X. Communication Mo. 439/1990. C.L.D. v. France (decision of 8 November 1991. adopted at the forty-third session^ Submitted by; C.L.D. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party; France Pate of communication; 26 December 1990 The Human Bights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 8 November 1991, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibilifcy 1. The author of the communication is C.L.D., a French citizen born in 1956 and a. resident of Lorient, Bretacpae, France. He claims to be a victim of violations by France of articles 2, paragraphs 1 to 3, 14, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1987, the author had submitted a communication to the Human Rights Committee, in which he claimed that the refusal of the French postal authorities to issue his postal cheques in Breton violated articles 2, paragraphs 1 to 3, 19, paragraphs 2, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. His previous communication was declared inadmissible on 18 July 1988 on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, a/ Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 1 October 1988, the author was fined for refusing to pay parking fees in a street of Quimper, Brittany. He requested to appear before the police tribunal of Quimper, which heard him on 28 February 1990. In court, he requested the assistance of an interpreter, or to be allowed to express himself in Breton, which he claims is the language in which he expresses himself with a maximum of ease. The judge refused his request, upon which C.L.D, in turn refused to resume his own defence; he was found guilty and fined 220 French francs. 2.2 The author affirms that the judge's refusal to call an interpreter was discriminatory, and that the judgement incorrectly reflects his own attitude, because it notes that "the accused presented his defence and had the last word" ("le prevenu a presente ses movens de defense, ayant eu la parole le dernier"). 2.3 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author claims that the judgement of the police tribunal of Quimper is final. On 14 November 1990, he addressed a letter to President Francois Mitterrand, requesting a presidential pardon. By letter of 7 December 199Q, his request was rejected. -424-