Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:15:11.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Views Adopted by the Committee under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication Nos. 2747/2016 & 2807/2016 (H.R. Comm.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2019

Sital Kalantry
Sital Kalantry*
Affiliation:
Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, and author of Women's Rights and Migration: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States and India (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). The author would like to thank Sumridhi Kaur for her thoughtful research assistance.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On July 17, 2018, the Human Rights Committee, the monitoring body of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), rendered decisions in two similar cases brought by two French nationals against the French state. Both petitioners were Muslim women who challenged Act No. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010, a French law under which wearing of the niqab, also known as a “full-face veil,” in public spaces is prohibited. These seminal cases constitute the first time that an international arbiter of human rights has ruled that France's face-veil ban violates the human rights of its citizens.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 195 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Views Adopted by the Committee Under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication No. 2747/2016, CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 (Jul. 17, 2018) [hereinafter Judgment 1]; Views Adopted by the Committee Under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication No. 2807/2016, CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016 (Jul. 17, 2018) [hereinafter Judgment 2].

2 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶¶ 2.1, 2.4; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶¶ 2.1, 2.4.

3 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 2.2.

4 Id. ¶ 2.3.

5 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶¶ 2.1–2.2; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶¶ 2.1–2.2.

6 Id.

7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20, 6 ILM 368 (1967), 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].

8 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.4.

9 ICCPR, supra note 7.

10 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.14.

11 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.3; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶ 7.3.

12 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.7; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶ 7.7.

13 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.8.

14 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.17; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶ 7.17.

15 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 10; Judgment 2, supra note 1, ¶ 9.

16 Id.

17 S.A.S. v. France, App. No. 43835/11, Eur. Ct. H.R (2014).

18 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 9, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221.

19 S.A.S. v. France, supra note 17, ¶¶ 121–22.

20 Id.

21 Judgment 1, supra note 1, ¶ 8.10.

22 Id.

23 S.A.S. v. France, supra note 17, ¶ 129.

24 See Dominic McGoldrick, A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for Its Application by the Human Rights Committee, 65 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 21 (2016).