investigated my client during his detention (report dated 16 June 1982). Dr. van Ewijk, the psychiatrist (report dated 19 December 1986), diagnosed my client's illness as a traumatic neurosis in connection with his arrest in March 1982. 9.2 In his comments of 18 July 1988 on the State party's submission, author's counsel argues: The Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure is not in accordance with article 9 of the Covenant. . . . In the Code of Criminal Procedure a suspect can be held in custody for 4 days and 15 hours before he shall be brought before a judge or officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. [Mr. A.] has also not been held in custody in accordance with articles 52 to 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Normally the suspect is held in custody for two days . . . after questioning. In plaintiff's case the questioning was held on Monday, 22 March 1982. Before that [Mr. A.] had been questioned very shortly, so it is not true that [Mr. A.] was questioned on the morning of Saturday, 20 March 1982. Nor is it true that [Mr. A.] could apply to the civil court for an injunction to secure his release. [Mr. A.] was detained during the weekend, at which time the Court is not in session. 9.3 Counsel further claims the civil proceedings initiated against Mr. O. have nothing to do with the complaint, since the State party is not a party in it. It serves only the purpose of personal satisfaction and reparation. Counsel reiterates that the author's request for prosecution of the police officer is admissible and reaffirms that the right to demand prosecution of this officer is protected by article 14 of the Covenant. 10. On 13 September 1988, the State party submitted further comments on the author's submission: In accordance with article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant was questioned before the decision to remand him in custody was taken. . . . questioning took place at 10 a. m. on Saturday, 20 March. The Government has already pointed out in its memorandum of 17 June 1988 that the procedures required under Netherlands law were followed. These procedures are also in accordance with article 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The president of the district court can be called upon at all times (i. e., also during the weekend) when an injunction is being sought (see article 289, para. 2, of the Code of Civil-Procedure). The conclusion contained in the Public Prosecutor's letter . . . that [Mr. A.] resisted arrest is based upon the official reports drawn up under oath of office. 11.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that in respect of the author's allegations of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the author instituted civil proceedings against the officer of the Royal Military Police who allegedly maltreated him, and which remain pending. Furthermore, the State party has indicated the possibility of initiating tort proceedings against the Government. The author has not established that such proceedings would be a priori futile. Therefore, this part of the communication 39