CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 2.6 The application was rejected by the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation in a decision of 3 April 2013, on the grounds that “the invocation of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, since it was not brought before the trial judge and includes additional factual evidence, is new and thus inadmissible”. The decision is final. The author claims that she has exhausted all domestic remedies. 2.7 The author points out that she was not assisted by counsel at the community court in Nantes, that the procedure is an extremely expedited one, with a single judge who is generally not even a judge by profession and that the procedure is not subject to an appeal during which she would have been able to put forth arguments related to her religious freedom and the discriminatory nature of the law. 2.8 The author adds that the Court of Cassation, by holding that “the invocation of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it was not brought before the trial judge and includes additional factual evidence, is new and as such is inadmissible”, incorrectly applied article 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that: “New grounds will not be admissible before the Court of Cassation. Nevertheless, the following may be raised for the first time, unless otherwise provided: (1) purely legal grounds; and (2) grounds based on the impugned decision.” 2.9 According to the author, as the ground invoked, that is, the incompatibility of a law, constitutes “purely legal grounds”, the challenge against the prohibition of the full-face veil brought before the Court of Cassation was completely admissible, notwithstanding the fact that the argument introduced a new element. The author cites the example of a posteriori monitoring of constitutionality; since 2010, initial monitoring has been possible by means of an application for judicial review in cassation. She adds that an objective assessment of whether a law is constitutional is by nature an abstract “purely legal ground”, without any consideration of the circumstances of a given case. According to the author, the same holds when the conformity of a domestic law is assessed, with just as much objectivity, against a treaty obligation. 2.10 The author thus invites the Committee to find that inadmissibility cannot be cited against her in this case, as the grounds invoked before the Court of Cassation did not constitute additional evidence of fact and law, but “purely legal grounds”. 2.11 The author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights on 24 June 2013, calling for it to find violations of articles 6 (1) and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The application was declared inadmissible by the Court, which met between 21 August 2014 and 4 September 2014, with a single judge, on the grounds that “the conditions of admissibility laid down in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention [had] not been met”. The complaint 3.1 According to the author, the prohibition against concealing the face in public areas and the fact that she was convicted for wearing the niqab violate her rights under articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 Regarding article 18, wearing the niqab or the burqa amounts to wearing a garment that is customary for a segment of the Muslim faithful. It is an act motivated by religious beliefs. Consequently, it is the performance of a rite or practice of a religion, and freedom to manifest that religion is guaranteed by article 18 of the Covenant, notwithstanding the fact that wearing the niqab or the burqa is not a religious requirement common to all practising Muslims. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, according to which the observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations, and the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings. Wearing the niqab or the burqa amounts to wearing a garment that is customary for a segment of the Muslim faithful, an act motivated by religious belief that is indeed the performance of a rite and practice of a religion, and freedom to manifest a religion is guaranteed by article 18 of the Covenant. 3