7. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4. of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of articles 9, paragraph 3, 10, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 14, paragraphs 1 and 3(b)and (d), of the Covenant. to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of his person. 6.8 Finally, the Committee notes that the author was detained for a period of over a year at the penitentiary of Coiba, which according to the author’s uncontested claim is a prison for convicted offenders, while he was unconvicted and awaiting trial. This, in the Committee’s opinion, amounts to a violation of the author’s right, under article 10, paragraph 2, to be segregated from convicted persons and to be subjected to separate treatment appropriate to his status as an unconvicted person. On the other hand, while the author has claimed to have been subjected to forced labour while awaiting his sentence, the Committee considers that this allegation has not been sufficiently substantiated as to raise issues under article 8, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant. 8. The Committee is of the view that Mr. Dieter Wolf is entitled to a remedy. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. 9. The Committee would appreciate receiving information, within 90 days, from the State party in respect of measures adopted pursuant to the Committee’s Views. _______________ Communications Nos. 298/1988 and 299/1988 Submitted by: G. and L. Lindgren and L. Holm; A. and B. Hjord, E. and I. Lundquist, L. Radko and E. Stahl (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 25 May 1988 Alleged victims: The authors State party: Sweden Date of adoption of Views: 9 November 1990 (fortieth session) Norrköping and Upplands-Bro, Sweden. They claim to be victims of a violation by the Government of Sweden of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are represented by counsel. Subject matter: Alleged discrimination in allocation of funds for private schools Procedural issues: Substantiation of claim— Exhaustion of domestic remedies 2.1 The authors are the parents of children who attend the private Rudolf Steiner School in Norrköping and the Ellen Key School in Stockholm. For the school year 1987/88 they applied to the municipality of Norrköping for financial aid for the purchase of their children’s textbooks and to the municipality of Upplands-Bro for financial aid for their children’s school meals and for the purchase of their textbooks. On 20 April 1988 and 10 February 1988, respectively, their applications were rejected. The authors did not appeal and therefore the decisions became final. The authors consider that the rejection of financial aid constitutes a violation of article 26 of the Covenant since the kind of financial aid they applied for, the so called School Social Aid Substantive issue: Objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment Article of the Covenant: 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 5(2)(b) Rules of procedure: Rule 88 1. The authors of the communication (initial letters dated 25 May 1988 and subsequent correspondences) are G. and L. Lindgren and L. Holm (communication No. 298/1988), A. and B. Hjord, E. and I. Lundquist, 2. Radko and E. Stahl (communication No. 299/1988), Swedish citizens residing in the municipalities of 84