the case of Love v. Australia. There, the Committee decided that while age as such is not mentioned as one of the enumerated grounds of prohibited discrimination in the second sentence of article 26, a distinction related to age which is not based on reasonable and objective criteria may amount to discrimination on the ground of “other status” under the clause in question. It stressed that while a mandatory retirement age would generally not constitute age discrimination, it still would have the task under article 26 of the Covenant of assessing in the particular case whether any particular arrangement for mandatory retirement age departing from the general retirement age in a given country is discriminatory. As it did in the case of Love v. Australia, the Committee should have examined in the present case whether there were reasonable and objective grounds justifying the use of age as a distinguishing criterion. It did not do so and thus departed from the approach taken in the case of Love v. Australia in a way that cannot be justified in our view. equality, the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal must be objective and reasonable. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence with respect to article 26, 1 to the effect that not every distinction constitutes discrimination, but that distinctions must be justified on reasonable and objective grounds. While age as such is not mentioned as one of the grounds of discrimination prohibited in article 26, the Committee takes the view that a distinction related to age which is not based on reasonable and objective criteria may amount to discrimination on the ground of “other status” under the clause in question, or to a denial of equal protection of the law within the meaning of the first sentence of article 26. This reasoning also applies to article 25 (c) in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 2. In the present case, the State party has failed to demonstrate that the aims of the plan to restructure the National Customs Authority were legitimate. In this context, we note that the Committee in particular did not address the claims of the author that both the Constitution and laws adopted by Parliament guaranteed him security of employment and that these guarantees were not removed as a result of a democratic process of amending the relevant provisions but by decree issued by the then President of Peru. Furthermore, the use of the criterion of age as applied to the author is not objective and reasonable for several reasons. First, the case concerns a matter of dismissal and not retirement. Second, while age may justify dismissal in cases where age affects the ability of the person concerned to perform their functions or where the person concerned has worked long enough to have acquired full or at least substantial pension rights, the State party has not shown that in the case of the author who, notwithstanding his age, had been employed for just 11 years, any such reasons were present. It is therefore our view that the author has been the subject of a violation of article 25 (c) of the Covenant. 6.4 In the present case the Committee notes that the author was not the only public servant who lost his job, but that other employees of the National Customs Authority were also dismissed because of restructuring of that entity. The State party indicates that the restructuring originated from the Supreme Decree of 8 January 1991, wherein the Executive announced a reorganization of all public entities. The criteria for selecting those employees to be dismissed were established following a general implementation plan. The Committee considers that the age limit used in the present case for continued post occupancy was an objective distinguishing criterion and that its implementation in the context of a general plan for the restructuring of the civil service was not unreasonable. Under the circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has not been the subject of a violation of article 25 (c). Individual opinion (concurring) of Committee members Sir Nigel Rodley, Mr. Ivan Shearer and Ms. Ruth Wedgwood 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 do not disclose a violation of article 25 (c) of the Covenant. The Committee has concluded that Peru did not violate the rights of the author under article 25 (c) of the Covenant, even though the Peruvian National Customs Authority dismissed him in a downsizing based in part on his age. This decision was evidently troubling for the Committee in the light of the fact that the State has offered no reason for its discriminatory use of age in layoffs. APPENDIX Individual opinion (dissenting) of Committee members Mr. Michael O’Flaherty, Mr. Walter Kälin, Mr. Edwin Johnson and Mr. Hipólito Solari-Yrigoyen One thing remains clear, however: the Committee’s decision in this case should not be understood as supporting Peru’s use of gender discrimination in layoffs and downsizing. The Peruvian National Customs Authority peculiarly requires women to leave public service five years earlier than men, based on age and length of service. 1. In the present case, the majority of the Committee concluded that age as such “was an objective distinguishing criterion” and “that its implementation in the context of a general plan for the restructuring of the civil service was not unreasonable” (para. 6.4). In our view this is tantamount to saying that age as such is an objective and reasonable criteria for deciding who would have to leave public service. This reasoning cannot be reconciled with the approach taken by the Committee in There is no evident reason why women should be forced into retirement at an earlier stage than men, and it is hard to see how, if the issue had been litigated between the parties, such a practice could be regarded as consistent with either article 25 or article 26 of the Covenant. 1 See communication No. 983/2001, Love v. Australia, Views adopted on 25 March 2003, para. 8.2. 67