CH/02/12470 into deprivation of liberty if it is not paid (Ravnsborg v. Sweden, judgement of 23 March 1994, A283B). The applicant before the Chamber has neither been deprived of his liberty as a consequence of the “offence”, nor fined, nor has any entry been made into his criminal records. 106. The Chamber finally recalls, with regard to its own case law, that in Lugonji} v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (case no. CH/02/10476, Lugonji}, decision on admissibility and merits of 1 April 2003), the applicant complained of violations of human rights stemming from the termination of his employment as a police officer based on a decision by the International Police Task Force Commissioner. The Chamber decided that, although the notion of “criminal charge” may include disciplinary proceedings, “the consequences attached to the applicant’s de-certification and removal do not establish the existence of a “criminal charge” that invokes protection under Article 6.” 107. Having regard to all the above, the Chamber finds that the proceedings against the applicant did not concern the “determination of a criminal charge” for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention. The Chamber therefore declares the application inadmissible ratione materiae in relation to the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. 2. Article 13 of the Convention 108. The applicant complains of the fact that he did not have any effective remedy against his discharge and retirement by the Federation Ministry of Defence. 109. Article 13 of the Convention provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 110. The Chamber notes that Article 13 of the Convention is not a free-standing right; it requires the availability of an effective remedy exclusively in cases in which the alleged violation concerns one of the substantive rights and freedoms of the Convention, and it cannot be applied independently. Article 13 of the Convention requires the applicant to present an “arguable claim to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention” (Eur. Court HR, Silver & Others v. United Kingdom, judgement of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, paragraph 113). 111. Thus, with regard to the applicant’s complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to his dismissal and retirement from the Federation of BiH Army, the Chamber declares the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded because the applicant has failed to show that he had an arguable claim of a violation of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. 3. Complaint in relation to the right to run for elections and of discrimination in this respect (a) Article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 112. The applicant alleges a violation of his right to vote and his right to run for elections. He also alleges that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of these rights on unspecified grounds. He brings these complaints under Article 25(b) of the ICCPR. 113. The Chamber notes, however, that the applicant has failed to explain on what ground he considers himself to be a victim of discrimination and to substantiate this allegation. Under Article II(2)(b) of the Agreement, the Chamber only has jurisdiction to consider the rights protected by the ICCPR in connection with alleged or apparent discrimination in the enjoyment of such rights. The applicant’s case does not disclose any appearance of discrimination. It follows that the allegation of discrimination in respect of the right to run for elections under Article 25(b) of the ICCPR is manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article VIII(2)(c) of the Agreement, as the applicant did not substantiate the complaint. Moreover, under Article II(2)(b) of the Agreement, the Chamber cannot consider allegations of a violation of rights protected by the ICCPR in isolation, but only in conjunction with discrimination in the enjoyment of those rights. Therefore, insofar as the applicant is alleging a 18