measures a society or a State can afford to tlie family may vary from country to country and depend on dif­ ferent social, economic, political and cultural condi­ tions and traditions. 9.2 Ф) 2 (ii) 2 Again, however, the principle of equal treatment of the sexes applies by virtue of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26, of which the latter is also relevant because it refers particularly to the "equal protection of the law". Where the Covenant requires a substantial protection as in article 23, it follows from those provi­ sions that such protection must be equal, that is to say not discriminatory, for example on the basis of sex. with opportunity should infringe the principle of sexual equahty. 9.2 (c) 3 However, there is no information before the Committee to the effect that any of this has actually happened in the present cases. As regards Mrs. Aumeeruddy-Cziffra, who is actively participating in political life as an elected member of the legislative assembly of Mauritius, she has neither in fact nor in law been prevented from doing so. It is true that on the hypothesis that if she were to leave the country as a resuU of interference with her family situation, she might lose this opportunity as well as other benefits which are in fact connected with residence in the coun­ try. The relevant aspects of such interference with a family situation have already been considered, however, in connection with article 17 and related provisions above. The hypothetical side-effects just suggested do not warrant any finding of a separate violation of article 25 at the present stage, where no particular element re­ quiring additional consideration under that article seems to be present. 9.2 (b) 2 (ii) 3 It follows that also in this line of argument the Covenant must lead to the result that the protection of a family cannot vary with the sex of the one or the other spouse. Though it might be justified for Mauritius to restrict the access of aliens to their territory and to expel them therefrom for security reasons, the Committee is of the view that the legislation which only subjects foreign spouses of Mauritian women to those restrictions, but not foreign spouses of Mauritian men, is discriminatory with respect to Mauritian women and cannot be justified by security requirements. 10.1 Accordingly, the Human Rights Committee acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights, is of the view that the facts, as outlined in paragraph 7 above, disclose violations of the Covenant, in particular of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 in relation to articles 17 (1) and 23 (1) with respect to the three co-authors who are married to foreign husbands, because the coming into force of the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1977, and the Deportation (Amendment) Act, 1977, resulted in discrimination against them on the ground of sex. 9.2 (b) 2 (ii) 4 The Committee therefore finds that there is also a violation of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant in conjunction with the right of the three mar­ ried co-authors under article 23 (1). 9.2 (c) 1 It remains to consider the allegation of a violation of article 25 of the Covenant, which provides that every citizen shall have the right and the opportun­ ity without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 (inter alia as to sex) and without unreasonable restric­ tions, to take part in the conduct of pubhc affairs, as further described in this article. The Committee is not called upon in this case to examine any restrictions on a citizen's right under article 25. Rather, the question is whether the opportunity also referred to there, i.e. a de facto possibility of exercising this right, is affected con­ trary to the Covenant. 10.2 The Committee further is of the view that there has not been any violation of the Covenant in respect of the other provisions invoked. 10.3 For the reasons given above, in paragraph 9 (a), the Committee finds that the 17 unmarried co­ authors cannot presently claim to be victims of any breach of their rights under the Covenant. 9.2 (c) 2 The Committee consiaers that restrictions estabhshed by law in various areas may prevent citizens in practice from exercising their political rights, i.e. deprive them of the opportunity to do so, in ways which might in certain circumstances be contrary to the pur­ pose of article 25 or to the provisions of the Covenant against discrimination, for example if such interference 11. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party should adjust the provisions of the Im­ migration (Amendment) Act, 1977 and of the Deporta­ tion (Amendment) Act, 1977 in order to implement its obligations under the Covenant, and should provide im­ mediate remedies for the victims of the violations found above. 71