participated in the same judgements. The HJPC deprived him not only of his right to equal access to the RS Supreme Court, but also recommended that his application for any other judicial post be rejected. been dealt with in disciplinary proceedings under article 49 of the RS Law on HJPC. It was only after the State party had received his communication that he was granted access to the files of the HJPC. He claims compensation for the moral and material damage suffered, including damage to his honour and reputation after 38 years of judicial service. 6.5 For the author, the fact that the judgements were declared unlawful by the HJPC after it received complaints from dissatisfied parties amounts to a severe interference with his independence as a judge as well as usurpation, by an executive organ, of judicial power that can only be exercised by a higher court. When working on the cases, he faced considerable pressure from HJPC investigators showing a strong interest in both cases. Although the investigators were not qualified to exercise judicial power, they scrutinized the verdicts, which were the result of years of work, in a few days and summarized their analysis of these complex cases in a few sentences. Their findings on both verdicts were arbitrary, incomplete and inaccurate. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 As required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.6 The author argues that the membership of the HJPC is regulated in detail in the RS Law on HJPC to ensure an impartial and transparent appointment procedure. This process was flawed in his case, since one of the members of the HJPC, S.M., a deputy public prosecutor from the basic public prosecutor’s office, had not been elected by the Association of Judges and Prosecutors of RS, as required by article 5 of the RS Law on HJPC. The list of elected candidates forwarded to the High Representative for approval did not include S.M. It would, moreover, have been possible to appoint a public prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of RS, in accordance with article 5. The flexibility clause in article 76, which required the High Representative to appoint members specified in article 5 only “to the extent possible” during a transitional period, was no justification for the unlawful composition of the HJPC at the time when his appointment was terminated. The State party should have disclosed the relevant evidence if it wanted to show that the Council was properly composed. 7.3 With regard to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author did not file either an application for review of the decision of 12 March 2003 the HJPC in the Supreme Court of RS, nor further appealed to the Constitutional Court or the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also notes the author’s objection that his request for reconsideration under article 79 (3) of the RS Law on HJPC was the only remedy available to him under domestic law. 7.4 The Committee recalls that it is implicit in rule 97 of its rules of procedure and article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that a State party to the Covenant should make available to the Committee all the information at its disposal, including, at the stage of admissibility of a communication, detailed information about remedies available to the victims of the alleged violation in the circumstances of their case. It considers that, while generally referring to remedies before the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the State party has not provided any detailed information on the availability and effectiveness of these remedies in the circumstances of the author’s case. The Committee is therefore satisfied that the author exhausted domestic remedies, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, by filing a request for reconsideration with the HJPC. 6.7 The author submits that the State party has not established an effective remedy to review decisions on the appointment of judges, in violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The rejection by the HJPC of his request for reconsideration was a stereotyped decision designed for mass communication, which did not address a single issue raised by him. The possibility to file such a request was not an effective remedy, as it did not involve review by another instance. The discretion vested in the HJPC to appoint judges cannot be unlimited but must respect applicable domestic and international standards. 7.5 In so far as the author alleges violations of his rights under article 25 (a) and (b) of the Covenant, the Committee observes that his claims are inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 The author claims that he was deprived of an opportunity to present his arguments and to defend his rights. Any allegations against him should have 7.6 With regard to the author’s claim under article 25 (c) that the decision of the HJPC not to reappoint him as a Supreme Court judge violated his right to 13