3.4 The author notes that his arrests on 16 June 1988 and 26 February 1990 were linked to his activities as an advocate of multi-party democracy, and claims that these were Government attempts designed to suppress any opposition activities, in violation of article 19 of the Covenant. This also applies to the Government's ban, in 1985, of a book written by the author (Prisoner without a Crime), in which he described his detention in local jails from 1970 to 1976. determined by a military tribunal. The author submits that if it was not possible to challenge his detention by writ of habeas corpus, then other, theoretically existing, remedies were not in fact available to him. 2.9 As to remedies against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, the author notes that the Prosecutor (Ministère Public) may only prosecute a civil claim for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on behalf of a person who is the accused in a pending criminal matter. Under section 5 of Ordinance 72/5 of 26 August 1972, a Military Tribunal cannot entertain a civil action separately from a criminal action for which it has been declared competent. Only the Minister of Defense or the examining magistrate can seize the military tribunal with a civil action; civilians cannot do so. Finally, the author cites from and endorses the conclusions of a recent Amnesty International report, according to which the organization "knows of no cases in recent years where torture allegations have been the subject of official inquiry in Cameroon. The authorities also appear to have blocked civil actions for damages lodged before the courts by former detainees ...". He concludes that the pursuit of domestic remedies would be ineffective and that, if he were to initiate such proceedings, he would be subjected to further harassment. 3.5 Finally, it is submitted that article 12, paragraph 4, was violated, as the author is now prevented from returning to his country. He has been warned that if he were to return to Cameroon, the authorities would immediately re-arrest him. This reportedly is attributable to the fact that in October 1990, the author delivered a petition to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, seeking his good offices to persuade the State party's authorities to observe and respect General Assembly document A/C.4/L.685 of 18 April 1961 entitled "The question of the future of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration". The State party's information and observations 4.1 The State party recapitulates the facts leading to the author's apprehension. According to it, the interview given by the author to the BBC on 23 April 1988 was full of half truths and untruths, such as the allegation that the country's economic crisis was largely attributable to the Cameroonians themselves, as well as allusions to widespread corruption and embezzlement of funds at the highest levels of Government which had remained unpunished. The author was arrested after the airing of this interview because, in the State party's opinion, he could not substantiate his declarations. They were qualified by the State party as "intoxication of national and international public opinion" and thus as subversive within the meaning of Ordinance No. 62/OF/18 of 12 March 1962. Upon order of the Assistant Minister of Defence of 5 January 1989, the author was charged with subversion by the examining magistrate of the military tribunal of Bafoussam. On 4 May 1989, the Assistant Minister decreed the closure of the investigations against the author; he was notified of this decision on 5 May 1989. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges a violation of article 7 of the Covenant on account of the treatment he was subjected to between 18 June and 10 August 1988, and during his detention at the Mbope Camp. 3.2 The author further alleges a violation of article 9, as he was not served a warrant for his arrest on 16 June 1988. Charges were not brought until almost two months later. Moreover, the military tribunal designated to handle his case postponed the hearing of the case on several occasions until, on 5 May 1989, it announced that it had been ordered by the Head of State to withdraw the charges and release the author. Again, the arrest on 26 February 1990 occurred without a warrant being served. On this occasion, charges were not filed until one month later. 3.3 It is further submitted that the State party authorities violated article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3, in that the author was not given any details of the charges against him; neither was he given time to prepare his defence adequately. The author claims that the court – a military tribunal – was neither independent nor impartial, as it was clearly subject to the influence of high-level government officials. In particular, as the judges were military officers, they were subject to the authority of the President of Cameroon, himself the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. 4.2 The State party contends that in respect of his allegations under article 7, the author failed to initiate judicial proceedings against those held responsible for his treatment. In this connection, it observes that he could have: (a) Denounced the treatment of which he was a victim to the competent Ministry, which should then have investigated the allegations; 88