It is accepted that the ECHR is to be interpreted in accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides that treaties are to be interpreted ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’. According to Article 32, preparatory materials are to be examined in order to ‘confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31’ or to determine the meaning where such an interpretation is ‘ambiguous or obscure’ or ‘leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable’. Given that the terms of Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 2 of the First Protocol are fairly obscure, the preparatory work should be of some relevance to their interpretation and application. Against this, however, must be placed the manner in which the Court and Commission have adopted a teleological approach to the convention text, which diminishes the impact of the debates surrounding their adoption nearly fifty years ago. Moreover, and as will be seen below, the preparatory work tends only to highlight the problems surrounding the texts, rather than resolve them.

Nevertheless, given that the freedom of religion has received comparatively little attention from the Strasbourg organs, the drafting history still has a relevance to its interpretation and application.