CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 parliament, to limit the prohibition against wearing a full-face veil to certain places or occasions, or to establish an obligation to temporarily uncover the face for the purpose of identification. That, however, was not what the Government of France opted to do. 3.9 The author notes that it has never been claimed that women wearing the burqa or the niqab, who incidentally are a tiny minority, threaten public safety or create public unrest. While it can be legitimately argued that, in certain specific circumstances, it must be possible to identify persons in public places with their faces uncovered, it is unimaginable that such an obligation to “unveil” could be permanent and absolute. Only specific restrictions could be tolerated. Because it is general in nature, the prohibition established by Act No. 2010-1192 cannot be described as necessary for the protection of public order. 3.10 In any event, the prohibition is not proportionate to its objective, as the prohibition is permanent, it covers all public spaces and its violation is a criminal offence. The author further notes that the wearing of the full-face veil, the means of concealment of the face specifically referred to by the draft and in the debate that preceded the adoption of the Act, apparently cannot ever be authorized under the exceptions set out in article 2 (II). 9 3.11 The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France, dismissed the objective of protecting public order and safety invoked by France, applying the principle of proportionality. 10 The author concludes, therefore, that the prohibition against concealing the face in public is not necessary to protect public order and safety, insofar as the prohibition is clearly disproportionate to the stated objective. 3.12 With regard to the claim under article 26, the author submits that the application of Act No. 2010-1192 was indirectly discriminatory, as it effectively compromised her exercise of freedom of religion and freedom of movement. The Act does not treat the author in the same way as it treats the rest of the population. It obliges her, if she does not wish to risk a criminal penalty, to refrain from wearing the full-face veil in public, while for her, doing so is a religious duty. As the only way for her to wear the veil is to avoid going out and moving about in public, her liberty of movement, specifically guaranteed by article 12 of the Covenant, is restricted. 3.13 While Act No. 2010-1192 is supposed to apply without distinction to any person who conceals their face in public, the fact remains that it has the effect of indirectly discriminating against women who wear the full-face veil. The discussions preceding the adoption of the Act clearly attest to the fact that it was considered a general solution in the law, designed to prohibit specifically the full-face veil. This indirect discrimination is also confirmed by the figures relating to the implementation of the Act, which nonetheless is supposed to cover any type of facial concealment, including helmets or ski masks. 11 3.14 Lastly, the author reiterates that there are 2,000 women who wear the full-face veil in France. They account for more than half of the persons subjected to checks under the Act, which demonstrates that they are disproportionately subjected to checks. 3.15 The author therefore calls for a finding that articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant have been violated. 9 10 11 Article 2 (II) stipulates that the prohibition does not apply “if such clothing is prescribed or authorized by legislative or regulatory provisions …, is justified for health reasons or on professional grounds, or is part of sporting, artistic or traditional festivities or events”. The circular of 2 March 2011 subsequently clarified, to a certain extent, the implementation of the Act. With regard to the legal exceptions, it stipulates that “religious processions, to the extent that they are of a traditional nature, are covered by the scope of the exceptions to the article 1 prohibition”. However, the word “religious procession” is not defined. S.A.S. v. France [GC] (application No. 43835/11), judgment of 1 July 2014, para. 139. It is noted in the 2013 report of the Observatory of Secularism, a body under the office of the French Prime Minister, that “from the beginning of implementation of the Act up until 21 February 2014, 1,111 checks were carried out, the vast majority being performed on women wearing full face veils. Some were checked on several occasions. In all, 1,038 police reports were issued recording the offence and 61 offenders received warnings. Among the 594 women who were fully veiled and subjected to checks, 461 had been born in France and 133 abroad. The foreigners came mainly from the Maghreb (97) and the Middle East (9). Nine were from the sub-Saharan African community.” 5