children and foster children under the Child Benefit Act, in particular the requirement that a foster parent be involved in the upbringing of the foster children, as a precondition to the granting of benefits, is unreasonable. In the light of the explanations given by the State party, the Committee finds that the distinctions made in the Child Benefit Act are not incompatible with article 26 of the Covenant. 6.2 Counsel further argues that it is evident that this distinction affects foreign employees working in the Netherlands more than Dutch residents, since the foreign employees often choose to leave their family in the country of origin, while there is no such necessity for Dutch residents to leave their family abroad. In this connection, counsel contends that the State party ignores that the Netherlands is to be considered an immigration country. 7.5 The distinction made in the Child Benefit Act between own children and foster children precludes the granting of benefits for foster children who are not living with the applicant foster parent. In this connection, the authors allege that the application of this requirement is, in practice, discriminatory, since it affects migrant workers more than Dutch nationals. The Committee notes that the authors have failed to submit substantiation for this claim and observes, moreover, that the Child Benefit Act makes no distinction between Dutch nationals and non-nationals, such as migrant workers. The Committee considers that the scope of article 26 of the Covenant does not extend to differences resulting from the equal application of common rules in the allocation of benefits. Examination of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communications in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The question before the Committee is whether the authors are victims of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, because the authorities of the Netherlands denied them a family allowance for certain of their dependants. 7.3 In its constant jurisprudence, the Committee has held that although a State party is not required by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to adopt social security legislation, if it does, such legislation and the application thereof must comply with article 26 of the Covenant. The principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law implies that any distinctions in the enjoyment of benefits must be based on reasonable and objective criteria.3 8. 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 any provision of the Covenant. APPENDIX 7.4 With respect to the Child Benefit Act, the State party submits that there are objective differences between one’s own children and foster children, which justify different treatment under the Act. The Committee recognizes that the distinction is objective and need only focus on the reasonableness criterion. Bearing in mind that certain limitations in the granting of benefits may be inevitable, the Committee has considered whether the distinction between one’s own Individual opinion submitted by Mr. Kurt Herndl, Mr. Rein Müllerson, Mr. Birame N’Diaye and Mr. Waleed Sadi, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, concerning the Views of the Committee on communications Nos. 406/1990 and 426/1990, L. Oulajin and M. Kaiss v. the Netherlands We concur in the Committee’s finding that the facts before it do not reveal a violation of article 26 of the Covenant. While referring to the individual opinion attached to the decision concerning Sprenger v. the Netherlands (communication No. 395/1990),1 we consider it proper to briefly expand on the Committee’s rationale, as it appears in these views and in the Committee’s views on communications 3 See Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication No. 172/1984, and Zwaan-de-Vries v. the Netherlands, communication No. 182/1984, Views adopted on 9 April 1987, para. 12.4; Vos v. the Netherlands, communication No. 218/1986, Views adopted on 29 March 1989, para. 11.3; Pauger v. Austria, communication No. 415/1990, Views adopted on 26 March 1992, para. 7.2; Sprenger v. the Netherlands, communication No. 395/1990, Views adopted on 31 March 1992, para. 7.2. 1 Views adopted on 31 March 1992, forty-fourth session. 120