paragraph 3 (d), given the decision of the Portuguese courts to assign him a lawyer against his will. The author notes the distinction between personal defence and technical defence compulsorily provided by a lawyer. He considers, however, that the way personal defence is guaranteed under Portuguese laws limits the accused to a passive role, and asserts that the limits to personal defence should not apply when the accused is a lawyer himself. instruct a lawyer but asked to defend himself in person. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the issue of whether the author could claim to defend himself in person in the proceedings against him. The Committee considers that these arguments should be taken up when the merits of the communication are examined. Consideration of the merits Consideration of admissibility 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has taken note of the arguments submitted by the State party recalling that articles 138–140 of the Portuguese Code of Penal Procedure guarantee the right to defend oneself in person and the references to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The State party asserts that the right to defend oneself in person is not absolute, and in this respect draws a distinction between personal defence (allowing the accused to be given a hearing and to state his position on the facts at issue) and technical defence (to be represented by a lawyer at certain stages of the proceedings). It also considers that article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant does not specify the way defence is to be conducted, and leaves to States parties the choice of the appropriate means to enable their judicial systems to guarantee the defence. Finally, the Committee takes note of the author’s position as a lawyer himself, and his arguments that he has an absolute right to defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings, failing which the fairness of the trial would be tainted. 6.2 The Committee cannot accept the argument by the State party that the communication is inadmissible owing to the Committee’s lack of competence, the present communication having already been considered by the European Court of Human Rights: on the one hand, article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol only applies when the same matter is “being examined” under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and on the other, Portugal has entered no reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 With regard to the status of victim, the Committee has noted the State party’s argument that the author cannot claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol inasmuch as he has been awarded an amnesty that erased the effects of his conviction. The Committee notes that the amnesty of the Court of Ponte de Lima dated 3 December 1999 did not expunge the award of damages against the author. The Committee concludes that the author can therefore claim to be the victim of a breach of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee notes that article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant provides that everyone accused of a criminal charge shall be entitled “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing”. The two types of defence are not mutually exclusive. Persons assisted by a lawyer retain the right to act on their own behalf, to be given a hearing, and to state their opinions on the facts of the case. At the same time, the Committee considers that the wording of the Covenant is clear in all official languages, in that it provides for a defence to be conducted in person “or” with legal assistance of one’s own choosing, taking as its point of departure the right to conduct one’s own defence. In fact, if an accused person had to accept an unwanted counsel whom he does not trust he may no longer be able to defend himself effectively as such counsel would not be his assistant. Thus, the right to conduct one’s own defence, which is a cornerstone of justice, may be 6.4 As to the State party’s argument on the deadline of six months for submitting communications, the Committee points out that this rule cannot be used in the present case, since it is not explicitly provided for by the Optional Protocol or established by the Committee. 6.5 So far as the exhaustion of domestic remedies is concerned, the Committee has taken note of the arguments advanced by the State party maintaining that the author’s appeal to the Constitutional Court over the right to defend himself in person could not be considered because of his failure to instruct a lawyer, meaning that he had not exhausted all the domestic remedies. Having also taken note of the author’s arguments, the Committee remarks that the only reason why the Constitutional Court has not examined the appeal is that the author did not 101