E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2 page 13 55. The strongest reactions to the implementation of sharia penal codes has evidently come from the religious minorities living in the states concerned, in particular the Christians, even though these laws are not applicable to them. Their main accusation is that the practical implementation of sharia may in a number of situations indirectly violate their rights or create discrimination of which they are victims. In this respect, new regulations like the banning of alcohol or segregated public transport indirectly limit their freedom, as they prevent them from living according to their own standards. In states like Zamfara, where the intention is to implement the principles of sharia strictly, segregated transport, health services and public schools have been established, which Christians claim violates their freedom. 56. Indeed, while Christians or other religious minorities are not expected to observe themselves practise like fasting on Ramadan, they are compelled to close restaurants and eating places during that period. This situation therefore subjects them, at least partly, to a religious obligation by obliging them to eat in their homes. This obligation also reportedly constitutes a significant economic loss for the non-Muslims engaged in the restaurant sector of the economy. 57. Another difficulty of implementing sharia penal codes in places of mixed population is that it is almost impossible to draw a clear line between who is and is not subject to sharia. For instance, in all interfaith relationships the fact that the Muslim partner may be subject to sharia sanctions while the non-Muslim partner is not will nevertheless affect the entire family. Thus, the application of certain prohibitions affects the rights of non-Muslim populations. 58. Concerns have also been raised that the practical application of different legal system could result in discrimination on the basis of religion, for example where offenders are from different religious backgrounds and therefore subject to different procedural rules or tried in different courts. Sharia rules of evidence restrict non-Muslims from deposing in Hadd trials under sharia penal codes. Penal sanctions for the same offence apply according to the religion of the accused, rather than the severity of the crime. To address selective discrimination on the basis of religion, sharia allows a non-Muslim the option of being tried under sharia penal codes. A number of non-Muslims have argued that they are left with little option but to agree to be tried under sharia penal codes, where tazir punishments10 are less severe for the same crime. Thus, they are indirectly forced to acknowledge a system of law, which in its totality is not in conformity with their religious beliefs. 59. In some cases, Christians have complained about difficulties in obtaining land and accommodation or disproportionate delays in receiving permission to build places of worship or nurseries. There have been complaints of restriction on denial of access to airtime on state radio and to public schools or universities unless Christian applicants change their names to Islamic names. It is charged that local governments spend disproportionate amount of money for implementing sharia, also discriminating against Christians. In this regard non-Muslims reported that zakat11 money was not available to them. 60. Finally, the implementation of sharia in northern states has also allegedly had a considerable impact on freedom of expression, in particular for the non-Muslim minorities. Indeed, people feel reluctant to criticize sharia and open debate on the question of religious laws has been discouraged, leading to de facto self-censorship.