CCPR/C/112/D/2068/2011 author only made a complaint against the bank 12 years later, on 28 July 2003. Since the decision of 17 June 2010, the suit was still pending before the Municipal Court in Zagreb, awaiting the author’s action in the matter. 4.6 The State party contests as unsubstantiated the author’s claims that the views of the Croatian courts were the result of arbitrary interpretation and wilfully erroneous application of the relevant law, constituting a violation of the principle of equality before the law, and that all judicial decisions that were not in his favour were owing to the fact that he belongs to the Serb minority. 4.7 The State party further refutes the author’s allegations that there is a system of parallel regulations applied exclusively to the Serb national minority in Croatia. It states that the provisions applied in the author’s legal proceedings are part of the ordinary legislation applicable equally to everyone under the jurisdiction of the courts in the State party. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 January and 20 February 2012, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. In response to the assertion by the State party that his submission repeats most of the arguments already submitted to the Committee in his father’s communication (No. 1510/2006), he maintains that his claims are different, since he requests individual compensation from the State party and his communication relates to proceedings that he initiated before the Municipal Court in Zagreb. He asserts that the Committee found that his father did not have the standing to act on his (the author’s) behalf and declared that part of the communication inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.13 He reiterates his allegations that the system of parallel regulations applied exclusively to the Serb national minority in Croatia is discriminatory. 5.2 With respect to the length of proceedings before the Municipal Court in Zagreb, the author points out that the State party had not provided any explanation, justifying the overall length of the proceedings of almost eight years. He reiterates that there were many procedural violations during the court proceedings, as they were not conducted by the competent judicial authority; he was not able to take an active part in the proceedings; and could not submit evidence. He contends that he received no notification of the termination of the proceedings. He also asserts that the Croatian courts delayed the resolution of his case on a discriminatory basis, owing to his ethnic origins. 5.3 The author contests the contention of the State party that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. He maintains that his claims against Croatia and Zagreb Bank concerning torture and discrimination, submitted by him to the court system, including to the Constitutional Court, were all rejected. He claims that he took several actions with respect to the decision of the Municipal Court in Zagreb of 16 June 2010, namely on 15 September 2010, 3 November 2010, 31 January 2011, 18 February 2011, 28 May 2011, 29 July 2011 and 6 August 2011, without however specifying the content and nature of those actions.14 He also denies the statement by the State party that he could have complained against dismissal from his job within two weeks of the event, noting that he had been forcefully expelled from his apartment at that time. 5.4 The author further rejects the statement by the State party that his father received compensation from the State party with respect to his tenancy rights, and that efforts to compensate him were satisfactory, providing the author’s father and his family with an 13 14 6 See Dušan Vojnović v. Croatia (note 2 above), para. 7.4. The file contains only copies of the postal receipts.