CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 religious reasons, the prohibition may be seen as a “restriction” on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief (external forum). 7.6 The State party submits that, in this case, the restriction in question is prescribed by law, has a legitimate objective and is proportionate in the pursuit of that legitimate objective. The ban and the exceptions thereto are laid down in clear and precise terms. The State party adds that a circular of 2 March 2011 provides a comprehensive explanation of the scope and the implementing arrangements of the Act, accompanied by an information campaign in public places, the distribution of leaflets in administrative premises and an educational website. The State party further stresses that the Act provided for a period of six months between its enactment and its entry into force; therefore it met the requirement of foreseeability and the author knew that she risked a penalty. 7.7 The legitimate objectives of the contested law are the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the protection of public order, which are objectives set forth in article 18 (3) of the Covenant. According to the State party, these aims are clearly defined in the statement of purpose of the Act, which reaffirms the values of the Republic and the requirements of living together. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France, found that the prohibition could be justified only insofar as it sought to guarantee the conditions for “living together”, described by the Government of France as respect for the minimum requirements of life in society. The State party argues that public spaces are the main place in which social life happens and people come into contact with others. In such social interactions, the face plays a significant role, since it is the part of the body that reflects one’s shared humanity with an interlocutor. Showing one’s face not only signals a person’s readiness to be identified as an individual by the other party, but also not to unfairly conceal the frame of mind in which they interact with him or her, and is thus a manifestation of the minimum degree of trust that is essential for living together in an egalitarian and open society such as France. The concealment of the face prevents the identification of the person and is likely to impair interaction between individuals and undermine the conditions for living together in diversity. 7.8 The State party submits that to ensure public safety and public order it must be able to identify all individuals when necessary in order to avert threats to the security of persons or property and to combat identity fraud. That implies that people reveal their faces, a requirement that is all the more crucial in the context of the global threat of terrorism. 16 7.9 The State party contests the claim that the Act forbids Muslim women from manifesting their religious beliefs through the wearing of the veil and stresses that it prohibits only the full concealment of the face, regardless of the motive for doing so, and allows any individual to wear in public clothes intended to express a religious belief, such as headscarves or turbans, provided that they reveal the face. The problem here is very different to that relating to the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants in the exercise of their duties and the wearing of such symbols in schools, which concern the requirement that the public service must be neutral. In the present instance, the prohibition is not based on the religious connotation of the clothes in question, but on the simple fact that they fully conceal the face. Only the extremely radical form of clothing, which results in the public effacement of the person, is affected. It would not be difficult for the author to access the public space wearing a veil that would demonstrate her religious beliefs without concealing her face. In addition, the Constitutional Council has clarified that the prohibition should not restrict the exercise of religious freedom in places of worship open to the public. Therefore, the measure is proportionate to the objective pursued and the State party has not exceeded its margin of appreciation in the present case, as stated by the European Court of Human Rights in the aforementioned case of S.A.S. v. France. Moreover, the Court of Cassation ruled in a judgment of 5 March 2013 that the Act was in conformity with article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Lastly, the State party notes that the penalties provided in the Act, a maximum fine of 150 16 The State party cites the Committee’s Views in the case of R. Singh v. France, para. 8.4, in which the Committee recognized the State party’s need to ensure and verify, for the purposes of maintaining security and public order, that the person appearing in the photograph on a residence permit was the rightful holder of that document. 9