Decision
The Committee notes that the author claims he is a victim of discrimination by the RCMP, because he was refused a post as a constable solely on the basis of his medical history. The Committee further notes that the police acknowledged having made a mistake in the procedure and invited the author to reapply. The author, however, failed to accept the offer made by the police, demanding monetary compensation instead. The Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that the proposal made to him by the police was not effective and could not lead to a remedy. The author therefore has no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4. The Committee further considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claim that the procedure before the Canadian Human Rights Commission violated his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, and that he has failed to submit sufficient evidence in support of the claim under article 26 of the Covenant. 5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides that: (a) The communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) This decision shall be communicated to the author and, for information, to the State party. [Text adopted in English, French (original version) and Spanish; will also appear in Arabic, Chinese and Russian in the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] -----