CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 author, acting as a representative of Hope Santé, instructed the aforementioned company to transport goods to Cameroon and refused to pay the costs of 17,639,835 CFA francs, or 27,000 euros. The author was charged after a preliminary inquiry and placed in pretrial detention on 19 October 2013, on the basis of a judicial inquiry that was opened against him and remains pending. The State party explains that the third case resulted from complaints brought against the author, on 10 May 2013 by Patrick Mboma for aggravated fraud, forgery and counterfeiting, and on 14 May 2013 by Idriss Carlos Kameni and Roger Nono for fraud, respectively. 17 4.4 With regard to the alleged violation of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant concerning the break in the author’s medical care and the alleged ill-treatment he suffered during his imprisonment, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, whereby the claim under article 7 of the Covenant concerning the author’s state of health was declared inadmissible by the Committee, given that this argument had not been brought before the domestic courts.18 The State party emphasizes that, in the present case, the facts relating to the alleged violations of articles 7 and 10 were not brought before any national court and were not subject to any judicial remedy. The State party also contends that the claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant was not brought before any judicial authority and adds that the alleged failures of the judicial services could have been brought before the administrative courts for examination, on the basis of an action for damages. 4.5 With regard to the alleged violations of the rights to liberty and security in relation to the arrest and detention of the author and the confiscation of his passport, the State party recalls that, in its preliminary ruling of 14 August 2013, the Douala-Bonanjo Court of First Instance ordered the author’s release, subject to the payment of bail, in accordance with articles 224, paragraph 1, and 232, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.19 The State party specifies that, according to article 232, paragraph 1, of the Code, bail serves to guarantee, where applicable, the reimbursement of costs incurred by a civil claimant, reparation of damages resulting from the offence and payment of fines and legal expenses. It adds that the provisions upon which the decision of the Court of First Instance was based are compatible with article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which provides that release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial and at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. The State party contends that the author chose to ignore the Court of First Instance’s decision of 14 August 2014 in order to bring before the same Court another application for release. The Court of First Instance rejected this new application on 20 January 2014 on the grounds that the first decision had yet to be enforced, owing to the author’s failure to post bail. 4.6 With regard to the author’s claim under article 11 of the Covenant, the State party rejects the argument that the acts of which the author is accused should be considered as commercial disputes rather than criminal offences. It contends that the issue of the evaluation and classification of those acts is currently before its courts, which have yet to take a position on the matter, and it is therefore not for the Committee to rule on it.20 17 18 19 20 10 Mr. Kameni allegedly lent 150,000 euros to Hope Finance, which has never been repaid. The State party refers to communication No. 1494/2006, Chadzjian et al. v. the Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008. Article 224, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “Any person lawfully remanded in custody may be granted bail on condition that they meet one of the conditions referred to in article 246 (g), in particular to ensure that they appear either before the judicial police or the competent judicial authority.” The State party refers, in particular, to communications Nos. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2; 1031/2001, Weerasinghe v. Sri Lanka, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 31 October 2007; 1141/2002, Gougnin and Karimov v. Uzbekistan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 1 April 2008; and 1161/2003, Kharkhal v. Belarus, decision of GE.14-23228 (E)