CCPR/C/112/D/2068/2011 competent judicial authority and that he could not take an active part and submit evidence during the proceedings, and thus his guarantees of a fair trial have been violated.11 The author also claims that the violations complained of are clearly connected to his ethnic background and because he is a member of a minority. Thus, his rights under article 2, paragraph 1 and 3 (b); article 14, paragraph 1; and article 26 of the Covenant have been violated. 3.4 The author also claims that Zagreb Bank terminated his employment contract without legal grounds on a discriminatory basis, contrary to articles 9, paragraph 1; and 26 of the Covenant. 3.5 Referring to his father’s communication,12 the author claims that the efforts of the State party to compensate him were not satisfactory. He also claims an arbitrary deprivation of tenancy rights, referring to the issues claimed in his father’s communication. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 4 January 2012, the State party challenged the admissibility and merits of the communication. It submits, inter alia, that the communication repeats most of the arguments already presented before the Human Rights Committee in the context of communication No. 1510/2006 concerning the author’s father. It adds that the Committee has examined the follow-up information concerning case No. 1510/2006 and decided, despite the dissatisfaction of the author’s father with the remedy provided, that the efforts made by the State party to compensate him were satisfactory, and also decided to close the dialogue under the follow-up procedure. 4.2 The State party argues that the author’s father has rejected all the apartments allocated to him and his family by the authorities. The author and his father still have a right to housing, as they fulfil the required conditions set out in the Government’s conclusions on the housing of returnees who are former tenancy rights holders. However, the author’s father had specified that the only remedy that he would consider adequate was either full ownership of the apartment over which he had a tenancy right before the war, or monetary compensation. 4.3 The State party further argues that the programme for housing for former tenancy rights holders was available to the author’s father and the author. The author’s father voluntarily applied for an apartment under that programme and obtained a positive decision, by which his right to housing was clearly established and an apartment in Zagreb was allocated to him and his family. The contract on the lease has not been signed only because the author’s father has refused to take over the apartment. 4.4 With respect to the author’s allegations that he has not received a decision or compensation with respect to his claim that the court proceedings were not conducted in a reasonable time, the State party maintains that, on 17 December 2010, the Zagreb County Court passed a decision allocating compensation for a lengthy trial to the author. 4.5 The State party asserts that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies, since he still had a case at the Municipal Court in Zagreb. Concerning his claim that he was released from his job at Zagreb Bank on discriminatory grounds, on 12 August 1991, the State party maintains that he was released owing to his absence from the office for more than five consecutive days. According to that decision, the author had an opportunity to file a complaint within two weeks. Instead of availing himself of that opportunity, however, the 11 12 The author does not provide further substantiation in relation to this. Dušan Vojnović v. Croatia (note 2 above). 5