5.2 The Committee found that the author had substantiated his allegations, for purposes of admissibility, and was satisfied that the communication was not inadmissible under articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Optional Protocol. It further noted that the State party conceded that domestic remedies had been exhausted. was to leave his post at the lower scale in order to claim unemployment benefits at a higher scale, while preparing his entrance into a judicial career. 2.3 On 11 May 1989, the Instituto Nacional de Empleo declared the author to be on "voluntary leave of absence" since the end of 1986. The author contested this decision and continued to assume, whenever called upon to do so, the functions of a substitute district judge. He argued that since all substitute judges contribute to unemployment benefit insurance, he himself should be able to benefit from its coverage. He appealed on these grounds against the decision of 27 May 1988 to the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña which, on 30 April 1990, dismissed his appeal. 6. On 30 June 1994 the Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible inasmuch as it appeared to raise issues under articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Covenant. State party's submissions on the merits 7.1 In its submissions of 13 February and 15 June 1995 the State party contests any violations of the Covenant. As to the facts of the case, the State party indicates that the author is not unemployed, but a civil servant, and that although on several occasions he has been given leave to assume the post of a substitute judge, he has always been able to return to his established post; thus, he has never been unemployed and accordingly cannot qualify for unemployment benefits. The author's submission suffers from the contradiction between his desire to be a judge on a permanent appointment and his unwillingness to give up the security of his status as civil servant in his current position. 2.4 On 22 June 1990, the author filed an appeal (recurso de amparo) with the Constitutional Tribunal. On 21 September 1990, the Constitutional Tribunal rejected his complaint. The author repetitioned the Constitutional Tribunal on 10 November 1990, pointing out that he was the only substitute judge in all of Spain to whom unemployment benefits had been denied, and that this situation violated his constitutional rights. On 3 December 1990, the Constitutional Tribunal confirmed its earlier decision. With this, the author submits, available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.2 As to the author's allegation that he is the only unemployed substitute judge who does not receive unemployment benefits, the State party states that the author has not cited a single example of a person in the same circumstances as himself, i.e. a civil servant on temporary leave from an established post, who has been treated differently. Only those unemployed substitute judges receive unemployment benefits who are, in fact, unemployed. This is not the author's situation. Nor can he expect the adoption of special legislation for himself to allow him to retain his civil service post while not performing its functions and, instead, preparing for competitive exams while receiving unemployment benefits on his expired substitute judge assignment. The complaint 3. The author alleges to be a victim of denial of equality before the courts, as provided for in article 14, of discrimination in access to public service, in violation of article 25, paragraph c, and of discrimination because of denial of unemployment benefits, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. State party's submission on admissibility 4. In a submission dated 17 September 1991, the State party stated that "the communication of Mr. García Pons satisfies, in principle, the conditions of admissibility set forth in articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol ... and that it is not incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant". While not objecting to the communication's admissibility, it indicated that it would, in due course, make submissions on the merits. 7.3 With regard to an alleged violation of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party affirms that the author has had equal access to all Spanish courts, including the Constitutional Court, and that all of his complaints were examined fairly by the competent tribunals, as evidenced in the respective judgments and other submissions. Admittedly, the author disagrees with the disposition of his case, but he has not substantiated a claim that procedural guarantees were not observed by the various instances involved. Committee's admissibility decision 5.1 Before considering any claim 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. 7.4 As to the alleged violation of article 25 of the Covenant, the State party points out that at no time in the many proceedings engaged by the author did 33