Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, by its decision of 21 November 1988, violated his right to be considered innocent, pursuant to article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. He submits that, since he was not found guilty by the court, he should not suffer financial damage as a result of the institution of criminal proceedings against him. 3.2 He further contends that the failure to grant him compensation constitutes a violation of article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant. He claims that the judgement of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 24 December 1985 was a final decision within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6, because it was the judgement of the highest factual instance. In this context, he argues that the subsequent judgements acquitting the author, constitute "new facts" within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6. He finally claims that his pretrial detention should be considered equivalent to "punishment" in said paragraph. Sfrate party's observations and author's comments 4.1 By submission of 9 July 1991 the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It submits that the author did not invoke article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant when requesting compensation, but only argued that doubt concerning guilt or innocence should not be allowed to influence his right to compensation \mcler article 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. T:he State party further contends that the author could, pursuant to article 1401 of the Civil Code, have demanded compensation in a civil action. 4.2 The State party also argues that article 14, paragraphs 2 and 6, of the Covenant does not apply to the author's case, and that the communication is therefore inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 4.3 The State party submits that the presumption of innocence, within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 2, does not preclude the imposition of pretrial detention; it refers in this connection, to article 9, paragraph Z, of the Covenant. It states that the author did not submit that his detention was unlawful and argues that no provision of the Covenant grants an accused the right to compensation for having undergone lawful pretrial detention, in the event that he is subsequently acquitted. 4.4 The State party further notes that the judgement of the Supreme Court of 17 March 1987 cannot be regarded as a "new fact" within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6, but that it is the outcome of an appeal and as such a continuation of the proceedings concerning the facts conducted before the lower courts. It also argues that, since an appeal to the Supreme Court is the final domestic remedy, the judgement of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 24 December 1985 cannot be regarded as a "final decision", finally, it contends that pretrial detention cannot be considered as punishment within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 6, as it is an initial coercive measure and not imposed as a result of a conviction. -421-