Appendix Individual opinion of Mr. Hisuke Ando, pursuant to rule 94, paragraph 3, of the Committee's rules of procedure, concerning the Committee's views on communication Ho. 415/1990. M. Pauger v. Austria I do not oppose the Committee's views that the application of the Austrian Pension Act to the author made him a victim of a violation of article 26 of the Covenant; this conclusion is in line with the jurisprudence of the Committee {see Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, communication No. 182/1984, and Broeks v. the Netherlands, communication Ho. 172/1984). a/ However, concerning the application of the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law, I would like to point to the following possibility, which the Committee should have taken into account in the adoption of its views: had the author claimed that Austria amend the Pension Act so that the income requirement apply to widows as well as to widowers on equal footing, the Committee would have found it difficult to conclude that the Act is in violation of article 26. The author himself 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 (see para. 6.2), although such income-related criteria could have deprived widows who have other forms of income of their existing entitlements to full pensions. This implies that the State party's legislature could have circumvented violation of article 26 either by raising the status of widowers to that of widows ojr by lowering the status of widows to that of widowers. From a legalistic point of view, either choice might have been compatible with the principle of non-discrimination and equality before the law. Practical considerations, however, suggest that society would hardly have endorsed the second alternative. Nisuke ANDO Hotes £/ See Official Records of the General Assembly. Forty-second Session, Supplement Ho. 40 (A/42/40), annex VIII, sects. D and B. -329-