PART THREE: PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS cases of Jehovah’s Witnesses who had refused a blood transfusion and found that, although the public interest in preserving the life or health of a patient was undoubtedly legitimate and very strong, it had to yield to the patient’s stronger interest in directing the course of his or her own life … It was emphasised that free choice and self-determination were themselves fundamental constituents of life and that, absent any indication of the need to protect third parties – for example, mandatory vaccination during an epidemic, the State must abstain from interfering with the individual freedom of choice in the sphere of health care, for such interference can only lessen and not enhance the value of life.1026 C. Discrimination on the basis of other characteristics in situations in which religion is a pretext PART THREE It is established law that there is no legitimacy in maintaining rules, policies or practices enacted with reference to religious or affiliated cultural doctrines or sensitivities that discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics.1027 Successive Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion or belief have set out that women’s right to non-discrimination takes priority over “intolerant beliefs that are used to justify gender discrimination”1028 and that freedom of religion or belief can never serve as a justification for violations of the human rights of women and girls.1029 The Special Rapporteur rejected “any claim that religious beliefs can be invoked as a legitimate ‘justification’ for violence or discrimination against women and girls or against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. International law is clear that the manifestation of religion or belief may be limited by States, in full conformity with the criteria outlined in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to protect the fundamental rights of others, including the right to non-discrimination and equality, a principle upon which all human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, depends.”1030 1. Conscientious objection and its limits Conscientious objection to military service – frequently for reasons of religion or belief – is arguably among the earliest forms of dissent. Although the Human Rights Committee’s affirmation of a right of conscientious objection to military service as a component of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has evolved over time,1031 the Committee has affirmed unequivocally that there should be no discrimination against conscientious objectors.1032 Both treaty bodies and regional human rights bodies 1026 Ibid., paras. 135–136. In the instant case, the Court declined to rule on the question of article 14 discrimination, holding that no separate matters arose as concerned the ban on discrimination and the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 9) and peaceful public assembly (art. 11), where the Court identified violations. 1027 The Human Rights Committee has noted that “the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations … for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition”. Accordingly, “such limitations must be understood in the light of universality of human rights and the principle of nondiscrimination”. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 8; and general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 32. 1028 A/65/207, para. 69. See also A/68/268; and A/HRC/22/51. 1029 A/68/290, para. 30; and A/75/385. 1030 A/HRC/43/48, para. 69. 1031 Bielefeldt, Ghanea and Wiener, Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary, in particular chap. 1.3.11 on conscientious objection. 1032 “Many individuals have claimed the right to refuse to perform military service (conscientious objection) on the basis that such right derives from their freedoms under article 18. In response to such claims, a growing number of States have in their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the performance of military service and replaced it with alternative national service. The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right of conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief. When this right is recognized by law or practice, there shall be no differentiation among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination against conscientious objectors because they have failed to perform military service.” See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 11. In the inter-American system, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has ruled on a number of cases concerning Jehovah’s witnesses and legitimate limitations of the right. The Commission has found that prosecuting members of that religion for refusing to swear oaths of allegiance, recognize the State and its symbols and to serve in the military is a violation of the right (see, for example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Argentina, Case 2.137, Resolution, 18 November 1978). 149