underlining that the decisive question is whether the difference of treatment between a recognized conscientious objector, above 23 years of age, fulfilling alternative military service and a civilian of the same age constitutes discrimination within the meaning of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Counsel asserts that B difference of treatment can only be justified insofar as the exclusion of his client's eligibility for a supplementary payment under the General Assistance Act is necessary in order to maintain the character of the alternative military service. The author contests, however, that such a necessity has been proven by the State party and, furthermore, he states that there is no provision under Dutch law to support the discrimination against his client. 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of the rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee notes that the author claims that he is a victim of discrimination on the ground of "other status" (article 26 of the Covenant in fine), because, as a conscientious objector to military service and during the period that he performed alternative service, he was not treated as i civilian but rather as a conscript and was thus ineligible for supplementary allowances under the General Assistance Act. The Committee observes, as it did with respect to communications Nos. 245/1987 (R.T.Z. v. the Netherlands: and 267/1987 (H.J.G. v. the Netherlands), that the Covenant does not preclude the institution by States parties of compulsory national service, which entails certain modest pecuniary payments. But whether that compulsory national service is performed by way of military service or by permitter alternative service, there is no entitlement to be paid as if one were still in private civilian life. The Committee observes in this connection, as it did with respect to communication No. 218/1986 (Vos v. the Netherlands) that the scope of article 26 does not extend to differences in result of the uniform application of laws in the allocation of social security benefits. In the present case, there is no indication that the General Assistance Act i! not applied equally to all citizens performing alternative service. Thus the Committee concludes that the communication is incompatible with the provision! of the Covenant and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. Communication No. 300/1988 Submitted by: J. H. (name deleted) on 31 May 1988 Alleged victim: The authors State party: Finland Declared inadmissible: 23 March 1989 (thirty-fifth session)* 81