84. In his reply, the representative of the State party said that the Covenant, though not an integral part of the domestic law, was recognized as an instrument prescribing obligations under international public law. Fundamental human rights in Austria had been guaranteed since the enactment of the Basic Law in 1867 and the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, which in 1964 was made part of domestic constitutional law. Notwithstanding the fact that neither a judge nor an administrative authority was required to apply the provisions of the Covenant directly, there were no difficulties in giving effect to the rights recognized in it. Since the Covenant was an international obligation for Austria any abrogation would be a violation of international law. Nevertheless, under the existing constitutional framework it would not be possible to consider its partial incorporation into domestic law. 85. Regarding the question of remedies, the representative explained that remedies could be sought from a hierarchy of courts and that appeals could be lodged at one or more levels. Compensation of victims was also available at various levels of the administration. After the exhaustion of all levels of appeal in the administrative branch the appeal could be further carried to the Constitutional Court should the administrative decision be alleged to have violated human rights. The Constitutional Court could repeal the offending provision or rescind the administrative decision against which the appeal was lodged. 86. The Government had no intention to set up a commission on human rights or a special agency to promote hitman rights. However, the Office of the Ombudsman had been in existence since 1976 and all government institutions were ready to provide information on human rights upon request. While the public was less aware of the Covenant than of the European Convention on Human Eights, it was generally aware of its provisions and of those of the Optional Protocol. The Austrian Government believed that the provisions of the Basic Law and of the European Convention on Human Eights, as amended by subsequent protocols, would ensure compliance with the provisions of the Covenant. Furthermore, the text of every statute or decree was scrutinized in the light of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided for in the Covenant, the European Convention and domestic law. To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms were violated would have effective remedies, Austria was prepared to change its domestic legislation to provide for new remedies or to allow the use of existing remedies, if regarded by the Human Eights Committee as suitable, in the same manner as it had done in respect of the decisions of the European Court on earlier occasions, 87. The problems that had led Austria to make a number of reservations at the time of ratification of the Covenant were largely attributable to differences relating to existing practice in Austria and to the provisions of the European Convention and its interpretation. However, it would always be possible to consider whether or not any of those reservations should be withdrawn. Non-discrimination and equality of the sexes 88. In connection with that issue, members wished to know how the Austrian Constitution guaranteed the rights provided for in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant; whether women received equal pay and what measures had been taken to promote women's participation in the various sectors of society; what -19-