First, under current rules of general international law, States are free to choose their economic system. As a matter of fact, when the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, the then Socialist States were managing planned economies under which private ownership was largely restricted or prohibited in principle. Even nowadays not a few States parties to the Covenant, including those adopting marked-oriented economies, restrict or prohibit foreigners from private ownership of immovable properties in their territories. returned. The Committee further encourages the State party to review its relevant legislation to ensure that neither the law itself nor its application is discriminatory. 13.3 Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's views. Second, consequently, it is not impossible for a State party to limit the ownership of immovable properties in its territory to its nationals or citizens, thereby precluding their wives or children of different nationality or citizenship from inheriting or succeeding to those properties. Such inheritance or succession is regulated by rules of private international law of the States concerned, and I am not aware of any universally recognized "absolute right of inheritance or of succession to private property". APPENDIX Third, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enshrines the principle of nondiscrimination and equality before the law, it does not prohibit "legitimate distinctions" based on objective and reasonable criteria. Nor does the Covenant define or protect economic rights as such. This means that the Human Rights Committee should exercise utmost caution in dealing with questions of discrimination in the economic field. For example, restrictions or prohibitions of certain economic rights, including the right of inheritance or succession, which are based on nationality or citizenship, may well be justified as legitimate distinctions. 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. 586/1994, Joseph Frank Adam v. the Czech Republic Considering the Human Rights Committee's Views on communication No. 586/1994, I do not oppose the adoption by the Committee of the Views in the instant case. However, I would like to point to the following: Communication No. 588/1994 Submitted by: Errol Johnson [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State party: Jamaica Declared admissible: 22 March 1996 (fifty-sixth session) Date of adoption of Views*: 22 March 1996 (fifty-sixth session) Subject matter: Prolonged detention on death row of individual under sentence of death Article of the Optional Protocol and Rules of Procedure: 4, paragraph 2, and rule 85 Procedural issues: n.a. Finding: Violation [article 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and 5; 6] Substantive issues: Death Row Phenomenon Inhuman and degrading treatment - Respect of due process guarantees in a capital case 1. The author of the communication is Errol Johnson, a Jamaican citizen who, at the time of submission of his communication, was awaiting execution at St. Catherine District Prison, Jamaica. He claims to be a victim of violations by Jamaica of articles 6, 7, 10, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (c), (g) and 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The author is represented by counsel. In early 1995, the offence of which the author was convicted was classified as non-capital Articles of the Covenant: 6, 7, 10 (1), and 14 (1), (3) (c), (g) and (5) * Pursuant to rule 85 of the Committee's rules of procedure, Mr. Laurel Francis did not participate in the adoption of the Views. 126