CCPR/C/112/D/2325/2013 The complaint 3.1 The author considers that his arrest, detention in police custody and pretrial detention are illegal and violate article 9 of the Covenant because the Cameroonian criminal courts do not have territorial and material jurisdiction. In that respect, he recalls that he is a French citizen, that the offences of which he is accused relate to acts committed outside Cameroon and that the complaints against him, which are strictly commercial in nature, do not relate to criminal law and have lapsed. The author considers that his custody exceeded the maximum legal period permitted by Cameroonian law13 because, although he was taken into police custody on 10 May 2013 and the custody period could be extended only until 16 May 2013, he remained in police custody from 10 to 22 May 2013, on which date he was placed in pretrial detention. The author maintains that the four detention warrants are illegal for the same reasons. Regarding the first detention warrant of 22 May 2013, the author recalls that the allegations had already been the subject of a decision by the judge at Bobigny tribunal de grande instance, referring the case to the Paris Commercial Court, which had summoned the author to a hearing on 5 September 2013. The author also considers the detention warrant of 27 June 2013 to be illegal because it did not specify the duration of the pretrial detention, as required by article 219 of the Cameroonian Code of Criminal Procedure. 3.2 The author also considers his arrest, detention in police custody and pretrial detention to be arbitrary because he was detained as part of a judicial conspiracy organized against him with the aim of extorting his intellectual property rights over his invention and depriving the Hope Group of the exclusive rights granted to it to exploit the user licence purchased by the State party. 3.3 In relation to articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant, the author recalls that, during his detention in police custody, he was forced to sleep on the floor of an unventilated cell measuring approximately 8 m2 with 20 other persons. He states that after being transferred to New Bell Prison, he was attacked on 28 June 2013 by other detainees and that his complaints to the prison services came to nothing. He also describes the harsh conditions under which he was transferred from New Bell Prison to the hearings. He maintains that his health has declined because of his detention and recalls in this regard that he has appealed to different court presidents, as well as to the prison authorities, regarding the bout that he suffered on 19 October 2013 because of the decline of his health in detention and the need to evacuate him to France so that he may receive the necessary care. The author asserts that the authorities’ failure to act, despite his various efforts, and their refusal to grant him bail so that he could undergo the surgery scheduled for 27 July 2013 constitute inhuman or degrading treatment because he was at risk of blindness and disability. He considers that the detention warrants of 27 June, 9 October and 4 November 2013 were measures designed to intensify the degrading treatment to which he was already being subjected. He claims that the treatment he suffers in prison is a result of the fact that the prison authorities divulged information about him, including suggesting that he was an international con man who cheated the State. Therefore, the author maintains that the State party has violated articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also states that he is a victim of a violation of article 11 of the Covenant because he was imprisoned for contractual disputes stemming from partnership agreements (regarding Mr. Mboma and Mr. Kengoum) and loan contracts (regarding Mr. Kameni and 13 GE.14-23228 (E) Article 119, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “(a) The time allowed for remand in custody shall not exceed 48 hours, renewable once; (b) This period may be extended on a second occasion on an exceptional basis, with the written approval of the public prosecutor; (c) Reasons shall be given for each extension.” 7