contain any discriminatory provisions within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 In a further submission under rule 91, dated 8 April 1987, the State party invokes the declaration made by the French Government upon ratification of the Optional Protocol on 17 February 1984 and contends that the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis: France interprets article 1 [of the Optional Protocol] as giving the Committee the competence to receive communications alleging a violation of a right set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. It is clear from this interpretative declaration that communications directed against France are admissible only if they are based on alleged violations which derive from acts or events occurring after 17 May 1984, the date on which the Protocol entered into force with respect to France under article 9, paragraph 2, of the said Protocol. However, the statement of the facts contained both in the communication itself and in the initial observations by the French Government indicates that the violation alleged by the authors of the communication derives from Law No. 79.1102 of 21 December 1979, which extended to the nationals of four States formerly belonging to the French Union, including Senegal, the régime referred to as "crystallization" of military pensions that had already applied since 1 January 1961 to the nationals of the other States concerned. Since this act occurred before ratification by France of the Optional Protocol, it cannot therefore provide grounds for a communication based on its alleged incompatibility with the Covenant unless such communication ignores the effect ratione temporis which France conferred on its recognition of the right of individual communication. 4.1 In their comments of 22 December 1986, the authors argue that the communication should not be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol by virtue of incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant, since a broad interpretation of article 26 of the Covenant would permit the Committee to review the question of pension rights if there is discrimination, as claimed in this case. 4.2 In their further comments of 6 June 1987, the authors mention that although the relevant French legislation pre-dates the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for France, the authors had continued negotiations subsequent to 17 May 1984 and that the final word was spoken by the Minister for Economics, Finance and Budget in a letter addressed to the authors on 12 November 1984. 5.1 Before considering any claims presented in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 With regard to the State party's contention that the communication was inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol by virtue of incompatibility with the Covenant, the Committee recalled that it had already decided with respect to prior communications (Nos. 172/1984, 180/1984, 182/1984) that the scope of article 26 of the Covenant permitted the examination of allegations of discrimination even with respect to pension rights. 5.3 The Committee took note of the State party's argument that, as the alleged violations derived from a law enacted in 1979, the communication should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the interpretative declaration made by France upon ratification of the Optional Protocol precluded the Committee from considering 143