A/55/280/Add.1 Hanafi, and this could be seen as taking a position in favour of Hanafism (see sect. III). The President of the court of appeals told the Special Rapporteur that this situation could pose a problem in particular for atheists among the Muslim majority, in the sense that some of their taxes go to finance religious activities of the State. (b) Religious education and secularism 17. The fact that the State is secular does not seem to prevent it from taking responsibility for Muslim religious education, whether through courses organized by the Department of Religious Affairs, through its schools for imams and preachers, through its faculties of theology, or through compulsory courses in religion and ethics at the primary and secondary school level (see article 24 of the Constitution). Religious instruction outside the State sphere is permitted, but the State retains the right to control it (ibid.). The third paragraph of article 42 of the Constitution also provides: Training and education shall be conducted under the supervision and control of the State, pursuant to the principles and reforms of Ataturk, and in accordance with contemporary standards of science and education. Muslim religious teaching is thus essentially in the hands of the State, and this could pose a problem if such teaching were monolithic in the sense of promoting a Hanafi conception of Islam, and if its content and message were such as to be offensive to non-Muslims, particularly in the compulsory courses on “religious culture” (see sect. III). Moreover, in accordance with the Constitution, the principles of Kemalism, including that of secularism, are to govern education, and must in particular be reflected in compulsory courses on religious culture and ethics, and this could also pose the issue of Kemalism and hence of secularism as representing a truth from which there must be no deviation, in other words a kind of dogma. (c) Wearing of the veil 18. The difficulties surrounding the notion of secularism are reflected in the issue of wearing the socalled Islamic veil in public institutions, and the attitude of the authorities in this respect. 19. The Council of State, in response to a complaint brought by a medical student against a decision of the 6 university suspending her for one month for wearing the veil in class, found that the wearing of the veil symbolized a vision of the world contrary to the freedoms of women and the principles on which the Republic is founded. 20. In 1998, Parliament attempted to amend the law on higher education to allow wearing of the veil for religious reasons (the amendment read as follows: It is obligatory to have contemporary appearance and dress in higher education institutions, their classrooms, laboratories, clinics and corridors. There is freedom, however, for women to cover, due to religious belief, the neck and hair with a headscarf or turban. 21. At the request of the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court set aside this amendment and explained that to allow female students to cover their heads on university grounds might adversely affect the public security and unity of the nation because the headscarf or turban shows who belongs to which religion. This action would prevent students from studying together and cooperating in their attempts to reach scientific truth; it would lead to differences and eventually to religious conflicts. The Court also held that freedom to wear the veil on university premises was contrary to the principle that all beliefs are equal before the law, to the extent that permission to wear the veil would be a privilege accorded to certain students only. Finally, it decided that the wearing of any form of dress considered or perceived as religious is incompatible with secularism. (d) Mention of religion on identity cards 22. The principle of secularism and that of freedom of religion and belief may be considered at odds when reference to a person’s religion is made on identity papers, a practice that was upheld by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 22 November 1979. According to the authorities, such mention is optional, but this could still pose a problem to the extent that social pressures might make it difficult to omit mention of one’s religion or beliefs. In some situations, such an indication could be a source of discrimination for nonMuslims. The Minister of Justice declared that this practice is not regulated by legislation, while the Minister of Interior expressed the opinion that it is so regulated. The President of the Constitutional Court said that what is important is the fact that mention of