applicant’s name had been temporarily removed from the Bar Council’s roll, requested him to instruct a lawyer, pursuant to the Constitutional Court Act. On 6 October, the author submitted that the provision obliging him to appoint a defence lawyer was unconstitutional, and requested consideration of his appeal. In an order of 4 November 1997, the judge rapporteur ruled that the provision in question was not in conflict with the Constitution and once again invited the author to instruct a lawyer, failing which the Court would refuse to hear his appeal. On 19 November 1997, the author asked that the matter be submitted to a committee of judges. The complaint 3.1 The author complains he was not permitted to defend himself, in contravention of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant, and considers that he did not have a fair trial. 3.2 On 17 April 1999, the author also filed a claim with the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled it partly inadmissible on 14 September 2000 1 and inadmissible overall on 15 November 2001, 2 on the grounds that the application was illfounded. State party’s submissions on admissibility and the merits 2.6 In a ruling of 13 October 1999, a committee of judges upheld the order of 4 November 1997, stressing that neither the provision in the Constitutional Court Act nor the arrangements provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure were unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court accordingly invited the author to instruct a lawyer. 4.1 In a note verbale dated 3 January 2003, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication. In the first place, article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol and article 96 (e) (formerly 90 (e)) of the rules of procedure of the Committee provide that the latter shall not consider an application already examined under another international judicial body. As the author’s claim has also come before the European Court of Human Rights, which has already ruled on its admissibility and merits, the State party considers that the Committee cannot examine the present claim, in part because of the risk of inconsistency in international decisions. 2.7 Meanwhile, the Ponte de Lima Court scheduled a hearing for 15 December 1998. When it was called to order, the author declared that he had asked to defend himself, but this had been refused by the judge. A court-appointed lawyer was then designated. 2.8 Under a judgement of 21 December 1998, the Court found the author guilty and sentenced him to 170 day-fines (jours-amende), i.e., 600,000 Portuguese escudos in damages to the judge concerned. 4.2 Secondly, the author failed to respect the rule that he must submit his claim within six months from the date of the final domestic decision. Thirdly, the author does not have the status of victim, inasmuch as during the proceedings he was granted an amnesty that expunged the effects of his conviction. 2.9 The author lodged an appeal which the judge decided not to refer to the Court of Appeal, considering that it was merely a statement by the author within the meaning of article 98 of the Code of Penal Procedure. A second application under the same heading was rejected by an order of 23 March 1999. The author brought in a final application on 18 January 2001 against an order of 4 January 2001, and the matter was referred to the Court of Appeal on 7 February 2001. The judge-president of the Court of Appeal confirmed on 12 June 2001 that the matter was still before the Third Section of the Court (case No. 268/01). 4.3 Finally, the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, inasmuch as he lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court but the Court has been unable to consider it, given the author’s refusal to instruct a lawyer. According to the State party, as the appeal to the Constitutional Court was not properly submitted, the author prevented consideration of the question and so has not exhausted all domestic remedies. 4.4 In its submissions of 1 April 2003, the State party reiterates its arguments on the inadmissibility of the communication and provides comments on the merits. It points out that the right to defend oneself in person, provided for in article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant, demands that there should be no hindrance to the accused’s right to selfrepresentation. This means that the accused should 2.10 On 12 May 1999, Amnesty Act No. 29/99 was adopted. On 3 December 1999, the judge at the Ponte de Lima Court, considering that this Act should apply, cancelled the author’s sentence. On 14 August 2000, however, the author learned of enforcement proceedings instituted by the prosecutor in respect of the amount payable to the judge in damages. 2.11 On 2 February 2000, following a request by the author to that effect, the judge rapporteur at the Constitutional Court cancelled the appeal still pending before that court. 1 Carlos Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), No. 48188/99, 14 September 2000. 2 Carlos Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), No. 48188/99, CEDH 2001-XII. 99