CH/02/12470 and Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Decree and Articles 125 and 168 paragraph 4 of the Law on Employment Relations and Salaries of Employees of Administrative Bodies in the Federation of BiH (see paragraphs 46, 51, 54 and 55). Therefore, the Federation of BiH holds that its organs have acted in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. 74. The Federation of BiH puts forward in its additional observations that it does not understand what criminal proceedings the Chamber is referring to in raising the question of a possible violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Federation of BiH holds that the sanction pronounced against the applicant under Article 18.9A of the Election Law does not have the same effect as criminal sanctions in criminal proceedings, as the Election Commission is not a court and its decisions are based on the provisions of the Election Law and not on the provisions of the Criminal Code. b. Article 13 of the Convention 75. The Federation of BiH claims that there has not been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, as effective remedies were available, but the applicant did not use them. C. The applicant 1. As to Bosnia and Herzegovina 76. In his application, the applicant argues that his right to be elected, as embodied in Article 25(b) of the ICCPR has been violated by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicant alleges that the Election Law is not in accordance with the ICCPR. 77. The applicant responded to the submissions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a letter received by the Chamber on 24 February 2003. The applicant alleges that prior to submitting his application to run for elections he took certain informal steps to determine if there would be any objections to his candidacy. The applicant specified those steps in his letter. One example is the meeting organized by the, at that time, advisor on military issues to the Croat member of the Presidency, with SFOR and OSCE in attendance. The applicant alleges that, though he did not attend the meeting himself, during this meeting it was discussed whether the applicant’s discharge could be an objection to run for elections and they all claimed that his discharge would not be an objection. Another informal step the applicant specified in his letter is the conversation he had with a representative of the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence, who stated that they had received permission to replace him, but this is not discharge but only approval. The applicant has not submitted any documents supporting these statements. 2. As to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 78. The applicant alleges a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as he never received any decision regarding his dismissal and he could therefore not avail himself of any domestic remedies. The applicant points out that the Federation of BiH does not state any reason why they did not send him any decision. The applicant claims that he found out about the decisions from a friend on an unknown date and via a daily newspaper at the time he submitted his application to participate as a candidate in the General Elections in 2002. 79. The applicant agrees with the Federation of BiH’s submission that the COMSFOR gave his permission for the applicant to be discharged. The applicant points out that this supports his claim and that there is a contradiction in the submissions of the respondent Parties. The Election Commission claims that the applicant has been removed by SFOR, while the Federation of BiH states that SFOR permitted his discharge. 13