0. Communication Wo, 393/1990, A.C. v. France (decision of 21 July 1992. adopted at the forty-fifth session) Submitted by; A.C. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party; France Date of communication; 16 March 1990 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights, Meeting on 21 July 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1, The author of the communication is A . C , a French citizen born in 1940, currently residing in Paris. He claims to be a victim of a violation of his human rights by France. While not specifically invoking any provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it appears from the context of his submissions that he claims to be a victim of violations of article 14 of the Covenant. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 26 June 1984, on the platform of a Paris Metro station, the author had an altercation with a transportation officer of the Paris Metro (Regie aotonome des transports parisiens) about the validity of his transportation ticket; he claims that he received several blows, the effect of which allegedly was compounded by a pre-existing ailment. 22. The author did not initiate proceedings against the agent who had intercepted him. Instead, this agent filed criminal charges against A.C. and, on 18 April 1986, the Tribunal Correctionnel convicted him of assault against Regie atttonome des transports parisiens agents in the line of duty and fined him 1,000 French francs. The author denies having resorted to any physical violence and notes that the hospital which admitted the Regie autonome des transports parisiens agent did not want to place her on sick leave or issue a medical certificate: the document produced subsequently is dismissed as a forgery. Both he and the public prosecutor appealed the judgement. On 4 November 1986, the Court of Appeal dismissed the author's appeal, considering that the judge of first instance had correctly evaluated, both in fact and in law, the events of 26 June 1984. On 8 April 1987, the Court of Cassation rejected the author's further appeal. 2.3 The author submits that he was not notified of the date of the hearing of his appeal and observes, inter alia, that, when appealing to the Court of Cassation on 10 November 1986, he was told to file his written brief within 10 days, although the written judgement of the Court of Appeal was not yet -384-