856/1999 2 of 4 http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/fulltextccpr.nsf/ac824e16154a0621... Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of the communication is Alex Soteli Chambala, a Zambian citizen, born in 1948. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Zambia (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant) article 9, paragraphs 3 and 5. He is not represented by counsel. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author was arrested and detained without charge on 7 February 1987. He was served with a Police Detention Order (2) pursuant to Regulation 33(6) of the Preservation of Public Security Act on 12 February 1987. On 24 February 1987 the Police Detention Order was revoked, but on the same day he was served with a Presidential Detention Order pursuant to Regulation 33 (1) of the Preservation of Public Security Act. The grounds of the detention were served on the author on 5 March 1987; they state that he was being detained for a) receiving and keeping an escaped prisoner, Henry Kalenga, at his house, b) whom the author knew was detained for offences under the Preservation of Public Security Act, c) that he assisted Mr. Kalenga in his attempt to flee to a country hostile to Zambia, and d) that he never reported the presence of Mr. Kalenga to the Security Forces. 2.2 After detention for over one year without any production before a court or a judicial officer, the author applied for release. On 22 September 1988, the High Court of Zambia decided that there were no reasons to keep him in detention. Nevertheless, the author was not released until December 1988, when the President revoked his detention. According to the author, the maximum prison sentence for the offence he was charged with was 6 months. 2.3 The author argues that under Zambian law a person cannot seek compensation for unlawful detention. Furthermore, when he inquired with lawyers about the possibilities to submit a claim, he was told that his case was statute barred under Zambian laws. Thus, no domestic remedies are said to be available. Nevertheless, when the author learned that Peter Chico Bwalya and Henry Kalenga had received compensation after the adoption of decisions by the Human Rights Committee (3), he wrote to the Attorney-General's Office seeking compensation. Although the letters were registered at the Attorney General's Office, he received no reply. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party, by detaining him arbitrarily for almost two years, without bringing him before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, has violated his rights under article 9, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Covenant. These events may also raise further issues under article 9 of the Covenant. The State party's submission on the admissibility and the merits of the communication 4. By Note verbale of 26 March 2001, the State party conceded the events described in the communication, and indicated that it would be contacting the complainant with a view to compensating him for the period of detention at issue. Subsequent communications with the parties 5.1. In his letters of 20 June and 9 November 2001, and again on 30 January 2002, the author advised the Committee that he had not yet received compensation from the State party. In the last letter, he wrote that he had reminded the Attorney General's Office, which is responsible for the payment, on 9 November 2001. 5.2. By note verbale of 7 March 2002, the Secretariat reminded the State party to fulfil its promise to compensate the author without further delay and requested the State party to inform it of the measures taken. No response was received from the State party. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee 07.02.2013 11:52

Select target paragraph3