equal access to public service, the Committee notes that article 25 (c) guarantees not only access to public service, but also a right of retention in the public service on general terms of equality. In principle, therefore, the claim falls within the scope of the provision. The principle of access to public service on general terms of equality implies that the State party must not discriminate against anyone, on any of the grounds set out in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author claims that the only reason not to reappoint him was his legal determination of two controversial judgements, and that other judges who participated in the same judgements were appointed to the Supreme Court of RS or the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Committee notes, however, that the rating system used to determine the eligibility and suitability of judges was complex and based on objective criteria (see para. 5.2), and that while the author was given high evaluation marks by the panel, he was ranked below the threshold set for judges of Serb ethnicity. On the basis of the material before it, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate sufficiently, for purposes of admissibility, that his non-inclusion in the appointment list of judges was exclusively based on the two controversial judgements he had delivered, and not on other objective criteria underlying the ranking system. Accordingly, this claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. office, who had not been elected by the Association of Judges and Prosecutors of RS, was not covered by the flexibility clause in article 76 and therefore in breach of article 5 of the RS Law on HJPC. Similarly, the author did not substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the evaluation of his suitability by the HJPC based on, inter alia, two judgements, which gave rise to complaints calling into question his integrity and impartiality, interfered with his judicial independence or violated his honour and reputation. Consequently, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.8 The author has invoked article 2 of the Covenant read together with articles 17 and 25 (c). This raises the question as to whether the fact that he had no possibility to appeal the decision of the HJPC to another instance amounted to a violation of his right to an effective remedy as provided for by article 2, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b), of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that article 2 can only be invoked in conjunction with a substantive right protected by the Covenant,7 and only if a violation of that right has been sufficiently well founded to be arguable under the Covenant. 8 As the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 17 and 25 (c), his claim of a violation of article 2 of the Covenant accordingly is also inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 As regards the allegation that the HJPC was improperly constituted, interfered with his independence as a judge and violated his honour and reputation, the Committee notes that the author does not explicitly invoke a specific provision of the Covenant in relation to this claim. It considers that he failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the appointment of a deputy public prosecutor from the basic public prosecutor’s 8. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 7 Communication No. 275/1988, S.E. v. Argentina, decision on admissibility adopted on 26 March 1990, para. 5.3. 8 Communication No. 972/2001, Kazantzis v. Cyprus, decision on admissibility adopted on 7 August 2003, para. 6.6. 14