is inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 11.4 With respect to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 4, the Committee has taken note of the State party's clarification that pursuant to article 289, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the author could have called upon the president of the district court at any time after his arrest on 19 March 1982. Considering that the author has not contested the State party's clarification, and taking into account that he was released by order of a magistrate on 23 March 1982 (i.e., four days after his arrest), the Committee finds that the author has not substantiated his claim for purposes of admissibility. 11.5 With respect to the alleged violation of article 10, paragraph. 1, the Committee notes that the author has not provided the relevant clarifications requested in the Working Group's decision of 6 April 1988 and has thus failed to adduce any facts to show that he was subjected to improper treatment during detention. 11.6 With respect to the author's allegation of a violation of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that the Covenant does not provide for the right to see another person criminally prosecuted. Accordingly, it finds that this part of the communication is inadmissible by virtue of incom-patibility with the provisions of the Covenant pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 12. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) The communication is inadmissible; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. _______________ Communication No. 220/1987 Submitted by: T.K. [name deleted] on 12 January 1987 Alleged victim: The author State party: France 40