CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 conveyed this information. Following the issuance by the investigating judge of the order closing the investigation and sending the file to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office for submission to the Indictments Chamber on 6 June 2011, the author, through his lawyers, filed a memorandum with the Indictments Chamber at the hearing on 29 June 2011, in which all of the procedural irregularities, from the time of his arrest until the completion of the criminal investigation 20 months later, were related and duly substantiated. For all of these reasons, the author considers that the State party violated his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 3.7 The author maintains that the criminal proceedings were fundamentally biased against him. Firstly, in the East-West Highway affair, the constituent elements of the offence of directing a criminal conspiracy, as set out in articles 176 and 177 of the Criminal Code, were not present, and the investigating judge failed to provide any evidence of fraudulent activity by the author, who holds that these breaches run counter to the principle of legality of the punishment and the proceedings. 3.8 The author also claims that his due process rights were violated by the fact that his computer, which was seized at the headquarters of the company he owns in Algeria on 28 September 2009 (see para. 2.7 supra), was not handed over by the criminal investigation officers to the investigating judge until 19 months after the search, that is on 23 May 2011. In violation of the rights of the defence, the investigating judge used data from the computer without informing the author’s lawyers, who were only notified thereof on 1 June 2011 during the hearing before that judge. Furthermore, these data were used solely to incriminate the author; the investigating judge did not call the criminal investigation officers to account for the irregularities committed during the search. 3.9 The order by the Indictments Chamber referring the case to the criminal court, which was dated 16 November 2011, was not transmitted to the author’s lawyers until 30 January 2012. 3.10 To illustrate the violation of the presumption of innocence in this case, the author cites in particular the investigating judge’s transmittal order of 6 June 2011. The order simply reproduced word for word the report on the preliminary investigation, which was, necessarily, unfavourable to the author, without taking into account the arguments presented by the author’s lawyers in his favour. 3.11 For all of these reasons, the author considers that he is also the victim of a violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 3.12 Regarding article 12, the author notes that he was deprived of his liberty of movement for 20 days (from 17 September to 6 October 2009) and was unable to contact his relatives. Algérie Télécom (Natixis-Luxembourg) affair 3.13 Furthermore, in connection with the related charges of money-laundering brought against the author under article 389 bis of the Criminal Code (in the second case, known as the Algérie Télécom or Natixis-Luxembourg affair), the investigating judge, on 8 February 2010, addressed a request for international judicial assistance to the Luxembourg judicial authorities, seeking information on the author’s accounts and the origins of transactions on those accounts. In support of this request, the judge referred to a note transmitted by the Luxembourg Financial Intelligence Unit to the Algerian Financial Intelligence Processing Unit concerning funds transfers that warranted further scrutiny. The author’s lawyers were not informed, however, and the request for judicial assistance was not immediately placed in the case file. They were thus unable to challenge these procedural acts, in violation of the rights of the defence, and the author’s accounts in Luxembourg were frozen in consequence. In addition, the author considers that the sending of a second request for judicial assistance 6 GE.16-07656