CH/02/12470 applicant did not receive any of the decisions from the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence related to his discharge from duty, ceasing of his labour relation, and retirement, nor did he receive any official notice from the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence that he had been removed from position and service by the COMSFOR. The Chamber also notes that even if he had received the decisions from the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence regarding his discharge from duty or the ceasing of his labour relation, he would not have known the reasons for the taking of these decisions, as they are conspicuously absent from these decisions. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that the applicant learned of the SFOR removal from position and service on 5 June 2002, and that the same was published in official publications. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina thus appears to find it satisfactory that the applicant learned of this decision more than one year after it was taken. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also states that the SFOR decision was published in “official sources.” However, from the record before the Chamber, this would appear not to be the case, as only the decision of 12 April 2001 related to his position as Assistant Minister of Defence of the Federation of BiH was published in the Federation of BiH Official Gazette. The Chamber finds the Court’s utter disregard for the procedural safeguards that should have been afforded to the applicant unacceptable. 135. Secondly, both the Election Commission and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina refer to a decision of the COMSFOR dated 19 June 2001 which involved the applicant’s removal from position and service, and use this decision as the basis for denying the applicant the right to stand for election. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated, “from the decision of COMSFOR and the letter of 29 May 2002, the Election Commission properly established that the COMSFOR dismissed Nedjeljko Obradovi}, the former general colonel as of 19 June 2001…” However, the Chamber observes that no such decision from the COMSFOR appears to exist. Rather, SFOR sent a letter, in response to the request from Minister Ani} of the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence, giving its approval for the applicant to be removed from position and service. The letter is undated, although it was allegedly received by the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence on 20 June 2001. In any event, it has been established in the proceedings before the Chamber that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina never obtained a copy of the decision it relied on. The Chamber concludes that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to adequately discharge the heavy burden incumbent on it to protect the applicant from arbitrary and injudicious decisions. 136. Thirdly, the Chamber observes that the applicant, both before the Election Commission and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, attempted to assert that he was never removed from position and service by the COMSFOR, but rather dismissed by the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence, which, in his opinion, would mean that Article 19.9A of the Election Law does not apply to him. The applicant appealed the decision of the Election Commission of 6 June 2002 on the grounds that he was dismissed by the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence, and not by the COMSFOR. The Election Commission, in its decision on appeal dated 12 June 2002, confirmed their decision of 6 June 2002 and stated that the applicant did not submit any documentation in support of his. The Chamber observes that the applicant could not submit the decision concerning his discharge by the COMSFOR, as he never received such decision. In other words, the applicant could not substantiate his appeal as he was not privy to the necessary decisions or documentation. 137. Nevertheless, the Election Commission rejected the applicant’s appeal because he had no evidence of his claim, (e.g. proof that he was dismissed by the Federation of BiH and not the COMSFOR) while the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the decision from the COMSFOR dismissing the applicant is not sent to persons dismissed. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found the applicant’s objection that he did not receive the COMSFOR decision of 19 June 2001 illfounded, as there is no remedy against such decision and therefore the decision was not sent to him. Moreover, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that the applicant does not contest that he learned about the decision on 5 June 2002, and that the same decision was published in official publications. As to his complaint that he was dismissed as a civilian and not as a military official, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina states, “It can be clearly seen from the mentioned COMSFOR decision that Nedjeljko Obradovi} was replaced as a military officer, not as a civilian.” The Chamber notes the contradictions in these decisions, as the Election Commission requires the applicant to submit documentation in order to show that he was not discharged by the COMSFOR, while the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that such decisions are never sent to the persons discharged. 23