CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 4.7 On the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party maintains that the Littoral Region Court of Appeal, by its ruling of 8 November 2013,21 ruled in its capacity as an appellate court on the author’s petition for habeas corpus and declared itself not competent.22 With regard to the author’s claim of lack of access to appeal on points of law, the State party contends that the author stated falsely and without supporting evidence that consideration of his appeal would last several years, although similar appeal cases in which a special procedure had not been enacted were heard within a significantly shorter time frame than that claimed by the author. In this respect, the State party cites the example of the Supreme Court’s judgement in April 2013 following an appeal lodged on 5 November 2012 against a ruling of the investigations oversight body of the Court of Appeal, in which the Supreme Court not only quashed and set aside the Appeal Court’s decision but also dismissed the appellant’s application for release on bail. 23 The State party points out that the Littoral Region Court of Appeal’s ruling of 8 November 2013 is attached to its submission, and therefore maintains that the author’s argument concerning the lack of access to the decision is unsubstantiated. The State party further contends that the author was remiss in that he failed to pay the deposit set by the President of the Court of Appeal by order of 10 December 2013 to cover the cost of copying his file, as required by article 44, paragraph 3 et seq., of Act No. 2006/016 establishing the organization and functioning of the Supreme Court. The author similarly neglected to respond to the registrar’s notice served to his lawyer on 3 February 2013 in that regard. The State party submits that it was this lack of diligence which delayed the Supreme Court’s preparation and consideration of the author’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 7 April 2014, the author commented on the State party’s submissions on admissibility. 5.2 The author considers that the State party’s presentation of the facts is largely incomplete and omits essential information regarding the lack of territorial and material jurisdiction of its courts. He provides additional information concerning the alleged facts in the five criminal cases against him. With regard to the case brought by Mr. Mboma, the author contests the State party’s allegation that Mr. Mboma had given him money. Hope Finance SAS is a company that, in accordance with its legal obligations in France, held board meetings and had annual accounts audited by an accounting firm, of which Mr. Mboma was the assistant managing director. 5.3 Regarding the failure to provide the President of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the author maintains that he repeatedly requested a copy through his lawyers. He claims that the ruling had not been drafted on 13 November 2013, when his lawyers went to the registry to lodge the appeal against it. The author therefore contends that the State party’s argument that the ruling was available on the same day as the decision was pronounced, 8 November 2013, is merely an attempt to place the courts beyond reproach. He reiterates that the registrar did not notify him of the ruling until 26 February 2014, but that the registrar’s signature on the ruling is dated 8 December 2013, which corresponds to a Sunday, in other words a non-working day. In addition, the ruling does not bear the judge’s signature, only that of the chief registrar, contrary to article 9 of Act No. 2006/015 of 29 21 22 23 GE.14-23228 (E) inadmissibility adopted on 31 October 2007. The State party’s submission erroneously mentions 13 November 2008 instead of 8 November 2013. The date on the ruling reads 8 November 2013. The Court of Appeal ruling, however, declares the Court incompetent to consider the pleas put forward by the author and upholds the decision of the Court of First Instance rejecting the author’s application for immediate release. Decision No. 31/P of 4 April 2013, Puene Françoise v. Public Prosecutor. 11