LU 2 Int. Public Law Singh vs France before the UNHRC PDF

Preview

Summary

Download LU 2 Int. Public Law Singh vs France before the UNHRC PDF

Description

Shingara Mann Singh v France, Merits, UN Doc CCPR/C/108/D/1928/2010, IHRL 3811 (UNHRC 2013), 19th July 2013, United Nations Human Rights Committee [UNHRC] (to be read together with the summary of Singh vs France) The document exposes the opinion of United Nations Human Rights Committee on the case Mann Singh vs France. Shingara Mann Singh was a French citizen of the Sikh faith. In the Sikh religion it is considered sacred for men to have long, uncut hair, which is covered by a turban after the men have reached puberty. It is deeply humiliating to remove the head covering in public. On 8 December 2005 Singh submitted a photo to have his passport renewed. As in his previous four passports, he was wearing a turban in the image. He was not asked to appear bareheaded in the photo and for him this was an attack against his freedom of religion. France argued that its action had been in the interest of public safety. The UNHRC believes that:  The freedom to express one’s religion includes the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings  France had failed to explain how the wearing of a turban would make it more difficult to identify the author compared to someone who was bareheaded  France’s action regarding this case had jeopardized Mann Singh’s freedom of religion Mann Singh had already been able to renew his driving license many time but that time he was not allowed to appear in the photo with his turban. In the decision of the UNHRC it is stated that the author is Shingara Mann Singh, a French citizen originally from the Punjab region in India.

The author brought the case before the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal. The court referred to articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to article 18 of the Covenant and pointed out that those provisions “stipulate that the freedoms they guarantee may be subject to limitations, in particular in the interest of public safety and the protection of public order. Singh presented his case before the Conseil d’État and the European Court of Human Rights and his case was dismissed. Some of Singh’s arguments were:  The State party currently authorizes citizens of other countries to enter its territory using passports where they are not bareheaded. It is therefore difficult to fathom why restrictions imposed only on the freedom of religion of French citizens are necessary to make France safer.  Immigration officials and computer systems are capable of identifying a passport holder even if the person’s hair is covered The state’s party (France) considered it was not possible for Singh to bring his case before the UNHRC as it he had not exhausted all the legal procedures in the national legal system. Singh argued that this was not true. The final decision of the UNHRC was that:  The State party has not demonstrated that the limitation placed on the author is necessary within the meaning of article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. It also observes that, even if the obligation to remove the turban for the identity photograph might be described as a one-time requirement, it would potentially interfere with the author’s freedom of religion on a continuing basis because he would always appear without his religious head covering in the identity photograph and could thus be compelled to remove his turban during identity checks. The Committee therefore concludes that the regulation requiring persons to

appear bareheaded in their passport photographs is a disproportionate limitation that infringes the author’s freedom of religion and constitutes a violation of article 18 of the Covenant  The State party has not explained why the wearing of a Sikh turban would make it more difficult to identify the author, who wears his turban at all times, than if he were to appear bareheaded. Nor has the State party explained in specific terms how bareheaded identity photographs of people who always appear in public with their heads covered help to facilitate their identification in everyday life and to avert the risk of fraud or falsification of passports  In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the ICCPR, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including a reconsideration of his application for renewal of his passport and the revision of the relevant rules and their application in practice, in the light of its obligations under the Covenant. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future....