CCPR/C/115/D/2621/2015 2.8 On 2 February 2007, the author brought an action against the Grand Orient de France before the Paris Court of Major Jurisdiction, calling for it to be brought t o justice and for compensation. 2.9 On 11 December 2007, the Paris Court of Major Jurisdiction rejected the defence pleaded by the Grand Orient de France invoking the statute of limitations, but it dismissed all the author ’s claims, as “he provided no evidence of the acts attributed to M.C.”. On 23 October 2009, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Paris Court of Major Jurisdiction. On 17 February 2011, the Court of Cassation ruled that his appeal in cassation was “inadmissible”. 3 2.10 On 4 May 2002, the author submitted a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. On 7 February 2006, the Court ruled that France was guilty of excessive delays in producing the victim’s psychiatric committal documents. The Court found that the proceedings had been unduly long and had not met the requirement of “reasonable time”, and that France had violated article 6, paragraph 1, and article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author contests the ruling on the grounds that the decision imposed no penalty on the State for the inhuman treatment that he had endured. The author underlines that he has received no compensation for the torture and inhuman treatment that he underwent. 4 The complaint 3.1 The author considers that the State party violated article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant because it refused to assess the tort liability of the Grand Orient de France, which had been responsible for his arbitrary and illegal committal. He considers that the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal denies the existence of an agreement to commit him illegally, in violation of his fundamental rights. 3.2 The author also considers that the national courts committed an error when they failed to recognize that the scheming by the head of the association lay at the root of the inhuman treatment that he endured. He believes that he was denied the opportunity to invoke his right to redress by the judges’ failure to recognize the liability of the Grand Orient de France. 3.3 Lastly, the author considers that the State party violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant by becoming complicit in the inhuman and degrading treatment to which he was subjected. __________________ 3 4 4/6 and in his reply of 25 March 2013 to the letter dated 5 Dece mber 2012 from the Petitions and Inquiries Section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In his letter of 25 March 2013, the author stated that France had granted compensation for his “illegal detention” and that no compensation had been awarded for the inhuman treatment inflicted on him. No information was given regarding the date on which the author filed an appeal in cassation. In its judgement of 7 May 2006, the European Court of Human Rights did not identify any causal link between the violation found and the material damage alleged, and therefore rejected the author’s claim for €15,000 in compensation for material damage. The Court deemed that the unreasonable delays in the proceedings caused the complainant inco nvenience and prolonged uncertainty that justified the granting of compensation for moral damage. Given the circumstances of the case, the Court awarded the complainant the sum of €3,000. GE.15-22254