widowers is arbitrary and cannot be said to be based on reasonable and objective criteria. women in family law should be necessary for the legal emancipation in pension law to take place. Committee’s admissibility decision 6.2 According to the author, neither the financial burden on the State’s budget, nor the fact that many men are entitled to pensions of their own, can be used as arguments against the obligation to treat men and women equally, pursuant to article 26 of the Covenant. The author points out that the legislator could have established other, such as income-related, criteria to distinguish between those who are entitled to a full pension and those who are not. He further submits that the financial burden caused by the equal treatment of men and women under the Pension Act would be comparatively low, because of the small number of widowers who are entitled to such a pension. 4. At its forty-first session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication, noting that the State party had not raised any objections to admissibility. On 22 March 1991, the Committee declared the communication admissible in respect of article 26 of the Covenant. The State party’s merits submission and the author’s comments thereon 5.1 In its submission, dated 8 October 1991, the State party argues that the former Austrian pension legislation was based on the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases only the husband was gainfully employed, and therefore only he was able to acquire an entitlement to a pension from which his wife might benefit. It submits that, in response to changed social conditions, it amended both family legislation and the Pension Act; equality of the husband’s position under pension law is to be accomplished in a number of successive stages, the last of which will be completed on 1 January 1995. Examination of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication 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 Committee has already had the opportunity to express the view1 that article 26 of the Covenant is applicable also to social security legislation. It reiterates that article 26 does not of itself contain any obligation with regard to the matters that may be provided for by legislation. Thus it does not, for example, require any State to enact pension legislation. However, when it is adopted, then such legislation must comply with article 26 of the Covenant. 5.2 The State party further submits that new legislation, designed to change old social traditions, cannot be translated into reality from one day to the other. It states that the gradual change in the legal position of men with regard to their pension benefits was necessary in the light of the actual social conditions, and hence does not entail any discrimination. In this context, the State party points out that the equal treatment of men and women for purposes of civil service pensions has financial repercussions in other areas, as the pensions will have to be financed by the civil servants, from whom pension contributions are levied. 7.3 The Committee reiterates its constant jurisprudence that the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law without any discrimination does not make all differences of treatment discriminatory. A differentiation based on reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the meaning of article 26. 6.1 In his reply to the State party’s submission, the author argues that pursuant to amendments in family law, equal rights and duties have existed for both spouses since 1 January 1976, in particular with regard to their income and their mutual maintenance. He further submits that in the public sector men and women receive equal payment for equal services and have also to pay equal pension fund contributions. The author states that there is no convincing reason as to why a period of nearly two decades since the emancipation of men and 7.4 In determining whether the Austrian Pension Act, as applied to the author, entailed a differentiation based on unreasonable or 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/401), annex VIII, sects. D and B, Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, communication No. 182/1984, and Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication No. 172/1984, Views adopted on 9 April 1987. 123