0521856493 cambridge university press freedom of religion UN and european human rights law and practice jan 2006

This page intentionally left blank


FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The scale and variety of acts of religious intolerance evident in so many
countries today are of enormous contemporary concern. This timely
study attempts a thorough and systematic treatment of both Universal
and European practice side by side. The standards applicable to freedom
of religion are subjected to a detailed critique, and their development
and implementation within the UN is distinguished from that within
Strasbourg, in order to discern trends and obstacles to their advancement and to highlight the rationale for any apparent departures between
the two systems. This dual focus also demonstrates the acute need for the
European Court to heed the warnings from various patterns of violation
throughout the world illustrated by the Human Rights Committee and
the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
PAUL M. TAYLOR

is a Barrister (Lincoln’s Inn).



FREEDOM OF RELIGION
UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice

PAUL M. TAYLOR


camʙʀɪdɢe uɴɪveʀsɪtʏ pʀess
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cʙ2 2ʀu, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521856492
© Paul M. Taylor 2005
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2005

ɪsʙɴ-13
ɪsʙɴ-10

978-0-511-13549-1 eBook (EBL)
0-511-13549-1 eBook (EBL)

ɪsʙɴ-13
ɪsʙɴ-10

978-0-521-85649-2 hardback
0-521-85649-3 hardback

ɪsʙɴ-13
ɪsʙɴ-10

978-0-521-67246-7 paperback
0-521-67246-5 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of uʀʟs
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.


CONTENTS

Foreword by David Harris
Preface

page ix

xi

Table of cases, applications, and communications

xiii

Table of treaties, declarations, and other international
instruments
xxiv
List of abbreviations
1

Introduction
Overview

xxvii

1

1

Interrelation between the UN and European systems

7

The institutions and their contribution to standard-setting
The Human Rights Committee
The Role of the Special Rapporteur

15

The European Convention treaty organs
Chapter structure

2

16

19

Freedom of religious choice
Introduction

24

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
Apostasy
Summary

45

50
53

Pressure to change religion
Introduction

9

10

54

54

Missionary activity, imperialist ambitions, colonialism and war

v

55


vi

CONTENTS

Social concern and inducements
Proselytism

57

64

Grounds of opposition to proselytism
Rights and freedoms of others
Coercion

64

70

73

Hate speech

77

Blasphemy, disparagement and gratuitous offence
Conclusion

3

84

111

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
Decisions based on available alternatives
Exemption ruling out coercion
Employment

121

136

136

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
Education

‘Respect’ for parental convictions based on indoctrination

Alternative approaches: manifestation and
coercion to act contrary to one’s beliefs
Summary

175

182

The use of anti-discrimination measures to protect
the forum internum
182
Differential treatment

187

‘Reasonable’ and ‘objective’ criteria
Summary
Conclusion

161

165

198
198

192

166

vii

CONTENTS

4

The right to manifest religious belief and applicable
limitations
203
Introduction

203

Beliefs and their manifestation
Protected beliefs

203

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
Introduction
Prescribed by law
Legitimate aim

292
293
301

292

viii

CONTENTS

Necessary (in a democratic society)
Grounds of limitation

305

321

Public interest grounds of limitation
Public health and safety
Order

321

321

323

National security

325

Protection of morals

327

Fundamental rights and freedoms of others
Conclusion

5

328

333

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
The range of manifestations of religion or belief
Meeting future challenges
Overview

350

Annexes

352

347

348

Annex 1: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

352

Annex 2: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Annex 3: Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms
of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
Annex 4: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms
372
Annex 5: Text of General Comment No. 22

Bibliography
Index

398

383

343

378

358
368

FOREWORD

This study of the United Nations and European international human
rights law guaranteeing freedom of religion addresses issues of great
contemporary concern. There are many places in the world where the
followers of a particular religion may not lawfully worship or practise
their religion in their daily lives. Apostacy and proselytism may be
criminal acts, as may artistic speech that causes offence to religious
feelings. Religious intolerance continues to fuel a high proportion of
the situations of armed conflict around the world, thus being the seemingly intractable cause of so much human suffering. Since 9/11,
incitement to religious hatred has increased in significance, with
Muslims being the targets of general blame. Religion is as the heart of
the debate about multiculturalism, exemplified by the heated controversy in France about the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women.
The relationship between Church and State remains a contentious issue
in some other societies. In a watershed and contentious judgment in
Refah Partisi v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Right has ruled
that a state legal order that is founded on Shariah Law is not consistent
with democracy in Europe, so that the banning of a political party that
seeks to introduce such an order is not in breach of the guarantee of the
right to freedom of association in the European Convention on Human
Rights. And the return to strict Christian religious values in the United
States has raised moral questions and issues of separation of Church and
State for the courts.
This book is likely to become the place of first recourse on the
international human rights law on freedom of religion that govern
these and other situations and issues. It offers a comprehensive analysis
and evaluation of the relevant international law standards that have
evolved within the United Nations and the Council of Europe. The

book is distinctive in its reliance upon both the – sometimes differing –
jurisprudence and practice of the United Nations and European human
rights systems. At the United Nations level, what is of great value is the
ix


x

FOREWORD

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 of
Religion or Belief. These reports are a depressingly revealing mine of
information about the large extent and different forms of the ongoing
violations of freedom of religion perpetrated or tolerated by States
around the world.
DAVID HARRIS

Professor Emeritus and Co-Director of the
Human Rights Law Centre,
School of Law,
University of Nottingham
April 2005


PREFACE

The escalating religious intolerance of recent years, both through State
violation and by non-State entities, is most conspicuous in events following
the collapse of the former Soviet Union, in religious conflict in many parts

of the world and, of course, in the attacks of 11 September 2001. This has
caused speculation whether the international instruments which were
developed more than half a century ago, and those which followed but
were shaped by those instruments, are sufficient to meet present and
foreseeable demands. The array of religious violations visible in so many
countries today could not have been anticipated by the drafters of the core
freedom of religion Articles in the foundational instruments, namely the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention.
The development of comparable provisions in later instruments, such as
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United
Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (‘the 1981 Declaration’), suggests that the issues which fashioned the text of those later provisions did
not depart significantly from those faced by the original drafters, except
perhaps in the intensity with which they were debated.
Among recent patterns of violation, particularly in countries of the former
Soviet Union, are measures such as prohibitive registration formalities and
bans on proselytism aimed at the protection of a traditional State religion or
the preservation of national identity in reaction to the influx of new religious
movements. Many other countries have recently adopted preventive policies
against so-called ‘sects’ as a result of exaggerated fears of their activities. The
xenophobia and discrimination directed at Muslims following September 11
has been far more widespread and anxieties about ‘extremism’ have, for
example, led various countries to react more unfavourably than ever towards
Muslim dress. Hostility towards Muslims has added impetus to moves which
had already begun in certain countries for legislation designed to prohibit
religious vilification or religious hatred. It remains to be seen whether this
will be at the expense of religious practice such as teaching and proselytism.
xi

xii

PREFACE

One other development of recent years has been the emergence of political
parties with an overtly religious agenda, the most radical advocating the
introduction of a system of government based on religious law.
It is therefore timely to reflect on whether existing instruments are
capable of meeting immediate expectations and, as we approach the
25th anniversary of the 1981 Declaration, to consider in particular the
contribution to the development of current standards made by that
Declaration and by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief appointed to examine incidents and governmental action inconsistent with the Declaration. The 1981 Declaration is of unique significance in the development of the freedom of religion since it was the first,
and remains the only, United Nations instrument dedicated solely to
that freedom. This work pays tribute to the specialist role of the Special
Rapporteur in providing a wealth of material on recurring patterns of
violation worldwide and in serving to uncover contemporary sources of
intolerance and obstacles to the promotion of international obligations.
The purpose of this book is to provide a detailed survey of the elements
of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion as developed within
both the United Nations and European systems and to offer an analysis of
trends at a time when the freedom faces a number of important challenges.
It provides a critique of United Nations and European practice in order to
identify and explain apparent departures between the two systems, to help
to discern obstacles to the advancement of standards and to guage the level
of recognition given to different aspects of the freedom. The aim is to
enable an immediate appreciation of the United Nations or European
system for those familiar with only one, and to provide coverage of the
law and practice of both United Nations and European institutions for
those familiar with neither system.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor David Harris, who
has been extremely generous in his support for this work and whose
assistance I value enormously. I would also like to thank, among many
others who have helped in its preparation, the librarians at Cambridge
University’s Squire Law Library for their patient assistance with many
queries and the kind provision of facilities beyond all expectation. I am
also greatly indebted to Wolfson College Cambridge for a Visiting
Fellowship that offered a stimulating environment for the completion
of this work, to Finola O’Sullivan of Cambridge University Press who
throughout has never been anything but extremely helpful, and to the
anonymous referees appointed by Cambridge University Press for their
very useful recommendations for improvement of the text.


TABLE OF CASES, APPLICATIONS, AND
COMMUNICATIONS

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 of
7 October 2002 276
Ahmet Sadik v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 323 270
Barthold v. Germany (Ser. A) No. 90 (1985) ECtHR 270
Baskaya and Okc¸uoglu v. Turkey (2001) 31 EHRR 292 207
Beard v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 442 243
Buckley v. United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 101 242
Buscarini and others v. San Marino (2000) 30(2) EHRR 208 129, 130,
159, 199, 302, 345
Case 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 521 226
Casimiro Martins v. Luxembourg (App. No. 44888/98, unreported,
decision of 27 April 1999) 173
Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France (App. No. 27417/95), Judgment of
11 July 2000 218–19, 224, 226, 258, 322
Chapman v. United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 399 242
Chassagnou and others v. France (2000) 29 EHRR 615 186
Dahlab v. Switzerland (App. No. 42393/98), Judgment of 15 February
2001 172, 254, 304, 331, 334, 337
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 45 (1982) ECtHR 310
Efstratiou v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 298 117, 173
Engel v. The Netherlands (Ser. A) No. 22 (1976) ECtHR 142
xiii


xiv

TABLE OF CASES

Eriksson v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 156 (1989) ECtHR 167
¨ ZDEP) v. Turkey (2001)
Freedom and Democracy Party (O
31 EHRR 674 227
Groppera Radio AG and others v. Switzerland (Ser. A) No. 173–A
(1990) ECtHR 162
Handyside v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 24 (1976) ECtHR 94,

185, 308
Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (2002) 34(6) EHRR 1339 228,
273–5, 277, 294, 296, 299, 311, 335, 348, 350
Hoffmann v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 255–C (1993) ECtHR 269
Holy Monasteries v. Greece (Ser. A) No. 301 (1995) ECtHR 230, 252
Incal v. Turkey (2000) 29 EHRR 449 207
Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 276,
Judgment of 24 November 1993 92
Inze v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 126 (1988) ECtHR 186
Jersild v. Denmark (Ser. A) No. 289 (1995) ECtHR 80
Johnston v. Ireland (Ser. A) No. 112 (1987) ECtHR 283
Kalac¸ v. Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 552 143–4, 217, 318, 345
Kjeldsen, 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) ECtHR
363 66, 70, 98, 112, 171, 294, 309, 334, 341
Lotter and Lotter v. Bulgaria (App. No. 39015/97), Judgment of
19 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 February
2004 296, 335
Malone v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 82 (1984) ECtHR 294
Manoussakis and others v. Greece (1997) 23 EHRR 387 50, 50–3,
126, 233, 242, 299, 302, 303, 310, 324, 328, 335, 349
Marckx v. Belgium (Ser. A) No. 31 (1979) ECtHR 186

Metropolitan 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


TABLE OF CASES

xv

Mu¨ller v. Switzerland (Ser. A) No. 133 (1988) ECtHR 97–8
Murphy v. Ireland (App. No. 44179/98) (2004) 38 EHRR
212 89, 98, 113–14, 163, 304, 309, 325
Olsson v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 130 (1988) ECtHR 294
Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 295–A (1994) ECtHR
85–7, 99, 113–14, 162, 164, 343
Palau-Martinez v. France (App. No. 64927/01), Judgment of 16
December 2003 269
¨ rzte fu¨r das Leben’ v. Austria (Ser. A) No. 139 (1988) ECtHR
Plattform ‘A
Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 207, 208, 216
Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey (2003) 37
EHRR 1 229, 314, 335
Riera Blume and others v. Spain (2000) 30 EHRR 632 332
Serif v. Greece (1999) 31 EHRR 561 164, 218, 275–6, 277, 312,
325, 335, 336, 349
Sidiropoulos v. Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 633 229, 302, 304
Socialist Party and others v. Turkey (1999) 27 EHRR 51 317
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria
(1998) 26 EHRR, CD 103 302
The Sunday Times Case (Ser. A) No. 30 (1979) ECtHR 294

The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (1992) 14 EHRR 229 308
Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria (App. No.
39023/97), Judgment of 16 December 2004
Thlimmenos v. Greece (2001) 31 EHRR 411 189–90, 201, 295,
336, 348
Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece (1998) 25 EHRR 198 150, 193
United Christian Broadcasters Ltd v. United Kingdom (App. No.
44802), Judgment of 7 November 2000 92
United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR
121 304, 313, 314
Vatan v. Russia (App. No. 47978/99), Judgment of 7 October 2004 81
VgT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (App. No. 24699/94),
Judgment of 28 June 2001 92, 92–3
Valsamis v. Greece (1997) 24 EHRR 294 117, 172, 175–6, 282
Vogt v. Germany (Ser. A) No. 323–A (1995) ECtHR 99
Wingrove v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1 87–92, 96–7,
113, 328
Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom (Ser. A) No. 44 (1981)
ECtHR 174


xvi

TABLE OF CASES

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) 19
D&R 5 123, 128, 129–30, 174, 207, 210

Autio v. Finland, App. No. 17086/90 (1991) 72 D&R 245 193
B. 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) 37 D&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 March
1983 unpublished, Council of Europe Digest of Strasbourg
Case-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) 29
CD 70 289
C. J., J. J. & E. J. v. Poland, App. No. 23380/94 84–A (1996) D&R 46
176, 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 199 283
Darby v. Sweden (Ser. A) No. 187 (1990) ECtHR, annex to the decision
of the Court 39, 41, 116, 127, 156, 160, 199, 342
E. & G. R. v. Austria, App. No. 9781/82 (1984) 37 D&R 42 40, 137
East African Asians cases, App. No. 4403/70 etc (1981) EHRR 76, 36

CD, 92 165, 186
Gay News Ltd and Lemon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8710/79
(1982) 5 EHRR 123 84, 96, 99


TABLE OF CASES

xvii

Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. The Netherlands, App. No. 8348/78
and 8406/78 (1979) 18 D&R 187 80
Gottesmann v. Switzerland, App. No. 101616/83 (1984) 40 D&R
284 39–41, 341
Grandrath v. Germany, App. No. 2299/64, 10 YBECHR (1967)
626 149, 193
Gudmundsson v. Iceland, App. No. 511/59, 3 Yearbook (1960) 394 154
Hazar and Ac¸ik 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) 90
D&R 90 242, 243
Johansen v. Norway, App. No. 10600/83 (1985) 44 D&R 155 148
Karaduman v. Turkey, App. No. 16278/90 (1993) 74 D&R 93 144,
215, 253–4, 318, 337, 349
Karlsson v. Sweden, App. No. 12356/86 (1988) 57 D&R 172 140–1
Khan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 11579/85 (1986) 48 D&R
253 213, 283
Knudsen v. Norway, App. No. 11045/84 (1985) 42 D&R 247 129,

139–41, 212, 220
Kommunistische Partei Deutschland v. Germany, App. No. 250/57,
1 Yearbook (1955–7) 222 165
Konttinen v. Finland, App. No. 24949/94 (1996) 87 D&R 68 158,
188–9
Ku¨hnen v. Germany, App. No. 12194/86 (1988) 56 D&R 205
Kustannus Oy Vapaa Ajattelija AB and others v. Finland, App. No.
20471/92, 85–A (1996) D&R 29 226
Logan 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 81
N. v. Sweden, App. No. 10410/83 (1985) 40 D&R 203 148, 193
Omkarananda and the Divine Light Zentrum v. United Kingdom, App.
No. 8188/77 (1981) 25 D&R 105 58, 273
Ortega Moratilla v. Spain, App. No. 17522/90 (1992) 72 D&R 256 157
¨ rzte fu¨r das Leben’ v. Austria, App. No. 10126/82 (1985)
Plattform ‘A
44 D&R 65 100–1, 128, 208
Raninen v. Finland, App. No. 20972/92, 84–A (1996) D&R 17 193


xviii

TABLE OF CASES

Reformed Church of X. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 1497/62, 5
Yearbook (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&R

104 167, 268
Stedman v. United Kingdom, App. No. 29107/95, 89–A (1997) D&R
104 144, 158, 189, 241, 282
Suter v. Switzerland, App. No. 11595/85 (1986) 51 D&R 160 193
T. v. Belgium, App. No. 9777/82 (1983) 34 D&R 158 81
V. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 10678/83 (1984) 39 D&R
267 126, 215
Van den Dungen v. The Netherlands, App. No. 22838/93 (1995) 80
D&R 147 99–100, 160, 188
Van de Heijden v. The Netherlands, App. No. 11002/84 (1985) 41
D&R 264
Verein Kontakt-Information-Therapie and Hagen v. Austria, App. No.
11921/86 (1988) 57 D&R 81
W. & D.M. and M. and H.I. v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 10228/82
and 10229/82 (joined) (1984) 37 D&R 96 171
X. v. Austria, App. No. 1747/62 (1963) 13 CD 42 326
X. v. Austria, App. No. 1753/63 8 Yearbook (1965) 174 256, 324
X. v. Austria, App. No. 5591/72 (1973) CD 43 161
X. v. Austria, App. No. 8652/79 (1981) 26 D&R 89 228
X. v. Denmark, App. No. 7374/76 (1976) 5 D&R 157 48, 138–9, 145
X. v. Denmark, App. No. 7465/76 (1977) 7 D&R 153 289
X. v. Germany, App. No. 2413/65 (1966) 23 CD 1 224
X. v. Germany, App. No. 7705/76 (1977) 9 D&R 196 148
X. v. Germany, App. No. 8410/78 (1980) 18 D&R 216 184
X. v. Germany, App. No. 8682/79 (1981) 26 D &R 97 239
X. v. Germany, App. No. 8741/79 (1981) 24 D&R 137 208, 285
X. v. Germany, App. No. 9235/817 (1982) 29 D&R 194 81
X. and Y. v. Germany, App No. 7641/76 (1976) 10 D&R 224 142
X. v. Iceland, App. No. 2525/65 (1967) 18 CD 33
X. v. Italy, App. No. 6741/74 (1976) 5 D&R 83 79

X. 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


TABLE OF CASES

xix

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, 331
X. and the Church of Scientology v. Sweden, App. No. 7805/77 (1979)
16 D&R 68 226, 252
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5442/72 (1975) 1 D&R 41 260,
324, 334, 337
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6084/73 (1975) 3 D&R 62
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 6886/75 (1976) 5 D&R 100 251
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7291/75 (1977) 11 D&R 55
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7992/77 (1978) 14 D&R 234 256
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8010/77 (1979) 16 D&R 101 267,
330
X. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8160/78 (1981) 22 D&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 5 256
X., Y. and Z. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8566/79 (1982) 31
D&R 50 167
Yanasik 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 and
handicapped persons in Italy, and persons signing the
communication, on 9th January 1984 v. Italy, Communication
No. 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 11
July 1988), UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988), p. 246 178–9
Ahani v. Canada, Communication No. 1051/2002 (views of 29 March
2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 260 52
Arenz v. Germany, Communication No. 1138/2002 (decision of 24
March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 548
B.d.B. et al. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 273/1988 (decision
of 30 March 1989), UN Doc. A/44/40 (1989), p. 286 191
Bhinder K. Singh v. Canada, Communication No. 208/1986 (views of
9 November 1989), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990), p. 50
132–3, 146, 191, 240, 257, 332


xx

TABLE OF CASES

Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 721/1997 (views
of 2 August 2002), UN Doc. A/57/40 vol. 2 (2002), p. 76 135,
239, 257
Brinkhof v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 402/1990 (decision
of 27 July 1993), UN Doc. A/48/40 vol. 2 (1993), (1994) 14
HRLJ 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 of
25 October 2000), A/56/40, p. 175 269
C. v. Australia, Communication No. 900/1999 (views of 28 October
2002) UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 188 52
Coeriel, A. R. and M. A. R. Aurik v. The Netherlands, Communication
No. 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 of
15 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 of
8 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 of
3 November 1999), (2000) 7(2) IHRR 354 194, 346
G.T. v. Canada, Communication No. 420/1990 (decision of 22 March
1990), (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 April

1981), UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981), p. 147 178–81
Hertzberg and others v. Finland, Communication No. R.14/61 (views of
2 April 1982), UN Doc. A/37/40 (1982), p. 161 186, 327


TABLE OF CASES

xxi

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. and C.M.G.v.K.-S. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 483/1991
(decision of 23 July 1992), UN Doc. 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 of
16 July 1993) (1994) 1(2) IHRR 39 187
J.P. v. Canada, Communication No. 466/1991 (decision of 7 November
1991), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1994), p. 426 155, 220
J.P.K. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 401/1990 (decision of
7 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 of
25 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 of
31 March 1994) (1994) 1(3) IHRR 88 300
K.V. and C.V. v. Germany, Communication No. 568/1993 (decision of
8 April 1994), UN Doc. A/49/40, vol. 2 (1994), p. 365 155
La¨nsman, 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 July
1985), 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 of
24 March 1988), UN Doc. A/43/40 (1988), p. 271 190–1


xxii

TABLE OF CASES

Maille, Richard v. France, Communication No. 689/1996 (views of 10
July 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 July

2003), UN Doc. A/58/40 vol. 2 (2003), p. 390 180
Pa´ez, W. Delgado v. Colombia, Communication No. 195/1985 (views
of 12 July 1990), UN Doc. A/45/40 vol. 2 (1990), p. 43 145–6,
267
Palandjian v. Hungary, Communication No. 1106/2002 (decision of
30 March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 534
Park, Tae-Hoon v. Korea, Communication No. 628/1995 (views of
20 October 1998) (1999) 6(3) IHRR 623 165, 210, 293, 325
P.S. v. Denmark, Communication No. 397/1990 (decision of 22 July
1992), UN Doc. A/47/40 (1992), p. 395 268
Riley et al. v. Canada, Communication No. 1048/2002 (decision of
21 March 2002), UN Doc. A/57/40 vol. 2 (2002), p. 356 257
Ross, Malcolm v. Canada, Communication No. 736/1997 (views of
18 October, 2000), UN Doc. A/56/40 vol. 2 (2001), p. 69 82,
207, 221, 222, 260, 263, 300–1, 304, 307, 329
Sanle´s Sanle´s v. Spain, Communication No. 1024/2001 (decision of 30
March 2004), UN Doc. A/59/40 vol. 2 (2004), p. 505
Somers, Ivan v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, (views of
23 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
Vakoume´, 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


TABLE OF CASES

xxiii

X. v. Australia, Communication No. 557/1993 (decision of 16 July 1996),
UN Doc. A/51/40 vol. 2 (1997), p. 235
Zu¨ndel v. Canada, Communication No. 953/2000 (decision of 27 July
2003), 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 Republika
Srpska, 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