Complaint 3. It is submitted that the facts described above constitute violations by France of articles 2, paragraphs 1-3, 19/ paragraphs 1 and 2, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. State party's observations 4.1 The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible on a number of grounds. As to the requirement of exhaustion of dometic remedies, it notes that the author failed to appeal the judgement of 4 July 1988 of the Court of Appeal of Eennes to th.% Court of Cassation. 4.2 As to the alleged violation of article 2 of the Covenant, the State party argues that this provision cannot be violated directly and in isolation, A violation of article 2 can be admitted only to the extent that other rights protected under the Covenant have been violated (para. 1) or if necessary steps to give effects to rights protected under the Covenant have not been taken. A violation of article 2 can only be the corollary of another violation of a Covenant right. The State party contends that the author has not based his argumentation on precise facts and that he cannot demonstrate that he has been a victim of discrimination in his relations with the judicial authorities. 4.3 The State party rejects the author's allegation of a violation of his rights under article 19, paragraph 2, as an abuse of the right of submission. Apart from having failed properly to substantiate his allegation, the State party notes that the author was not prevented, at any stage of the proceedings against him, from freely expressing his views. Defacing road signs cannot, under any circumstances, be construed as a manifestation of the freedom of expression, within the meaning of article 19, paragraph 2. 4.4 Concerning the alleged violation of article 25, the State party notes that a disciplinary sanction of a six months' suspension of the author from his functions was never envisaged against him, The State party further notes that article 25 (c) only protects access to public service; it cannot be interpreted as encompassing a right of security of tenure in public office. In this respect, therefore, the communication is deemed inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, 4.5 As to the claim of a violation of article 26, the State party notes that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, how he was discriminated against on the ground of his language. Furthermore, he chose to express himself in French throughout the proceedings. 4.6 Finally, the State party recalls that, upon ratification of the Covenant, the French Government entered the following declaration in respect of article 27: "In the light of article 2 of the Constitution of the French Republic, the French Government declares that article 27 is not applicable so far as the Republic is concerned." -347-