freedom of religion · 2006. 11. 25. · 0521856493 - freedom of religion: un and european human...

FRE EDOM OF REL IG ION

The scale and variety of acts of religious intolerance evident in so manycountries today are of enormous contemporary concern. This timelystudy attempts a thorough and systematic treatment of both Universaland European practice side by side. The standards applicable to freedomof religion are subjected to a detailed critique, and their developmentand implementation within the UN is distinguished from that withinStrasbourg, in order to discern trends and obstacles to their advance-ment and to highlight the rationale for any apparent departures betweenthe two systems. This dual focus also demonstrates the acute need for theEuropean Court to heed the warnings from various patterns of violationthroughout the world illustrated by the Human Rights Committee andthe Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

PAUL M . TAYLOR is a Barrister (Lincoln’s Inn).

© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org

Cambridge University Press0521856493 - Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and PracticePaul M. TaylorFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/0521856493http://www.cambridge.orghttp://www.cambridge.org

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice

PAUL M . TAYLOR




CAMBR IDG E UN I V ER S I T Y P R E S S

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

CAMBR IDG E UN I V ER S I T Y P R E S S

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521672467

# Paul M. Taylor 2005

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without

the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2005

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN-13 978-0-521-85649-2 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-85649-3 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-67246-7 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-67246-5 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for

the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or

third-party internet websites referred to in this book,

and does not guarantee that any content on such

websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.




CONTENTS

Foreword by David Harris page ix

Preface xi

Table of cases, applications, and communications xiii

Table of treaties, declarations, and other international

instruments xxiv

List of abbreviations xxvii

1 Introduction 1

Overview 1

Interrelation between the UN and European systems 7

The institutions and their contribution to standard-setting 9

The Human Rights Committee 10

The Role of the Special Rapporteur 15

The European Convention treaty organs 16

Chapter structure 19

2 Freedom of religious choice 24

Introduction 24

Freedom to change or maintain religion 27

Pressure to maintain a religion or belief 43

Origin of the freedom from coercion 43

Interpretation of the freedom from coercion 45

Apostasy 50

Summary 53

Pressure to change religion 54

Introduction 54

Missionary activity, imperialist ambitions, colonialism and war 55

v




Social concern and inducements 57

Proselytism 64

Grounds of opposition to proselytism 64

Rights and freedoms of others 70

Coercion 73

Hate speech 77

Blasphemy, disparagement and gratuitous offence 84

Conclusion 111

3 The scope of the forum internum beyond religious

choice 115

Introduction 115

‘Direct’ protection for the forum internum 120

Decisions based on justified limitation on manifestation 121

Decisions based on available alternatives 136

Exemption ruling out coercion 136

Employment 138

Decisions based on provision for interference in the

relevant Convention 147

Military service 148

Taxation and social security 153

Recognition that coercion does not constitute

manifestation 156

Summary 159

‘Indirect’ protection for the forum internum 160

The rights and freedoms of others as a ground of limitation 161

Education 165

‘Respect’ for parental convictions based on indoctrination 166

Alternative approaches: manifestation and

coercion to act contrary to one’s beliefs 175

Summary 182

The use of anti-discrimination measures to protect

the forum internum 182

Differential treatment 187

‘Reasonable’ and ‘objective’ criteria 192

Summary 198

Conclusion 198

vi C O N T E N T S




4 The right to manifest religious belief and applicable

limitations 203

Introduction 203

Beliefs and their manifestation 203

Protected beliefs 204

Nexus between religion or belief and its manifestation 210

Determination of whether there has been an interference 222

The scope of recognised manifestations of religion or belief 235

‘To worship or assemble in connection with a religion

or belief, and to establish and maintain places for

these purposes’ 237

Worship or assemble 237

Establish and maintain places of worship and assembly 242

‘To establish and maintain appropriate charitable

or humanitarian institutions’ 246

‘To make, acquire and use to an adequate extent the

necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs

of a religion or belief ’ 250

‘To write, issue and disseminate relevant publications

in these areas’ 259

‘To teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these

purposes’ 263

‘To solicit and receive voluntary financial and other

contributions from individuals and institutions’ 271

‘To train, appoint, elect or designate by succession

appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and

standards of any religion or belief ’ 272

‘To observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays

and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of one’s

religion or belief ’ 278

‘To establish and maintain communications with

individuals and communities in matters of religion or belief

at the national and international levels’ 287

Summary 290

Permissible limitations on the right to manifestation 292

Introduction 292

Prescribed by law 293

Legitimate aim 301

C O N T E N T S vii




Necessary (in a democratic society) 305

Grounds of limitation 321

Public interest grounds of limitation 321

Public health and safety 321

Order 323

National security 325

Protection of morals 327

Fundamental rights and freedoms of others 328

Conclusion 333

5 Conclusion 339

The myth surrounding the nature of coercion to change

religion or belief 339

Developing recognition of issues of conscience 342

The widening of State discretion in European jurisprudence 343

The range of manifestations of religion or belief 347

Meeting future challenges 348

Overview 350

Annexes 352

Annex 1: Universal Declaration of Human Rights 352

Annex 2: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 358

Annex 3: Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms

of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief 368

Annex 4: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms 372

Annex 5: Text of General Comment No. 22 378

Bibliography 383

Index 398

viii C O N T E N T S




FOREWORD

This study of the United Nations and European international humanrights law guaranteeing freedom of religion addresses issues of greatcontemporary concern. There are many places in the world where thefollowers of a particular religion may not lawfully worship or practisetheir religion in their daily lives. Apostacy and proselytism may becriminal acts, as may artistic speech that causes offence to religiousfeelings. Religious intolerance continues to fuel a high proportion ofthe situations of armed conflict around the world, thus being the see-mingly intractable cause of so much human suffering. Since 9/11,incitement to religious hatred has increased in significance, withMuslims being the targets of general blame. Religion is as the heart ofthe debate about multiculturalism, exemplified by the heated contro-versy in France about the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women.The relationship between Church and State remains a contentious issuein some other societies. In a watershed and contentious judgment inRefah Partisi v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Right has ruledthat a state legal order that is founded on Shariah Law is not consistentwith democracy in Europe, so that the banning of a political party thatseeks to introduce such an order is not in breach of the guarantee of theright to freedom of association in the European Convention on HumanRights. And the return to strict Christian religious values in the UnitedStates has raised moral questions and issues of separation of Church andState for the courts.

This book is likely to become the place of first recourse on theinternational human rights law on freedom of religion that governthese and other situations and issues. It offers a comprehensive analysisand evaluation of the relevant international law standards that haveevolved within the United Nations and the Council of Europe. Thebook is distinctive in its reliance upon both the – sometimes differing –jurisprudence and practice of the United Nations and European humanrights systems. At the United Nations level, what is of great value is the

ix




author’s use not only of the practice of the Human Rights Committee,but also of the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom ofReligion or Belief. These reports are a depressingly revealing mine ofinformation about the large extent and different forms of the ongoingviolations of freedom of religion perpetrated or tolerated by Statesaround the world.

DAVID HARRIS

Professor Emeritus and Co-Director of theHuman Rights Law Centre,

School of Law,University of Nottingham

April 2005

x F O R EW O R D




PREFACE

The escalating religious intolerance of recent years, both through Stateviolation and by non-State entities, is most conspicuous in events followingthe collapse of the former Soviet Union, in religious conflict in many partsof the world and, of course, in the attacks of 11 September 2001. This hascaused speculation whether the international instruments which weredeveloped more than half a century ago, and those which followed butwere shaped by those instruments, are sufficient to meet present andforeseeable demands. The array of religious violations visible in so manycountries today could not have been anticipated by the drafters of the corefreedom of religion Articles in the foundational instruments, namely theUniversal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention.The development of comparable provisions in later instruments, such asthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UnitedNations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and ofDiscrimination based on Religion or Belief (‘the 1981 Declaration’), sug-gests that the issues which fashioned the text of those later provisions didnot depart significantly from those faced by the original drafters, exceptperhaps in the intensity with which they were debated.

Among recent patterns of violation, particularly in countries of the formerSoviet Union, are measures such as prohibitive registration formalities andbans on proselytism aimed at the protection of a traditional State religion orthe preservation of national identity in reaction to the influx of new religiousmovements. Many other countries have recently adopted preventive policiesagainst so-called ‘sects’ as a result of exaggerated fears of their activities. Thexenophobia and discrimination directed atMuslims following September 11has been far more widespread and anxieties about ‘extremism’ have, forexample, led various countries to react more unfavourably than ever towardsMuslim dress. Hostility towardsMuslims has added impetus tomoves whichhad already begun in certain countries for legislation designed to prohibitreligious vilification or religious hatred. It remains to be seen whether thiswill be at the expense of religious practice such as teaching and proselytism.

xi




One other development of recent years has been the emergence of politicalparties with an overtly religious agenda, the most radical advocating theintroduction of a system of government based on religious law.

It is therefore timely to reflect on whether existing instruments arecapable of meeting immediate expectations and, as we approach the25th anniversary of the 1981 Declaration, to consider in particular thecontribution to the development of current standards made by thatDeclaration and by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion orbelief appointed to examine incidents and governmental action incon-sistent with the Declaration. The 1981 Declaration is of unique signifi-cance in the development of the freedom of religion since it was the first,and remains the only, United Nations instrument dedicated solely tothat freedom. This work pays tribute to the specialist role of the SpecialRapporteur in providing a wealth of material on recurring patterns ofviolation worldwide and in serving to uncover contemporary sources ofintolerance and obstacles to the promotion of international obligations.

The purpose of this book is to provide a detailed survey of the elementsof the freedom of thought, conscience and religion as developed withinboth the United Nations and European systems and to offer an analysis oftrends at a time when the freedom faces a number of important challenges.It provides a critique of United Nations and European practice in order toidentify and explain apparent departures between the two systems, to helpto discern obstacles to the advancement of standards and to guage the levelof recognition given to different aspects of the freedom. The aim is toenable an immediate appreciation of the United Nations or Europeansystem for those familiar with only one, and to provide coverage of thelaw and practice of both United Nations and European institutions forthose familiar with neither system.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor David Harris, whohas been extremely generous in his support for this work and whoseassistance I value enormously. I would also like to thank, among manyothers who have helped in its preparation, the librarians at CambridgeUniversity’s Squire Law Library for their patient assistance with manyqueries and the kind provision of facilities beyond all expectation. I amalso greatly indebted to Wolfson College Cambridge for a VisitingFellowship that offered a stimulating environment for the completionof this work, to Finola O’Sullivan of Cambridge University Press whothroughout has never been anything but extremely helpful, and to theanonymous referees appointed by Cambridge University Press for theirvery useful recommendations for improvement of the text.

xii P R E F A C E




TABLE OF CASES, APPLICATIONS, ANDCOMMUNICATIONS

The European Court of Human Rights

Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 94(1985) ECtHR 186

Agga v. Greece (App. Nos 50776/99 and 52912/99), Judgment of7 October 2002 276

Ahmet Sadik v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 323 270Barthold v. Germany (Ser. A) No. 90 (1985) ECtHR 270Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey (2001) 31 EHRR 292 207Beard v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 442 243Buckley v. United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 101 242Buscarini and others v. San Marino (2000) 30(2) EHRR 208 129, 130,

159, 199, 302, 345Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in

education in Belgium (the Belgian linguistics case) (Ser. A) No. 6(1968) ECtHR 167, 183, 185

Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 48 (1982)ECtHR 128, 166, 173

Canea Catholic Church v. Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 521 226Casimiro Martins v. Luxembourg (App. No. 44888/98, unreported,

decision of 27 April 1999) 173Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France (App. No. 27417/95), Judgment of

11 July 2000 218–19, 224, 226, 258, 322Chapman v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 399 242Chassagnou and others v. France (2000) 29 EHRR 615 186Dahlab v. Switzerland (App. No. 42393/98), Judgment of 15 February

2001 172, 254, 304, 331, 334, 337Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 45 (1982) ECtHR 310Efstratiou v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 298 117, 173Engel v. The Netherlands (Ser. A) No. 22 (1976) ECtHR 142

xiii




Eriksson v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 156 (1989) ECtHR 167Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (2001)

31 EHRR 674 227Groppera Radio AG and others v. Switzerland (Ser. A) No. 173–A

(1990) ECtHR 162Handyside v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 24 (1976) ECtHR 94,

185, 308Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (2002) 34(6) EHRR 1339 228,

273–5, 277, 294, 296, 299, 311, 335, 348, 350Hoffmann v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 255–C (1993) ECtHR 269HolyMonasteries v. Greece (Ser. A) No. 301 (1995) ECtHR 230, 252Incal v. Turkey (2000) 29 EHRR 449 207Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 276,

Judgment of 24 November 1993 92Inze v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 126 (1988) ECtHR 186Jersild v. Denmark (Ser. A) No. 289 (1995) ECtHR 80Johnston v. Ireland (Ser. A) No. 112 (1987) ECtHR 283Kalaç v. Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 552 143–4, 217, 318, 345Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark (the Danish sex

education case) (Ser. A) No. 23 (1976) ECtHR 116, 166, 167,168, 170, 171, 172, 201

Kokkinakis v. Greece (Ser. A) No. 260–A (1993) ECtHR 39, 50,67–70, 73, 86, 90, 96, 101, 112, 129, 163, 164, 168, 208, 217,225, 264, 267, 273, 294, 298, 302, 308, 330, 335, 340, 349

Larissis and others v. Greece (Ser. A) No. 65 (1998–V) ECtHR363 66, 70, 98, 112, 171, 294, 309, 334, 341

Lotter and Lotter v. Bulgaria (App. No. 39015/97), Judgment of19 May 2004 289

McGuinness v. United Kingdom (App. No. 39511/98 unreported,decision of 8 June, 1999) 130

Maestri v. Italy (App. No. 42393/98), Judgment of 17 February2004 296, 335

Malone v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 82 (1984) ECtHR 294Manoussakis and others v. Greece (1997) 23 EHRR 387 50, 50–3,

126, 233, 242, 299, 302, 303, 310, 324, 328, 335, 349Marckx v. Belgium (Ser. A) No. 31 (1979) ECtHR 186Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others v. Moldova (2002)

35 EHRR 306 222–4, 225, 230, 234, 240, 245, 246, 247, 271,272–7, 291, 299, 303, 308, 312, 313, 324, 335, 337, 338, 350

xiv T A B L E O F C A S E S




Müller v. Switzerland (Ser. A) No. 133 (1988) ECtHR 97–8Murphy v. Ireland (App. No. 44179/98) (2004) 38 EHRR

212 89, 98, 113–14, 163, 304, 309, 325Olsson v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 130 (1988) ECtHR 294Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 295–A (1994) ECtHR

85–7, 99, 113–14, 162, 164, 343Palau-Martinez v. France (App. No. 64927/01), Judgment of 16

December 2003 269Plattform ‘Ärzte für das Leben’ v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 139 (1988) ECtHRPretty v. United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 207, 208, 216Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey (2003) 37

EHRR 1 229, 314, 335Riera Blume and others v. Spain (2000) 30 EHRR 632 332Serif v. Greece (1999) 31 EHRR 561 164, 218, 275–6, 277, 312,

325, 335, 336, 349Sidiropoulos v. Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 633 229, 302, 304Socialist Party and others v. Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 51 317Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria

(1998) 26 EHRR, CD 103 302The Sunday Times Case (Ser. A) No. 30 (1979) ECtHR 294The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (1992)14 EHRR 229 308Supreme Holy Council of theMuslim Community v. Bulgaria (App. No.

39023/97), Judgment of 16 December 2004Thlimmenos v. Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 411 189–90, 201, 295,

336, 348Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece (1998) 25 EHRR 198 150, 193United Christian Broadcasters Ltd v. United Kingdom (App. No.

44802), Judgment of 7 November 2000 92United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR

121 304, 313, 314Vatan v. Russia (App. No. 47978/99), Judgment of 7 October 2004 81VgT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (App. No. 24699/94),

Judgment of 28 June 2001 92, 92–3Valsamis v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 294 117, 172, 175–6, 282Vogt v. Germany (Ser. A) No. 323–A (1995) ECtHR 99Wingrove v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1 87–92, 96–7,

113, 328Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 44 (1981)

ECtHR 174

T A B L E O F C A S E S xv




The European Commission of Human Rights

Angeleni v. Sweden, App. No. 10491/83 (1986) 51 D&R 41 128,166, 192, 208

Arrowsmith v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7050/75 (1980) 19D&R 5 123, 128, 129–30, 174, 207, 210

Autio v. Finland, App. No. 17086/90 (1991) 72 D&R 245 193B. and D. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9303/81 (1986) 49 D&R

44 167

Bernard and others v. Luxembourg, App. No. 17187/90 (1993)75 D&R 57 174, 192

C. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 10358/83 (1983) 37D&R 142 124,126, 154, 157, 214, 215, 247, 252

Chappell, A.R.M. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 12587/86 (1987)53 D&R 241 240, 331, 337

Childs v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9813/82, decision of 1 March1983 unpublished, Council of Europe Digest of StrasbourgCase-Law relating to the European Convention on Human Rights,Section 9.2.1.1, p. 1 239, 324

Choudhury v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17439/90 (1991)12 HRLJ 172 85

Christians against Racism and Fascism v. United Kingdom, App. No.8440/78 (1980) 21 D&R 138 323, 336

Church of Scientology and 128 of its members v. Sweden, App. No.8282/78 (1980) 21 D&R 109 100

Church of X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 3798/68 (1968) 29CD 70 289

C. J., J. J. & E. J. v. Poland, App. No. 23380/94 84–A (1996) D&R 46176, 346

Conscientious objectors v. Denmark, App. No. 7565/76 (1978)9 D&R 117 148

D. v. France, App. No. 10180/82 (1983) 35 D&R 199 283Darby v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 187 (1990) ECtHR, annex to the decision

of the Court 39, 41, 116, 127, 156, 160, 199, 342E. & G. R. v. Austria, App. No. 9781/82 (1984) 37 D&R 42 40, 137East African Asians cases, App. No. 4403/70 etc (1981) EHRR 76, 36

CD, 92 165, 186Gay News Ltd and Lemon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8710/79

(1982) 5 EHRR 123 84, 96, 99

xvi T A B L E O F C A S E S




Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. The Netherlands, App. No. 8348/78and 8406/78 (1979) 18 D&R 187 80

Gottesmann v. Switzerland, App. No. 101616/83 (1984) 40 D&R284 39–41, 341

Grandrath v. Germany, App. No. 2299/64, 10 YBECHR (1967)626 149, 193

Gudmundsson v. Iceland, App. No. 511/59, 3Yearbook (1960) 394 154Hazar and Açik v. Turkey, App. Nos. 16311/90, 16312/90 and 16313/

90 (1992) 73 D&R 111 (settlement); (1991) 72 D&R 200(admissibility) 128, 207, 208

Iglesia Bautista ‘El Salvador’ and Ortega Moratilla v. Spain, App. No.17522/90 (1992) 72 D&R 256

ISCON and others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 20490/92 (1994) 90D&R 90 242, 243

Johansen v. Norway, App. No. 10600/83 (1985) 44 D&R 155 148Karaduman v. Turkey, App. No. 16278/90 (1993) 74 D&R 93 144,

215, 253–4, 318, 337, 349Karlsson v. Sweden, App. No. 12356/86 (1988) 57 D&R 172 140–1Khan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 11579/85 (1986) 48 D&R

253 213, 283Knudsen v. Norway, App. No. 11045/84 (1985) 42 D&R 247 129,

139–41, 212, 220Kommunistische Partei Deutschland v. Germany, App. No. 250/57,

1 Yearbook (1955–7) 222 165Konttinen v. Finland, App. No. 24949/94 (1996) 87 D&R 68 158,

188–9Kühnen v. Germany, App. No. 12194/86 (1988) 56 D&R 205Kustannus Oy Vapaa Ajattelija AB and others v. Finland, App. No.

20471/92, 85–A (1996) D&R 29 226Logan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24875/94 (1996) 22 EHRR, CD

178 241

Marais v. France, App. No. 31159/96 (1996) 86 D&R 184 81N. v. Sweden, App. No. 10410/83 (1985) 40 D&R 203 148, 193Omkarananda and the Divine Light Zentrum v. United Kingdom, App.

No. 8188/77 (1981) 25 D&R 105 58, 273OrtegaMoratilla v. Spain, App. No. 17522/90 (1992) 72D&R 256 157Plattform ‘Ärzte für das Leben’ v. Austria, App. No. 10126/82 (1985)

44 D&R 65 100–1, 128, 208Raninen v. Finland, App. No. 20972/92, 84–A (1996) D&R 17 193

T A B L E O F C A S E S xvii




Reformed Church of X. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 1497/62, 5Yearbook (1962) 286 136–7, 154–5

Scientology Kirche Deutschland v. Germany, App. No. 34614/96, 89–A(1997) D&R 163

Seven Individuals v. Sweden, App. No. 8811/79 (1982) 29 D&R104 167, 268

Stedman v. United Kingdom, App. No. 29107/95, 89–A (1997) D&R104 144, 158, 189, 241, 282

Suter v. Switzerland, App. No. 11595/85 (1986) 51 D&R 160 193T. v. Belgium, App. No. 9777/82 (1983) 34 D&R 158 81V. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 10678/83 (1984) 39 D&R

267 126, 215Van den Dungen v. The Netherlands, App. No. 22838/93 (1995) 80

D&R 147 99–100, 160, 188Van de Heijden v. The Netherlands, App. No. 11002/84 (1985) 41

D&R 264Verein Kontakt-Information-Therapie and Hagen v. Austria, App. No.

11921/86 (1988) 57 D&R 81W. & D.M. and M. and H.I. v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 10228/82

and 10229/82 (joined) (1984) 37 D&R 96 171X. v. Austria, App. No. 1747/62 (1963) 13 CD 42 326X. v. Austria, App. No. 1753/63 8 Yearbook (1965) 174 256, 324X. v. Austria, App. No. 5591/72 (1973) CD 43 161X. v. Austria, App. No. 8652/79 (1981) 26 D&R 89 228X. v. Denmark, App. No. 7374/76 (1976) 5 D&R 157 48, 138–9, 145X. v. Denmark, App. No. 7465/76 (1977) 7 D&R 153 289X. v. Germany, App. No. 2413/65 (1966) 23 CD 1 224X. v. Germany, App. No. 7705/76 (1977) 9 D&R 196 148X. v. Germany, App. No. 8410/78 (1980) 18 D&R 216 184X. v. Germany, App. No. 8682/79 (1981) 26 D &R 97 239X. v. Germany, App. No. 8741/79 (1981) 24 D&R 137 208, 285X. v. Germany, App. No. 9235/817 (1982) 29 D&R 194 81X. and Y. v. Germany, App No. 7641/76 (1976) 10 D&R 224 142X. v. Iceland, App. No. 2525/65 (1967) 18 CD 33X. v. Italy, App. No. 6741/74 (1976) 5 D&R 83 79X. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 1068/61, 5 Yearbook (1962)

278 122

X. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 2065/63, 8 Yearbook (1965)266 137, 155

xviii T A B L E O F C A S E S




X. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 2988/66, 10 Yearbook (1967)472 332

X. v. Sweden, App. No. 9820/82 (1984) 5 EHRR 297 100, 270, 331X. and the Church of Scientology v. Sweden, App. No. 7805/77 (1979)

16 D&R 68 226, 252X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5442/72 (1975) 1 D&R 41 260,

324, 334, 337X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6084/73 (1975) 3 D&R 62X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6886/75 (1976) 5 D&R 100 251X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7291/75 (1977) 11 D&R 55X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7992/77 (1978) 14 D&R 234 256X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8010/77 (1979) 16 D&R 101 267,

330

X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8160/78 (1981) 22D&R 27 144–5,147, 177, 188, 211, 225, 241, 247, 267, 337

X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8231/78 (1982) 28 D&R 5 256X., Y. and Z. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8566/79 (1982) 31

D&R 50 167Yanasik v. Turkey, App. No. 14524/89 (1993) 74 D&R 14 141, 217,

318, 345

Views and Decisions of the Human Rights Committee

A group of associations for the defence of the rights of disabled andhandicapped persons in Italy, and persons signing thecommunication, on 9th January 1984 v. Italy, CommunicationNo. 163/1984 (decision 10 April 1984), UN Doc. A/39/40(1984), p. 197 226

A. and S. N. v. Norway, Communication No. 224/1987 (decision of 11July 1988), UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988), p. 246 178–9

Ahani v. Canada, Communication No. 1051/2002 (views of 29 March2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 260 52

Arenz v. Germany, Communication No. 1138/2002 (decision of 24March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 548

B.d.B. et al. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 273/1988 (decisionof 30 March 1989), UN Doc. A/44/40 (1989), p. 286 191

Bhinder K. Singh v. Canada, Communication No. 208/1986 (views of9 November 1989), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990), p. 50132–3, 146, 191, 240, 257, 332

T A B L E O F C A S E S xix




Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 721/1997 (viewsof 2 August 2002), UN Doc. A/57/40 vol. 2 (2002), p. 76 135,239, 257

Brinkhof v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 402/1990 (decisionof 27 July 1993), UN Doc. A/48/40 vol. 2 (1993), (1994) 14HRLJ 410 193, 345

Broeks, S.W.M. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 172/1984(views of 9 April 1987), UN Doc. A/42/40 (1987), p. 139 187

Buckle v. New Zealand, Communication No. 858/1999 (views of25 October 2000), A/56/40, p. 175 269

C. v. Australia, Communication No. 900/1999 (views of 28 October2002) UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 188 52

Coeriel, A. R. and M. A. R. Aurik v. The Netherlands, CommunicationNo. 453/1991 (views of 31 October 1994), UN Doc A/50/40 vol.2 (1999), p. 21 133–4, 279

Danning, L. G. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 180/1984(views of 9 April 1987), UN Doc. A/42/40 (1987), p. 151 183

De Groot, Leonardus J. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 578/1994 (decision of 14 July 1995), UN Doc. A/50/40 vol. 2 (1999),p. 179 131–2

E.P. et al. v. Colombia, Communication No. 318/1988 (decision of15 July 1990), UN Doc. A/45/40 (1990), p. 184 278

E.W. et al. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 429/1990(decision of 8 April 1993), UN Doc. A48/40 vol. 2 (1993),p. 198

Faurisson, Robert v. France, Communication No. 550/1993 (views of8 November 1996), UN Doc. A/52/40 vol. 2 (1999), p. 84 82,83, 108, 298, 300

Foin, Frederic v. France, Communication No. 666/1995 (views of3 November 1999), (2000) 7(2) IHRR 354 194, 346

G.T. v. Canada, Communication No. 420/1990 (decision of 22 March1990), (1994) 1(1) IHRR 46 146

H.A.E.d.J. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 297/1988(decision of 30 October 1989), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990),p. 176 191

Hartikainen v. Finland, Communication No. 40/1978 (views of 9 April1981), UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981), p. 147 178–81

Hertzberg and others v. Finland, Communication No. R.14/61 (views of2 April 1982), UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982), p. 161 186, 327

xx T A B L E O F C A S E S




Hopu, Francis and Tepoaitu Bessert v. France, Communication No.549/1993 (views of 29 July 1997), UN Doc. A/52/40 vol. 2(1999), p. 70 238, 240

J.v.K. andC.M.G.v.K.-S. v. TheNetherlands,CommunicationNo.483/1991(decision of 23 July 1992), UNDoc. A/47/40 (1994), p. 435 155

Jansen-Gielen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 846/1999(views of 3 April 2001), UN Doc. A/56/40 vol. 2, p. 158 267

J.H.W. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 501/1992 (decision of16 July 1993) (1994) 1(2) IHRR 39 187

J.P. v. Canada, Communication No. 466/1991 (decision of 7 November1991), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1994), p. 426 155, 220

J.P.K. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 401/1990 (decision of7 November 1991), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1994), p. 405 151

J.R.T. and the W.G. Party v. Canada, Communication No. 104/1981(decision of 6 April 1983), UN Doc. A38/40 (1983), p. 231 79

Jarvinen, Aapo v. Finland, Communication No. 295/1988 (views of25 July 1990), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990), p. 101 194

Kang v. Korea, Communication No. 878/1999 (views of 15 July 2003),UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 152 32

Kitok v. Sweden, Communication No.197/1985 (views of 27 July 1988),UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988), p. 221 279

Kivenmaa, Auli v. Finland, Communication No. 412/1990 (views of31 March 1994) (1994) 1(3) IHRR 88 300

K.V. and C.V. v. Germany, Communication No. 568/1993 (decision of8 April 1994), UN Doc. A/49/40, vol. 2 (1994), p. 365 155

Länsman, Jouni E. et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 671/1995(views of 30 October 1996), UN Doc. A/52/40 vol. 2 (1999),p. 191 279

L.T.K. v. Finland, Communication No. 185/1984 (decision of 9 July1985), UN Doc. A/40/40 (1985), p. 240 148, 150, 151

M.A. v. Italy, Communication No. 117/81 (decision of 10 April 1984),UN Doc. A/39/40 (1984), p. 190 79–80

M.A.B., W.A.T. and J.-A.Y.T. v. Canada, Communication No. 570/1993 (decision of 8 April 1994), UN Doc. A/49/40, vol. 2 (1994),p. 368 128, 209, 238, 251

M.B.B. v. Sweden, Communication No. 104/1998, UN Doc. CAT/C/22/D/104/1998 (views of 5 May 1999) (2000) 7(2) IHRR 400

M.J.G. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 267/1987 (decision of24 March 1988), UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988), p. 271 190–1

T A B L E O F C A S E S xxi




Maille, Richard v. France, Communication No. 689/1996 (views of 10July 2000) (2000) 7(4) IHRR 947 148

Mathews, Patterson v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 569/1993 (views of 31 March 1998), UN Doc. A/53/40 (1998),p. 30 134–5, 257

Nam v. Korea, Communication No. 693/1996 (decision of 28 July2003), UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 390 180

Páez, W. Delgado v. Colombia, Communication No. 195/1985 (viewsof 12 July 1990), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990), p. 43 145–6,267

Palandjian v. Hungary, Communication No. 1106/2002 (decision of30 March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 534

Park, Tae-Hoon v. Korea, Communication No. 628/1995 (views of20 October 1998) (1999) 6(3) IHRR 623 165, 210, 293, 325

P.S. v. Denmark, Communication No. 397/1990 (decision of 22 July1992), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1992), p. 395 268

Riley et al. v. Canada, Communication No. 1048/2002 (decision of21 March 2002), UN Doc. A/57/40 vol. 2 (2002), p. 356 257

Ross, Malcolm v. Canada, Communication No. 736/1997 (views of18 October, 2000), UN Doc. A/56/40 vol. 2 (2001), p. 69 82,207, 221, 222, 260, 263, 300–1, 304, 307, 329

Sanlés Sanlés v. Spain, Communication No. 1024/2001 (decision of 30March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 505

Somers, Ivan v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, (views of23 July 1996), UN Doc. A/51/40 vol. 2, (1997), p. 144 183

T.W.M.B. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 403/1990(decision of 7 November 1991), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1994),p. 411 151

Vakoumé, Mathieu and others v. France, Communication No. 822/1998 (decision of 31 October 2000), UN Doc. A/56/40 vol. 2,p. 249 238

Van der Ent, Gerrit v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 657/1995(decision of 3 November 1995), UN Doc. A/51/40 vol. 2 (1997),p. 276 132

Waldman, Arieh Hollis v. Canada, Communication No. 694/1996(views of 3 November 1999) (2000) 7(2) IHRR 368 178, 179,181, 192, 266–7

Westerman, Paul v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 682/1996(views of 3 November 1999) (2000) 7(2) IHRR 363

xxii T A B L E O F C A S E S




X. v. Australia, Communication No. 557/1993 (decision of 16 July 1996),UN Doc. A/51/40 vol. 2 (1997), p. 235

Zündel v. Canada, Communication No. 953/2000 (decision of 27 July2003), UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 483 82

Zwaan-de Vries, F.W. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 182/1984 (views of 9 April 1987), UN Doc. A/42/40 (1987),p. 160 183

The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. The RepublikaSrpska, Case No. CH/96/29 (decision of 11 June 1999) (2000)7(3) IHRR 833 244, 246

Mahmutovic, Dzevad v. The Republika Srpska, Case No. CH/98/892(decision of 8 October 1999) (2000) 7(3) IHRR 869 284

T A B L E O F C A S E S xxiii




TABLE OF TREATIES, DECLARATIONS, AND OTHERINTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), GA Res. 217A(III),UN Doc. A/3/810 (1949) 203, 352–8

Article 18 1, 4, 7, 235, 355drafting history 24

Article 29 206, 293, 357European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (1950), 213 UNTS 221 372Article 1 317Article 2 165, 166–9Article 4 149Article 6 227Article 8 176–7Article 9 2, 4, 7, 17, 22, 26, 72, 75–7, 100, 116, 201, 204, 244, 284,

306, 313, 317, 330, 343–4, 347, 349, 350–1gratuitously profane expressions 95–6legal obligation 121proselytism 112

Article 10 80, 106, 108, 113, 170, 204–5, 328, 330, 343–4Article 11 100–1, 227, 311, 314Article 12 283Article 14 183, 189–90Article 17 80, 101, 165, 313Article 25 17Article 26 17Article 27 17Article 52 18discretion to states under 185limitation 161Protocol 11 16, 384publications 263

Convention on Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers forWork of Equal Value (1951), 165 UNTS 257 183

xxiv




Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (1958),362 UNTS 31 183

UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960),429 UNTS 93 183

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination (1965), 660 UNTS 195 9, 80

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), 999UNTS171 10–15, 36, 156, 203, 358–68

Article 2 12, 18, 47, 183, 359Article 5 46, 79, 101, 360Article 6 51, 361Article 17 165, 365Article 18 1, 4, 8, 9, 11–13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 28, 43–5, 51,

63, 78, 151, 165, 177, 194, 206, 220, 269, 306, 323,325, 365

Article 19 221, 305, 366Article 20 77, 101, 305, 366Article 25 46, 368Article 26 183, 190, 368Article 31 11Article 40 10, 11, 13Articles 1–10 12limitation 161Optional Protocol 79, 82

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(1966), 993 UNTS 3 36

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of theCrime of Apartheid (1973), 1015 UNTS 243 184

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (1976), 999 UNTS 171 10, 14, 15, 79, 131–2

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination againstWomen (1979), 1249 UNTS 13 184

Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and ofDiscrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981), GA Res. 36/55,UN Doc. A/36/51 (1982) 2, 4, 8, 15, 26, 35, 56, 368–72

Article 1 4, 5, 369Article 6 22, 66, 204, 221, 226, 235, 236, 262, 329, 334, 336,

347, 371Article 8 28, 372

T A B L E O F T R E A T I E S xxv




Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment (1984), 1465 UNTS 3

article 3 51Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), 1577 UNTS 3 34Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (1994), 155 ETSEuropean Framework Convention for the Protection of National

Minorities (1995), 157 ETS 5, 18, 250, 259, 276, 279

xxvi T A B L E O F T R E A T I E S




ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeal CasesAIR All India ReporterAm J Int’l L American Journal of International LawBrigham Young UL Rev Brigham Young University Law ReviewBYBIL British Yearbook of International LawCambridge LJ Cambridge Law JournalCase W Res J Int’l L Case Western Reserve Journal of

International LawCD Collected Decisions of the European

Commission of Human RightsCHR Commission on Human RightsCIL Contemporary Issues in LawCon & Lib Conscience & LibertyCornell Int’l LJ Cornell International Law JournalEcc LJ Ecclesiastical Law JournalEc Rev Ecumenical ReviewECtHR European Court of Human Rights

Judgments and DecisionsEd & Law Education and the LawEHRLR European Human Rights Law ReviewEHRR European Human Rights ReportsEmory Int’l L Rev Emory International Law ReviewEmp Lawyer Employment LawyerESCOR United Nations Economic and Social

Council Official RecordsETS European Treaty SeriesEur L Rev European Law ReviewGA Res. General Assembly ResolutionGAOR General Assembly Official RecordsHarv Int’l LJ Harvard International Law JournalHarv L Rev Harvard Law Review

xxvii




Harv WLJ Harvard Women’s Law JournalHR & UKP Human Rights and UK PracticeHRLJ Human Rights Law JournalHRQ Human Rights QuarterlyHRJ Human Rights JournalICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (1966)IHRR International Human Rights ReportsILM International Legal MaterialsInt JLP & F International Journal of Law, Policy and

the FamilyInt’l & Comp Law Q International and Comparative Law

QuarterlyInt’l Bull Miss Res International Bulletin of Missionary

ResearchInt’l Comm’n Jurists Rev Review, International Commission of

JuristsIsr YB Hum Rts Israel Yearbook on Human RightsJ Church & St Journal of Church and StateJ Civ Lib Journal of Civil LibertiesJ Soc Wel Law Journal of Social Welfare LawKCLJ King’s College Law JournalMed Sc & L Medicine, Science and the LawNeth Int’l L Rev Netherlands International Law ReviewNLJ New Law JournalNorthern Ireland LQ Northern Ireland Legal QuarterlyNorthw UL Rev Northwestern University Law ReviewNYUJ Int’l L & Pol New York University Journal of

International Law and PoliticsODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and

Human RightsOSCE Organization for Security andCo-operation

in Europe, formerly the Conference forSecurity and Co-operation in Europe

Oxford J Leg Stud Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesPac Rim L & Pol’y J Pacific Rim Law and Policy JournalPat of Prej Patterns of PrejudicePL Public LawPlen. Mtg Plenary Meeting

xxviii L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S




Pol Quart Political QuarterlyRADIC African Journal of International and

Comparative LawRat Jur Ratio JurisRCADI Receuil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit

International de la HayeSanta Clara L Rev Santa Clara Law ReviewSCR Supreme Court ReportsU Chicago L Rev University of Chicago Law ReviewUN United NationsUNTS UN Treaty SeriesVand J Transnat’l L Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational LawVirginia J Int’l L Virginia Journal of International LawWCRP World Conference on Religion and PeaceWilliam Mary L Rev William and Mary Law ReviewWLR Weekly Law ReportsYBECHR Yearbook of the European Commission

of Human RightsYearbook Yearbook of the European Convention

on Human Rights

L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S xxix



freedom of religion · 2006. 11. 25. · 0521856493 - freedom of religion: un and european human...

Documents