CCPR/C/121/D/2764/2016 funds, an offence punishable under article 184 of the 1965 Cameroonian Criminal Code, for acts committed between 1996 and 2003, and that the change of court changed neither the legal characterization of the offence nor the applicable penalty. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claim under article 15 is incompatible ratione materiae with the rights enshrined in the Covenant and is thus inadmissible by virtue of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.16 With regard to the author’s argument, under article 16, that the criminal liability of Mr. Zogo Andela is not involved, inasmuch as such liability should be that of the legal person of the SCLM company of which he was chairman and chief executive, the Committee considers that this claim, too, should be dismissed, as Mr. Zogo Andela is personally accused of certain offences that he reportedly committed while directing SCLM and has been prosecuted as an individual in that capacity. This claim is thus incompatible ratione materiae with article 16 and should be declared inadmissible by virtue of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.17 With regard to the claim under article 26, the Committee notes that the author has apparently not lodged his claim with the domestic courts. Furthermore, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently founded the claim, as he has failed to show a difference in treatment from that of other persons under the State party’s jurisdiction on the basis of any of the grounds listed under article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 and article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.18 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility his claims under article 9 (1) (3) and (4) and article 14 (2) and (3) (c) of the Covenant, and therefore proceeds to a consideration of those claims on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 9 of the Covenant, no one may be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The Committee further recalls that after an initial determination has been made that pretrial detention is necessary, there should be periodic re-examination of whether it continues to be reasonable and necessary in the light of possible alternatives. 20 Article 9 (3) provides that “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge ... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release”. The Committee notes that since being indicted, Mr. Zogo Andela has been in pretrial detention since 30 March 2011. It further notes that the courts of the State party have justified keeping him in detention on purely procedural grounds, as the case has been transferred to the Special Criminal Court, without a substantive examination of his detention being carried out. The Committee notes that no review of the lawfulness of the detention has been performed. That being the case, and considering that the State party has not advanced any grounds that would justify Mr. Zogo Andela’s continued detention, the Committee finds a violation of article 9 (1), (3) and (4). 7.3 With regard to the claim of excessive procedural delays, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that Mr. Zogo Andela, since being indicted in 2011 and remanded in custody more than six years ago, has still not been tried for the offences of which he is accused. The Committee also notes the other procedural delays of which the author complains, including the decision by the Centre Region court of appeal of 24 July 2012 following the appeal lodged by Mr. Zogo Andela, which was issued more than 10 months after the expiry of the time limit laid down by Cameroonian law (para. 2.12). Moreover, the Committee notes that it was only on 1 July 2015 that the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal 20 GE.17-22814 General comment No. 35 (2014) on article 9 (liberty and security of person), para. 38; see also communication No. 1085/2002, Taright et al. v. Algeria, Views adopted on 15 March 2006, paras. 8.3 and 8.4. 13