unsuccessful. 21 On 21 December 1962, the author contacted the Directorate of the Centre for Counselling and Rehabilitation of Repatriated Persons in Algiers to obtain information on the steps to be taken to protect his property. decisions, and new provisions virtually removed all judicial guarantees. In fact, the decree of 9 May 1963 16 excluded any possibility of appeal, except through a departmental commission17 and added to the notion of vacancy the broad notion of public order and social peace, giving the authorities near sovereign powers of discretion. From a procedural point of view, the presiding judges of courts seized of interim relief applications filed under the 18 March 1963 decree declared themselves not competent, since property management now fell under new legislation that did not provide for applying to an interim relief judge. The discretionary appeal commissions provided for in the decree were never set up. The complaint 3.1 The author complained of violations of six different kinds: (a) deprivation of property and means of subsistence of the French minority through expropriation (art. 1 of the Covenant); (b) loss of the right to choose one’s residence freely in Algeria (art. 12); (c) unlawful interference with the applicants’ home in Algeria, together with attacks on their honour and reputation (art. 17); (d) violation of the applicants’ rights as members of a minority group with a distinct culture (art. 27); (e) discriminatory measures constituting a violation of rights involving differential and unjustified treatment by the State with respect to dispossession of property (arts. 2, para. 1, and 26 separately or in combination and arts. 17 and 26 in combination); and (f) discrimination in respect of the author’s property rights (art. 5). The author considers that rights of individuals acquired under the predecessor State must be safeguarded by the successor State, that that principle is part of general international law 22 and that the failure to recognize the principle of acquired rights entails the international responsibility of States. 23 In practice, the State party should have upheld and protected the property rights of French nationals repatriated from Algeria, which was not the case. 2.6 The author cites Consultation, according to which, in the absence of time limits on the measures prescribed by these provisions, what was happening was a form of disguised expropriation, even if in strictly legal terms the titular owners did not lose their property rights. Consultation also states that the legislation concerning the nationalization of farms (decree of 1 October 1963)18 was silent on the issue of compensation and that all property belonging to foreigners was transferred to the State,19 contrary to what was stipulated in the Evian agreements, which prohibited any discrimination and stipulated that fair compensation must be awarded prior to any expropriation. Lastly, counsel submits that Opinion No. 16 Z.F. on the transfer of the proceeds of harvests on properties previously owned by French farmers and nationalized by the decree of 1 October 196320 was the only compensation officially granted to French nationals who had lost their property. The Opinion provided for the payment of 10 million old francs as social compensation to be distributed among market gardeners and growers. However, negotiations concerning vacant property were 3.2 In respect of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author is of the view that these avenues of recourse have no prospect of success. First, the failure to set up the Court of Guarantees provided for in the Evian agreements has resulted in a procedural deadlock, where it should have ordered investigations, annulled laws incompatible with the Declaration of Guarantees and ruled on all compensation measures. Second, under the regulations authorizing dispossession, certain avenues of redress were opened, but other decrees closed them (see above, para. 2.5). The author refers to a note by the Secretary-General of the 16 Decree No. 63-168 of 9 May 1963 concerning the placement under State protection of movable and immovable property whose acquisition, management, development or use might undermine public order or social peace provided that prefectural decisions placing the property under State protection could only be appealed within one month, before a departmental commission. All previous provisions not in conformity with the decree were repealed. 17 Established by Decree No. 63-222 of 28 June 1963 regulating appeal against prefectural decisions placing certain properties under State protection. Appeals could be filed with the prefect, who would transmit the application to a departmental and, subsequently, to a national commission set up within the Ministry of the Interior. 18 Decree No. 63-388 of 1 October 1963 declaring farms belonging to certain natural or legal persons State property. 19 While there was no transfer of vacant property. According to Consultation, six economic sectors were in effect nationalized. 20 Opinion published in the Official Journal of the Algerian Republic for 17 March 1964. 21 Decree No. 63-64 of 18 February 1963 fixing compensation for the occupation of residential business premises considered vacant explicitly provided that the owners of vacant property would receive no compensation and deferred consideration of their rights to later provisions. 22 Counsel cites the Permanent Court of International Justice cases German Settlers in Poland, Advisory Opinion of 10 September 1923, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 6, pp. 15 and 36; Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Judgement of 25 May 1926, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 7, pp. 20-21. 23 Counsel cites the Permanent Court’s Judgement of 26 July 1927 in the Factory at Chorzów case, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, pp. 27-28. 37