CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 mechanisms for requesting release, particularly articles 222–235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which relate to applications for release, with or without bail. 6.5 The Committee notes the claim that the author bases on article 9 (5) of the Covenant, through which he seeks to obtain redress for Mr. Zogo Andela’s detention, which he qualifies as arbitrary. The Committee observes, however, that this allegation has not been presented before the State party’s courts. The Committee recalls that, according to its jurisprudence, authors must avail themselves of all legal remedies in order to fulfil the requirement contained in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective and available to the author. 13 Consequently, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee observes that on 14 September 2011 Mr. Zogo Andela requested the examining magistrate to withdraw the remand warrant, arguing that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and ratione materiae, and invoking the statute of limitations. His application was denied by the examining magistrate on 10 October 2011. Mr. Zogo Andela then appealed against this ruling before the inquiry control chamber of the Centre Region court of appeal in Yaoundé, which ruled the appeal inadmissible. He subsequently, on 20 September 2012, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Cameroon, which was also denied. 6.7 The Committee further notes that after his remand warrant was extended twice, and because his pretrial detention no longer had a legal basis as from 30 September 2012 once it had exceeded the 18 months allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code, on 5 October 2012, Mr. Zogo Andela filed a petition with the President of the Mfoundi high court for a writ of habeas corpus, applying for immediate release in accordance with the provisions of article 584 of the Criminal Procedure Code (para. 2.16). His request was denied on 18 October 2012. On 30 October 2012, Mr. Zogo Andela filed an appeal against the ruling, which was rejected. On 13 April 2015 he filed a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus (para. 2.19); it too was rejected. 6.8 In the light of these circumstances, the Committee can only conclude that the domestic remedies have been exhausted in respect of Mr. Zogo Andela’s detention since 30 September 2012. The Committee thus declares that the claim based on a violation of article 9 (1), (3) and (4) of the Covenant admissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 The Committee notes the author’s argument that Mr. Zogo Andela was deprived of an effective remedy in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant may be invoked by individuals only in relation to other provisions of the Covenant and considers that the author’s claims in that regard should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.14 6.10 In connection with article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee notes, first, the author’s allegations concerning the living conditions of Mr. Zogo Andela, which are due to his detention, and the freezing of his assets, which results from the judicial proceedings in his case. The author has also drawn attention to the worrying health condition of Mr. Zogo Andela and the refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with care and a diet suitable for his state of health. The Committee observes that, according to the evidence contained in the file, the author has not brought these allegations before the domestic courts. Moreover, he has not sufficiently substantiated this claim before the Committee, apart from the production of a medical certificate dated 26 August 2016, which describes Mr. Zogo Andela’s medical history. 15 The Committee therefore considers that this part of the 13 14 15 GE.17-22814 See communications Nos. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5, and 1813/2008, Akwanga v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 6.4. See communication No. 1632/2007, Picq v. France, decision of inadmissibility of 30 October 2008, para. 6.4. See footnote 3, above. 11