The Committetl oblervee in t.hh connection and on the bait.. of the information before it thllt the Ilutl~or. ha. not lubmitted hie ca.e to any French adminiltrative tr ibunal. I t ha. noted the author' e contention, in hi, le ':.ter of 26 AUCjluet 1987, that hiB communiC6tion prelenle a chal'acter of urCjlency beoauee of an a11eCjled civil right of Itudente to take COUf3e. in the Br.ton lanCjluage ("4roit'~1yil dee '1'~ 11'.obttlliI: un en.eignement.-_.l1L.DL'i.t.OJl"). :.. .. notee, however, that, .t.n the particular circumstance. di.clolld by the communication, the author'. contention de,e. not absolve him from purluing hi. ca.e betore the French courta and f~om e~h.uetlng whatever remedies are available to him. The Committee hal not anouCjlh infor~atJ.on to find that the application of luch remedies would be unreaeonably prolonCjled and conclud~s that the requirement. of article ~, parft9raph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met.
The Human Rights Committee therefore deci~e'l (a) That the communication iD inadmieeible, (b) That thie dechion Ihall be co.Nnunlcated to the author and, for informatlol to the State party.
The author atate, that he wa. ,ummaned to appf,ar before a milita~y court bec,u,e of hi, refu.al to obey order, in the cour.e of hi, military .ervioe. In the Hetherl,nd•• it i. po••ible for oitiaen. to object to a .ummona. If they do .0. the jud~e il required to decide on the objection before the court pro~eedinCjJ' begin. A per.on who i. lubject to military juriadiction during the ~erio~ of compul.o~y military Dervice dOl. nol nave thi. riCjJht, becau.e military penal procedure. do not envi.age the po••ibility of an appeal again.t a .ummon.. Thus, the author il unabA.. to appeal again.t the .ummons before the military court. l. The author claim. that thi. con.titute. a violation of artiCle 26 of the Covehant .ince he i. bei~g tr.ated differe~tly from civiliftn~ who aLe given the po••iblllty to appeal again.t a .ummon. before the .te~t of court proceedingd.
With re.pect to the requirement of e.haultlon of dome.tic renledie., the puthor .tate. that he took lail ca.e to the ~19heet adminhtrative organ in the Hetherland•• the Admlnl.tratieve Recht.pr~ak Ov~rheid.be.chikkingen(AROB). which declared hi, appeal inftdmi••ib1e.
The Committe. ha. alcectain.d that the author·a ca.e ha. not been .ubmitted to another proc.dure of international inve.tigation C' aettlement.
Before con.idering Dny claima contained in a communication, the H~man Right. Committee .hall. in accor~cncu with rule 87 of it. provilional rule. ot peoeedure, decide wheth~r or not it i. a4mi••ible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
The Committee ob.erve. that. in the ca..e at i ..llu.. the author ha. not 1~1aimed to be the victim of dilcrimination on any groun1. prohibite1 under article 26 of the Covll.3nt. He merely alleg•• that hI i. beinc 8ubjected to different treatment durinCjJ the period of hi. military .ecvice b.ceu.~ he cannot appeal ~9ains' e .ummon. like a civilian. Tbe Committee observe. that the Covenant doe. not preclude the inetitution of compul.ory military Rervice by State. partie., even thou9h thi. means that the rlqhte of individu8LI may be re.tricted during mili~ary .er/lce, within the e.iqeneie.. of luch .ervice. The Committee note., in thi. connection, that the author ha. not claimed that the Netherlands military penal procedure. are not being applied equally to all Hetherlands citi.ens serving in the Netherland. armed force.. It therefore conclude. that the author has no claim und.r article 2 ol the Optional Protocol. ~. The Human Rights CommIttee therefore decidesl (a) That ,-he communicl"lt ion is inad""i.8iblel (b) That this deci.ion shall b.. convnunicated to the author and, for information. to the State party.