6.4 The Committee considered that the author's other claims were not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, and therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. should have invoked the Conscientious Objection Act, but whether the State party has the right to force the author to become an accomplice to a crime against peace by requiring him to do military service. 6.5 Accordingly, on 25 March 1992, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as the differentiation in treatment between Jehovah's Witnesses and conscientious objectors in general might raise issues under article 26 of the Covenant. 5.2 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author explains that he was convicted by the court of first instance and that his appeals to the Supreme Military Court and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands were rejected. He argues, therefore, that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies has been fully complied with. State party's submission on the merits and author's comments 5.3 With regard to the State party's proposed amendments to the Conscription Act, the author claims that they are to be withdrawn. 7.1 In its submission, dated 20 November 1992, the State party argues that the distinction between Jehovah's Witnesses and other conscientious objectors to military service is based on objective and reasonable criteria. 5.4 The author contends that the State party cannot claim that the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the impartiality and independence of the Netherlands court martial procedure (Military Court). 7.2 The State party explains that, according to the relevant legal regulations, postponement of initial training can be granted in specific cases where special circumstances exist. A Jehovah's Witness who is eligible for military service is as a rule granted postponement of initial training if his community provides the assurance that he is a baptized member. The State party submits that this postponement is withdrawn if the community informs the Ministry of Defence that the individual concerned no longer is a full member of the community. If the grounds for granting postponement continue to apply, his eligibility for military service will expire when the individual reaches the age of 35. Committee's decision on admissibility 6.1 During its forty-fourth session the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It considered that, since the author had been convicted for his refusal to obey military orders and his appeal against his conviction had been dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the communication met the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee considered that the author's contention that the Court had misinterpreted the law and wrongly convicted him, as well as his claims under articles 6 and 7 were inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. As regards the author's claim that his rights under article 26 of the Covenant were violated since the Military Penal Code, unlike the Penal Code, made no provisions for an appeal against the summons, the Committee referred to its jurisprudence in case Nos. 245/1987 and 267/1987,2 and considered that the scope of article 26 could not be extended to cover situations such as the one encountered by the author; this part of the communication was therefore declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.3 To explain the special treatment for Jehovah's Witnesses, the State party states that baptized members form a closed group of people who are obliged, on penalty of expulsion, to observe strict rules of behaviour, applicable to many aspects of their daily life and subject to strict informal social control. According to the State party, one of these rules prohibits the participation in any kind of military or substitute service, while another obliges members to be permanently available for the purpose of spreading the faith. 7.4 The State party concludes that the different treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses does not constitute discrimination against the author, since it is based on reasonable and objective criteria. In this connection, it refers to the case law of the European Commission on Human Rights.3 The State party moreover argues that the author has not substantiated that he is in a situation comparable to that of Jehovah's Witnesses. 6.3 The Committee decided that the author's allegation regarding the differentiation in treatment between Jehovah's Witnesses and conscientious objectors to military and substitute service in general should be examined on the merits. 3 European Commission on Human Rights, case No. 10410/83, Norenius v. Sweden, decision of 11 October 1984, and case No. 14215/88, Brinkhof v. the Netherlands, decision of 13 December 1989. 2 R. T. Z. v. the Netherlands, declared inadmissible on 5 November 1987, and M. J. G. v. the Netherlands, declared inadmissible on 24 March 1988. 54