6.11 The State party reiterates its arguments detailed in paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10 above in the context of alleged violations of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3. It further draws attention to the fact that the author himself argued that his acquittal by the military tribunal on 5 April 1990 proved that the judges considered him to be innocent. The State party wonders how, in the circumstances, a tribunal that acquitted the author can be qualified as partial and its judges subject to the influence of high government officials. remedy and the relevance of the judgments referred to by the State party. 6.12 Finally, the State party contends that there is no basis for the author's allegation that he has been denied the right to return to his country (art. 12, para. 4). No law, regulation or decree contains a prohibition in this respect. It is submitted that Mr. Mukong left Cameroon of his own free will and is free to return whenever he wishes to do so. (c) Law 90-52 of 19 December 1990 relating to the freedom of mass communication; 7.1 In his comments, the author affirms that in respect of claims for compensation for ill-treatment or torture, there are still no appropriate or effective ways to seek redress in the domestic courts. Under the applicable laws, any such action necessitates the authorization of a Government authority, such as the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Defence. The author argues that the so-called "liberty laws" entrench arbitrary detention by administrative officers and continue to be used for human rights violations, and the courts cannot entertin actions arising from the application of these laws. The author submits that all these laws fall far short of the requirements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 7.5 The author appeals to the Committee to examine closely the so-called "liberty laws" of December 1990, and in particular: (a) Decree 90-1459 of 8 November 1990 to set up a national commission on human rights and freedoms; (b) Law 90-47 of 19 December 1990 relating to states of emergency; (d) Law 90-56 of 19 December 1990 relating to political parties; (e) Law 90-54 of 19 December 1990 relating to the maintenance of law and order. 7.6 The author challenges the State party's contention that he was himself responsible for the delay in the adjudication of his case in 1989. He affirms that he asked only once for a postponement of the hearing and was ready with his defence as of 9 February 1989. From that day onward, his lawyers attended the court sessions, as did observers from the British and American Embassies in Yaoundé. The author emphasizes that he did not request another adjournment. 7.2 The author further contends that such treatment as he was subjected to in detention cannot be justified by the legitimacy of the sanction imposed against him, as in the first case (1988), the charges against him were withdrawn at the request of the Assistant Minister of Defence, and in the second case (1990), he was acquitted. He dismisses the State party's contention that conditions of detention are a factor of the underdevelopment of the country, and notes that if this argument were to be accepted, a country could always hide behind the excuse of being poor to justify perpetual human rights violations. 7.7 Finally, the author observes that he was able to return to his country only as a result of "diplomatic action taken by some big powers interested in human rights". He notes that although he has not been molested openly for past activities, he was again arrested, together with other individuals fighting for multiparty democracy and human rights, on 15 October 1993 in the city of Kom. He claims that he and the others were transported under inhuman conditions to Bamenda, where they were released in the afternoon of 16 October 1993. Finally, the author notes that the ban on his book Prisoner without a Crime was lifted, apparently, after his complaint was filed with the Human Rights Committee. The book now circulates freely, but to argue, as is implied in the State party's observations on the merits of his complaint, that it was never banned, does not conform to the truth. 7.3 According to the author, the report of the National Centre for Studies and Research (see para. 6.3 above) is unreliable and "fabricated" and points out that, in fact, the report consists of no more than a written reply to some questions provided by the very individual who had threatened him at the camp in Douala. 7.4 The author indirectly confirms that domestic courts may entertain claims for damages for illtreatment, but points out that the case referred to by the State party is still pending before the Supreme Court, although the appeal was filed in 1981. He thus questions the effectiveness of this type of Revision of admissibility and examination of the merits 8.1 The Committee has taken note of the State party's request that the admissibility decision of 8 July 1992 be reviewed pursuant to rule 93, 91