available; the author received the latter judgement only during the first days of 1987. 2.4 On 11 January 1989, the author filed a complaint against the two judges of the Tribunal Correctionnel and the Court of Appeal, respectively. As to the former, he claimed that the judge chose to rely on evidence known to be incorrect; in respect of the latter judge, it was contended that he had endorsed the unfair and arbitrary allegations made against the author during the appeal. On 22 February 1989, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation refused to designate a jurisdiction charged with the examination of the complaint, on the grounds that the author in fact sought to challenge the motiviation of the judgements of the Tribunal Correctionnel and the Court of Appeal, which was not susceptible of review: "Whereas the complaint consists in the absence of any other accusation, of a criticism of jurisdictional decisions .*. "In principle/ decisions of such a nature cannot be reviewed ... "These are no grounds for designating a jurisdiction." Notified of this decision on 16 May 1989, the author withdrew his complaint against the judges by letter of 13 June 1989. 2.5 Subsequently, the author requested that his conviction be reviewed and a retrial ordered. On 17 May 1991, the Committee on Review of Criminal Convictions of the Court of Cassation decided that the request was inadmissible/ as it was neither based on fresh evidence nor on facts overlooked during the criminal proceedings, within the meaning of article 622, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.6 On 5 May 1987, the author submitted his case to the European Commission of Human Sights. On 11 October 1989, the Commission declared his application inadmissible under articles 26 and 27, paragraph 3, of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Commission considered, in particular, that the author should have submitted a supplementary brief to his appeal to the Court of Cassation without delay upon receipt, on or around 10 January 1987, of the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that he did not have a fair trial in the Tribunal Correctionnel because he was convicted on the basis of false evidence. He further submits that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation were unfair, notably because he did not have adequate time and opportunity to prepare his defence and because he was not able to defend himself in person before the Court, since he was not notified of the date of the hearing. 3.2 The author contends that he was denied access to what he terms a particularly important element of the file, namely a written deposition made on 27 June 1984 by the Regie autonome des transports parisiens agent who had accused him of assault. Despite several requests, the author only obtained a copy of this deposition on 8 June 1989, i.e., after the rejection of his -385-