Download this publication - PULP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

52 Prince v South Africa (2007) AHRLR 40 (HRC 2007) giving expression to belief, as well as various acts integral to such acts. 28 The Committee notes that the material before it is to the effect that the use of cannabis is inherent to the manifestation of the Rastafari religion. In this regard, it recalls that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, which are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 7.3. The Committee observes that the prohibition of the possession and use of cannabis, which constitutes the limitation on the author’s freedom to manifest his religion, is prescribed by the law (the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992). It further notes the state party’s conclusion that the law in question was designed to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, based on the harmful effects of cannabis, and that an exemption allowing a system of importation, transportation and distribution to Rastafarians may constitute a threat to the public at large, were any of the cannabis enter into general circulation. Under these circumstances the Committee cannot conclude that the prohibition of the possession and use of drugs, without any exemption for specific religious groups, is not proportionate and necessary to achieve this purpose. The Committee finds that the failure of the state party to grant Rastafarians an exemption to its general prohibition of possession and use of cannabis is, in the circumstances of the present case, justified under article 18(3) and accordingly finds that the facts of the case do not disclose a violation of article 18(1). 7.4. On the author’s claim that the failure to provide an exemption for Rastafarians violates his rights under article 27, the Committee notes that it is undisputed that the author is a member of a religious minority and that the use of cannabis is an essential part of the practice of his religion. The state party’s legislation therefore constitutes interference with the author’s right, as a member of a religious minority, to practice his own religion, in community with the other members of his group. However, the Committee recalls that not every interference can be regarded as a denial of rights within the meaning of article 27. 29 Certain limitations on the right to practice one’s religion through the use of drugs are compatible with the exercise of the right under article 27 of the Covenant. The Committee cannot conclude that a general prohibition of possession and use of cannabis constitutes an unreasonable justification for the interference with the author’s rights under this article and concludes that the facts do not disclose a violation of article 27. 28 See communication 721/1996, Boodoo v Trinidad and Tobago, views adopted on 2 April 2002, para 6.6. 29 See communication 24/1977, Lovelace v Canada, views adopted on 30 July 1981, para 15. African Human Rights Law Reports
Prince v South Africa (2007) AHRLR 40 (HRC 2007) 53 7.5. The author argues that he is the victim of a de facto discrimination because unlike others, he has to choose between adherence to his religion and respect for the laws of the land. The Committee recalls that a violation of article 26 may result from the discriminatory effect of a rule or measure that is neutral at face value or without intent to discriminate. However, such indirect discrimination can only be said to be based on the grounds set out in article 26 of the Covenant if the detrimental effects of a rule or decision exclusively or disproportionably affect persons having a particular race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, rules or decisions with such an impact do not amount to discrimination if they are based on objective and reasonable grounds. 30 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee notes that the prohibition of the possession and use of cannabis affects all individuals equally, including members of other religious movements who may also believe in the beneficial nature of drugs. Accordingly, it considers that the prohibition is based on objective and reasonable grounds. It concludes that the failure of the state party to provide an exemption for Rastafarians does not constitute differential treatment contrary to article 26. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a breach of any articles of the Covenant. 30 See the Committee’s General Comment 18 on non-discrimination and communication 998/2001, Althammer et al v Austria, views adopted on 8 August 2003, para 10.2. United Nations Human Rights Committee
Page 1 and 2:
AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REPORTS 20
Page 3:
CONTENTS Editorial User guide Abbre
Page 6 and 7:
USER GUIDE The cases and findings i
Page 8 and 9:
Nigeria Internet Law Reports www.ni
Page 10 and 11:
x Table of cases Nigeria Inspector-
Page 12 and 13:
SUBJECT INDEX This index is divided
Page 14 and 15:
xiv Subject index Presumption that
Page 16 and 17:
xvi Subject index Environment Inter
Page 18 and 19:
xviii Subject index No legal remedi
Page 20 and 21:
xx International instruments referr
Page 22 and 23:
xxii International instruments refe
Page 24 and 25:
xxiv International instruments refe
Page 26 and 27:
xxvi International instruments refe
Page 28 and 29:
INTERNATIONAL CASE LAW CONSIDERED U
Page 30 and 31:
xxx International case law consider
Page 32 and 33:
xxxii International case law consid
Page 35: UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY
Page 38 and 39: 4 Abbassi v Algeria (2007) AHRLR 3
Page 56 and 57: 22 Njaru v Cameroon (2007) AHRLR 21
Page 64 and 65: 30 Titiahonjo v Cameroon (2007) AHR
Page 70 and 71: 36 El Dernawi v Libya (2007) AHRLR
Page 72 and 73: 38 El Dernawi v Libya (2007) AHRLR
Page 74 and 75: Prince v South Africa (2007) AHRLR
Page 76 and 77: 42 Prince v South Africa (2007) AHR
Page 88 and 89: Ben Salem v Tunisia (2007) AHRLR 54
Page 90 and 91: 56 Ben Salem v Tunisia (2007) AHRLR
Page 105: AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEO
Page 108 and 109: 74 Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) AHRL
Page 130 and 131: Chinhamo v Zimbabwe ZIMBABWE (2007)
Page 132 and 133: 98 Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRLR
Page 134 and 135: 100 Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRL
Page 136 and 137:
102 Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) AHRL
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 151:
SUB-REGIONAL COURTS 117
Page 154 and 155:
120 Katabazi and Others v Secretary
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
132 Essien v The Gambia and Another
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
142 Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and
Page 178 and 179:
144 Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and
Page 181:
DOMESTIC DECISIONS 147
Page 184 and 185:
150 Waweru v Republic (2007) AHRLR
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
166 Luboya and Another v State (200
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
180 Inspector-General of Police v A
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
190 Dzvova v Minister of Education,
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
show all

Download this publication - PULP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?