immediately notified of the arrest and remand of the plaintiff and provided legal assistance to the plaintiff when he was remanded in police custody. On Tuesday, 23 March 1982, the plaintiff was brought before the examining magistrate in connection with the application by the public prosecutor for him to be remanded in custody for a further period. After questioning the plaintiff, the examining magistrate refused the application. The plaintiff was then immediately released. 7.2 With respect to remedies available to the author, the State party submits that during the four days of detention the author could have applied to the civil courts for an injunction to secure his release if he believed he was being unlawfully detained. It explains that "[the author's] complaint was minutely examined by the competent military judicial authorities. A complaint can lead to three situations: 1. If both the Auditeur-Militair and the Commanding-General/Verwijzingsofficier find the complaint well-founded, prosecution will be effected (article 11 RLLu). 2. If the Commanding-General and the Auditeur-Militair disagree, the Hoog Militair Gerechtshof (military court of appeal) can order prosecution (article 15 RLLu). Moreover, during the investigation the Minister of Defence can order the Commanding-General to prosecute (article 11 RLLu). 3. If both authorities find the complaint ill-founded, no prosecution will follow. In the instance of [A. v. O.], both the Auditeur-Militair and the Commanding-General/Verwijzings-officier found the complaint ill-founded after thorough review. It was concluded that prosecution of [Mr. O.] should not be effected in view of the fact that the injuries sustained by [Mr A.] were a consequence of his resistance to the arrest. One of the tasks entrusted to the police is the effective maintenance of law and order. This can, under certain circumstances, necessitate the use of force. At the time of the arrest, [Mr. O.] was seconded to the civilian police. Therefore civilian police regulations on the use of force were applicable. The police must act according to their standing instructions on the use of force, whereby the principles of last resort and proportionality must be observed, which is to say that a police officer may only use force if no other means is available to him, and that he must act in a reasonable and restrained manner. The Netherlands Government has no evidence to suggest that these rules were not observed during the applicant's arrest. In the State party's opinion, the procedure concerning the decision not to prosecute Mr. O. described above did not diverge from the standard procedure in the author's case. It adds that the Auditeur-Militair notified the author's counsel of the decision not to prosecute Mr. O. 8. The State party reiterates that it considers the communication to be inadmissible: The first complaint, contained in the communication, regarding the actual treatment of [Mr. A.] upon his arrest, is deemed inadmissible since the tort procedure against the Government is still sub judice (before the subdistrict court in Haarlem); thus it cannot be maintained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. Furthermore the complaint is submitted to be neither compatible with the provisions of the Covenant nor sufficiently substantiated. The second complaint contained in the commu-nication, regarding the lack of adequate legal procedure to see the arresting officer prosecuted, is in the view of the Government also to be declared inadmissible, as the allegations concerned cannot be regarded to constitute a violation of any of the rights enumerated in the Covenant. Nor have the allegations been sufficiently substantiated. 9.1 In his submission of 20 June 1988, author's counsel states, inter alia, I sent to you previously two medical records of the physical and psychical injuries sustained by my client. Dr. Baart 38