CH/02/12470 60. In addition the Chamber considers that the application raises apparent issues with regard to the criminal charge aspect of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Bosnia and Herzegovina 1. As to the facts 61. On 31 December 2002, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a letter from the Election Commission, dated 30 December 2002, as its written observations. The Election Commission states that it does not make any difference between candidates discharged of duty by a decision of the COMSFOR and candidates whose removal was only permitted by the COMSFOR at the proposal of the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of BiH. 62. On 30 January 2003, Bosnia and Herzegovina again presented a letter from the Election Commission, dated 24 January 2003, as its written observations on the admissibility and merits. In its letter the Election Commission stated that, according to Article 18.9A paragraph 4 of the Election Law, a person discharged from duty by the COMSFOR is not allowed to run for elections. Therefore, the Election Commission requested a list from SFOR of the persons discharged. It received a list of military personnel suspended or removed by action of the COMSFOR and the Election Commission based its decision on this list, which states that the applicant has been removed as well. At the public hearing, Bosnia and Herzegovina conceded that the Election Commission had neither sought nor received the decision discharging the applicant, but based itself on the letter of the COMSFOR listing the applicant among those he had removed from position and service. 63. The Election Commission disputes the facts as presented by the applicant in his application to the Chamber, in particular the allegation that when the new political regime came to power, i.e. after the elections of 2000, the new Minister of Defence requested the discharge of many military officers and the applicant was amongst those. The Election Commission does not agree with this statement, since SFOR sent them a letter stating the names of officers removed by action of the COMSFOR, not by the Ministry of Defence. The Election Commission also points out that the list does not only contain names of officers of the Federation of BiH Army, but also of the Republika Srpska Army. 64. The Election Commission states that, as the decision was taken in accordance with Article 18.9A of the Election Law, it did not consider it necessary to examine the reasons for the removal of the applicant, because it regards the High Representative as the final authority and, in view of the interpretation and implementation of the General Framework Agreement, his decision is final and binding. Nor is it interested in whether the applicant ever received the decision to discharge him. The Election Commission only needed a list of people discharged in order to determine whether the applicant can participate in the elections. 2. As to the admissibility and merits 65. Bosnia and Herzegovina considers the application admissible as the applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies. In its submission, received on 1 September 2003, Bosnia and Herzegovina states that Article 19.9A of the Election Law cannot have the same effect as a criminal charge under Article 6 of the Convention, as the applicant did not have the possibility to use a legal remedy against the decisions. Under criminal law, legal remedies are available to the accused, therefore Bosnia and Herzegovina considers that the sanction imposed on the applicant cannot be the consequence of the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. Accordingly, Bosnia and Herzegovina considers the application inadmissible in this respect. 11