A/63/161 is one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it.” 64 3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights 66. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights made only some brief remarks on freedom of religion in the case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico v. Dominican Republic. 65 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that, by refusing to issue birth certificates and preventing the applicants, children of Haitian descent born in the Dominican Republic, from enjoying their citizenship rights owing to their ancestors’ origin, the State had violated their rights to nationality, to equal protection, to a name and to juridical personality as well as the right to humane treatment. Regarding the claim that the Dominican Republic had also violated the applicants’ freedom of conscience and religion under article 12 of the American Convention, however, the Court considered that the facts of the instant case were not adapted to it and consequently did not rule on that aspect. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 67. The State practice and domestic legislation on citizenship issues and administrative procedures as outlined above (see paras. 25-66 above) shows that Governments sometimes impose restrictions in such a way that the right to freedom of religion or belief of the persons concerned is adversely affected. While the State may have a legitimate interest in limiting some manifestations of the freedom of religion or belief, when applying limitations the State must ensure that certain conditions are fulfilled. Any limitation must be based on the grounds of public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, it must respond to a pressing public or social need, it must pursue a legitimate aim and it must be proportionate to that aim. 66 68. In essence, freedom of religion or belief and the legitimate interests of the State will have to be balanced on a case-by-case basis. In addition to the right to freedom of religion or belief, the individual’s right to privacy and liberty of movement, his or her right to a nationality as well as the principle of non-discrimination may also be at stake. Keeping in mind this case-by-case approach and the balancing exercise, the Special Rapporteur would like to highlight some aspects that may help to determine whether certain restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or belief are in contravention of human rights law. __________________ 64 65 66 08-43442 European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 25 May 1993, application No. 14307/88, para. 31. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, judgement of 8 September 2005, Series C No. 130, paras. 202-207. See for example article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (E/CN.4/1985/4, annex), para. 10. 21