CH/02/12470 of the decision), thereby violating the standards set out under Chapter 14, 2e and 2f of the ITP. In other legal systems his acts would be considered as criminal acts of mutiny. 7. I cannot follow the reasoning of the Chamber in paragraph 132 et seq. in which it finds that the ban applied to the applicant cannot be considered proportional to the legitimate aim pursued due to its procedural shortcomings. After stating in paragraph 131 that the ban to participate in the elections was proportionate in the case at hand insofar as the nature and severity of the ban are concerned, it is difficult to understand how the actual procedure followed puts the proportionality anew into question. In the test for proportionality, the means or measures, i.e. the ban, must be weighed against the aims or the rights of the applicant. Thereafter, any flaws in the proceedings applying the measure may be considered in the question of whether the impugned act is in accordance with the law. 8. In paragraphs 132 to 134 of the decision, the Chamber criticises the procedure employed by the Federation of BiH in dismissing the applicant from his military position. But these procedural problems lie outside the scope to be considered on the merits: In conclusion no. 1 the complaints about the dismissal by the Federation of BiH are declared inadmissible under Article 6 of the Convention, and the application is not declared admissible against the Federation of BiH under any other aspect. The respondent Party for the impugned act, the rejection of the certification of the applicant, is only Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is not responsible for dismissing the applicant. 9. No participant in the proceedings before the Chamber denies that the applicant has been dismissed from his military position, nor that this dismissal was brought about with the co-operation of COMSFOR and the Federal Ministry of Defence (see paragraph 6 above). In applying Article 19.9A of the Election Law, it is of no importance whether the act of dismissal was finally promulgated by COMSFOR or the respondent Party. The reasoning of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the last instance to decide the question, cited above in paragraph 4, represents the legal situation. It follows ex lege from Article 19.9A of the Election Law that an officer discharged under Chapter 14 of the ITP cannot run for elections, and neither the Election Commission nor the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has any margin of appreciation in this question. In applying the ban it is not decisive whether or not the wording in the decisions of the organs of the respondent Party is precise. 10. The Chamber criticises the Election Commission and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for not requesting a copy of the decision whereby the applicant was dismissed from military service of the Federation of BiH. They relied on the official notifications of COMSFOR of 13 and 29 May 2002 to the Election Commission stating that Lieutenant General Nedjeljko OBRADOVI] is one of the officers “suspended or removed by action of the Commander of Stabilization Force (COMSFOR) in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Instructions to the Parties.” I cannot share the conclusion of the Chamber in paragraph 139 of the decision that, under these circumstances, not to search for further evidence “defies all notions of procedural fairness” and that this leads to the consequence that rejecting the application for certification, as provided with binding force by the law, renders disproportionate the measure to ban the applicant from running in the elections. 11. I further disagree with conclusion no. 8 because I cannot find a violation of the applicant’s rights. As stated above, it follows from Article 19.9A of the Election Law ex lege that the applicant is excluded from running in elections. After obeying the order of the Chamber under conclusion no. 8, based on finding a violation due to procedural shortcomings, the Election Commission will be obliged also in the future to reject any application of the applicant for certification as long as Article 19.9A of the Election Law is in force. (signed) Dietrich Rauschning 28