3.5 If, therefore, there are in force in any given State party, legal norms on the right to assembly which are in conformity with article 21 of the Covenant, including restrictions of that right which are permitted under that article, such legislation will apply to a public meeting or peaceful assembly rather than legislation on the exercise of freedom of expression. In that sense, the observation by the Government of Finland that article 21 must be seen as lex specialis in relation to article 19 (see para. 7.4 of the Views) is correct. In that regard, I should like to refer to the relevant portion of the Government's submission which reads as follows: "... this means that article 19 is to be regarded, in any case, as a lex generalis in relation to article 21 (lex specialis), thus excluding the need for separate consideration under the former article". It is regrettable that the Committee, in its Views, did not address this legal problem, but contented itself with the somewhat oversimplified statement that just by removing the displayed banner, the Government violated the author's right to freedom of expression. Would the Committee still have found a violation of article 19 if it had found no violation of article 21? Hardly. the Government of Finland, it completely failed to address the issue of article 15 in its final Views. This is all the more surprising as the author in all her submissions, including her last rejoinder, had again and again emphasized that her being fined by the Helsinki City Court (on the basis of section 12 of the 1907 Act) was tantamount to a retroactive application, by analogy, of criminal law. While this argument may be considered on the surface as rather subtle, it is contradicted by the facts of the case. 4.2 The author was convicted not for having expressed her political opinions in a specific way but merely for her undisputed omission "to give the prior notification required by section 3 of the Act on Public Meetings for arranging a certain kind of a public meeting, in her case a demonstration" (as submitted by the State party). Even on the assumption, that applying the 1907 Act with regard to the author's actions was erroneous, which, in turn, might have infringed on the author's rights under article 21 of the Covenant, her conviction on the basis of that same Act surely cannot be qualified as a "retroactive" application of criminal law, forbidden by article 15 (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege). Perhaps the Committee thought the argument too far-fetched and unreasonable. In any event, the Committee should have included in its final Views a statement to the effect that in the present case Finland has not violated article 15. C. The question of a possible violation of article 15 4.1 Although the Committee, in its admissibility decision of 20 March 1992, clearly retained article 15 among the articles which might have been violated by Communication No. 418/1990 Submitted by: C. H. J. Cavalcanti Araujo-Jongen (represented by counsel) on 16 August 1990 Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Declared admissible: 20 March 1992 (forty-fourth session) Date of adoption of Views: 7 April 1994 (forty-ninth session) The facts as submitted by the author Subject matter: Alleged sex-based discrimination in award of unemployment benefits under the Dutch social system Articles of the Optional Protocol: 5 (2) (a) and (b) 2.1 The author was born in 1939 and is married to Mr. Cavalcanti Araujo. From September 1979 to January 1983, she was employed as a part-time secretary for 20 hours a week. As of 1 February 1983, she was unemployed. In virtue of the Unemployment Act she was granted unemployment benefits. In conformity with the provisions of the Act, the benefits were granted for the maximum period of six months (until 1 August 1983). The author subsequently found new employment, as of 24 April 1984. 1. The author of the communication is Mrs C. H. J.Cavalcanti Araujo-Jongen, a Dutch citizen, residing in Diemen, the Netherlands. She claims to be a victim of a violation by the Netherlands of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. She is represented by counsel. 2.2 Having received benefits under the Unemployment Act for the maximum period, the author, as an unemployed person in 1983-1984, contends that she was entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Benefits Act, for a maximum period of two years. These benefits amounted to 75 per cent of the last salary, whereas benefits under the Unemployment Act amounted to 80 per cent of the last salary. Procedural issues: None. Substantive issues: Equal protection of the law – Entitlement to unemployment benefits – Retroactive amendment of legislation – Indirect discrimination – Domestic application of the Covenant Articles of the Covenant: 26 61