’WPC• ą’¼²š˜_\×¢Yl"ŽebPJ“|›2`][^j»ė÷geÆEĮLwاDo•yW6J”ź|jkc·£Śsó ˆ9!]HM^Učt žgīfe\B8HH¦cĪū·K—/Eéт-ėh{Źd lót‹Ķ.•RāŽ”®‰įŪš¹|@F±aī`q“šžŠS ¬².F ķqzwb;—ćµ—ĄßqƒtĢ„ļļīģqU²wän=}RČWæÆ7Ģ žv ģ2qĘŽ4ó:pQ03ÅķgģJŸ‡ńm)}W“M¢éHočŌß÷ʱ#|PŽT{@–%ļ6¤cłÆN™• ćŠƒŚŻļ±>Ń"‡&5pX #Ė÷2cß(ÉōIvL{ ¢åŪW)×Uē½Čd;Ā{Ē˜\²”m:Ū- eOšAą@l…SBx’ŃĮ‘¢v}Ö~Üub£ŃÓwXʹūNbŠ:ā„5*|˜Ģß§ žØ¬)«;˜ėC”µ§„“j‰,SŸ™JźĢ( 0µō 0<© 0Yå 0_> 0i 0P 0TV ĘŖ 0įp 0(Q D+y AM¤ %ń ń ń ń ń ń ÷ 0N 0ĘU #Į UNÜÜM*(.NV^ Xwd4h| m~ō\  `‹&Times New Roman' Hendrika S. Vos v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 218/1986 (29 March 1989), U.N. Doc. 4rch 1989), U.N. Doc. "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ’’4Heading 3Ō S ŌÓ p^SÓŌ€£££Ōņ ņŌ  ŌŌ  ŌŌ€XXXŌó óÓ p^SÓ<’’:Default Para6’’4HyperlinkóóņņŌ ’ ŌóóŌ  Ō<’’:FollowedHypeóóņņŌ  ŌóóŌ  Ō< ’’:Normal (Web)Ō S ŌÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0’’.Strongņ ņŌ  Ōó óŌ  Ō4’’2EmphasisņņŌ  ŌóóŌ  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2ęX$££Ż ƒöŻ!ŻŅܰŅŅܰŅŌ..ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌÓ  ÓŌ€X|5XXXŌŌ€X|5XXX|5ŌŌŌŻ  Ż(’’$’’'dxd A<< c’’X#|x(ĶO$——Ō’ŌņņóóŌ’Ō(žöŻ$””ŅܰŅŅܰŅŌ..ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌÓ  ÓŌ€XdmXXXŌŌ€XdmXXXdmŌŌԘHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ČhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular³šł* Äpģ*c(„³Corel ’U‹’ĄĄĄŻ ƒöŻ!ŻŅܰŅŅܰŅŌ..ŌŌ  ŌŌ  ŌÓ  ÓŌ€X|5XXXŌŌ€X|5XXX|5ŌŌŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEŠ ° ŠĢņņŌ_ŌVosŌ_Ō€Ō_Ōv.Ō_Ō€The€NetherlandsóóŠ |Ģ ŠĢCommunication€No.€218/1986Š H˜ ŠĢ29€March€1989Š  d ŠĢĢVIEWSó óŠ Ę   ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€by:óó€Ō_ŌHendrikaŌ_Ō€S.€Ō_ŌVosŌ_Ō€(represented€by€M.€E.€Ō_ŌDiepstratenŌ_Ō)Š xČ  ŠĢņņAlleged€victim:óó€The€authorŠ D”  ŠĢņņState€party€concerned:óó€The€NetherlandsŠ ` ŠĢņņDate€of€Ō_ŌCommunication:óó23Ō_Ō€December€1986€(date€of€initial€letter)€Š Ü, ŠĢņņDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:óó€24€March€1988óóŠ Øų ŠĢĢņņÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantŠ ZŖ Šon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Š @ ŠĢņņMeeting€óóon€29€March€1989,Š  \ ŠĢņņHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€218/1986,€submitted€to€theŠ Ų( ŠCommittee€by€Ō_ŌHendrikaŌ_Ō€S.€Ō_ŌVosŌ_Ō€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantŠ ¾ Šon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Š ¤ō ŠĢņņHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theŠ p!Ą  Šcommunication€and€by€the€State€party,Š V"¦! ŠĢņņAdopts€óóthe€following:Š "$r# ŠĢĢņņņ ņÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóó*ó óŠ Ō&$"& ŠÓūÓĢĢ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€23€December€1986€and€subsequentŠ †)Ö$) Šletters€dated€5€and€26€March€1987€and€3€January€1989)€is€Ō_ŌHendrikaŌ_Ō€S.€Ō_ŌVosŌ_Ō,€a€citizen€of€theŠ l*¼%* ŠNetherlands,€residing€in€that€country.€She€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€26Š R+¢&+ Šof€the€International€Covenant€c€Civil€and€Political€Rights€by€the€Government€of€theŠ 8,ˆ', ŠNetherlands.€She€is€represented€by€counsel.Š -n(- Ї2.1€The€author€states€that€since€1€October€1976€she€had€received€an€allowance€fro€the€NewŠ ° ŠGeneral€Trade€Association€under€the€General€Disablement€Benefits€Act€(Ō_ŌAAWŌ_Ō)€but€that€inŠ –ę ŠMa~€1979,€following€the€death€of€her€ex„husband€(from€whom€she€had€bee€divorced€inŠ |Ģ Š1957),€payment€of€the€disability€allowance€was€discontinued,€in€accordance€with€article€32,Š b² Šsubsection€1€(b),€of€Ō_ŌAAWŌ_Ō,€because€she€then€became€entitled€to€a€payment€under€the€GeneralŠ H˜ ŠWidows€and€Orphans€Act€(Ō_ŌAWWŌ_Ō).€Under€the€latter,€she€receives€some€90€guilders€perŠ . ~ Šmonth€less€than€she€had€been€receiving€under€Ō_ŌAAWŌ_Ō.Š  d ŠĢ2.2€The€author€states€that€she€first€challenged€the€decision€of€the€New€General€TradeŠ ą 0 ŠAssociation€before€the€Arnhem€Appeals€Court,€but€her€claim€of€being€a€victim€ofŠ Ę   Šdiscrimination€was€rejected€on€10€March€1980.€Thereupon,€she€lodged€an€objection€with€theŠ ¬ ü  Šsame€Appeals€Court,€which€rejected€it€as€unfounded€by€decision€of€23€June€1981.€A€furtherŠ ’ā  Šappeal€was€taken€to€the€Central€Appeals€Court€in€which€the€author€invoked€the€directŠ xČ  Šapplication€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€The€court€decided€against€her€claim€on€1Š ^®  ŠNovember€1983.€Thus€domestic€remedies€are€said€to€be€exhausted.Š D”  ŠĢ2.3€The€author€had€argued€before€the€Netherlands€Courts€that,€whereas€a€disabled€manŠ ` Šwhose€(former)€wife€dies€retains€the€right€to€a€disability€allowance,€article€32€of€Ō_ŌAAWŌ_ŌŠ öF Šmakes€an€improper€distinction€according€to€sex,€in€that€a€disabled€woman€whose€(former)Š Ü, Šhusband€dies€does€not€retain€the€right€to€a€disability€allowance.€Subsection€1€(b)€of€thisŠ Ā Šarticle€provides:Š Øų ŠĢ"1.€The€employment€disability€benefit€will€be€withdrawn€when:Š tÄ ŠĢ"...Š @ ŠĢ"(b)€a€woman,€to€whom€this€benefit€has€been€granted,€becomes€entitled€to€a€widow's€pensionŠ  \ Šor€a€temporary€widow's€benefit€in€compliance€with€the€General€Widows€and€Orphans€Law."Š ņB ŠĢIn€her€specific€case€she€claimed€that€the€application€of€the€law€was€particularly€unjustŠ ¾ Šbecause€she€had€been€divorced€from€her€husband€for€22€years€and€had€been€providing€forŠ ¤ō Šher€own€support€when€she€became€disabled.€Thus€she€claims€that€she€should€be€treatedŠ Š Ś Šprimarily€as€a€disabled€person€and€not€as€a€widow.Š p!Ą  ŠĢ2.4€In€rejecting€the€author's€claim€that€she€is€a€victim€of€discrimination€under€'article€26€ofŠ <#Œ" Šthe€Covenant,€the€Central€Appeals€Court,€in€its€decision€of€1€November€1983,€stated:Š "$r# ŠĢ"From€the€wording€of€these€two€articles€(articles€26€and€2€(1)€of€the€Covenant),€takenŠ ī%>!% Šconjointly,€it€is€apparent€that€article€26€is€not€solely€applicable€to€the€civil€and€political€rightsŠ Ō&$"& Šthat€are€recognized€by€the€Covenant.€In€answer€to€the€question€whether€this€article€is€also€ofŠ ŗ' #' Šsignificance€in€connection€with€a€social€security€right,€as€in€dispute€here,€the€Court€expressesŠ  (š#( Šthe€following€consideration:Š †)Ö$) ŠĢ"In€addition€to€the€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€the€International€Covenant€onŠ R+¢&+ ŠEconomic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights€was€concluded€at€the€same€time€and€place.€The€CourtŠ 8,ˆ', Šis€of€the€opinion€that€the€text€and€the€import€of€the€two€Covenants€under€consideration€here,Š -n(- ŠŌ_Ōand€the€intentions€of€the€States€involved€therein,€must€be€taken€conjointly,€because€from€theŠ ° Šhistory€of€the€conclusion€of€these€Covenants€it€is€apparent€that€the€initial€plan€to€concludeŠ –ę Ša€single€covenant€was€abandoned€on€the€grounds€that€economic,€social€and€cultural€rights€„Š |Ģ Šin€contrast€to€civil€and€political€rights€„€can€generally€speaking€only€gradually€be€realized€byŠ b² Šmeans€of€legislation€and€other€executive€measures.€That€the€States€involved€in€thoseŠ H˜ ŠCovenants€proceed€from€this€distinction€is€also€apparent€from€the€fact€that€the€Covenant€onŠ . ~ ŠEconomic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights€merely€provides€for€a€so„called€reporting€system€withŠ  d Šrespect€to€the€fulfilment€of€the€rights€recognized€therein€whereas€the€Covenant€on€Civil€andŠ ś J ŠPolitical€Rights€also€includes€an€inter„State€complaints€system€(regulated€in€article€41€ņņet€seq.Š ą 0 Šóóof€the€Covenant)€and€an€individual€complaints€system€(regulated€in€the€Optional€ProtocolŠ Ę   Što€the€Covenant).€Distinguishing€criteria€connected€with€existing€social€structures€whichŠ ¬ ü  Šappear€also€in€social€security€regulations€and€which€are€possibly€to€be€regarded€asŠ ’ā  Šdiscriminatory,€such€as€man/woman€and€married/single,€can€only€gradually€be€done€awayŠ xČ  Šwith€by€means€of€legislation€...€On€the€basis€of€the€foregoing,€the€significance€of€article€26Š ^®  Šof€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€in€connection€with€a€socialŠ D”  Šsecurity€right€as€in€dispute€here€must€be€denied."Š *z  ŠĢ2.5€The€author€claims€that€the€Central€Appeals€Court€incorrectly€interpreted€the€scope€ofŠ öF Šarticle€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€and€asks€the€CommitteeŠ Ü, Što€find€that€the€cessation€of€the€payment€to€her€of€an€AAW€allowance€was€a€form€ofŠ Ā Šdiscrimination€based€on€sex€and€marital€status€in€contravention€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant.Š Øų ŠĢ3.€By€its€decision€of€18€March€1987,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeŠ tÄ Štransmitted€the€communication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€theŠ ZŖ ŠState€party€concerned,„requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€ofŠ @ Šthe€admissibility€of€the€communication.Š &v ŠĢ4.€In€its€submission€dated€25€June€1987,€the€State€party€reserved€the€right€to€submitŠ ņB Šobservations€on€the€merits€of€the€communication€which€might€turn€out€to€have€an€effect€onŠ Ų( Šthe€question€of€admissibility.€For€this€reason€the€State€party€suggested€that€the€CommitteeŠ ¾ Šmight€decide€to€join€the€question€of€the€admissibility€to€the€examination€of€the€merits€of€theŠ ¤ō Šcommunication.Š Š Ś ŠĢ5.€The€author's€deadline€for€comments€on€the€State€party's€submission€expired€on€4Š V"¦! ŠSeptember€1987.€No€comments€were€received€from€the€author.Š <#Œ" ŠĢ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€in€a€communication,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€must,Š %X $ Šin€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€isŠ ī%>!% Šadmissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Š Ō&$"& ŠĢ6.2€Article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€precludes€the€Committee€fromŠ  (š#( Šconsidering€a€communication€if€the€same€matter€is€being€examined€under€another€procedureŠ †)Ö$) Šof€international€investigation€or€settlement.€In€this€connection€the€Committee€ascertainedŠ l*¼%* Šthat€the€same€matter€was€not€being€examined€under€another€procedure€of€internationalŠ R+¢&+ Šinvestigation€or€settlement.Š 8,ˆ', ŠŠ -n(- Š6.3€Article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€precludes€the€Committee€fromŠ ° Šconsidering€a€communication€unless€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted.€In€thisŠ –ę Šconnection€the€Committee€noted€that€the€author's€statement€that€domestic€remedies€had€beenŠ |Ģ Šexhausted€remained€uncontested.Š b² ŠĢ7.€On€24€March€1988,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decided€that€theŠ . ~ Šcommunication€was€admissible.€In€accordance€with€article€4€(2)€of€the€Optional€Protocol,Š  d Šthe€State€party€was€requested€to€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€six€months€of€the€date€ofŠ ś J Štransmittal€to€it€of€the€decision€on€admissibility,€written€explanations€or€statements€clarifyingŠ ą 0 Šthe€matter€and€the€measures,€if€any,€that€me€have€been€taken€by€it.Š Ę   ŠĢ8.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€28€OctoberŠ ’ā  Š1988,€the€State€party,€before€discussing€the€merits€of€the€case,€points€out€that€it€has€takenŠ xČ  Šnote€of€the€views€of€the€Committee€in€communications€CCPR/C/29/D/172/1984,Š ^®  ŠŻ‚ ’’’ŻņņŌŌŻ  ŻCCPR/C/29/D/180/1984€Ż‚ ’’’I-ŠŻóóŌŌŻ  Żand€CCPR/C/29/D/182/1984€with€respect€to€the€applicability€ofŠ D”  Šarticle€26€of€the€Covenant€in€the€field€of€social€security€rights€and€that€it€reserves€its€position,Š *z  Šnotwithstanding€the€fact€that€this€aspect€is€not€addressed€in€its€submission.Š ` ŠĢ8.2€In€discussing€the€merits€of€the€case,€the€State€party€elucidates€first€the€relevantŠ Ü, ŠNetherlands€legislation€as€follows:Š Ā ŠĢ8.3€"Netherlands€social€security€legislation€consists€of€employee€insurance€schemes€andŠ ŽŽ Šnational€insurance€schemes;€as€employee€insurance€schemes€are€not€of€relevance€to€theŠ tÄ Špresent€case,€they€will€be€disregarded.€The€aim€of€national€insurance€schemes€is€to€insureŠ ZŖ Šall€residents€of€the€Netherlands€against€the€financial€Ż‚ ’’’ŻņņŌŌŻ  Żconsequences€Ż‚ ’’’1ŠŻóóŌŌŻ  Żof€certain€contingencies.Š @ ŠThe€national€insurance€schemes€concerning€survivors,€old€age€and€long„term€disabilityŠ &v Šguarantee€payment€of€a€benefit€related€to€the€statutory€minimum€wage.€The€entitlementsŠ  \ Šconcerned€are€gross€benefits.€They€are€set€at€such€a€level€that,€after€tax€and€social€insuranceŠ ņB Špremiums€have€been€deducted€from€them,€net€benefits€are€sufficient€to€enable€the€beneficiaryŠ Ų( Što€subsist."Š ¾ ŠĢ8.4€"The€AAW€of€11€December€1975€created€a€national€insurance€scheme€concerning€long„Š Š Ś Šterm€disability;€under€the€terms€of€the€Act,€anybody€who€has€been€disabled€for€longer€thanŠ p!Ą  Šone€year€is€entitled€to€a€basic€benefit.€If€the€beneficiary€was€employed€full„time€beforeŠ V"¦! Šbecoming€unfit€for€work,€full€benefit€is€paid€(equivalent€to€the€subsistence€minimum).€If€theŠ <#Œ" Šbeneficiary€is€only€partially€disabled,€the€benefit€is€reduced€proportionately;€the€amount€ofŠ "$r# Šbenefit€payable€is€also€based€on€the€number€of€hours€per€week€worked€before€the€beneficiaryŠ %X $ Šbecame€disabled.€If€the€amount€of€AAW€benefit€payable€is€less€than€the€subsistenceŠ ī%>!% Šminimum,€as€will€often€be€the€case€if€the€claimant€is€only€partially€disabled€or€was€workingŠ Ō&$"& Špart„time€before€becoming€disabled,€supplementary€benefit€can€be€paid€under€the€NationalŠ ŗ' #' ŠAssistance€Act€(ABW)€or€Supplements€Act€(TW)."Š  (š#( ŠĢ8.5€"The€AWW€of€9€April€1956€created€a€national€insurance€scheme€which€entitles€widowsŠ l*¼%* Šand€orphans€to€receive€benefit€related€to€the€statutory€minimum€wage€if€their€husband€orŠ R+¢&+ Šfather€dies.€The€rationale€underlying€the€Act€is€that€after€a€married€man€dies€his€widow€mayŠ 8,ˆ', Šwell€have€insufficient€means€of€subsistence.€At€the€time€when€the€Act€was€passed,€it€was€feltŠ -n(- Šthat,€if€there€were€good€reasons€why€the€widow€should€not€be€expected€to€earn€her€ownŠ ° Šliving€(for€example,€because€she€still€had€children€to€look€after€or€because€she€was€too€old),Š –ę Šit€was€desirable€to€pay€her€benefit.€In€some€cases,€women€are€eligible€for€the€AWW€benefitŠ |Ģ Ševen€if€they€have€been€divorced€from€the€deceased."Š b² ŠĢ8.6€"At€the€time€when€the€General€Widows€and€Orphans€Act€was€passed,€it€was€customaryŠ . ~ Šfor€husbands€to€act€as€bread„winners€for€their€families,€and€it€was€therefore€desirable€to€makeŠ  d Šfinancial€provision€for€dependants€in€the€event€of€the€bread„winner's€premature€death.€InŠ ś J Šrecent€years€more€married€women€have€been€going€out€to€work€and€households€consistingŠ ą 0 Šof€unmarried€people€have€increasingly€been€granted€the€same€status€as€traditional€families.Š Ę   ŠThis€being€so,€the€Government€has€been€studying€since€the€early€1980s€ways€of€amendingŠ ¬ ü  Šthe€AWW;€one€of€the€questions€being€examined€is€whether€the€privileged€position€enjoyedŠ ’ā  Šby€women€under€the€Act€is€still€justified€nowadays."Š xČ  ŠĢ8.7€"It€is€too€early€to€say€what€provisions€the€future€Surviving€Dependants€Act€will€contain.Š D”  ŠAs€the€Netherlands€is€a€member€of€the€European€Community,€it€will€in€all€events€complyŠ *z  Šwith€the€obligations€arising€from€a€European€Community€directive€which€is€currently€inŠ ` Špreparation€concerning€sexual€equality€with€regard€to€provision€for€survivors;€it€is€expectedŠ öF Što€be€many€years€before€the€directive€enters€into€force.€However,€it€is€possible€that€theŠ Ü, ŠNetherlands€Government€may€make€proposals€for€new€legislation€on€survivors€before€theŠ Ā ŠEuropean€Community€directive€is€finalized."Š Øų ŠĢ8.8€"In€a€social€security€system,€it€is€necessary€to€ensure€that€individuals€do€not€qualify€forŠ tÄ Šmore€than€one€benefit€simultaneously€under€different€social€insurance€acts,€when€each€suchŠ ZŖ Šbenefit€is€intended€to€provide€a€full€income€at€subsistence€level.€The€various€relevant€actsŠ @ Štherefore€contain€provisions€governing€entitlements€for€the€eventuality€of€overlappingŠ &v Šentitlements.€The€clar€of€which€Mrs.€Vos€complains€„€article€32,€subsection€1€(b),€of€theŠ  \ ŠAAW€„€falls€ir€this€category.€The€legislature€had€to€decide€whether€claimants€who€wereŠ ņB Šentitle(€to€benefits€under€both€the€AAW€and€the€AWW€should€receive€benefits€under€the€oneŠ Ų( Šthe€other,€and€it€was€decided€that€in€such€cases€the€AWW€benefit€should€be€paid.€TheŠ ¾ Šdecision€to€opt€for€a€rule€on€concurrence€as€laid€down€in€article€32,€subsection€1€(b),€of€theŠ ¤ō ŠAAW€is€based,€ņņinter€alia,€óóon€practical€considerations€with€a€view€to€the€implementation€ofŠ Š Ś Šthe€legislation.€It€is€necessary,€for€example,€to€avoid€the€necessity€of€entering€the€personŠ p!Ą  Šconcerned€in€the€records€of€two€different€bodies€responsible€for€paying€benefits€and€to€avoidŠ V"¦! Šhaving€to€levy€income€tax€in€arrears€on€income€from€two€separate€sources."Š <#Œ" ŠĢ8.9€"From€the€point€of€view€of€widows,€it€is,€generally€speaking,€more€advantageous€toŠ %X $ Šreceive€AWW€than€AAW;€if€the€legislature€had€decided€that€the€AAP€benefit€should€haveŠ ī%>!% Šprecedence€over€the€AWW€benefit,€many€widows€would€have€been€worse€off,€because€inŠ Ō&$"& Šmost€cases€the€AWW€benefit€exceeds€the€AAW€benefit€payable€married€women.€This€isŠ ŗ' #' Šbecause€most€married€women€have€worked€part„time€and€therefore€receive€only€a€partialŠ  (š#( ŠAAW€benefit€in€the€event€of€long„term€disability€This€is€not€to€say€that€the€rule€onŠ †)Ö$) Šconcurrence€which€gives€precedence€to€the€AWW€is€always€advantageous€to€all€widows:€itŠ l*¼%* Šmerely€benefits€the€majority€of€them.€Cases€are€conceivable€in€which€the€award€of€the€AWWŠ R+¢&+ Šbenefit€instead€of€the€AAW€benefit€leads€to€a€slight€fall€in€income.€This€is€evidently€so€inŠ 8,ˆ', Šthe€case€of€Mrs.€Vos."Š -n(- Ї8.10€"However,€the€fact€that,€in€a€particular€case,€the€application€of€article€3€subsection€1€(b),Š ° Šof€AAW€leads€to€a€disadvantageous€result€for€a€particular€individual€is€irrelevant€forŠ –ę Špurposes€of€assessing€whether€a€form€of€discriminate€has€occurred€which€is€prohibited€byŠ |Ģ Šarticle€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€In€this€connection,Š b² Šreference€may€be€made€to€the€Committee's€decision€in€case€No.€212/1986€ņņ(P.P.C.v.€TheŠ H˜ ŠNetherlands),€óóin€which€was€found,€ņņinter€alia,€óóthat€the€scope€of€article€26€does€not€extend€toŠ . ~ Šdifference€of€results€in€the€application€of€common€rules€in€the€allocation€of€benefits."€a/Š  d ŠĢ8.11€Lastly,€the€Netherlands€Government€observes€that€in€the€course€of€the€review€of€theŠ ą 0 ŠAWW€(paras.€8.6€and€8.7),€explicit€consideration€was€given€to€the€problem€overlappingŠ Ę   Šentitlements€under€AAW€and€AWW.Š ¬ ü  ŠĢ9.1€With€regard€to€the€author's€specific€complaint€in€relation€to€article€26€of€the€Covenant,Š xČ  Šthe€State€party€contests€the€contention€of€Mrs.€Vos€"that€article€subsection€1€(b),€of€AAWŠ ^®  Šdiscriminates€unjustifiably€between€the€sexes,€because€disabled€man€whose€wife€(divorcedŠ D”  Šor€otherwise)€dies€retains€his€right€to€disablement€benefit€whereas€a€disabled€woman€whoseŠ *z  Šhusband€(divorced€or€otherwise€dies€forfeits€hers.€The€difference€in€position€between€aŠ ` Šdisabled€widow€and€a€disabled€widower€can€be€explained€as€follows.€The€provision€whichŠ öF Šis€made€for€survivors€is€not€available€to€men,€and€the€problem€of€overlapping€of€benefitsŠ Ü, Štherefore€does€not€arise.€Precisely€on€account€of€the€fact€that€a€disabled€man€cannot€beŠ Ā Šeligible€for€AWW€benefit€and€that€the€death€of€his€wife€therefore€does€not€affect€his€AAWŠ Øų Šbenefit,€it€is€impossible€to€compare€the€rules€of€concurrence."Š ŽŽ ŠĢ9.2€"By€way€of€illustration€of€the€relative€discrimination€in€favour€of€women,€which€isŠ ZŖ Šinherent€in€the€AWW€rules,€the€Netherlands€Government€would€observe€that€the€favourableŠ @ Štreatment€which€women€receive€in€the€Netherlands€under€AWW€has€led€some€people€toŠ &v Šsuggest€that€the€Act€discriminates€against€men.€This€is€one€of€the€reasons€why€a€review€ofŠ  \ ŠAWW€is€under€consideration.€Be€that€as€it€may,€this€is€not€the€point€of€Mrs.€Vos's€complaint.Š ņB ŠIn€any€case,€it€should€be€concluded€that€the€cases€to€which€the€applicant€refers€are€not€casesŠ Ų( Šwhich€require€equal€treatment€on€the€basis€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant."Š ¾ ŠĢ10.1€In€her€comments,€dated€3€January€1989,€the€author€reiterates€her€view€that€theŠ Š Ś Šapplication€of€article€32,€subsection€1€(b),€of€the€General€Disablement€Act€(AAW)€violatesŠ p!Ą  Šarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.€She€also€argues€that,€provided€article€26€is€found€relevant,€thenŠ V"¦! Šit€must€be€accepted€that€it€has€direct€effect€from€the€moment€the€International€Covenant€onŠ <#Œ" ŠCivil€and€Political€Rights€came€into€force.€Although€she€acknowledges€that€not€everyŠ "$r# Šinequality€constitutes€unlawful€discrimination,€she€contends€that€since€1979€any€existingŠ %X $ Šinequality€in€the€field€of€social€security€can€be€examined€on€the€basis€of€article€26€of€theŠ ī%>!% ŠCovenant.Š Ō&$"& ŠĢ10.2€Contesting€the€interpretation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€by€the€Central€AppealsŠ  (š#( ŠCourt,€the€author€argues€Ż‚ ’’’ŻņņŌŌŻ  Żthat€Ż‚ ’’’‹YŻŻŻóóŌŌŻ  Żit€would€be€incompatible€with€article€26€to€grant€theŠ †)Ö$) ŠGovernment€additional€time€to€eliminate€unlawful€discrimination,€and€that€what€is€at€issueŠ l*¼%* Šin€the€communication€under€consideration€is€whether€the€distinction€is€acceptable€orŠ R+¢&+ Šunacceptable,€it€being€irrelevant€whether€the€Government€after€1979€needed€some€time€toŠ 8,ˆ', Šeliminate€the€alleged€distinction.Š -n(- Ї11.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€lightŠ ° Šof€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraphŠ –ę Š1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Š |Ģ ŠĢ11.2€The€Committee€notes€that€the€State€party€in€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraphŠ H˜ Š2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€has€reserved€its€position€with€respect€to€the€applicability€of€articleŠ . ~ Š26€of€the€Covenant€in€the€field€of€social€security€rights€(para.€8.1€above).€In€this€connection,Š  d Šthe€Committee€has€already€expressed€the€view€in€its€case€law€b/€that€the€InternationalŠ ś J ŠCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights€would€still€apply€even€if€a€particular€subject„matterŠ ą 0 Šis€referred€to€or€covered€in€other€international€instruments,€e.g.€the€International€ConventionŠ Ę   Šon€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€the€Convention€on€the€EliminationŠ ¬ ü  Šof€All€Forms€of€Discrimination€Against€Women€or,€as€in€the€present€case,€the€InternationalŠ ’ā  ŠCovenant€on€Economic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights.€Notwithstanding€the€interrelated€draftingŠ xČ  Šhistory€of€the€two€covenants,€it€remains€necessary€for€the€Committee€to€apply€fully€the€termsŠ ^®  Šof€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€Committee€observes€in€thisŠ D”  Šconnection€that€the€provisions€of€article€2€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Economic,€SocialŠ *z  Šand€Cultural€Rights€do€not€detract€from€the€full€application€of€article€26€of€the€InternationalŠ ` ŠCovenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Š öF ŠĢ11.3€The€Committee€further€observes€that€what€is€at€issue€is€not€whether€the€State€party€isŠ Ā Šrequired€to€enact€legislation€such€as€the€General€Disablement€Benefits€Act€or€the€GeneralŠ Øų ŠWidows€and€Orphans€Act,€but€whether€this€legislation€violates€the€author's€rights€containedŠ ŽŽ Šin€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€The€right€to€equalityŠ tÄ Šbefore€the€law€and€to€equal€protection€of€the€law€without€any€discrimination€does€not€makeŠ ZŖ Šall€differences€of€treatment€discriminatory.€A€differentiation€based€on€reasonable€andŠ @ Šobjective€criteria€does€not€amount€to€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€articleŠ &v Š26.€Further€differences€in€result€of€the€uniform€application€of€laws€do€not€ņņper€se€óóconstituteŠ  \ Šprohibited€discrimination.Š ņB ŠĢ12.€It€remains€for€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€the€disadvantageous€treatmentŠ ¾ Šcomplained€of€by€the€author€resulted€from€the€application€of€a€discriminatory€statute€andŠ ¤ō Šthus€violated€her€rights€under€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€In€the€light€of€the€explanationsŠ Š Ś Šgiven€by€the€State€party€with€respect€to€the€legislative€history,€the€purpose€and€applicationŠ p!Ą  Šof€the€General€Disablement€Benefits€Act€and€the€General€Widows€and€Orphans€Act€(paras.Š V"¦! Š8.3„8.10€above),€the€Committee€is€of€the€view€that€the€unfavourable€result€complained€of€byŠ <#Œ" ŠMrs.€Vos€follows€from€the€application€of€a€uniform€rule€to€avoid€overlapping€in€theŠ "$r# Šallocation€of€social€security€benefits.€This€rule€is€based€on€objective€and€reasonable€criteria,Š %X $ Šespecially€bearing€in€mind€that€both€statutes€under€which€Mrs.€Vos€qualified€for€benefits€aimŠ ī%>!% Šat€ensuring€to€all€persons€falling€thereunder€subsistence€level€income.€Thus€the€CommitteeŠ Ō&$"& Šcannot€conclude€that€Mrs.€Vos€has€been€a€victim€of€discrimination€within€the€meaning€ofŠ ŗ' #' Šarticle€26€of€the€Covenant.Š  (š#( ŠĢ13.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalŠ l*¼%* ŠProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theŠ R+¢&+ Šfacts€as€submitted€do€not€disclose€a€violation€of€any€article€of€the€International€Covenant€onŠ 8,ˆ', ŠCivil€and€Political€Rights.Š -n(- ЇĢņņNotesóóŠ –ę ŠĢ*/€€€The€text€of€an€individual€option€submitted€by€Messrs.€Francisco€Aguilar€Urbina€andŠ b² ŠBertil€Wennergren€is€appended.Š H˜ ŠĢa/€€€CCPR/C/32/D/212/1986,€para.€6.2.Š  d ŠĢb/€€€CCPR/C/29/D/172/1984.,€CCPR/C/29/D/180/1984€and€CCPR/C/29/D/182/1984.Š ą 0 ŠĢĢņņņ ņÓ  ÓAppendixó óóóŠ ’ā  ŠÓQnÓĢĢņņIndividual€opinion:€submitted€by€Messrs.€Francisco€Aguilar€Urbina€and€Bertil€WennergrenŠ D”  Špursuant€to€rule€94.€paragraph€3.€of€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure,Š *z  Šconcerning€the€views€of€the€Committee€on€communication€No.€218/1986,€Vos€v.€theŠ ` ŠNetherlandsóóŠ öF ŠĢ1.€Article€26€of€the€Covenant€has€been€interpreted€as€providing€protection€againstŠ Ā Šdiscrimination€whenever€laws€differentiating€among€groups€or€categories€of€individuals€doŠ Øų Šnot€correspond€to€objective€criteria.€It€has€also€been€interpreted€in€the€sense€that€wheneverŠ ŽŽ Ša€difference€in€treatment€does€not€affect€a€group€of€people€but€only€separate€individuals,€aŠ tÄ Šprovision€cannot€be€deemed€discriminatory€as€such;€negative€effects€on€one€individualŠ ZŖ Šcannot€then€be€considered€to€be€discrimination€within€the€scope€of€article€26.Š @ ŠĢ2.€It€is€self„evident€that,€as€the€State€party€has€stressed,€in€any€social€security€system€it€isŠ  \ Šnecessary€to€ensure€that€individuals€do€not€qualify€for€more€than€one€benefit€simultaneouslyŠ ņB Šunder€different€social€insurance€laws.€The€State€party€has€admitted€that€the€rule€onŠ Ų( Šconcurrence€which€gives€precedence€to€the€General€Widows€and€Orphans€Act€(AWW)€is€notŠ ¾ Šalways€advantageous€to€ņņall€óówidows.€It€might€merely€benefit€a€majority€of€them.€Cases€areŠ ¤ō Šconceivable€in€which€the€award€of€AWW€benefits€leads€to€a€decrease€in€income€afterŠ Š Ś Šcessation€of€payments€under€the€General€Disablement€Benefits€Act€(AAW);€this€is€evidentlyŠ p!Ą  Šwhat€happened€in€the€case€of€Mrs.€Vos.€The€State€party€has€also€mentioned€that€in€mostŠ V"¦! Šcases€AWW€benefits€exceed€AAW€benefits€payable€to€married€women,€and€that€this€isŠ <#Œ" Šattributable€to€the€fact€that€most€married€women€have€worked€only€part„time€and€thereforeŠ "$r# Šreceive€only€partial€AAW€benefit€in€the€event€of€long„term€disability.€It€follows€that€disabledŠ %X $ Šwomen€with€full€AAW€benefits€enjoy€higher€benefits€than€women,€disabled€or€not,€whoŠ ī%>!% Šreceive€full€AWW€benefits€because€of€their€status€as€widows.Š Ō&$"& ŠĢ3.€In€cases€where€women€receive€full€pensions€under€the€AAW€(being€disabled€and€havingŠ  (š#( Šworked€full„time€previously),€if€the€husband€dies,€they€will€be€given€the€AWW€pensionŠ †)Ö$) Šinstead.€This€may€reduce€the€level€of€pension€which€their€physical€needs€as€disabled€personsŠ l*¼%* Šrequire€and€which€the€General€Disablement€Benefits€Act€had€recognized.Š R+¢&+ ŠĢ4.€Article€32€of€AAW€provides€in€its€subsection€1€(b)€that€the€employment€disability€benefitŠ -n(- Šwill€be€withdrawn€when€a€woman€to€whom€this€benefit€has€been€granted€becomes€entitledŠ ° Što€a€widow's€pension€or€a€temporary€widow's€benefit€pursuant€to€the€AWW.€The€State€partyŠ –ę Šcontends€that€the€legislature€had€to€decide€whether€claimants€who€were€entitled€to€benefitsŠ |Ģ Šunder€both€the€AAW€and€the€AWW€should€receive€benefits€under€the€one€or€the€other.€ThisŠ b² Šis€conceivable,€but€it€is€not€justifiable€that€this€necessarily€should€be€solved€by€theŠ H˜ Šintroduction€of€a€clause€which€does€not€allow€for€a€modicum€of€flexibility€in€itsŠ . ~ Šimplementation.€An€exception€should,€in€our€opinion,€be€made€with€regard€to€women€whoŠ  d Šenjoy€full€AAW€benefits,€if€such€benefits€exceed€full€AWW€benefits.€By€failing€to€makeŠ ś J Šsuch€an€exception€the€legislature€has€created€a€situation€in€which€disabled€women€with€fullŠ ą 0 ŠAAW€benefits€who€become€widows€can€no€longer€be€treated€on€a€par€with€other€disabledŠ Ę   Šwomen€who€enjoy€full€AAW€benefits.€The€case€cannot€be€considered€as€affecting€only€Mrs.Š ¬ ü  ŠVos,€but€rather€an€indeterminate€group€of€persons€who€fall€in€the€category€of€disabledŠ ’ā  Šwomen€entitled€to€full€disability€pensions.€Moreover,€the€intention€of€the€legislator€to€grantŠ xČ  Šmaximum€protection€to€those€in€need€would€be€violated€every€time€the€law€is€applied€in€theŠ ^®  Šstrict€formal€sense€as€it€has€been€applied€in€Mrs.€Vos's€case.€The€increasing€number€of€casesŠ D”  Šsuch€as€this€one€can€be€inferred€from€the€assertion€made€by€the€State€party€that€it€has€seenŠ *z  Šthe€need€to€change€the€legislation€since€the€early€1980s.Š ` ŠĢ5.€A€differentiation€with€regard€to€full€AAW€benefits€among€disabled€women€on€the€soleŠ Ü, Šground€of€marital€status€as€a€widow€cannot€be€said€to€be€based€on€reasonable€and€objectiveŠ Ā Šcriteria.€It€therefore€constitutes€prohibited€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€26.Š Øų ŠWe€note€that€a€review€of€AWW€is€under€consideration€a:€hope€that€the€discriminatoryŠ ŽŽ Šelements€will€be€eliminated€and€compensation€given€to€those€who€have€been€the€victims€ofŠ tÄ Šunequal€treatment.