APPENDIX legislation must comply with article 26 of the Covenant. Equality before the law implies that any distinctions in the enjoyment of benefits must be based on reasonable and objective criteria.2 Individual opinion submitted by Mr.Nisuke Ando, Mr. Kurt Herndl and Mr. Birame Ndiaye, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communication No. 395/1990, M. Th. Sprenger v. the Netherlands 7.3 In the instant case, the State party submits that there are objective differences between married and unmarried couples, which justify different treatment. In this context the State party refers to the Committee’s views in Dannina v. the Netherlands, in which a difference of treatment between married and unmarried couples was found not to constitute discrimination within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant. We concur in the Committee's finding that the facts before it do not reveal a violation of article 26 of the Covenant. We further believe that this is an appropriate case to expand on the Committee's rationale, as it appears in these Views and in the Committee's Views in Communications Nos. 180/1984, Danning v. the Netherlands and 182/1984, Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands.1 7.4 The Committee recalls that its jurisprudence permits differential treatment only if the grounds therefore are reasonable and objective. Social developments occur within States parties and the Committee has in this context taken note of recent legislation reflecting these developments, including the amendments to the Health Insurance Act. The Committee has also noted the explanation of the State party that there has been no general abolition of the distinction between married persons and cohabitants, and the reasons given for the continuation of this distinction. The Committee finds this differential treatment to be based on reasonable and objective grounds. The Committee recalls its findings in Communication No. 180/1984 and applies them to the present case. While it is clear that article 26 of the Covenant postulates an autonomous right to nondiscrimination, we believe that the implementation of this right may take different forms, depending on the nature of the right to which the principle of non-discrimination is applied. We note, firstly, that the determination whether prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26 has occurred depends on complex considerations, particularly in the field of economic, social and cultural rights. Social security legislation, which is intended to achieve aims of social justice, necessarily must make distinctions. While the aims of social justice vary from country to country, they must be compatible with the Covenant. Moreover, whatever distinctions are made must be based on reasonable and objective criteria. For instance, a system of progressive taxation, under which persons with higher incomes fall into a higher tax bracket and pay a greater percentage of their income for taxes, does not entail a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, since the distinction between higher and lower incomes is objective and the purpose of more equitable distribution of wealth is reasonable and compatible with the aims of the Covenant. 7.5 Finally, the Committee observes that the decision of a State’s legislature to amend a law does not imply that the law was necessarily incompatible with the Covenant: States parties are free to amend laws that are compatible with the Covenant, and to go beyond Covenant obligations in providing additional rights and benefits not required under the Covenant. 8. 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 do not disclose a violation of any article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Surely, it is also necessary to take into account the reality that the socio-economic and cultural needs of society are constantly evolving, so that legislation - in particular in the field of social security - may well, and often does, lag behind developments. Accordingly, article 26 of the Covenant should not be interpreted as requiring absolute equality or non-discrimination in that field at all times; instead, it should be seen as a general undertaking on the part of the States parties to the Covenant to 2 See ibid,, sect. B, Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication No. 172/1984; and ibid., sect. D, Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, communication No. 182/1984, Views adopted on 9 April 1987. 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/40), annex VIII, sects. C and D, Views adopted on 9 April 1987. 115