instead of three months' as required by law. The NPA only rectified that when he threatened legal action. 5.6 The author does not share the State party's view that the incidents he referred to at the hearing held on 26 September 1994 do not constitute discrimination. (3) Those incidents should have been investigated by the SAS Committee, as had been recommended by the Boekraad Committee. The author still does not share the State party's opinion that the Boekraad recommendations did not apply to him and draws the Committee's attention to the fact that the Amsterdam District Court fully agreed with him. Furthermore, the State party seems to imply that, because the author has a good command of the Dutch language, he could not have been subjected to discrimination. He notes that, despite this ability, he still has a dark skin colour. 5.7 The author strongly objects to the State party's argument that the reason for the dismissal was his poor results and asserts that his poor results were the direct consequence of the psychological situation in which he found himself for having been subjected to discrimination. The State party cannot deny the fact that the number of students belonging to ethnic minorities who left the police force was higher than the number of those who joined it and that this was due to institutional discrimination. 5.8 Finally, the author notes that in its observations the State party does not deny that he actually experienced the incidents referred to in paragraph 2.1 above. However, he disagrees with the State party's conclusion that those incidents had been taken into consideration when the decision to dismiss him was adopted. Since the incidents in question were the origin of his poor results, his case should have been carefully investigated and the recommendations of the Boekraad Committee implemented. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination must decide, pursuant to article 14, paragraph 7 (a) of the Convention and rules 86 and 91 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the communication is admissible. The Committee notes that the State party does not raise objections to the admissibility of the communication and that it has formulated detailed observations in respect of the substance of the matter. The Committee considers that all requirements set out in the abovementioned provisions have been met. It therefore decides that the communication is admissible. 6.2 With respect to the merits of the communication, the Committee considers that some of the allegations submitted by the author and summarized in paragraph 2.1 above have racial connotations of a serious nature. However, they did not constitute the subject of the claims brought before the Amsterdam District Court and the