State party's observations and author's comments thereon 4.1 By submission of 27 November 1991/ the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party submits that the author could have lodged a complaint with the Court of Appeal pursuant to article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fWetboek van Strafvorderinq). which reads: "1. If no prosecution is brought in respect of an offence or the prosecution is dropped, the person concerned may lodge a complaint with the Court of Appeal in whose jurisdiction the prosecution ought to have been brought. The Court of Appeal may instruct the Public Prosecutor to draw up a report and may order that a prosecution be instituted or continued. "2. The Court of Appeal m&y refuse to give such an order on grounds derived from the public interests. 4.2 The State party further submits that, as a general rule, the Public Prosecutor may decide not to prosecute someone "for reasons relating to the public interest" (Code of Criminal Procedure/ art. 167, para* 2 ) . It stresses that, in the author's case, the Public Prosecutor saw no reason to charge anyone but the author. The State party submits that the Covenant does not provide for the right to have another person prosecuted and refers in this context to the Committee's admissibility decision in communication No. 213/1986. a/ It therefore argues that this part of the communication is inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 4.3 As regards the author's contention that the police investigation in his case was biased, and that only evidence against him was gathered, the State party submits that the Court may convict someone only on the basis of convincing legal evidence, presented during the hearing (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 338). Legal evidence includes, inter alia, the Court's own observations during the hearing, and statements made by the accused, witnesses and experts. The State party submits that the author had the opportunity during the trial to submit any information that could have been relevant to the case. It argues that the author's claims have not been substantiated and refers in this connection to the decision of the European Commission of Human Eights, dated 2 May 1969, in the same matter, which stated that the examination of the author's complaints "does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in article 6". 5.1 In article desired persons his comments, the author argues that lodging a complaint pursuant to 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not have given him the equality: it would only have resulted in the prosecution of the who had assaulted him, not in his acquittal. 5.2 The author further contends that the Court should have discharged him, because of the biased investigation by the police. Since the author appealed the Court's judgement to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, he claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies. -393-