A/63/161 State will at all times respect minority (A/CONF.189/PC.1/7, annex, para. 119) ethnic and religious rights”. 58. Concerning reservations of public posts, the Human Rights Committee stated in paragraph 9 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) that “measures restricting eligibility for government service to members of the predominant religion or giving economic privileges to them or imposing special restrictions on the practice of other faiths, are not in accordance with the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief and the guarantee of equal protection under article 26”. In addition, the Human Rights Committee noted in the case of Waldman v. Canada that the fact that a distinction is enshrined in the Constitution of a State does not render that distinction reasonable and objective. 56 59. With respect to the obligation to take an oath stating allegiance to a certain religion when one wishes to take up a public post, reference can be made to the above-mentioned provisions relating to the positive and negative freedom of religion or belief, the prohibition of coercion by the State regarding the freedom of religion or belief and the permissible limitations of the manifestation of the freedom of religion or belief. C. International and regional case law 60. There seem to be only a few pertinent judgements at the international or regional level relating to the above-mentioned citizenship issues and religious discrimination in administrative procedures. 1. Human Rights Committee 61. The Human Rights Committee implied in Coeriel et al. v. The Netherlands that a case may fall within the ambit of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when a State does not allow a change of family name of a person who claims this is necessary in the context of his or her religion. The complainants in that case, Mr. Coeriel and Mr. Aurik, wished to change their family name to Hindu names after having adopted the Hindu religion. However, the Committee found the complaint inadmissible under article 18 of the Covenant, as “the regulation of surnames and the change thereof was eminently a matter of public order and restrictions were therefore permissible under paragraph 3 of article 18”. 57 With regard to privacy, the majority of the Committee members held that in the circumstances of the instant case the refusal of the authors’ request was arbitrary within the meaning of article 17 (1) of the Covenant, since the grounds for limiting the authors’ rights were not reasonable. 58 __________________ 56 57 58 08-43442 Human Rights Committee, Waldman v. Canada, views of 3 November 1999 (CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996), para. 10.4. Human Rights Committee, Coeriel et al. v. The Netherlands, views of 31 October 1994 (CCPR/C/48/D/453/1991), para. 6.1; the Committee also considered that the Government of the Netherlands “could not be held accountable for restrictions placed upon the exercise of religious offices by religious leaders in another country”, i.e. requirements imposed by Indian Hindu leaders. Ibid., para. 10.5. See also the dissenting individual opinions of Nisuke Ando and Kurt Herndl. 19