APPENDIX unobjective criteria, the Committee notes that the Austrian family law imposes equal rights and duties on both spouses, with regard to their income and mutual maintenance. The Pension Act, as amended on 22 October 1985, however, provides for full pension benefits to widowers only if they have no other source of income; the income requirement does not apply to widows. In the context of said Act, widowers will only be entitled to full pension benefits on equal footing with widows as of 1 January 1995. This in fact means that men and women, whose social circumstances are similar, are being treated differently, merely on the basis of sex. Such a differentiation is not reasonable, as is implicitly acknowledged by the State party when it points out that the ultimate goal of the legislation is to achieve full equality between men and women in 1995. Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Nisuke Ando, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communication No. 415/1990, D. Pauger v. Austria I do not oppose the Committee’s Views that the application of the Austrian Pension Act to the author made him a victim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant: this conclusion is in line with the jurisprudence of the Committee (see Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, communication No. 182/1984, and Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication No. 172/1984).1 However, concerning the application of the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law, I would like to point to the following possibility, which the Committee should have taken into account in the adoption of its Views: had the author claimed that Austria amend the Pension Act so that the income requirement apply to widows as well as to widowers on equal footing, the Committee would have found it difficult to conclude that the Act is I violation of article 26. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the application of the Austrian Pension Act in respect of the author after 10 March 1988, the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Austria, made him a victim of a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because he, as a widower, was denied full pension benefits on equal footing with widows. The author himself points out that the legislator could have established “other, such as income-related, criteria” to distinguish between those who are entitled to a full pension and those who are not (see para. 6.2), although such income-related criteria could have deprived widows who have other forms of income of their existing entitlements to full pensions. 9. The Committee notes with appreciation that the State party has taken steps to remove the discriminatory provisions of the Pension Act as of 1995. Notwithstanding these steps, the Committee is of the view that the State party should offer Mr. Dietmar Pauger an appropriate remedy. This implies that the State party’s legislature could have circumvented violations of article 26 either by raising the status of widowers to that of widows or by lowering the status of widows to that of widowers. From a legalistic point of view, either choice might have been compatible with the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law. Practical considerations, however, suggest that society would hardly have endorsed the second alternative. 10. The Committee wishes to receive information, within 90 days, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee’s Views. 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/40), annex VIII, sects. D and B. 124