5.1 In his reply to the State party's observations, the author contests that a civil action under article 1401 of the Civil Code is available to him. He submits that a civil claim for compensation is only possible in case of governmental tort and refers in this connection to a judgement of the Supreme Court of 7 April 1989. Since his pretrial, detention is to be considered lawful, the question of tort does not arise in his case. He further submits that it is highly unlikely that a civil court will refute the criminal court's judgement. 5.2 The author also states that he was not obliged to invoke the specific articles of the Covenant during the court proceedings. In this context, he refers to the Committee's views in communication Wo. 305/1988. a/ He submits that his argument that doubt about guilt or innocence should not be allowed to influence his right to compensation, clearly referred to the presumptio innocentiae, as reflected in article 14, paragraph 2. 5.3 The author submits that the interpretation by the State party of article 14, paragraphs 2 and 6, is too restrictive. He argues that there is no reason to make a distinction between a reversal of a conviction and an acquittal on appeal, as far as compensation for damages is concerned. He further stresses that an accused, who has not been proved guilty according to the law, should not bear the costs incurred in connection with the criminal prosecution. In this connection, he submits that his acquittal was exclusively due to the legal assistance provided by his counsel. He argues that, under these circumstances, the principle of fair procedure implies that the acquitted accused cannot be burdened with the costs of the defence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Sights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, 6.2 With respect to the author's allegation of a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, the Committee observes that this provision applies only to criminal proceedings and not to proceedings for compensation; it accordingly finds that this provision does not apply to the facts as submitted. 6.3 With regard to the author's claim for compensation under article 14, paragraph 6, of the Covenant, the Committee, observes that the conditions for the application of this article are: (a) A final conviction for a criminal offence; (b) Suffering of punishment as a consequence of such conviction; and (c) A subsequent reversal or pardon on the qround of a new or newly discovered fact showing conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Committee observes that since the fiaal decision in this case, that of the Court of Appeal of 11 May 1988, acquitted the author, and since he did not -422-