Q. Communication Ho. 396/1990, M.S. v. the Netherlands (decision of 22 July 1992. adopted at the forty-fifth session) Submitted by: M.S. {name deleted) (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Date of communication! 15 February 1990 (initial submission) The Human Bights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights, Meeting on 22 July 1992, Adopts the following: Decision on afltnissibility 1. The author of the communication (dated 15 February 1990} is M.S., a citizen of the Hetherlands, residing at Utrecht, the Netherlands. He claims to be a victim of a violation by the Netherlands of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author states that, on 27 March 1985, the court of first instance (Politierechter) at Utrecht convicted him of having assaulted, on 30 January 1985, the father of nis ex-girlfriend. On 16 October 1985, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and, on 3 February 1987/ the Supreme Court (Hpge Baad) confirmed the Court of Appeal's judgement. 2.2 The author submits that he acted in self-defence, that he was assaulted by his ex-girlfriend's parents and brother, but that his assailants were not prosecuted, although he filed a^eomplaint against them with the Utrecht police. He alleges that the police investigation in his case was biased and that evidence and facts were "manipulated" and distorted by the police. He states that the testimony of witnesses on his behalf would have established that the charges against him were fabricated. However, he did not call any witnesses because, in his opinion, he should not have to bear the burden of proof that the police investigation had been biased, as such a requirement would violate his right to "due process". Complaint 3. The author claims that he was not given a fair trial, because the Court relied on the allegedly biased evidence gathered by the police. He submits that the public prosecutor should have ordered supplementary investigations, to oppose the biased initial investigations made by the police. He further claims that the prosecutor's failure to prosecute his assailants violates the principle of equality of arms. -392-