children are free to take advantage of the public sector schooling or to choose private schooling for their children. The decision of the authors of these communications to choose private education was not imposed on them by the State party or by the municipalities concerned, but reflected a free choice recognized and respected by the State party and the municipalities. Such free decision, however, entails certain consequences, notably payment of tuition, transport, textbooks and schoolmeals. The Committee notes that a State party cannot be deemed to discriminate against parents who freely choose not to avail themselves of benefits which are generally open to all. The State party has not violated article 26 by failing to provide the same benefits to parents of children attending private schools as it provides to parents of children at public schools. in the State party’s submission is intended to convey the impression that a private school system is unnecessary in Sweden. They therefore object to the State party’s assertion that ‘... the public sector school system is intended to serve the needs of the entire population and does not make it necessary to build up parallel school systems...”, and submit that this is largely contradicted by the fact that parents of more than 5000 pupils have nevertheless found it necessary, in 1989, to choose private schools. In this context, they add that many more parents would be willing to send their children to such schools, if they could afford them and if the authorities would not withhold the assistance in question. 10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the merits of the communications in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 The authors also allege discrimination by the State party because different private schools receive different benefits from the municipalities. The Committee notes that the authors complain about decisions taken not by the authorities of the Government of Sweden but rather by local authorities. The State party has referred to the decentralized system existing in Sweden, whereby decisions of the is nature are taken at the local level. In this connection the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that the State party’s responsibility is engaged by virtue of decisions of its municipalities and that no State party is relieved of its obligations under the Covenant by delegating some of its functions to autonomous organs or municipalities.1 The State party has informed the Committee that the various municipalities decide upon the appropriateness of private schools in their particular education system. This determines whether a subsidy will be awarded. This is how the Swedish school system(is conceived pursuant to the School Act of 1985. When a municipality makes such a decision, it should be based on reasonable and objective criteria and made for a purpose that is legitimate under the Covenant. In the cases under consideration, the Committee cannot conclude, on the basis of the information before it, that the denial of a subsidy for textbooks and school meals of students attending the Ellen Key School in Stockholm and the Rudolf Steiner School in Norrköping was incompatible with article 26 of the Covenant. 10.2 The main issue before the Committee is whether the authors of the communications are victims of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant because, as parents of children attending a private school, they have been denied subsidies from the municipality of Norrköping for the textbooks of their children attending the Rudolf Steiner School in Norrköping and from the municipality of Upplands-Bro for the textbooks and school meals of their children attending the Ellen Key School in Stockholm, whereas parents of children who attend public schools and parents whose children attend private schools in other municipalities do enjoy financial assistance for their children’s textbooks and meals. In deciding whether or not the State party has violated article 26 by not granting the authors such benefits, the Committee bases its findings on the following observations. 10.3 The State party’s educational system provides for comprehensive public sector schooling and allows for private education as an alternative to public education. In this connection the Committee observes that the State party and its municipalities make public sector schooling and a variety of ancillary benefits, such as free transport by bus, free textbooks and school meals, available to all children subject to compulsory school education. The State party cannot be deemed to be under an obligation to provide the same benefits to private schools; indeed, the preferential treatment given to public sector schooling is reasonable and based on objective criteria. The parents of Swedish 1 Communication No. 273/1988 (B. d. B. et al. v. the Netherlands) declared inadmissible on 30 March 1989, para. 6.5. 89