appeal by the Court of Cassation ana after submitting his case to the European Commission of Human Sights. 3.3 The author contends that the events of 26 June 19S4 and the judicial proceedings aggravated his ailments; after numerous periods of absence from work, he lost his employment. In the circumstances, he asks the Committee to award damages in the order of 600,000 French francs, as well as an annual disability pension of 60,000 francs from the State party. 3.4 With regard to the reservation made by France in respect of the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider communications which have already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (art. 5, para. 2 <a), of the Optional Protocol), the author submits that his communication raises issues that were not considered by the European Commission. Thus, his complaint before the Court of Cassation about the fact that he was not notified of the date of the appeal and that the Court of Appeal did not make available to him documents deemed essential for the preparation of the defence was not looked at by the Commission. Secondly, he submits that since the Commission was not in receipt of the written deposition of G.L., because he himself only obtained a copy after filing his complaint, the matter now before the Committee is not "the same" within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. Thirdly, he notes that the Commission could not examine his complaint of misuse of power against the judges referred to in paragraph 2.4 above, as it was submitted subsequent to his application to the Commission, In respect of the second allegation, the author observes that he also was not notified of the date of the hearing and •was therefore unable to prepare his case properly; he further notes that the decision of the Court of Cassation of 22 February 1989 is final. Domestic remedies therefore are said to be exhausted. State party's information and observations 4.1 The State party argues that the communication is inadmissible under article 5, paragraphs 2 (a) and 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 4.2 With respect to the author's conviction of assault and the ensuing judicial proceedings, the State party notes that the same matter was previously examined and dismissed by the European Commission of Human Rights. It recalls its reservation made in respect of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol (see para. 3.4 above), and submits that this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible under that provision. 4.3 As to the author's complaint directed against the judges of the Tribunal Correctionnel and the Court of Appeal, the State party contends that it is inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the author withdrew his complaint on 13 June 1989. In addition, the State party notes that the author never deposited the security ("consignation"\ of 3,000 French francs requested by the senior examing magistrate (doyen des -luges d'instruction), which would, in any event, have resulted in the complaint being declared inadmissible, pursuant to article 88 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. -386-