nature of the Optional Protocol it follows that, unless a reservation is entered by a State party upon accession to the Protocol, the Committee's competence also extends to events that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for that State, provided such events occurred or continued to have effects after the entry into force of the Covenant. article 9, paragraph 1; indeed, the unlawfulness of an arrest or detention may derive not only from a violation of the provisions of the Covenant, but also from a violation of a provision of domestic law. In this latter case, the right to compensation may exist independently of whether the arrest or detention can be regarded as the basis for a claim under article 9, paragraph 1, provided that it is unlawful under domestic law. In other words, for the purpose of the application of article 9, paragraph 5, the Committee is not precluded from considering the unlawfulness of an arrest or detention, even if it might be precluded from examining it under other provisions of the Covenant. This also applies when the impossibility to invoke other provisions is due to the fact that arrest or detention occurred prior to the entry into force of the Covenant or, following the majority view, prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol. Since in the present case the unlawfulness of the authors' arrest and detention under domestic law is undisputed, I conclude that their right to compensation under article 9, paragraph 5, of the Covenant has been violated, and that the Committee should have made a finding to this effect. But even assuming, as the majority view does, that the Committee was precluded ratione temporis from considering the authors' claim under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, it would still be incorrect to conclude that it is equally precluded, ratione temporis, from examining their claim under article 9, paragraph 5. Although the right to compensation, to which any person unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled, may also be construed as a specification of the remedy within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 3, i.e. the remedy for the violation of the right set forth in article 9, paragraph 1, the Covenant does not establish a causal link between the two provisions contained in article 9. Rather, the wording of article 9, paragraph 5, suggests that its applicability does not depend on a finding of violation of Communication No. 454/1991 Submitted by: Enrique García Pons Alleged victim: The author State party: Spain Declared admissible: 30 June 1994 (fifty-first session) Date of adoption of Views: 30 October 1995 (fifty-fifth session) Badalona. On 20 December 1986, he was appointed substitute for the District Judge of Badalona, a function which he performed until 16 October 1987; following his nomination, he requested his employer, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (INEM), to formalize his change of status and to certify that he was, in terms of administrative status, assigned to "special services". The Ministry did not grant his request. Subject matter: Alleged discrimination in access to public service and discrimination Procedural issues: Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies - Partial reversal of admissibility decision Substantive issues: Discrimination - Denial of fair hearing - Discrimination in access to public service Articles of the Covenant: 14 (1), 25, and 26 2.2 Later in 1987, the author was again appointed substitute District Judge of Badalona; he did not, however, assume his functions, since the post of District Judge had been taken up by a new judge. The author therefore requested unemployment benefits (prestaciones de desempleo). Again, he requested the formal recognition of his administrative status, but his employer did not process his request. The same situation prevailed in 1988; the author therefore filed a complaint with the competent administrative tribunal against the Instituto Nacional de Empleo, requesting unemployment benefits. On 27 May 1988, the Juzgado de lo Social No. 9 (Barcelona) rejected his request because the author was free to resume his former post, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements under the unemployment benefits scheme. It was argued that what the author intended Articles of the Optional Protocol and Rules of procedure: 1, 2, 3, and 5, paragraph 2 (b), and rule 93 (4) Finding: No violation 1. The author of the communication is Enrique García Pons, a Spanish citizen born in 1951, currently residing in Badalona, Spain. He claims to be a victim of violations by Spain of articles 14, paragraph 1, 25 (c), and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author is a civil servant, assigned to the sub-office of the National Employment Agency (Instituto Nacional de Empleo) in the municipality of 32