UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / Communication No. 1928/2010 / Mann Singh v. France
Country
France
Title
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
The case relates to the right of freedom of religion. On 8 December 2005 M.S. attempted to renew his passport for the fourth time and submitted a photograph showing him wearing his turban. However, the institution rejected his application, stating that the photograph was not in conformity with the provisions of the law. M.S. maintains that he has been a victim of a violation of his right to manifest his religion or belief. The HRC observed that prohibiting a Sikh to wear a turban on the identity photograph, without convincingly explaining how such a measure is necessary for guaranteeing the public safety, violates the individual’s right to manifest his religion.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The HRC decides that prohibiting a Sikh to wear a turban on the identity photograph, without convincingly explaining how such a measure is necessary for guaranteeing the public safety, violates the individual’s right to manifest his religion.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
The right to freedom of religion. M.S.'s right to manifest his religion was breached by the French state. The CCPR completely reversed that decision and acknowledged that his rights were violated.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The decision is in favor of M.S. acknowledging that the State has violated his right to manifest his religion.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"The Committee notes the author’s allegation that the requirement to appear bareheaded on his passport’s identity photograph is a violation of his right to freedom of religion under article 18 of the Covenant and is neither necessary nor proportionate when considered in the light of paragraph 3 of that article. "