E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1 Page 59 Declaration was not banned in the Maldives and asserted the Government’s commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights. 259. The Government gave widespread publicity to the above -mentioned statements clarifying the Government’s commitment to the Universal Declaration. It also informed the Supreme Council to desist from making such pronouncements without prior consultation with the concerned authorities. 260. The mandate of the Supreme Council is derived from Law No. 6/94 (Islamic Unity of the People) and from Presidential Decree. The mandate covers the administration and supervision of all matters relating to the public conduct of rites, rituals and observances of the Islamic faith and the propagation of the Islamic faith, values and knowledge. The Council is also empowered to approve books on Islamic knowledge whether produced locally or imported for local distribution. 261. The Declaration is not banned in the Maldives. On the contrary, the Government very firmly asserts that “it is unthinkable for this Government to ban international human rights standards”. The Government attached the statement issued by the Government stating that there was no ban and further stating that Government fully endorses the objective of the Declaration. The Government believes that banning the Declaration would be incompatible with compliance with international norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and standards contained in the Declaration on Human Rights. Observations 262. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response and encourages the Government to continue taking positive steps with regard to upholding its obligations under the Universal Declaration. The Netherlands Communication sent on 28 October 2005 263. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government the situation of Ms. Samira Haddad , a 32-year-old Muslim woman who was reportedly refused a post as Arabic teacher at the Islamic College in Amsterdam based on her refusal to wear a headscarf. Observations 264. The Special Rapporteur hopes to receive a reply to her communication in the near future. However, in the meantime, she has been informed by various reliable sources that the national Equality Commission ruled in favour of Ms. Haddad on 15 November 2005. Although the Netherlands’ system of parallel public and private denominational education gave the Islamic college a high level of discretion in deciding what requirements it could set for its staff, the Equality Commission found that the fact that non-Muslim employees were exempt from the requirement to wear a headscarf while Muslim employees were obliged to wear a headscarf constituted an inadmissible differentiation on the basis of religion.