not been compensated, the European Court took it that he was criticizing the implementation of domestic law by the national authorities and concluded, since it had found no evidence of arbitrariness in the proceedings, that there were no grounds to challenge the assessment of the national courts, which are primarily responsible for interpreting and implementing domestic legislation. 2.21 However, the European Court found that there had been a violation of article 6 (1) of the Convention in connection with the author’s complaint that he had been denied adversarial proceedings before the Court of Cassation, since the reporting judge’s report had not been communicated, although it had been submitted to the Advocate General. 2.22 Following this finding of a violation by the European Court, the author submitted an application to the commission responsible for reviewing criminal court decisions for a review of the appeal against the judgment handed down by the Douai Court of Appeal. On 18 January 2006, the Court of Cassation dismissed the application on the ground that the Court of Appeal had justified its decision to convict the author of attempted fraud. 2.23 Referring to the proceedings before the European Court, the author argues that the Court refrained from considering the arbitrary and inappropriate nature of the detention and had dismissed the complaint on a procedural ground, namely failure to respect the sixmonth time limit for submission of the complaint. The complaint Luxembourg 3.1 The author alleges that his period of detention from 24 April to 30 June 1997 has been denied by the Luxembourg authorities. He further alleges that an application for release cannot be filed with the Luxembourg Court of Cassation during an investigation because, pursuant to the Act of 17 June 1987 on the abolition of the assize court and modifying jurisdiction and procedures for the investigation and trial of offences, such an application is prohibited prior to a judgment on the merits by article 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence he was unable to submit an application for release to the Luxembourg courts with effect from 30 June 1997, the date of the author’s detention pending extradition in response to the request from France and was required instead to apply to the French courts. 3.2 Invoking the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, the author alleges that he was subjected to arbitrary detention in Luxembourg from 24 April to 4 November 1997 in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. He claims that the Luxembourg Ministry of Justice denies the period of detention from 24 April to 30 June 1997 (see para. 2.9). He maintains that he was imprisoned without access to a judgment or at least to dismissal proceedings, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 3.3 The author further claims that the arrest warrant issued on 30 June 1997 fails to meet the requirements of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, as interpreted by the Committee in its general comment No. 35: the arrest warrant defined urgency in an impersonal and general manner; the risk-related grounds were unreasonable; the gravity of the alleged acts was an arbitrary ground; and the risk of flight was non-existent, since the author’s family and his companies were in the territory of Luxembourg. 3.4 The author also contests the fact that all foreigners who are subject to a request for extradition are automatically detained in Luxembourg when a State submits such a request and calls for their placement in detention. Therefore, he submits that the detention on grounds of extradition was neither fair nor appropriate within the meaning of article 9 of the Covenant. GE.18-10755 5