ÿWPC3 ïuýÖdid}žßq¨WAnbý"{ ȶ,=¼±íóÈà¯&”Å°ª TE´ÎGR>Z²Š[¡ÎïÔ.t=ªyžX˜4úí&4þǪ<:˜ݼ™TþÜ*¼E•5X‡¸vJhă›éÞèpQð¼ÁtóÃœ_Ûkè²Â1‹Ý*Çþ­ïõIíÀ²lŔի6àxŠ¥jšÕú@¸œYŠ‹>{¨EEÕ×UÞ²ñ¿U\ÜLó„GU Í±ÌüZ¦¸4Ž¾¦Ø'Ó3­Ï£üYL:¼à­ÛÄîæ]Ñ‚˜R>ÈÊøßprI,pq,öŒîÅŽb†®;°¬gòå;ë)BC/FË×?º'[9eZÅ´©bug`1<*:8/»v#…aWOt¼ƒó/ ý®ÓïGõ»1Kõ¡äûÚ83Ñr—v ^ù)øŽÖßDñ¬ÜÖs¸–¿œ(tî?#ò:-Ö¦!SþZ•±ÍYËîîn@†Üûú4óœ£)‰+×I÷'Š_`dÏ…©]œÓaäŽýx~Cµ[¡˜ol'¼¥k”ä‘hMÞˆåšç˜<Ëøz+mNVÁþ&î6ÃÍ^=éʃIG´J;"ÁFg¨ª0è[ú=A"U>ÜÌ 0µæ 0<› 0Y× 0_0 0i 0PøÆH 0á 0(ï D+ AMB B B B B B B  0NŸ 0Æí #Á³ UNt %ÂMÈ(ÌNô^ öw4 mô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Ibrahima Gueye et al. v. France, Communication No. 196/1983 (3 April 1989), U.N. Doc. Supp41989), U.N. Doc. Supp"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2QP$££Ý ƒV\!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X3XXXÔÔ€X3XXX3ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(žV\$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X!eXXXÔÔ€X!eXXX!eÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularXf{ø* Äpì*c(„³CorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒV\!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X3XXXÔÔ€X3XXX3ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔGueyeÔ_Ô€et€al.€v.€FranceóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€196/1983€Ð H˜ ÐÌ3€April€1989Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Ô_ÔIbrahimaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGueyeÔ_Ô€òòet€al.óó€òòÐ xÈ  ÐÌAlleged€victims:óó€The€authors€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€France€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€Communicationóó:€12€October€1985€(date€of€initial€letter)€òòÐ Ü, ÐÌDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:óó€5€November€1987€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights:€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€3€April€1989,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€196/1985,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Ô_ÔIbrahimaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGueyeÔ_Ô€and€742€other€retired€Senegalese€members€of€the€FrenchÐ ¾ ÐArmy€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ ¤ô ÐRights,Ð Š Ú ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ V"¦! Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party,€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:€Ð %X $ ÐÓkÓÌÌòòÓ  Óò òViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€óó*ó óÐ º' #' ÐÓâÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€of€12€October€1985€and€subsequent€lettersÐ l*¼%* Ðof€22€December€1986,€6€June€1987€and€21€July€1988)€are€Ô_ÔIbrahimaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGueyeÔ_Ô€and€742€otherÐ R+¢&+ Ðretired€Senegalese€members€of€the€French€Army,€residing€in€Senegal.€They€are€representedÐ 8,ˆ', Ðby€counsel.€Ð -n(- Ї1.2€The€authors€claim€to€be€victims€of€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€FranceÐ ° Ðbecause€of€alleged€racial€discrimination€in€French€legislation,€which€provides€for€differentÐ –æ Ðtreatment€in€the€determination€of€pensions€of€retired€soldiers€of€Senegalese€nationality€whoÐ |Ì Ðserved€in€the€French€Army€prior€to€the€dependence€of€Senegal€in€1960€and€who€receiveÐ b² Ðpensions€that€are€inferior€to€those€enjoyed€by€retired€French€soldiers€of€French€nationality.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ1.3€It€is€stated€that,€pursuant€to€Law€No.€51„561€of€18€May€1951€and€Decree€No.€51„590€ofÐ  d Ð23€May€1951,€retired€members€of€the€French€Army,€whether€French€or€Senegalese,€wereÐ ú J Ðtreated€equally.€The€acquired€rights€of€Senegalese€retired€soldiers€were€respected€afterÐ à 0 Ðindependence€in€1960€until€the€Finance€Act€No.€74.1129€of€December€1974€provided€forÐ Æ   Ðdifferent€treatment€of€the€Senegalese.€Article€63€of€this€Law€stipulates€that€the€pensions€ofÐ ¬ ü  ÐSenegalese€soldiers€would€no€longer€be€subject€to€the€general€provisions€of€the€Code€ofÐ ’â  ÐMilitary€Pensions€of€1951.€Subsequent€French€legislation€froze€the€level€of€pensions€for€theÐ xÈ  ÐSenegalese€as€at€1€January€1975.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ1.4€The€authors€state€that€the€laws€in€question€have€been€challenged€before€theÐ *z  ÐAdministrative€Tribunal€of€Poitiers,€France,€which€rendered€a€decision€on€22€DecemberÐ ` Ð1980€in€Ô_ÔfavourÔ_Ô€of€Dia€Ô_ÔAbdourahmaneÔ_Ô,€a€retired€Senegalese€soldier,€ordering€the€case€to€beÐ öF Ðsent€to€the€French€Minister€of€Finance€for€purposes€of€full€indemnification€since€2€JanuaryÐ Ü, Ð1975.€The€authors€enclose€a€similar€decision€of€the€Ô_ÔConseilÔ_Ô€Ô_Ôd'EtatÔ_Ô€of€22€June€1982€in€the€caseÐ Â Ðof€another€Senegalese€soldier.€However,€these€decisions,€it€is€alleged,€were€not€implemented,Ð ¨ø Ðin€view€of€a€new€French€Finance€Law€No.€81.1179€of€31€December€1981,€applied€withÐ ŽÞ Ðretroactive€effect€to€1€January€1975,€which€is€said€to€frustrate€any€further€recourse€before€theÐ tÄ ÐFrench€judicial€or€administrative€tribunals.€Ð Zª ÐÌ1.5€As€to€the€merits€of€the€case,€the€authors€reject€the€arguments€of€the€French€authoritiesÐ &v Ðthat€allegedly€justify€the€different€treatment€of€retired€African€(not€only€Senegalese)€soldiersÐ  \ Ðon€the€grounds€of:€(a)€their€loss€of€French€nationality€upon€independence;€(b)€the€difficultiesÐ òB Ðfor€French€authorities€to€establish€the€identity€and€the€family€situation€of€retired€soldiers€inÐ Ø( ÐAfrican€countries;€and€(c)€the€differences€in€the€economic,€financial€and€social€conditionsÐ ¾ Ðprevailing€in€France€and€in€its€former€colonies.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌ1.6€The€authors€state€that€they€have€not€submitted€the€same€matter€to€any€other€procedureÐ p!À  Ðof€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ2.€By€its€decision€of€26€March€1986,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€transmitted€theÐ "$r# Ðcommunication€under€rule€91€of€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€the€StateÐ %X $ Ðparty€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibilityÐ î%>!% Ðof€the€communication.€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ3.1€In€its€initial€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€5€November€1986,€the€State€party€describesÐ  (ð#( Ðthe€factual€situation€in€detail€and€argues€that€the€communication€is€"inadmissable€as€beingÐ †)Ö$) Ðincompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€(art.€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol),Ð l*¼%* Ðadditionally,€unfounded",€because€it€basically€deals€with€rights€that€fall€outside€the€scope€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðthe€Covenant€(i.e.€pension€rights)€and,€at€any€rate,€because€the€contested€legislation€does€notÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcontain€any€discriminatory€provisions€within€the€meaning€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€Ð -n(- Ї3.2€In€a€further€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€8€April€1987,€the€State€party€invokes€theÐ ° Ðdeclaration€made€by€the€French€Government€upon€ratification€of€the€Optional€Protocol€onÐ –æ Ð17€February€1984€and€contends€that€the€communication€is€inadmissible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ôóó:€Ð |Ì ÐÌ"France€interprets€article€1€[of€the€Optional€Protocol]€as€giving€the€Committee€theÐ H˜ Ðcompetence€to€receive€communications€alleging€a€violation€of€a€right€set€forth€in€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant€'which€results€either€from€acts,€omissions,€developments€or€events€occurring€afterÐ  d Ðthe€date€on€which€the€Protocol€entered€into€force€for€the€Republic,€or€from€a€decisionÐ ú J Ðrelating€to€acts,€omissions,€developments€or€events€after€that€date'.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ"It€is€clear€from€this€interpretative€declaration€that€communications€directed€against€FranceÐ ¬ ü  Ðare€admissible€only€if€they€are€based€on€alleged€violations€which€derive€from€acts€or€eventsÐ ’â  Ðoccurring€after€17€May€1984,€the€date€on€which€the€Protocol€entered€into€force€with€respectÐ xÈ  Ðto€France€under€article€9,€paragraph€2,€of€the€said€Protocol.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ"However,€the€statement€of€the€facts€contained€both€in€the€communication€itself€and€in€theÐ *z  Ðinitial€observations€by€the€French€Government€indicates€that€the€violation€alleged€by€theÐ ` Ðauthors€of€the€communication€derives€from€Law€No.€79.1102€of€21€December€1979,€whichÐ öF Ðextended€to€the€nationals€of€four€States€formerly€belonging€to€the€French€Union,€includingÐ Ü, ÐSenegal,€the€regime€referred€to€as€'crystallization'€of€military€pensions€that€had€alreadyÐ Â Ðapplied€since€1€January€1961€to€the€nationals€of€the€other€States€concerned.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ"Since€this€act€occurred€before€ratification€by€France€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€it€cannotÐ tÄ Ðtherefore€provide€grounds€for€a€communication€based€on€its€alleged€incompatibility€with€theÐ Zª ÐCovenant€unless€such€communication€ignores€the€effect€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô€óówhich€FranceÐ @ Ðconferred€on€its€recognition€of€the€right€of€individual€communication."€Ð &v ÐÌ4.1€In€their€comments€of€22€December€1986,€the€authors€argue€that€the€communicationÐ òB Ðshould€not€be€declared€inadmissible€pursuant€to€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€asÐ Ø( Ðincompatible€with€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant,€since€a€bad€interpretation€of€article€26€ofÐ ¾ Ðthe€Covenant€would€permit€the€Committee€to€review€questions€of€pension€rights€if€there€isÐ ¤ô Ðdiscrimination,€as€claimed€in€this€case.Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.2€In€their€further€comments€of€6€June€1987,€the€authors€mention€that€although€relevantÐ V"¦! ÐFrench€legislation€pre„dates€the€entry€into€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€France,€theÐ <#Œ" Ðauthors€had€continued€negotiations€subsequent€to€May€1984€and€that€the€final€word€wasÐ "$r# Ðspoken€by€the€Minister€for€Economics,€Finance€and€Budget€in€a€letter€addressed€to€theÐ %X $ Ðauthors€on€12€November€1984.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ5.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ º' #' Ðcommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ  (ð#( Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ5.2€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€communication€was€inadmissibleÐ R+¢&+ Ðunder€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€as€incompatible€with€the€Covenant,€the€CommitteeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðrecalled€that€it€had€already€decided€with€respect€to€prior€communications€(Nos.€172/1984,Ð -n(- Ð180/1984€and€182/1984)€that€the€scope€of€article€26€the€Covenant€permitted€the€examinationÐ ° Ðof€allegations€of€discrimination€even€with€respect€to€pension€rights.€Ð –æ ÐÌ5.3€The€Committee€took€note€of€the€State€party's€argument€that,€as€the€alleged€violationsÐ b² Ðderived€from€a€law€enacted€in€1979,€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€onÐ H˜ Ðthe€grounds€that€the€interpretative€declaration€made€by€France€upon€signification€of€theÐ . ~ ÐOptional€Protocol€precluded€the€Committee€from€considering€alleged€violations€that€derivedÐ  d Ðfrom€acts€or€events€occurring€prior€to€17€May€1984,€date€on€which€the€Optional€ProtocolÐ ú J Ðentered€into€force€with€respect€to€France.€The€Committee€observed€in€this€connection€thatÐ à 0 Ðin€a€number€of€earlier€cases€(Nos.€6/1977€and€24/1977),€it€had€declared€that€it€could€notÐ Æ   Ðconsider€an€alleged€violation€of€human€rights€said€to€have€taken€place€prior€to€the€entry€intoÐ ¬ ü  Ðforce€of€Covenant€for€a€State€party,€unless€it€is€a€violation€that€continues€after€that€date€orÐ ’â  Ðhas€effects€which€òòthemselves€óóconstitute€a€violation€of€the€Covenant€after€that€date.€TheÐ xÈ  Ðinterpretative€declaration€of€France€further€purported€to€limit€the€Committee's€competenceÐ ^®  ÐòòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtemporisÔ_Ô€óóto€violations€of€a€right€set€forth€in€the€Covenant,€which€result€from€"acts,Ð D”  Ðomissions,€developments€or€events€occurring€after€the€date€on€which€the€Protocol€enteredÐ *z  Ðinto€force"€with€respect€to€France.€The€Committee€took€the€view€that€it€had€no€competenceÐ ` Ðto€examine€the€question€whether€the€authors€were€victims€of€discrimination€at€any€time€priorÐ öF Ðto€17€May€1984;€however,€it€remained€to€be€determined€whether€there€had€been€violationsÐ Ü, Ðof€the€Covenant€subsequent€to€the€said€date,€as€a€consequence€of€acts€or€omissions€relatedÐ Â Ðto€the€continued€application€of€laws€and€decisions€concerning€the€rights€of€the€applicants.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ6.€On€5€November€1987,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decided€that€theÐ tÄ Ðcommunication€was€admissible.€Ð Zª ÐÌ7.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€4€JuneÐ &v Ð1988,€the€State€party€recalls€its€submission€under€rule€91;€òòaóó€it€adds€that€Senegalese€nationalsÐ  \ Ðwho€acquired€French€nationality€and€kept€it€following€Senegal's€independence€are€entitledÐ òB Ðto€the€same€pension€scheme€as€all€other€French€former€members€of€the€armed€forces.Ð Ø( ÐArticles€97,€paragraph€2,€to€97,€paragraph€6,€of€the€Nationality€Code€offer€any€foreigner€whoÐ ¾ Ðat€one€point€in€time€possessed€French€nationality€the€possibility€of€recovering€it.€The€StateÐ ¤ô Ðparty€argues€that€this€possibility€is€not€merely€theoretical,€since,€in€the€past,€approximatelyÐ Š Ú Ð2,000€individuals€have€recovered€French€nationality€each€year.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ7.2€The€State€party€further€explains€that€a€Senegalese€former€member€of€the€armed€forcesÐ <#Œ" Ðwho€lost€his€French€nationality€following€Senegal's€independence€and€then€recovered€hisÐ "$r# ÐFrench€nationality€would€òòipso€facto€óórecover€the€rights€to€which€French€nationals€are€entitledÐ %X $ Ðunder€the€Pension€Code,€article€L€58€of€which€provides€that€"the€right€to€obtain€and€enjoyÐ î%>!% Ðthe€pension€and€life€disability€annuity€is€suspended:€(...)€by€circumstances€which€cause€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðperson€to€lose€the€status€of€French€national€for€as€long€as€that€loss€of€nationality€shall€last".Ð º' #' ÐThis€implies€that€once€nationality€is€recovered,€the€right€to€a€pension€is€re„established.€TheÐ  (ð#( ÐState€party€concludes€that€nationality€remains€the€sole€criterion€on€which€the€difference€inÐ †)Ö$) Ðtreatment€referred€to€by€the€authors€is€based.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ8.1€In€their€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission,€the€authors,€in€a€letter€dated€21€JulyÐ 8,ˆ', Ð1988,€submit€that€the€State€party€has€exceeded€the€deadline€for€submission€of€its€submissionÐ -n(- Ðunder€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€by€12€days,€and€that€for€this€reason€itÐ ° Ðshould€be€ruled€inadmissibleòò€bóó.€In€this€connection,€they€suspect€that€"(b)€by€stalling€andÐ –æ Ðmaking€full€use,€even€beyond€the€deadlines€set€under€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,Ð |Ì Ðof€procedural€tactics€so€as€to€delay€a€final€decision,€the€State€party€hopes€that€the€authors€willÐ b² Ðdie€off€one€by€one€and€that€the€amounts€it€will€have€to€pay€will€drop€considerably".Ð H˜ ÐAlternatively,€the€authors€argue€that€the€Committee€should€not€further€examine€the€StateÐ . ~ Ðparty's€observations€as€they€repeat€arguments€discussed€at€length€in€earlier€submissions€andÐ  d Ðthus€should€be€considered€to€be€of€a€dilatory€nature.€Ð ú J ÐÌ8.2€With€respect€to€the€merits€of€their€case,€the€authors€maintain€that€the€State€party'sÐ Æ   Ðargument€concerning€the€question€of€nationality€is€a€fallacious€one.€They€submit€that€theÐ ¬ ü  ÐState€party€is€only€using€the€nationality€argument€as€a€pretext,€so€as€to€deprive€theÐ ’â  ÐSenegalese€of€their€acquired€rights.€They€further€refer€to€article€71€of€the€1951€Code€ofÐ xÈ  ÐMilitary€Pensions,€which€stipulates:€Ð ^®  ÐÌ"Serving€or€former€military€personnel€of€foreign€nationality€possess€the€same€rights€asÐ *z  Ðserving€or€former€military€personnel€of€French€nationality,€except€in€the€case€where€theyÐ ` Ðhave€taken€part€in€a€hostile€act€against€France."€Ð öF ÐÌIn€their€view,€they€enjoy€"inalienable€and€irreducible€pension€rights"€under€this€legislation.Ð Â ÐSince€none€of€them€has€ever€been€accused€of€having€participated€in€a€hostile€act€againstÐ ¨ø ÐFrance,€they€submit€that€the€issue€of€nationality€must€be€completely€and€definitely"€ruledÐ ŽÞ Ðout.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ8.3€The€authors€argue€that€they€have€been€the€victims€of€racial€discrimination€based€on€theÐ @ Ðcolour€of€their€skin,€on€the€purported€grounds€that:€Ð &v ÐÌ(a)€In€Senegal,€registry€office€records€are€not€well€kept€and€fraud€is€rife;€Ð òB ÐÌ(b)€As€those€to€whom€pensions€are€owed,€i.e.€the€authors,€are€blacks€who€live€in€anÐ ¾ Ðunderdeveloped€country,€they€do€not€need€as€much€money€as€pensioners€who€live€in€aÐ ¤ô Ðdeveloped€country€such€as€France.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌThe€authors€express€consternation€at€the€fact€that€the€State€party€is€capable€of€arguing€that,Ð V"¦! Ðsince€the€creditor€is€not€rich€and€lives€in€a€poor€country,€the€debtor€may€reduce€his€debt€inÐ <#Œ" Ðproportion€to€the€degree€of€need€and€poverty€of€his€creditor,€an€argument€they€consider€toÐ "$r# Ðbe€contrary€not€only€to€fundamental€principles€of€law€but€also€to€moral€standards€and€toÐ %X $ Ðequity.€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ9.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€having€considered€the€present€communication€in€theÐ º' #' Ðsight€of€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,Ð  (ð#( Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€bases€its€views€on€the€following€facts,€which€appearÐ †)Ö$) Ðuncontested.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ9.2€The€authors€are€retired€soldiers€of€Senegalese€nationality€who€served€in€the€French€ArmyÐ 8,ˆ', Ðprior€to€the€independence€of€Senegal€in€1960.€Pursuant€to€the€Code€of€Military€Pensions€ofÐ -n(- Ð1951,€retired€members€of€the€French€Army,€whether€French€or€Senegalese,€were€treatedÐ ° Ðequally.€Pension€rights€of€Senegalese€soldiers€were€the€same€as€those€of€French€soldiers€untilÐ –æ Ða€new€law,€enacted€in€December€1974,€provided€for€different€treatment€of€the€Senegalese.Ð |Ì ÐLaw€No.€79/1102€of€December€1979€further€extended€to€the€nationals€of€four€States€formerlyÐ b² Ðbelonging€to€the€French€Union,€including€Senegal,€the€regime€referred€to€as€crystallization"Ð H˜ Ðof€military€pensions€that€had€already€applied€since€January€1961€to€the€nationals€of€otherÐ . ~ ÐStates€concerned.€Other€retired€Senegalese€soldiers€have€sought€to€challenge€the€laws€inÐ  d Ðquestion,€but€French€Finance€Law€No.€81.1179€of€31€December€1981,€applied€withÐ ú J Ðretroactive€effect€to€January€1975,€has€rendered€further€recourse€before€French€tribunalsÐ à 0 Ðfutile.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ9.3€The€main€question€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€authors€are€victims€ofÐ ’â  Ðdiscrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€or€whether€the€differencesÐ xÈ  Ðin€pension€treatment€of€former€members€of€the€French€Army,€based€on€whether€they€areÐ ^®  ÐFrench€nationals€or€not,€should€be€deemed€compatible€with€the€Covenant.€In€determiningÐ D”  Ðthis€question,€the€Committee€has€taken€into€account€the€following€considerations.€Ð *z  ÐÌ9.4€The€Committee€has€noted€the€authors'€claim€that€they€have€been€discriminated€againstÐ öF Ðon€racial€grounds,€that€is,€one€of€the€grounds€specifically€enumerated€in€article€26.€It€findsÐ Ü, Ðthat€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€the€allegation€that€the€state€party€has€engaged€in€raciallyÐ Â Ðdiscriminatory€practices€òòvis„a„vis€óóthe€authors.€It€remains,€however,€to€be€determined€whetherÐ ¨ø Ðthe€situation€encountered€by€the€authors€falls€within€the€purview€of€article€26.€TheÐ ŽÞ ÐCommittee€recalls€that€the€authors€are€not€generally€subject€to€French€jurisdiction,€exceptÐ tÄ Ðthat€they€rely€on€French€legislation€in€relation€to€the€amount€of€their€pension€rights.€It€notesÐ Zª Ðthat€nationality€as€such€does€not€figure€among€the€prohibited€grounds€of€discrimination€listedÐ @ Ðin€article€26,€and€that€the€Covenant€does€not€protect€the€right€to€a€pension,€as€such.€UnderÐ &v Ðarticle€26,€discrimination€in€the€equal€protection€of€the€law€is€prohibited€on€any€grounds€suchÐ  \ Ðas€race,€colour,€sex,€language,€religion,€political€or€other€opinion,€national€or€social€origin,Ð òB Ðproperty,€birth€or€other€status.€There€has€been€a€differentiation€by€reference€to€nationalityÐ Ø( Ðacquired€upon€independence.€In€the€Committee's€opinion,€this€falls€within€the€reference€toÐ ¾ Ð"other€status"€in€the€second€sentence€of€article€26.€The€Committee€takes€into€account,€as€itÐ ¤ô Ðdid€in€communication€No.€182/1984,€that€"the€right€to€equality€before€the€law€and€to€equalÐ Š Ú Ðprotection€of€the€law€without€any€discrimination€does€not€make€all€differences€of€treatmentÐ p!À  Ðdiscriminatory.€A€differentiation€based€on€reasonable€and€objective€criteria€does€not€amountÐ V"¦! Ðto€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26"€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ9.5€In€determining€whether€the€treatment€of€the€authors€is€based€on€reasonable€and€objectiveÐ %X $ Ðcriteria,€the€Committee€notes€that€it€was€not€the€question€of€nationality€which€determined€theÐ î%>!% Ðgranting€of€pensions€to€the€authors€but€the€services€rendered€by€them€in€the€past.€They€hadÐ Ô&$"& Ðserved€in€the€French€Armed€Forces€under€the€same€conditions€as€French€citizens;€for€14Ð º' #' Ðyears€subsequent€to€the€independence€of€Senegal€they€were€treated€in€the€same€way€as€theirÐ  (ð#( ÐFrench€counterparts€for€the€purpose€of€pension€rights,€although€their€nationality€was€notÐ †)Ö$) ÐFrench€but€Senegalese.€A€subsequent€change€in€nationality€cannot€by€itself€be€consideredÐ l*¼%* Ðas€a€sufficient€justification€for€different€treatment,€since€the€basis€for€the€grant€of€the€pensionÐ R+¢&+ Ðwas€the€same€service€which€both€they€and€the€soldiers€who€remained€French€had€provided.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐNor€can€differences€in€the€economic,€financial€and€social€conditions€as€between€France€andÐ -n(- ÐSenegal€be€invoked€as€a€legitimate€justification.€If€one€compared€the€case€of€retired€soldiersÐ ° Ðof€Senegalese€nationality€living€in€Senegal€with€that€of€retired€soldiers€of€French€nationalityÐ –æ Ðin€Senegal,€it€would€appear€that€they€enjoy€the€same€economic€and€social€conditions.€Yet,Ð |Ì Ðtheir€treatment€for€the€purpose€of€pension€entitlements€would€differ.€Finally,€the€fact€that€theÐ b² ÐState€party€claims€that€it€can€no€longer€carry€out€checks€of€identity€and€family€situation,€soÐ H˜ Ðas€to€prevent€abuses€in€the€administration€of€pension€schemes€cannot€justify€a€difference€inÐ . ~ Ðtreatment.€In€the€Committee's€opinion,€mere€administrative€inconvenience€or€the€possibilityÐ  d Ðof€some€abuse€of€pension€rights€cannot€be€invoked€to€justify€unequal€treatment.€TheÐ ú J ÐCommittee€concludes€that€the€difference€in€treatment€of€the€authors€is€not€based€onÐ à 0 Ðreasonable€and€objective€criteria€and€constitutes€discrimination€prohibited€by€the€Covenant.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ10.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ ’â  ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ xÈ  Ðevents€in€this€case,€in€so€far€as€they€produced€effects€after€17€May€1984€(the€date€of€entryÐ ^®  Ðinto€force€of€the€Optional€Protocol€for€France),€disclose€a€violation€of€article€26€of€theÐ D”  ÐCovenant.€Ð *z  ÐÌ11.€The€Committee,€accordingly,€is€of€the€view€that€the€State€party€is€under€an€obligation,Ð öF Ðin€accordance€with€the€provisions€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€to€take€effective€measures€toÐ Ü, Ðremedy€the€violations€suffered€by€the€victims.€Ð  ÐÌÌòòNotesóó€Ð tÄ ÐÌ*€Pursuant€to€rule€84,€paragraph€1€(b),€of€the€Committee's€provisional€articles€of€procedure,Ð @ ÐMs.€Christine€Ô_ÔChanetÔ_Ô€did€not€participate€in€the€adoption€of€the€Views€of€the€Committee.€Mr.Ð &v ÐÔ_ÔBirameÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔNdiayeÔ_Ô€did€not€participate€in€the€adoption€of€e€views€pursuant€to€rule€85.€Ð  \ ÐÌa/€Submission€dated€5€November€1986,€paragraph€3.1€above.€Ð Ø( ÐÌb/€The€deadline€for€the€State€party's€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€expired€on€4Ð ¤ô ÐJune€1988.€Although€the€submission€is€dated€4€June€1988,€was€transmitted€under€cover€ofÐ Š Ú Ða€note€dated€16€June€1988.€Ð p!À  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ\Ó