JUDE IBEGBU

On 25 November 1981 in its Resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981, the General Assembly proclaimed the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Since then the various United Nations Organs have been engaged in preparing the proposed convention. The Declaration is not a binding instrument and therefore until now there is no universal Convention on the Right to Religious Freedom in international Law. We are of the opinion that Convention on the Right to Religious Freedom is overdue.

Moreover, the Declaration does not embody some rights and freedoms that are contained in the right to religious freedom. We also wish to contribute to this proposed Convention by discussing the rights and freedoms contained in the Right to Religious Freedom which should be protected by the proposed Convention.

Some of the rights and freedoms which we shall discuss here are not stated in the Declaration however they are contained in the right to religious freedom. These are drawn from a critical-analytical-comparative study of the provisions of the constitutions of some States on the various rights and freedoms contained the right to Religious Freedom.

This article therefore deals with juridical analysis of the rights and freedoms contained in the obligation erga omnes of the right to religious freedom with the view to contributing towards the drafting of the proposed Convention of right to religious Freedom.

Accordingly, we shall discuss the following: (1) legal status of the right to religious freedom in contemporary international Law, (2) notion of right of individual to religious freedom, (3) religious freedom in education, (4) religious freedom in Church and State Relations, (5) prohibitions in religious freedom, (6) religious freedom of the Church, (7) religious freedom in profession.

In view of its object which deals with man's relationship with God or his belief, the right to religious freedom is one of the most fundamental freedoms of every human person and therefore it occupies a primary position in the hierarchy of human rights. Hence, it is necessary that it be given legal protection both on national and international levels.

Although the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is not a binding instrument and until now there is not yet a universal convention on the right to religious freedom in international Law, however, our study of 126 constitutions of the different countries of the world on the provisions on the right to religious freedom reveals that this right is protected by the majority of the States and therefore it has become a general principle of Law recognised by civilised nations.

Since this source of international Law binds per se and erga omnes, no State can claim to be free from the obligation arising from this right. Moreover, the International Court of Justice in the Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., affirmed that among the norms which possess obligation erga omnes are the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person." This view has also been confirmed by the Institute of International Law.

Moreover, our study reveals that the right to religious freedom has become a norm of customary international Law thus binding on all States. It is also our view that this right should be among the norms of jus cogens because of the importance of its object which deals religion or belief- a fundamental issue in the life of every human person.

Although the right to religious freedom is already binding on States as general principle of law recognised by civilised nations and as a customary international Law, however, in order to guarantee a more adequate protection of this right, there is need for States to make formal commitment by ratifying a Convention which will be only an expression of the obligation erga omnes of the right to religious freedom. The Convention among other things, will enable the States to know precisely the rights and freedoms contained in the right to religious freedom in order to enable them to guarantee adequate protection of this right to every person and every religious community within their jurisdiction without any discrimination of any kind

To this end we shall expose in this article the rights and freedoms contained in the Declaration on Religious Freedom 1981. The objective is to ensure that States fulfil faithfully their obligation of means as demanded by the Declaration.

The criterion used for this comparison are taken from the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion and belief, 1981; 126 constitutions of countries of the world on religious freedom; the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on religious freedom; provisions of international instruments of Human Rights on the right to religious freedom; international customary law established from the opinio juris and from the practice of States on the observance and respect for the right to religious freedom; the general principles of religious freedom; writings by famous international lawyers specialised in religious freedom; principles of natural Law, etc.

Since the Declaration does not define the right to religious freedom of the individual, we shall offer a definition. Before giving our own definition of the "right to religious freedom, we shall first of all consider the definitions given by some authors. The right of every individual to religious freedom according to Benito means that "everyone has the right to leave one religion or belief and to adopt another, or to remain without any at all." This definition is restricted to freedom of choice of religion or belief. It does not include the freedom to manifest one's religion, and the absence of impediment in the manifestation of one's religion and compulsion in religious matters. Nor does it include the due limits that can be imposed on the manifestation of religion for the protection of interests of the society and the rights and freedoms of others.

The Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, after having declared that the human person has the right to religious freedom, in article 2 it affirms: "Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others."

This definition inter alia contains the following essential elements of "right to religious freedom" that is, absence of compulsion and impediment in the exercise or manifestation of one's religion or belief and the necessary limits that may be imposed on the exercise of this right. There is also implicit in it the right to choice of religion or belief, and, the right to manifestation of religion or belief. The definition also has the merit of noting that the right to religious freedom belongs not only to the individual but also to every religious community.

Defining religious freedom Messner states: "The right of the free exercise of religion means, on the one hand, that no one may rightfully be compelled to practice a religion that is contrary to his convictions, even if it were the true religion; on the other hand, no one may be compelled rightfully to perform actions which conflict with his religious faith or which are directed against the religious community to which, in accordance with the bidding of his conscience, he belongs." This definition of Messner has the elements of the absence of coercion, but not the elements of the manifestation of religion or faith , of the religious choice and the absence of impediment.

Defining religious liberty Black's Law Dictionary stated: "Freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, from constraint, or control in matters affecting the conscience, religious beliefs, and practice of religion. Freedom to entertain and express any or no system of religious opinions, and to engage in or refrain from any form of religious worship, not inconsistent with the peace and good order of society and general welfare." This definition contains the elements of the absence of constraint, the choice and the manifestation of religion or belief, and implicitly the absence of impediment in the manifestation of religion or belief.

Although the Declaration does not define the right of the individual to religious freedom, however article 1 contains the fundamental elements of this right. It states:" Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of one's choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching." Paragraph 2 of this article further states: "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice." The following essential elements of the right to religious freedom are contained in this article; that is, choice, manifestation of religion or belief, the absence of coercion, and it implicitly contains the absence of impediment.

In the light of the preceding considerations, we shall define its religious freedom of the individual as the absence of any compulsion or impediment in all matters dealing with one's religion or belief both with regard to internal acts and the external manifestation of such acts.

Therefore this right has essentially two aspects- internal and external. The internal aspect comprises the following five elements: (1) freedom of thought; (2) freedom of conscience; (3) freedom of religion; (4) freedom of belief; (5) freedom to choose one's religion or belief; (6)absence of internal compulsion or impediment.

The external aspect which has to do with manifestation of one's religion or belief has the following 7 elements: (1) worship; (2) observance; (3) practice; (4) teaching; (5) the manner of manifestation of religion or belief which can be private or public, individual or in community with others; (6) absence of any external compulsion or impediment in the manifestation of one's religion or belief; (7) the limits imposed on the manifestation of religion or belief which are: (a) public safety; (b) public morals; (c) public order; (d) the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; and (8) the conditions for such limitation which are :(a) the limitation must be prescribed law and (b) it must take place in a democratic society.

Most States guarantee the right to the religious freedom in their constitutions. Among these are the following : Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, African Central Republic, Tchad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Lybia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mauritius, Mozambico, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Somali Democratic Republic, Republic of South Africa, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Tanzania, Zaire, Zambia.Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Burma, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Dominican Islands, El Salvador, Equador, Philippines, Germany, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Netherlands, Honduras, Hungary,India, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kiribati, Korea, Kuwait, Kwazulu/Natal, Laos Democratic Republic, Liechtenstein, Lituania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Holland, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Perù, Portugal, Romania, Russia, S. Lucia, S. Vincente, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain,, Sri Lanka, St. Christopher and Nevis, Surimane, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tavulu, Thailandia, Turkey, Union of Myanmar, USA, Vietnam, West Samoa,

2.1 Freedom of Thought

Freedom of thought is one of the freedoms contained in article 1 paragraph 1 of the DEIBBRB. According to Webster's New Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus, "thought" inter alia means "act or process of thinking...." Freedom of thought is a wider concept than freedom of conscience and freedom of religion and the latter concepts are contained in the former.

Besides, the act of thinking being a mental act, it must belong to the spiritual and interior sphere of the person as the conscience, religion, belief and the choice of religion or belief, and therefore it is inviolable as we shall demonstrate later.

Among the African States that guarantee freedom of "thought" are: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia.

2.2 Freedom of Conscience

"Conscience" is generally understood to mean the voice of God within every individual which tells him to do good and to avoid evil. Explaining the meaning of "conscience" the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil." Further it states that the moral conscience "also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil." Defining conscience it stated: "Conscience is a judgement of reason whereby the human person recognises the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed." Man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right in everything he says and does. It is through the judgement of his conscience that "man perceives and recognises the prescriptions of the divine law."

From the legal point of view, "conscience" according to Black's Law Dictionary among other things means "the sense of right and wrong inherent in every person by virtue of his existence as a social entity....In law, especially the moral rule which requires probity, justice, and honest dealing between man and man, as when we say that a bargain is "against conscience"....

Freedom of conscience can be defined as the freedom of acting according to one's conscience, that is it is the freedom to act or not to act according to the sense or judgement of reason on the goodness or badness of an action he is about to perform. In this sense, freedom of conscience includes religious freedom. Thus article 19 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Zambia, states: "Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom, and for the purposes of this article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance." Therefore in this sense freedom of conscience can be said to be part of religious freedom. But in the proper sense of the word "freedom of conscience" means to follow one's conscience in every case.

Everyone has the right to act in accordance with the judgement of his conscience. Thus, the Second Vatican Council rightly stated: "It is through his conscience that man sees and recognises the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end." The Council then concluded that man " must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

Freedom of conscience in the foro interno is not subject to any limitation by the State. But in the foro esterno, that is in its manifestation, freedom of conscience can be limited by the State when it is abused, in order to protect the common good and the rights and freedoms of others.

The manifestation of freedom of conscience in the form of objection of conscience falls within freedom of conscience and the State has the duty to respect such objection.

Among the States that guarantee freedom of conscience in their constitutions are: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda , S. Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia.

2.3 Freedom of Religion

We have defined right to religious freedom in general as the absence of any compulsion or impediment in all matters dealing with individual's religion or belief both with regard to their internal acts and the manifestation of such acts. Freedom of religion would then mean the absence of any compulsion or impediment in all matters dealing with the individual's religion both with regard to their internal acts and their manifestation of such acts. Freedom of religion as here defined is different from freedom of belief which we shall consider next.

Among the States that guarantee freedom of religion in their constitutions are: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, S. Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra-Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zambia.

2.4 Freedom of Belief

The word "belief" differs from the word "religion" since it includes convictions of the individual that are not necessarily religious. The use of the word "belief" in International Law as an alternative to religion which means inter alia "conviction" has the aim of including atheism as an element protected within the general notion of the right to religious freedom in contradistinction to religion. Consequently, the protection of non-religious opinions is explicitly recognised.

Among the States that guarantee freedom of belief in their constitutions are: Angola, Burkina Faso, Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda.

2.5 Freedom of Choice of Religion or Belief

The choice of religion or of belief as one of the internal freedoms of the right to freedom of religion or belief means that every one has the right to choose his own religion or belief without any impediment or restriction on the part of any other person or State.

This freedom which is very central to the right to religious freedom or belief arises from the right to religious freedom or belief itself as we have seen above. No one can be forced or prevented from choosing whatever religion or belief he wants to profess. It is absolute freedom which every person enjoys by virtue of his human dignity. It is only through persuasion that one can be converted from his religion or belief to another religion or belief and not with force whether physical or psychological.

Among the States that guarantee this freedom in their constitutions are: Botswana, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia.

2.6. Freedom to Manifest One's Religion or Belief

As we have indicated above, the right to religious freedom has principally two aspects, the internal and external aspect. While the internal aspect includes: the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, and the choice of religion or belief, the external aspect includes the freedom of manifestation of all the freedoms contained in the internal aspect in worship, observance, practice, teaching etc.

The manifestation of religious freedom or belief, as we shall demonstrate later, is subject to the respect of the common interests and the rights and freedoms of others. The State has the right to limit any abusive manifestation of religion or belief.

Among the States that guarantee in their constitutions the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief both explicitly and implicitly, are: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau. Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, S. Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia.

2.7 Inviolability of the Internal Aspect of Religious Freedom or Belief

The internal aspect of religious freedom or belief that is freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and the choice of religion or belief, is not subject to any limitation on the part of the State in any circumstance, not even in time of public emergency.

The right to choice of religion or belief cannot be subjected either to coercion or to limitation. Thus, the DEFIDRB in paragraph 1 of article 1 distinguishes between the freedom of everyone to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice on one hand, and the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching either individually or collectively on the other hand.

Then in paragraph 2, it goes on to prohibit coercion against the right to have a religion or belief "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.' Paragraph 3 of article 1 of DEFIDRB, permits a limitation only in the manifestation of one's religion or belief under certain conditions, that is, these limitations must be prescribed by law and must be necessary in order to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

While the freedom to maintain or to change a religion can never be subjected to any limitation by the State A. Krishnaswami explains this when he states that the "freedom to maintain or to change religion or belief falls within the domain of the inner faith and conscience of an individual" and consequently "any intervention from outside is not only illegitimate but impossible."

Not even in times of public emergency can there be any derogation from the freedom to have a religion or a belief of one's choice. On the other hand, since the right to manifestation of one's religion or faith is subject to limitation by the State under some established conditions, derogation is permitted in moments of public emergency in this sphere.

The issue we wish to discuss here is whether the right to religious freedom besides being an individual's right, is also a communal right. Humphery argued that the right to religious freedom is not a right of a group of persons.

The European Court of Human Rights in its initial jurisprudence was of the opinion that, since a corporation is a juridical person and not a natural person, it cannot exercise the right guaranteed by article 9 paragraph 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights .

However, in its latest jurisprudence on the matter, in Application No. 7805/77 Pastor X . and the Church of Scientology v. Sweden Decision of 5 May 1979, the Commission stated that it "would take advantage of this opportunity to revise its view as expressed in application No. 3798/68." Continuing it stated that it is now "of the opinion that the above distinction between the Church and its members under art. 9(1) is essentially artificial. When a Church body lodges an application under the Convention, it does so in reality, on behalf of its members. In conclusion it affirmed that "it should therefore be accepted that a Church body is capable of possessing and exercising the rights contained in art. 9(1) in its own capacity as a representative of its members." It follows then that the Court maintains that the right to religious freedom besides being an individual right is also a communal right.

This view is also maintained by the Second Vatican Council which affirmed that both individuals and religious communities are subjects of the right to religious freedom.

Equally article 2 paragraph 1 of the DEFIDRB states that the right to religious freedom includes freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Religion by its nature has both private and public aspects. Religion has therefore its social dimension, and therefore sometimes individuals assemble to exercise their religion for example worship in community with others.

I therefore maintain that the right to religious freedom has both individual and communal aspects. It follows that both individual and religious communities are subject to the right to religious freedom.

4.1. Educational Rights Of Parents And Children

DEFIDRB, in article 5 outlines a number of educational rights of parents and children. These inter alia include the parents' or legal guardians' right to organise the life in the family in conformity with their religion or belief and with a view to the moral education in which they want their child to be educated. It also includes the right of the child to receive religious education in conformity with the wishes of the parents or legal guardians etc.

Paragraph 3 declares that the child should be protected from every form of discrimination based on religion or belief.

Paragraph 5 states that practices of religion or of faith in which the child is formed must not be harmful to his physical or mental health or to his full development.

However it is surprising that the Declaration omits to state some other educative rights of parents and of the child which are important for the exercise of their religious freedom. These include: (1) the right of parents to choose schools in accordance with their religion or belief. (2) the right to have separate educational institutions established which cater for the religious and moral education or belief in which they wish their children to be educated, (3) the right of parents or guardians to receive financial subsidies from the State for the establishment and maintenance of these educational institutions. We shall discuss these and other educational rights of parents in the field of religious freedom in the next section.

4.2 Choice of School

Since parents have given birth to their children, they have the primary right and duty in their education. This means that the State has no primary educational right in the field of fundamental education but only a subsidiary educational right, that is, the State ought to assist the parents in carrying out their educational duty.

Having the primary right in the educational field, it follows that parents have the right to educate their children in accordance with their religious and moral convictions. To guarantee respect for the primary right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their religious convictions, it is indispensable that the parents have the right to choose schools. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, in article 26, recognises this right of parents to choose the kind of education that should be given to their children.

It follows that to guarantee the right to religious freedom and belief of the parents, it is necessary to respect their right to choose school in conformity with their religious and moral convictions.

4.3 Educational Pluralism

In order to actualise parents' right to choice of school and therefore their right to religious freedom, there must exist in the society educational pluralism. This means that there should be available for parents a variety of schools - state denominational and other private schools.

If the State monopolises education, this would be tantamount to negation of the parents' right to choice of school and therefore their right to religious freedom. It would also constitute a violation of the right to religious freedom of the persons belonging to a religious minority. The Catholic Church, upholds the principle of educational pluralism, in order to guarantee freedom of conscience and the parents' right to choose schools.

4.4 Establishment of Denominational Schools

Since the parents have the primary right in the field of education, the right to religious freedom in the education of their children, the right to choice of schools that are in conformity with their religious, moral and philosophical convictions, it follows that they have also the right to establish their own schools. If they do not wish to establish these schools by themselves, they have the right to demand that these schools be established by the religious denominations or by private persons in conformity with their belief.

Also the different confessions have the right to establish the schools for the education of their members and to actualise their right to religious freedom. F. Capotorti maintains that it is a widely held view that the right of the members of the religious groups to establish denominational schools is a corollary of everyone's freedom to manifest his own religion. The Catholic Church, one of the religious denominations has likewise affirmed her right to establish her own schools.

In conclusion, we affirm that persons belonging to religious minorities, have the right to establish and maintain denominational schools in accordance with their right to religious freedom.

The following countries have provisions authorising the establishment of denominational schools by religious bodies: The following African States have measures that allow for religious denominations to establish denominational schools: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Eritrea, Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Senegal, Swaziland.

Other non-African States that guarantee the right for religious communities to establish confessional schools in their constitutions, are:

Barbados, Belize, Germany, Grenada, India. Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Macedonia, Malaysia, Republic of S. Domingo, S. Christopher and Nevis, West Samoa, Singapore, St. Lucia, St. Vincent.

4.5 Public Financial Subsidy

In order to establish denominational schools and to actualise their right to religious freedom in the educational field, the parents have the right to receive from the State public financial subsidy.

Therefore it is the duty of the State to allocate funds to parents or to their religious denominations for the establishment of denominational schools.

There must not be discrimination in the allocation of public financial subsidy against the parents who choose denominational schools or against the religious denominations that wish to establish denominational schools for the education of their members. This discrimination constitutes a violation of the prohibition of discrimination by the CDE, and it is also contrary to article 2 of DEFIDRB which states: "No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief." If the State denies public subsidy to denominational schools and other private schools chosen by the parents, this will lead to unfavourable consequences for parents. First, this would lead to heavy financial burden because parents desiring a denominational school will be constrained to pay twice for the education of their children; first they will have to pay for the public school to which they do not send their children, and then they will have to pay for the establishment and maintenance of the denominational or private schools which they desire for the education of their children. In the second place, the parents who cannot shoulder such financial burden for the establishment of a denominational school, have no other alternative than to send their children to the public schools. The consequence is that the State would be indirectly and unjustly limiting the religious freedom and the right of parents to choose for their children institutions other than those maintained by public authorities.

Not even is it justified that the State denies financial subsidy to parents and to religious denominations on the ground that it wishes to actualise a policy of separation between State and the Church; and this is because such an application of this policy would violate the right of parents to choice of school and also their right to religious freedom. Moreover, it would violate distributive justice. Therefore, this policy cannot be applied in this case because it would be unjust and incorrect.

Neither is it just for the State to discriminate among different religious denominations in the allocation of public financial subsidy. Krishnashwami rightly affirmed that "no adverse distinctions in such matters as subsidisation ...should be made by public authorities between various religions or their followers."

Some authors, for example Y. Dinstein, have argued that States have no obligation to finance denominational schools chosen by parents. This position is not acceptable. It is therefore unjust if the State refuses to allocate public financial subsidy to parents or to religious denominations for establishing their denominational schools. Moreover, such a situation would constitute a violation of the right of parents to choice of school and therefore their right to religious freedom.

Among the countries that have provisions for the allocation of public financial subsidy for the establishment of denominational schools are: Among the African States that guarantee the right for the parents to choose private schools and receive public financial funds are: Angola, Benin, Madagascar.

Among the non African countries that have provisions for the allocation of public financial subsidy for the establishment of denominational schools are: Albania, Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore.

4.6 Religious Freedom in Schools

Paragraph 2 of article 5 of DEIDBRB states that every child has the right to be educated in the religion or in the faith which is in conformity with the wishes of his parents or guardians. Children should not be forced to receive teaching concerning religion or belief against the wishes of their parents or guardians; the best interest of the child must be the guiding principle.

In the schools therefore, religious education must be given in accordance with the religion or belief of the parents.

This religious education must be given by teachers who belong to the same religion or belief of the pupils and moreover they must be authorised by the religious leaders of their own denomination.

Also the pupils must not be constrained to participate in the practices that are contrary to their religion or belief.

Among the African States that have provisions which prohibit the imposition of religious instruction or religious ceremony on pupils in schools against the will or religion or belief of their parents include: Botswana, Cape Verde, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia.

Other non African States that guarantee religious liberty in schools are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Dominican Republic, Germany, Grenada, India, Jamaica, Kiribati, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius Islands, Nauru, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, West Samoa, St. Lucia, St. Vincente, Switzerland, Tuvalu.

5.1 Separation Of Church From State

To guarantee full respect for the right to the religious freedom of each person and also the libertas ecclesiae, there must be a separation of Church from State. But separation of Church from the State does not mean that the State must be laicista, that is, a State which is opposed to religion.

Separation of Church from the State guarantees a better respect for the individual's right to religious freedom as well as the libertas ecclesiae as we have already stated.

Thus, the Second Vatican Council stated: "The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified with any political community nor bound by ties to any political system. It is at once the sign and the safeguard of the transcendental dimension of the human person." Continuing it stated: "The political community and the Church are autonomous and independent of each other in their own fields. Nevertheless, both are devoted to the personal vocation of man, though under different titles."

Also separation of the Church from the State does not mean that the Church should not pass moral judgement in matters relating to politics whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls demand it. Thus the Second Vatican Council stated: "But at all times and in all places the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgements even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls require it."

The African States that guarantee separation of Church from State in their constitutions are: Angola, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger.

The following non African States equally declare the principle of separation of Church from State in their constitutions: Albania, Republic of Korea, Poland, Hungary.

5.2.Equality Of All Religions Before The Law

The need for the separation of Church from State as we have seen coupled with the need to avoid discrimination and intolerance on the part of the State demands that all religions must be equal before the law. This means inter alia that no privilege should be granted to any particular religion.

It follows from this that there should be no State religion. If the State were to adopt one of the religions existing in the country as the State religion, this particular religion would enjoy a privilege which others do not enjoy. Nsereko maintains that the privileges which are conceded to the State religion, endanger the religious freedom of the followers of other religions that are not State religions. This would be tantamount to discrimination on the part of the State against those other religions.

Also there is no equality of religions before the law when the State allocates funds to a particular religious community to build its church, but refuses to grant such funds to other religious communities. Justice, therefore demands that no privilege should be granted to any particular religion. All religions should be equal before the law and should have equal rights in law and in practice.

The African States that mention equality of all religions before the law in their constitutions are: Angola, Liberia.

Among the non African countries that provide legislative provisions to declare that all religions are equal before the law, there is Italy.

6.1. "Coercion" in the Choice of Religion or Belief

As we have seen, paragraph 2 of DEFIDBR, states that no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice. The question is this: does the Declaration prohibit only physical coercion or are moral and psychological coercion included?

According to Sullivan, the prohibition of the coercion that would mar the freedom to have a religion or belief of one's choice stipulated in paragraph 2 above "forbids the use of, or threat of, physical force to compel believers (or non believers) to recant or to convert." While pointing out that the provision does not clarify what would precisely constitute other forms of coercion, he affirmed: "If the aim of protection of the right to have a religion or belief, which lies at the core of the Declaration, is to be achieved, "coercion" should be interpreted to include mental or psychological means of compulsion as well as physical means." He also maintained that the prohibition of coercion should include those practices on the part of governments that make the renunciation or acceptance of religion a condition for receiving benefits or services from it. According to Sullivan therefore, the prohibition of the use of coercion would include prohibition against the use of physical, moral and psychological force.

Also Dinstein maintains that the term "coercion" should be understood to mean also not only "outright duress but to any undue influence or improper enticement."

I would therefore hold that the meaning of the term "coercion" as used in the Declaration includes both internal and external coercion which inter alia comprises of psychological, moral, and physical coercion.

No one should be compelled either psychologically, or morally, or physically, to profess another religion. Coercion in all its forms as a means of conversion is therefore prohibited. Ethiopia is one of the African States that prohibits in its constitution the use of coercion against anyone with regard to choice of beliefs.

6.2 Impediment in the Choice of Religion or Belief

Similar to, but different from the prohibition of "coercion" in choice of religion or belief, is the prohibition of preventing anyone from choosing his religion or belief. A State can prohibit its citizens from choosing the religion they want by enacting a law which punishes any member of a State religion who abandons such religion, such as punishing the convert with the death penalty, or, subjecting the person to conditions legally unfavourable on account of professing another religion that is not the religion of the State.

The decision to profess one religion rather than another is typically a religious act and therefore it is an essential part of the right to religious freedom. Besides it is an internal act of religious freedom and therefore it is inviolable as we have seen. Consequently, it must be a free act removed from any interference from the State.

The State therefore cannot without infringing the essence of religious freedom or the freedom of conscience of the human person, intervene in this act of the individual. Therefore completely excluded in this field are every legal, physical, or psychological impediment by the State

As we shall see later, it also follows from the above that the State cannot prohibit proselytism or conversion of the followers of a State religion. The right to proselytise the followers of other religions is an integral part of the right to religious freedom of everyone. Besides, as we shall see later, every person has the right to be proselytised provided the method used respects the dignity of the person.

Among the African States that stipulate in their constitutions that nobody can be prevented from embracing the religion or belief of his choice are: Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland,Zambia.

6.3 Intolerance and Discrimination

After having condemned any discrimination in paragraph l of article 2, the Declaration defines the expression, "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief, and having as its purpose or as its effect, nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis."

Religious intolerance is often manifested in hostile acts against a religion or some religions in a country. This can have different forms, for example denouncing or ridiculing religious values of a particular religion or to discredit the religious leaders of a religious denomination.

Religious intolerance can manifest itself in the systematic destruction of the Churches by the fundamentalists of a religion, and also in the persecution of the followers of a particular religion. Religious intolerance can have an extreme form of violent attack against the followers of a particular religion which leads to the death of some persons.

According to Ribero, some legislative provisions of some States actually involve various degrees of discrimination in the exercise of religious rights and freedoms. Further he stated that "in some cases, a constitution recognises a particular religion as the official or State religion, thereby conferring on it a special status." Ribero observes that, "discrimination is carried to extremes when the law declares certain religions or denominations to be unlawful and punishes the act of belonging to or practising them."

He also maintained that "sometimes, a given ideology acquires this official status, entailing certain advantages over other denominations or beliefs."

If the State, for example, gives financial help to a religious denomination for building a mosque but refuses to do the same for other denominations, the State is guilty of discrimination. There can also be discrimination in the participation in public service. For example, in some countries the adherents of some religions are excluded from certain political posts, for example that of president.

Another example of discrimination on the part of the State as we have seen is when the State refuses to allocate public financial subsidy to the parents or to religious denominations for establishing denominational schools for the education of their children according to their religion or belief.

Among the African States that prohibit discrimination and religious intolerance in their constitutions are: Cape Verde, Eritrea.

6.4 State Religion

In a multi-religious country, it is just that there should be no State religion in order to ensure equality of all religions before the law and thus prevent discrimination on the part of the State against any religion as we have argued above.

Experience shows that the confessional State has the tendency to practice religious discrimination and intolerance against other religions that are not the State religion, and their followers. Some are so intolerant as to force non members of the State religion to convert to the religion of the State. They use different means to achieve this objective. For example they discriminate against non-followers of State religion by refusing to grant them public employment in order to force them to profess the State religion.

Some confessional States as we shall see later prohibit proselytism or the conversion of the followers of State religion while they permit the members of State religion to convert followers of other religions. Thus, the right to choice of religion or belief is not respected.

Also, in some confessional States citizens that are not members of the State religion are considered and treated as second class citizens.

In the State schools, some confessional States force the students belonging to non State religions to receive religious education based only on the tenets of the State religion as a means of converting them to that religion.

Some demand that pupils and students attend schools on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Thus, it becomes impossible for the pupils and students belonging to other denominations to fulfil their religious obligations.

Some confessional States do not allow religious minorities to construct or even repair their churches because of their religious intolerance.

In the prisons, prisoners who do not belong to State religion are required to change their religion if they wish to be set free.

From all we have said above, it follows that in the confessional State there is a danger of religious intolerance and discrimination. Therefore, I maintain that it is only in a lay or secular State that the right to religious freedom of everyone is better guaranteed, as well as the equality of all the citizens before the law.

The following African States expressly prohibit the establishment of a State religion: Angola, Ethiopia, Liberia, Seychelles, Uganda, Zaire. The following African states, instead, declare in their constitution that theirs is a lay State, which again means that they prohibit the establishment of a State religion: Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, S. Tomé And Principe, Senegal.

Other non African States which, in their constitutions, deny the right to establish a State religion are: Australia. Philippines, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Kwazulu/Natal, Spain, USA.

6.5 Imposition of Religious Law on Non-members of a Religion

The imposition of religious laws on non-members of a particular religion often occurs in confessional States. In countries where there are various religious communities, to guarantee respect for the right to religious freedom of all the followers of various religions, the State should not impose any religious law on its subjects.

It would be a serious violation of the right to religious freedom if the subjects that are not members of the State religion are forced by the State to obey the religious law of a religion to which they do not belong or require them to be judged according this law when they are to be tried.

6.6 Making Religion a Criterion for Employment

Religion should not be made one of the criteria for obtaining any employment offered by the State. To do so, would be tantamount to practising religious discrimination and intolerance. No one therefore should be denied any public employment solely on the ground that he belongs to a particular religion or because of his religion or belief.

Among the countries that prohibit demanding membership in a particular religion as condition for employment are: Germany, Seychelles.

6.7 Compulsory Payment of Taxes to Another Religion

It is a violation of religious freedom when the government compels the non-adherents of a religion to contribute financially for the specific religious needs of that religious denomination. Therefore, States should ensure that non-adherents are not constrained to pay taxes for the maintenance of another religious denomination unless they choose to do so voluntarily.

Among the countries which prohibit compelling non-members of any religion to pay taxes for religious purposes of another religion are: India, Iceland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore. Switzerland.

On various occasions, certain persons are required to take oaths, for example in courts. In such situations, no one should be compelled to take an oath on an object or in a manner which is contrary to his religion or belief. For example, Christians should be allowed to take an oath on the Holy Bible and not on any other object which is not in accordance with their religion.

Some countries expressly prohibit compelling any person to take an oath in a manner contrary to his religion or belief.

The African countries which expressly prohibit compelling any person to take such an oath are: Botswana, Gambia, Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia.

Other non-African States which expressly prohibit compelling any person to take an oath in a manner contrary to his religion or belief are: Antigua and Bahamas, Barbados, Barbuda, Belize, Dominican Republic, Germany, Jamaica, Greece, Grenada, Kiribati, Mauritius Islands, Papua New Guinea, S. Christopher, Solomon Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincente, Tuvalu.

8.1. Freedom To Teach Religion In The Schools

Freedom to teach religion to members of one's religion follows from the right of each one to disseminate his religion or belief. It also follows from the primary right of parents to religious and moral education of their children. In order to guarantee the exercise of this right, every religious community should enjoy the freedom to help parents fulfil this duty through teachers approved by the ecclesiastical authority of the different denominations to which the pupils and students belong.

Freedom to teach religion in schools to one's adherents also derives from the libertas ecclesiae. The churches have a right to educate their members on the doctrine of their religion. Therefore the State is under obligation not to impede the teaching of religion to the adherents of one's religion in public schools, denominational schools and other private schools, and in other suitable places for religious education.

Among the African States that guarantee in their constitutions the right for every religious community to teach its religion to its own members are: Botswana, Gambia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia.

Other non-African States that expressly guarantee the freedom for religious denominations to teach their religion to their followers in schools, are: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, Grenada, Mauritius Islands, Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, S. Christopher, S. Lucia, S. Vincente, Western Samoa, Singapore, Tuvalu.

8.2 Right To Found Religious And Charitable Institutions

Religious institutions constitute the means by which the religious communities teach their religion to some of their members in order to train personnel for the purposes of their religion. Therefore it forms part of the right to religious freedom of the followers of each religion.

Seminaries, religious institutes, ecclesiastical universities etc. form part of the religious institutions. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to guarantee both in their constitutions and in practice, the right of the religious communities to establish religious institutions which they deem necessary for the achievement of their religious objectives.

Also connected with religious institutions are the religious charitable institutions. These form an integral part of the means by which the religious communities manifest their religion through charitable works. Paragraph (b) of article 6 of the Declaration states that the right to religious freedom includes the freedom "to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions." The charitable institutions include orphanages, hospitals, centres for handicapped, etc. Each State must guarantee the right of the religious community to establish these charitable institutions.

Among the African States that guarantee the right for religious communities to establish religious and charitable institutions are: Eritrea,Ethiopia.

Among the non African States that guarantee the right for religious communities to establish institutions for religious and charitable purposes, there are: Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Ireland. Macedonia, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Slovak.

8.3. Libertas Ecclesiae

As we have established, the right to religious freedom belongs not only to the individuals but also to the religious communities. Therefore the right to religious freedom of the Church of libertas Ecclesiae, which inter alia includes the right of every religious community to administer its own affairs without interference from the State, forms an integral part of the right to religious freedom of every religious community.

Also included in the libertas ecclesia is the right of each religious community to nominate, elect or designate its own leaders. The State must not interfere with the exercise of this freedom because it does not fall within its competence. Thus, paragraph (g) of article 6 of the Declaration states that included within the right to religious freedom is the right of every religious community "to train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders, called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief."

Equally the Second Vatican Council stated: ""Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered by legislation or administrative action on the part of the civil authority in the selection, training, or appointment and transfer of their own ministers."

It equally follows from the above that the libertas ecclesiae includes the freedom to train priests, rabbis, imams etc. According to Krisnashwami this right originates from the right to manifest one's religion.

The education of the personnel can take place either within the country or abroad. If abroad, States must not prevent those who are sent to foreign countries from leaving their countries of origin for religious studies.

The African States that guarantee the religious communities' right to libertas ecclesiae in their constitutions are: Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Mozambique, S. Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Togo.

Among the non African States which expressly guarantee respect of libertas ecclesiae there are:: Belgium, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Nepal, Portugal, Czech Republic, Singapore, Slovak.

8.4. Construction Of Churches

The right of the religious denominations and religious communities to construct their church derives logically from the right of its members to manifest their religion in worship either individually or in community with others. Thus paragraph (a) of article 6 of the Declaration states that the right to religious freedom includes the right to worship or to assemble for the purpose of religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes.

Obviously, if the members of every religious community have the right to manifest their religion in worship, it follows that they also have the right to construct churches or mosques in order to exercise this right. Therefore, it is the duty of every State to guarantee both in the constitution and in practice, the right of every religious community to construct and maintain its own church. Every State has therefore the duty to ensure that no religious community is prevented, either directly or indirectly from constructing its own church for worship and other religious functions.

8.5. To Worship Or Assemble

Article 6 lists as one of the freedoms contained in the right to religious freedom, the freedom "to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief...." The freedom to worship follows from the right of each person to manifest his own religion or belief stated in article 1 of the DEFIDRB.

Worship can have various forms, for example celebration of Holy Mass, prayer, adoration, religious rites etc. It can be private or public.

Since the right to worship enters within the right to manifest one's religion, when it is abused, the State can limit it. This can happen for example in order to protect the right and freedoms of others. However, if it is not abused, not only must the State not limit the exercise of this right but also it has the duty to protect those who worship and the places of worship.

There is a relationship between religious freedom and the freedom of assembly. Without the freedom of assembly, the followers of a religion cannot assemble for religious exercises, for example for communal prayers, Holy Mass and other celebrations such as funerals, religious processions etc.

8.6. Acquisition Of Religious Materials

Paragraph (c) of article 6 states that the right to religious freedom includes the right "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."

There are three rights contained in this paragraph. The first is the right to make the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief. With regard to the Catholic religion this means the right to make for example crucifixes, vestments, medals, chaplets etc.

The second right is the right to acquire these articles and materials, which includes the right to buy them or receive them as gifts.

The third right is the right to use these articles and materials related to the rites and customs of religion or belief.

It is the duty of the State to guarantee the exercise of all these rights.

8.7 Publications

Paragraph (d) of article 6 states that it falls within the sphere of the right to religious freedom, "to write, issue and disseminate relevant publications in these areas." Therefore, individuals and religious communities have the freedom to write, issue and disseminate their publications concerned with religion or belief.

Since this freedom falls within the scope of the right to manifestation of religion, it is subject to limitation in the case of abuse, for example, on the grounds of rights of others etc.

8.8. To Teach Religion Or Belief

Among the freedoms contained in the right to religious freedom is the freedom "to teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes."

Suitable places for teaching of religion or belief includes the family, the Church, educational institutions for example public schools, denominational schools and other private schools, religious institutions etc. It falls within the right to teach religion also, the right to proselytise as we shall see later.

As we have already seen, if parents and religious denominations have the right to teach their religion, it follows that they have the right to establish schools in order to actualise this right.

8.9 Right To Proper Proselytism

The right to proselytise properly is part and parcel of the right to religious freedom. The freedom to teach religion or belief includes the freedom to proselytise in order to win converts.

That the right to proper proselytism is part and parcel of the right to religious freedom has been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Kokkinakis v. Greece, in which the Court condemned Greece for unjust limitation of the right to manifest religion. Thus, the court declared that Greece was guilty of violating article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 1950 The court declared: "...a distinction has to be made between bearing Christian witness and improper proselytism. The former corresponds to true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. The latter represents a corruption or deformation of it." The court did not find Kokkinakis guilty of improper proselytism for which he had been condemned by the Supreme Court of Greece.

The right to be proselytised is also an integral part of the right to religious freedom. It derives from the right to freedom of choice of religion or belief. This freedom as we have argued above is absolute and therefore inviolable. Therefore the State cannot intervene in any manner in this field, except when the proselytiser is guilty of improper proselytism.. The State must not prohibit the proselytism of except when the proselytism is improper.

Therefore, the right to proselytism includes the right to convert others to one's religion and to be converted if one chooses to do so. Judge Pettiti also maintains the same position when he stated: " Proselytism is linked to freedom of religion; a believer must be able to communicate his faith and his beliefs in the religious sphere as in the philosophical sphere." Also Judge de Meyer in his concurring opinion maintained that "proselytism, defined as 'zeal in spreading the faith', cannot be punishable as such: it is a way -perfectly legitimate in itself - of 'manifesting (one's) religion.'"

The State cannot prohibit the members of any religion to proselytise nor can it prohibit the followers of a State religion from being proselytised. Every person has the right to proselytise and to be proselytised provided the proselytism is proper.

The right to proselytism also includes the right and freedom of missionaries to enter and to stay in any country in order to propagate their religion and win converts. This implies that missionaries of any religious denomination from any country should not be prevented from entering and staying in any country in order to propagate their religion and win converts; and also to perform other religious services.

If a State refuses to allow missionaries to enter into its territory or expels those already within its territory solely on the ground of religion, this will be tantamount to religious intolerance and discrimination. Such a State will be guilty of violating the right to religious freedom.

The African States that guarantee the right to proselytise in their constitutions are: Botswana, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia.

8.10. Freedom To Use The Mass Media

Every religious community has the right to use the mass media as an instrument for education of its members in its doctrine or for propagating its religion. Mass media includes the television, radio etc. The State cannot prohibit the use of any of these by any religious community for the achievement of its religious objectives.

Therefore, every State must guarantee in its constitution and in practice the right of each religious community to use mass media in order to realise its own religious objectives.

Cape Verde is one of the African States that guarantees this right.

8.11 Soliciting And Receiving Aid

Among the freedoms contained in the right to religious liberty is the freedom "to solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals and institutions." Therefore, individuals and religious communities have the right to solicit and receive financial and material aids both within and outside their country.

8.12. Communication

Paragraph (i) of article 6 states that the right to religious freedom includes the freedom "to establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels."

It is the duty of the State to guarantee this freedom of communication and to avoid every unjust limitation of its exercise.

9.1 Religious Freedom In Employment

No one must be refused any public employment on the basis of his religion or belief. If this obtains, it would be tantamount to religious discrimination and religious intolerance.

Among the countries which prohibit belonging to a particular religion as a condition for obtaining public employment are : Germany and Seychelles.

9.2.Religious Freedom For Armed Forces, The Sick, And Prisoners

Because of the peculiar circumstances in which the soldiers, sick people, and prisoners find themselves, there may be a danger to deny this group of people, their right to religious freedom. It is therefore necessary that adequate provisions are made for each person in any of these groups to exercise his religious freedom in accordance with his religion or belief. This means that States should ensure the availability of chaplains in the hospitals, armed forces and in prisons.

Among the African States only Cape Verde declares in its constitutions that armed forces, the sick and the prisoners, have the right to have their chaplains to guarantee the exercise of their right to religious liberty.

Among the non African States that have in their constitutions provisions that guarantee religious freedom or belief in the armed forces, hospitals and prisons are: Belize, Germany, Dominican Republic, S. Lucia, S. Vincente, St. Christopher and Nevis.

9.3. Conscientious Objection

Many individuals have claimed the right not to perform military service, affirming that their right to conscientious objection derives from their right to religious freedom.

In accordance with such claims, a growing number of States have in their laws exempted citizens who genuinely hold religions or beliefs that forbid the performance of military service from such obligatory service; and replaced it with alternative national service.

Although no article on religious freedom contained in the international instruments makes explicit reference to right to conscientious objection, however such a right can be derived from the right to religious freedom. This is because the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief.

Clerics, on account of their vocation are completely excluded from rendering military service. They can perform the service of military chaplain for the armed forces but must not render combatant service.

Among the countries that guarantee the right of any citizen to conscientious objection to military service are: Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovak, Tavulu.

9.4 Observance Of Days Of Rest

According to paragraph (h) of article 6, the freedom to "observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of one's religion or belief," is one of the freedoms contained in the right to religious freedom.

Therefore, it is the duty of the State to declare these days of rest and of feasts public holidays, so that the adherents of every religious denomination can fulfil their religious obligations in accordance with the precepts of their religion. If the State compels the adherents of different religions to work on such days, it would violate the right to religious freedom.

For example in a country where Jews, Christians and Muslims live together, since for the Jews their own day of rest is Saturday, for Christians it is Sunday, and for Muslims Friday, the State should declare these days public holidays. Also other solemn feasts, like Easter, Christmas etc. must be declared public holidays by the State. Germany is one of the countries that expressly guaranteed the right to Sunday rest and public holidays.

We have in this article analysed the rights and freedoms contained in the right to religious freedom. To ensure that every person fully enjoys his right to religious freedom, it is necessary that States incorporate in their constitutions all the rights and freedoms we have discussed in this article and ensure that they are respected in practice. Also, we invite the international community to draw up a convention on the right to religious freedom and to incorporate all the rights and freedoms discussed here into the convention.

CASES DECIDED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASES DECIDED BY OTHER INTERNATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS

CASES DECIDED BY NATIONAL COURTS

1. International Documents

2. Constitutions