58 ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION international law in this case. As a result, it does not contradict the fact of the unlawful occupation of Latvia and the continuity of the Latvian State in international law. What are the consequences of the approach taken in this case? It sends a strong message to all States Parties as concerns their social security laws since the chances are that whenever there is a distinction based on acquired characteristics (residence, nationality or other status) it will be contrary to Article 14 unless some truly weighty justifications are provided. Even if I believe that this goes way beyond the scope of the Convention ratione materiae, the fact remains that the Court has given its decision and all States Parties will have to bear the consequences. The Court will have to ensure that in all similar cases it takes the same approach. 43. I personally continue to see the case for what it is: a problem of responsibility for pensions accrued under the USSR following its demise. I do not think that this was the type of case where pronouncements of a fundamental character on the prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of social rights were appropriate. The case could nevertheless have been an important contribution to the clarification of the application of the Convention with respect to acquired rights in the complex context of State continuity following illegal annexation. In addition to some cases with respect to Turkey, it could have been a further example of the Court’s approach to the question of the contents of the obligation of non-recognition of a situation as legal in international law. Unfortunately, the Court has missed this opportunity.