received high evaluation marks by the panel but was ranked below the threshold set for the eight judges of Serb ethnicity. The selection process was based on objective criteria rather than political opinion and affiliation and provided the author with “a fair opportunity” to run for the post of judge, in accordance with domestic law and article 25 (c) of the Covenant. remedy available to him by filing a request for reconsideration under article 79 (3)5 of the RS Law on HJPC. The decision of the HJPC rejecting his request clearly stated that it was not subject to appeal. Furthermore, article 866 of the RS Law on HJPC defined this Law as “lex specialis,” precluding the application of any remedies foreseen in other laws. The recent inclusion of a provision on court protection in the new draft State Law on HJPC only concerned disciplinary proceedings and was without retroactive effect. The Human Rights Chamber had ceased to receive cases at the time he sought to appeal the decision of the HJPC. It was not a domestic remedy. He therefore exhausted all available domestic remedies. 5.3 The State party submits that during the selection process, the HJPC was composed in accordance with articles 53 and 764 of the RS Law on HJPC. While article 5 defined the composition of the Council in principle, article 76 gave the High Representative a certain margin of discretion to depart from this provision when appointing HJPC members during the transitional period. 6.2 By reference to statistical reports which show that he exceeded the workload quota by 217.4 per cent in 2000 and by 161.5 per cent in 2001, the author reiterates that his appointment was terminated despite the fact that he obtained the highest evaluation scores of all candidates, based on criteria set out in article 41 of the RS Law on HJPC. In accordance with article 17 of the rules of procedure of the HJPC, the evaluation records are confidential and not to be disclosed to the candidates. The State party failed to present these records to the Committee in order to conceal his and other candidates’ evaluation scores. Author’s comments 6.1 On 22 May 2004, the author commented, arguing that he never contacted the European Court of Human Rights and that the State party had failed to cite a single provision under domestic law which would have enabled him to challenge the decision of the HJPC in another instance. He exhausted the only 3 Article 5 (“Members of the Council”) of the RS Law on the HJPC reads: “The Council shall have members, as follows: A judge of the Supreme Court of Republika Srpska, elected by all the judges of the Court; A public prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Republika Srpska elected by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic and deputy public prosecutors in the Office; One judge, either from a district court or a basic court, elected by the Association of Judges and Prosecutors of Republika Srpska; One public prosecutor or deputy public prosecutor, either from a district public prosecutor’s office or from a basic public prosecutor’s office, elected by the Association of Judges and Prosecutors of Republika Srpska; A minor offence court judge elected by the Association of Minor Offence Court Judges of Republika Srpska; An attorney elected by the Bar Association of Republika Srpska; A person of high moral character and integrity appointed by the President of Republika Srpska; and The members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council established under the Constitution and laws of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Members of the Council shall be independent and impartial in the exercise of their functions, shall be persons of high moral standing and integrity, and shall have a reputation for efficiency, competence, and integrity.” 4 Article 76 (“Composition, Appointment, and Terms of Office”) of the RS Law on the HJPC reads: “During the transitional period, the High Representative shall appoint to the Council the members specified in article 5, to the extent possible. During this period the Council shall not include a minor offence court judge. The mandates of the national members shall be for a term of four years as set forth in by article 6 of this law. The High Representative shall also appoint up to eight (8) international members to the Council. The mandates of the international members shall be confined to the transitional period.” 6.3 Without challenging the selection of judges on the basis of ethnic quota, the author submits that ethnicity was not an issue in his case, given that the eight judges appointed to the RS Supreme Court’s criminal department were all Serbs. Four of them came from lower instance courts; one had never decided on appeal in his career. 6.4 The author emphasizes that the only reason for not reappointing him to the Supreme Court of RS was his legal assessment in the two verdicts, based on which the HJPC marked him as unsuitable, unlike other candidates who were appointed to the RS Supreme Court or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina although they had 5 Article 79 (3) of the RS Law on HJPC reads: “An incumbent judge, public prosecutor, or deputy public prosecutor who is not selected for judicial or public prosecutorial office under this article may file a request for reconsideration: if the Council failed to consider material facts favorable to the applicant provided that information was submitted to the Council at the time of application, or if the applicant exercised his right to review application material under article 40 prior to the Council’s decision and the Council took adverse decision based upon information not made available to the applicant.” 6 Article 86 of the RS Law on HJPC reads: “[…] Statutory provisions contained in the laws of Republika Srpska shall be brought into harmony with this law and any provisions that are inconsistent with this law are hereby repealed.” 12