CCPR/C/112/D/1965/2010 party’s view, the author did not consider the possibility of bringing the matter before the competent magistrate (plainte avec constitution de partie civile) under section 157 of the Code of Penal Procedure, or seize directly the presiding judge with a private prosecution (citation directe de particulier) under section 290 of the Code of Penal Procedure. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the author has written letters to political and administrative authorities but has not, strictly speaking, initiated legal action. However, the Committee takes note of the author’s argument, which is confirmed by the material available in the file, that on 17 September 2002, he lodged a complaint before the State Prosecutor-General of the South-Western Province in which he explicitly requested that investigations be undertaken into his allegations of assault concerning the incident of 29 August 2002. The author renewed his complaint with the State Prosecutor-General of the South-Western Province, on 3 October 2002, in which he referred to threats to his life, security and personal liberty. On the same day, he also filed a complaint with the State Prosecutor in Limbe on the same grounds. 11.4 The Committee recalls that, for the purposes of admissibility of a communication, the author must exhaust only the remedies effective against the alleged violation. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the citation directe or plainte avec constitution de partie civile were remedies which the author should have exhausted. The Committee notes, however, the author’s argument, according to which under such procedures, any complaint is transmitted to the State Prosecutor, who may either declare the complaint inadmissible or, in the alternative, order the initiation of an investigation (para. 5.4). In the present case, the Committee recalls that the author has already filed two complaints with the Prosecutor-General of the South-Western Province and one complaint with the State Prosecutor in Limbe, on 17 September and 3 October 2002, all of which remained unanswered. In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the remedies referred to by the State party would not have been effective, and that it is not precluded, under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, to consider the author’s complaint with respect to the incident of 29 August 2002. 11.5 The Committee observes, however, that with respect to the incident of 25 October 2002, the author has not brought any complaint before the domestic authorities concerning his assault by the head of the Limbe Urban Council Municipal police and five other individuals (par. 2.4), as well as his subsequent arrest. In the absence of any reason adduced by the author as to the reasons why he failed to bring such complaint, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 11.6 As to the author’s claims under article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9, and under article 26 of the Covenant, relying on the absence of any prosecution and adjudication of the author’s complaints, the Committee finds that the latter has not shown a difference of treatment with other individuals under the State party’s jurisdiction, which would be based on social origin, property, birth or other status. The Committee therefore concludes that the author has failed to substantiate this allegation, and consequently declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 11.7 The Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 6 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility. 11.8 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated the remainder of his claims, insofar as they raise issues under articles 7, 9, and 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant and therefore proceeds to consider the communication on the merits on these counts. 9