2.4 According to the author, in early 2003, the HJPC Field Office in Banja Luka evaluated his application for reappointment to the Supreme Court of RS. Based on an investigation of the two complaints, the investigator found that the above verdicts were unlawful and that they called into question the author’s suitability. On 12 March 2003, the HJPC decided not to reappoint the author as a Supreme Court judge. The fact he had not been selected would not prevent his future appointment to the position of judge or prosecutor. The decision was taken on the basis of a complex rating system (see also para. 5.2 below). any irregularities in his previous cases and absence of any disciplinary action against him. 3.3 By reference to Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author argues that the decision of 4 November 2002 to revoke the convictions in the kidnapping and forcible abortion case was lawful, as it was based on the opinion of several forensic psychiatrists that the accused suffered from mental illness when he committed the crime. 3.4 The author claims that, apart from interfering with his independence as a judge, the HJPC was not composed as it should have been when deciding on his application, since one of the members was appointed from among the lowest professional category of attorneys, although he/she should have been appointed by the Attorney General’s Office. 2.5 By letter dated 17 March 2003, the author and another Supreme Court judge, whose reappointment was denied because of his participation in the above verdicts, objected to the decision of the HJPC, arguing that in the kidnapping and forcible abortion trial, the lower courts should have ordered an expertise to assess the mental capacity of the main accused at the time of commission of the crime; their evaluation of the medical evidence had been onesided. 3.5 The author submits that he could not appeal the decision of the HJPC to any other instance and that he was denied access to the files after completion of the evaluation process. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 2.6 On 20 March 2003, the author requested the HJPC to reconsider its decision to terminate his appointment, emphasizing his professionalism, the efficiency of the criminal department at the Supreme Court of RS that he presided and the high respect that he enjoyed among his colleagues. On 2 April 2003, the HJPC rejected the request, stating that this decision was not subject to appeal. 4. On 19 January 2004, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication, arguing that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies, as he did not file an application for review of the decision of the HJPC in the Supreme Court of RS, nor any further appeal with the Constitutional Court or the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina set up under Annex V of the Dayton Agreement. It requests the Committee to ascertain that the same matter is not being examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the non-renewal of his appointment based on his legal assessment in the two above cases was discriminatory, amounted to a denial of his right to equal access to public service, interfered with his independence as a judge and damaged his honour and reputation, in violation of articles 2, paragraph 1, 17 and 25 (c), read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (in the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the decision of the HJPC). 5.1 On 30 April 2004, the State party reiterated its arguments for challenging the admissibility of the communication and commented on its merits, arguing that the facts as presented raise no issues under articles 17 and 25 (a) and (b) of the Covenant. 5.2 On the claim under article 25 (c), the State party submits that the author’s application was part of a process for the appointment of 16 judges to the Supreme Court of the RS. Of 98 candidates who applied for the 16 posts, 91 were interviewed. All of them met the legal requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court. The HJPC was competent to select the candidates it considered best suited, on the basis of the criteria prescribed by article 41 of the RS Law on HJPC. Under the State and RS Constitutions, the ethnic composition of the Supreme Court was to reflect the ethnic composition of the RS population, in accordance with the 1991 census conducted in the Former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. Thus, the 13 judges proposed by the nomination panel included eight Serbs, two Bosniaks, two Croats and one “Other”. The author 3.2 The author reiterates that the criminal department of the Supreme Court of RS which he presided over was the most efficient in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with only three unresolved cases as of 12 February 2003. He had participated in several expert teams reviewing and drafting legislation in the RS and Brcko District. Although he had received higher scores in the evaluation process than all the candidates who were appointed to the Supreme Court, the decision to terminate his appointment prior to reaching the retirement age of 70 was based on two controversial judgements only. None of the following criteria were taken into consideration by the HJPC: the efficiency of his department, his professionalism and work experience, the absence of 11