regime1. The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claim that he is a victim of violations of articles 14 and 26 in this regard. This part of the communication is thus inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by Ms. Cecilia Meddina 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 670/1995, Rüdiger Schlosser v. Czech Republic 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) To our regret we cannot follow the Committee's decision that the communication is also inadmissible as far as the author claims that he is a victim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, because the Law No. 87/1991 would deliberately discriminate against him for ethnical reasons (See para. 3.5). For the reasons given in our Individual Opinion on the decision on Communication No. 643/1995, (Drobek v. Slovakia) we think that the Committee should have declared the communication admissible in this regard. That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 1 See the Committee's decision declaring inadmissible communication No. 643/1995 (Drobek v. Slovakia), 14 July 1997. 27