7.3 In the instant case, the State party submits that there are objective differences between married and unmarried couples, which justify different treatment. In this context the State party refers to the Committee's views in Panning v. the Netherlands, in which a difference of treatment between married and unmarried couples was found not to constitute discrimination within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee recalls that its jurisprudence permits differential treatment only if the grounds therefore are reasonable and objective. Social developments occur within States parties and the Committee has in this context taken note of recent legislation reflecting these developments, including the amendments to the Health Insurance Act. The Committee has also noted the explanation of the State party that there has been no general abolition of the distinction between married persons and cohabitants, and the reasons given for the continuation of this distinction. The Commitee finds this differential treatment to be based on reasonable and objective grounds. The Committee recalls its findings in communication No. 180/1984 and applies them to the present case. 7.5 Finally, the Committee observes that the decision of a State's legislature to amend a law does not imply that the law was necessarily incompatible with the Covenant; States parties ate free to amend laws that are compatible with the Covenant, and to go beyond Covenant obligations in providing additional rights and benefits not required under the Covenant. 8. The Human Eights 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 article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] Rotes a/ See Official Records of the General Assembly. Forty-second Session. Supplement Ho. 40 (A/42/40), annex VIII, sect.. C, views adopted on 9 April 1987 at the twenty-ninth session. b/ See ibid., sect. B, Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication No. 172/1984} and ibid., sect. D, Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands. communication. No. 182/1984, views adopted on 9 April 1987. -314-