CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 were based on “purely legal” grounds in the sense of article 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.4 The Committee observed that the State party had not rebutted these allegations, and specifically those concerning the proceedings before the community court and their availability and effectiveness in the author’s case. The Committee further noted that the community court was a public place where, under the Act, it would be a criminal offence to wear a niqab, and that the State party had indicated in its submission that when the author had tried to attend the hearing before the community judge she had been fined a second time for refusing to remove her full-face veil during the security check, and that ultimately she had not attended the hearing. The Committee also noted that the B. Singh v. France case invoked by the State party did not involve a criminal procedure in which the right of appeal had to be guaranteed, and that the author in that case had had the opportunity to raise his complaints with two lower courts before trying to raise new ones before the Court of Cassation. By contrast, in the present case the Committee considered that the author had been unable to have her complaints reconsidered on appeal before a court other than the Court of Cassation14 and concluded that reasonably available domestic remedies had been exhausted. 6.5 The Committee declared that the communication was admissible, insofar as it raised issues with respect to articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In its observations on the merits of the communication dated 16 September 2016, the State party submits that Act No. 2010-1192 was adopted by the National Assembly and the Senate with only one vote against, after a broad democratic debate. In that context, a parliamentary commission was set up, bringing together elected representatives from across the political spectrum, and proceeded to hear the different views of many persons within civil society, including Muslims and non-Muslims. 7.2 The State party reports that, on 11 May 2010 — prior to the adoption of the Act — the National Assembly adopted a resolution stating that “radical practices undermining dignity and equality between men and women, one of which is the wearing of the full veil, are incompatible with the values of the Republic” and calling for all appropriate means to be implemented “to ensure the effective protection of women who suffer duress or pressure, in particular those who are forced to wear a full veil”.15 7.3 The State party points out that the general prohibition set forth in the Act is extremely limited in its aim, since it only concerns the concealment of the face. Furthermore, the measure is essential for the defence of the principles that motivated its adoption, and the accompanying penalties are proportionate, the legislature having prioritized an educational approach. The Act thus achieves, according to the State party, a reasonable balance between the preservation of essential principles in a democratic society and the freedom to dress in accordance with one’s religious or other beliefs. 7.4 The State party stresses that it is not the only one to have prohibited the wearing of garments that conceal the face in public places. The Federal Parliament of Belgium has approved an identical ban, while the lower house of the Parliament of Italy has also passed a bill for that purpose. 7.5 The State party adds that the prohibition established under the Act covers all garments intended to conceal the face in public, regardless of how or why this is accomplished. No special treatment is applied in respect of clothes worn for religious or cultural reasons. However, since certain garments intended to conceal the face are worn for 14 15 8 In paragraph 48 of its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, the Committee sets out that the State party has a duty to review substantively, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case. National Assembly resolution on the commitment to uphold republican values in the face of the development of radical practices that undermine them.