on equal footing with widows as of 1 January 1995. This in fact means that men and women, whose social circumstances are similiar, are being treated differently, merely on the basis of sea:. Such a differentiation is not reasonable, as is implicitly acknowledged by the State party when it points out that the ultimate goal of the legislation is to achieve full equality between men and women in 1995. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol/ is of the view that the application of the Austrian Pension Act in, respect of the author after 10 March 1988, the date of entry into force of the Optional protocol for Austria, made him a victim of a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Eights, because he, as a widower, was denied full pension benefits on equal footing with widows. 9. The Committee notes with appreciation that the State party has taken steps to remove the discriminatory provisions of the Pension Act as of 1995. Notwithstanding these steps, the Committee is of the view that the State party should offer Mr. Pietmar Pauger an appropriate remedy. 10. The Committee wishes to receive information, within 90 days, on any relevant measures taken by the State party in respect of the Committee's views. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] j§/ See Official,ftecords of the General Assembly, Fortv-second Session, Supplement Ko. 40 (A/42/40), 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. -328-