being unemployed on the date of application for the benefits. In this connection, the Committee notes that said requirement applies to men and women equally. The Committee refers to its decision in communication No. 212/1986 (P. P. C. v. the Netherlands), in which it considered that the scope of article 26 did not extend to differences of results in the application of common rules in the allocation of benefits. In the present case, the Committee finds that the requirement of being unemployed at the time of application as a prerequisite for entitlement to benefits is not discriminatory, and that the author does not, therefore, have a claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes that the author claims that the state of the law from March to July 1984, and the application of the law at that time, made her a victim of a violation of the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, as set out in article 26 of the Covenant. The Committee further notes that the State party has amended the legislation in question, abolishing with retroactive effect the provision in the law which the author considers discriminatory. 6.5 As regards the author's request that the Committee make a finding that article 26 of the Covenant acquired direct effect in the Netherlands as from 11 March 1979, the date on which the Covenant entered into force for the State party, the Committee observes that the method of application of the Covenant varies among different legal systems. The determination of the question whether and when article 26 has acquired direct effect in the Netherlands is therefore a matter of domestic law and does not come within the competence of the Committee. 6.3 The Committee considers that, even if the law in question, prior to the enactment of the amendment, were to be considered inconsistent with a provision of the Covenant, the State party, by amending the law retroactively, has corrected the alleged inconsistency of the law with article 26 of the Covenant, thereby remedying the alleged violation. Therefore, the author cannot, at the time of submitting the complaint, claim to be a victim of a violation of the Covenant. The communication is thus inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol; 6.4 The author further contends that she is a victim of discrimination because the application of the amended law still does not entitle her to benefits for the period of her unemployment from March to July 1984, since she does not fulfil the requirement of (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. Communication No. 536/1993 Submitted by: Francis Peter Perera on 10 February 1993 Alleged victim: The author State party: Australia Declared inadmissible: 28 March 1995 (fifty-third session) 1. The author of the communication is Mr. Francis Peter Perera, a merchant seaman and Australian citizen by naturalization, born in Sri Lanka and currently living at Kangaroo Point, Queensland, Australia. He claims to be the victim of a violation by Australia of articles 14, paragraphs 1, 3 (e) and 5, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Subject matter: Claim of unfair trial and police discrimination by individual convicted of drug-related offences Procedural issues: Evaluation of facts and evidence by national court – Inadmissibility ratione materiae and ratione temporis – Nonexhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: Right to a fair trial – Discrimination based on racial and national grounds Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was arrested on 11 July 1984, together with one Fred Jensen. He was charged with drug-related offences and later released on bail. On 17 May 1985, he was found guilty on two charges of Articles of the Covenant: 14 (1) (3) (e) and (5) and 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 1, 2, 3, 5 (2) (b) 14