of Algerian legislation on vacant property and confiscations, the author was unable to take up residence in Algeria or remain there. He was unable to choose his residence freely and yet was never officially notified of any restrictions of the kind provided for in article 12, paragraph 3. The author’s deprivation of the freedom to choose his residence was incompatible with the rights enshrined in the Covenant. protected from discrimination, in other words, without distinction on the basis of different status or situation. Protection under article 26 is autonomous in nature, and “not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant”.42 The author is a victim in this particular case of the continuing confiscation of his property, based on discriminatory legislation that has impeded the exercise of his property rights without any objective, reasonable justification. The Committee has stated that “confiscation of private property or the failure by a State party to pay compensation for such confiscation could still entail a breach of the Covenant if the relevant act or omission was based on discriminatory grounds in violation of article 26 of the Covenant”. 43 The Algerian act of 26 July 1963 44 concerning confiscated property established the general principle of selectively and discriminatorily declaring property that had belonged to the “agents of colonization” to be State property. Under certain conditions, nationalized property was then returned, solely to the benefit of “individuals of Algerian nationality” 45 whose land had been nationalized, contrary to the guarantees under the Covenant and the Committee’s jurisprudence.46 3.10 With regard to the allegation of violation of article 17, the author submits that the dispossession measures never took legal form. 38 The regime instituted by the Algerian State derogated from the principle of lawfulness within the meaning of article 17. The interference with the privacy, family and home of the author had no basis in Algerian law. The State had no legal authority to proceed as it did purely through administrative regulations, and did not provide any legal protection that would have prevented his flight, emigration and exile.39 3.11 On the allegation of violation of article 27, the author identifies himself as a member of a minority whose right to enjoy his own culture, in community with the other members of his group, was destroyed in 1962. General comment No. 23 40 states that “culture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of life associated with the use of land resources” (para. 7) and that “protection of these rights is directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole” (para. 9). The question of the legal treatment of the members of the French minority in Algeria before and after 19 March 1962 has never been resolved in practice regarding the exercise of their cultural rights. The author has been deprived of his rights as a result of the lack of effective guarantees for the French minority; having been forced into exile, his right to access his native culture and language in Algeria has been interfered with, within the meaning of Lovelace.41 3.13 Moreover, the compensation mechanism of 17 March 1964 47 exclusively benefits one particular population group (farmers), thus constituting discrimination of which the author is a victim. The mechanism established an arbitrary distinction in treatment that benefited farmers alone with no justification: the obligation to compensate without discrimination is the corollary of the right to nationalize.48 The Committee has on other occasions 42 See general comment No. 18, para. 13. Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995, para. 11.3. 44 Act No. 63-276 of 26 July 1963 concerning property confiscated and retention by the colonial administration. 45 Article 3, Ordinance No. 95-26 of 30 Rabi’ al-thani 1416, corresponding to 25 September 1995, amending and supplementing Act No. 90-25 of 18 November 1990 concerning land planning, with reference to Act No. 62-20 of 24 August 1962. 46 Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995; communication No. 586/1994, Adam v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 23 July 1996. 47 Opinion No. 16 Z.F., published 17 March 1964, solely concerned French farmers whose property had been nationalized, and authorized them to transfer “the proceeds from their wine and cereal harvests after deducting operating costs”. 48 General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, entitled “Declaration on permanent sovereignty over natural resources”, para. 4: “the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with 43 3.12 On the allegation of violation of articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26, separately or in combination, and of articles 26 and 17 in combination, counsel recalls that the Committee has established a direct correlation between articles 26 and 2. The exercise of rights recognized in the Covenant should be exile”. Official Records of the General Assembly, tenth session (1955), annexes, document A/2929, p. 38, para. 50. 38 See general comment No. 16, paras. 2 and 3. 39 See communication No. 760/1997, Rehoboth Baster Community v. Namibia, Views adopted on 25 July 2000. 40 General comment No. 23, 8 April 1994. 41 Communication No. 24/1977, Lovelace v. Canada, Views adopted on 30 July 1981, para. 15. 40