compensate victims of the 1945 seizures decreed by the pre-Communist regime. 9 February 1995, had rejected the author's appeal to the judgement of the Local Court, in Bratislava. The author provides the text of the decision in Slovak and an English translation. There had never been any remedies available in respect of the author's discrimination claim. 6.5 The Committee has consistently held that not every distinction or differentiation in treatment amounts to discrimination within the meaning of articles 2 and 26. The Committee considers that, in the present case, legislation adopted after the fall of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia to compensate the victims of that regime does not appear to be prima facie discriminatory within the meaning of article 26 merely because, as the author contends, it does not compensate the victims of injustices allegedly committed by earlier regimes. The author has failed to substantiate such a claim with regard to articles 2 and 26. 5.2 By a further letter of 23 July 1996, counsel claims that Slovak authorities discriminate against individuals of German origin. Admissibility considerations 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights 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. The Committee notes with regret the State party's failure to provide information and observations on the question of the admissibility of the communication. 6.6 The author has claimed that Slovakia violated article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by not rectifying the alleged criminalization of his family by the Slovak authorities. The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate this particular claim. 6.2 The Committee notes that the challenged law entered into force for the territory of Slovakia in 1991, when that country was still part of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, that is, before Slovakia's succession to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol in January 1993. Considering, however, that Slovakia continued to apply the provisions of the 1991 law after January 1993, the communication is not inadmissible ratione temporis. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) that this decision shall be communicated to the State party, to the author and to his counsel. 6.3 Although the author's claim relates to property rights, which are not as such protected by the Covenant, he contends that the 1991 law violates his rights under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant in that it applies only to individuals whose property was confiscated after 1948 and thus excludes from compensation in respect of property taken from ethnic Germans by a 1945 decree of the preCommunist regime. The Committee has already had occasion to hold that laws relating to property rights may violate articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant if they are discriminatory in character. The question the Committee must therefore resolve in the instant case is whether the 1991 law applied to the claimant falls into this category. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by Ms. Cecilia Medina Quiroga and Mr. Eckart Klein pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Committee’s decision on communication No. 643/1995, Peter Drobek v. Slovakia The author of the communication contends that the State party discriminated against him by enacting Law 87/1991, which grants relief to individuals whose lands were confiscated by the communist regime and which does not grant it to those of German origin whose lands were confiscated under the Benes Decrees. The Committee has declared this communication inadmissible for lack of substantiation of the author’s claim. We do not agree with this decision. The author has given clear reasons why he thinks he is being discriminated against by the State party: this is not only because of the fact that Law 87/1991 applies only to property seized under the communist regime and not to the 1945 seizures decreed between 1945 and 1948 by the pre-communist regime; the author argues that the enactment of Law 87/1991 reflects the support by Slovakia of discrimination which individuals of German origin suffered immediately after the Second World War. He further adds that such discrimination on the part of the Slovak authorities continues until the present day 6.4 In its views on communication 516/1992 (Simunek v. Czech Republic), the Committee held that the 1991 law violated the Covenant because it excluded from its application individuals whose property was confiscated after 1948 simply because they were not nationals or residents of the country after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989. The instant case differs from the views in the above case, in that the author in the present case does not allege discriminatory treatment in respect of confiscation of property after 1948. Instead, he contends that the 1991 law is discriminatory because it does not also 14